Chicken Nats afraid to front on Back Benches
Wallace Chapman of TVNZ7’s Back Benches programme gave a not too subtle hint to the Nats that they really might want to front up to the programme again, despite the disastrous policy gaffes and leaks of the last few weeks. On this week’s show, he opened with:
National have declined to be on the show for a couple of weeks now, due to the free flow of information, there might be things said.
All is forgiven! Please come home and be part of the political process! We know that you declined several cross party opportunities to be involved in the ETS, including one from the Greens. We also know that you have had to muzzle the dinosaurs from the ’90s in order to paper over the global warming and transport splits in your caucus. But really, it’s OK. We understand.
I am having a good go at the Nats this week. How can I help myself when they just keep blundering? They must be so thanking their lucky stars that Winston is taking all the limelight.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Frog, I thought this version of the dinosaurs (or ostriches, as the case may be) was much funnier.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“They must be so thanking their lucky stars that Winston is taking all the limelight.”
As will Labour if the nats can put two and two together…
September 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
…and get five if their numeracy is anything like their literacy.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I must admit I’d always thought ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ meant the same thing - I’d say that issue gets the award for most painful example of semantics of the year.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Another anti Nat post.
Did you add this one to your list Toad?
September 12th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
No, toad didn’t BB. Not yet. But how can one resist when they are so lame? Don’t worry, my anti-Labour sentiments will begin boiling again as soon as I stop laughing at the Nats…
September 12th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Yes, its just so easy to be anti Nat, but with Labour as well, there’s just no end to the material, eh Frog? A pox on both their houses.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Yes the Greens should be ‘the pox on both’ of them, prepared to be in government with either to assist them towards workable sustainable environmental legislation. The further they are from the correct path the more reason to be with them to guide them to ’see the (green) light’
September 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Yes, StephenR. I admit to being a grammar pedant (although I also admit to often getting grammar - and spelling - wrong on blogs where it tends to be stream of consciousness rather than meticulous proofreading). I’d be seriously embarrassed if I got it wrong on billboards though.
I was once involved in a debate that held up the publication of a brochure for a week getting agreement on whether there was an apostrophe in “four weeks’ annual leave” and, if so, where.
Suppose we could all write like PhilU with no grammar or punctuation at all, but who would read it?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
samiam said: Yes the Greens should be ‘the pox on both’ of them, prepared to be in government with either to assist them towards workable sustainable environmental legislation.
Or remain in Opposition if neither of them agrees to. Which is a possibility, but it’s amazing how much the prospect of the baubles of office can move an unprincipled Party in negotiations. Unfortunately, the Greens have never had any significant move from National or Labour in the direction of sustainability - yet! But the imminent demise of NZF should give the Greens more bargaining ability, as long as they can get enough MPs as well.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Samiam… good comment.
A question though…If both National and Labour could ever bring themselves to adopt an equal or better environmental policy than the Greens, but not adopt the other stuff from the Greens, could you bring yourself to vote for either of them?
If so, which one?
September 13th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The one with the better environmental policy of course. I’d describe myself as an environmental capitalist, I’ll leave you lot to work out what that means!
September 13th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Often conflicted, I would think.
“Yes the Greens should be ‘the pox on both’ of them, prepared to be in government with either to assist them towards workable sustainable environmental legislation. The further they are from the correct path the more reason to be with them to guide them to ’see the (green) light’”
We are ready to work with either, but you probably mean in coalition, which is a different matter (insert big bro’s false claims that the Greens have said they’d consider coalition with the Nats here). I’ve sometimes wondered what the Greens would do if the Nats really did make a good offer on environmental policy, but the likelihood is extremely low because their constituency really doesn’t understand and they truly don’t have a clue either, e.g. Nick Smith is the best they can offer. I have spoken to senior Nats who have admitted that even talking about the environment as an issue gets them into trouble, so they have no real incentive to get into the detail and every motivation to go the opposite direction. It is of course possible that they will eventually catch on as these issues become to big to ignore, but I’ll wager it won’t be enough for the Greens this election.
Labour understands way more and has some very good people, but has ignored the environment completely until the current term entirely for political reasons. But they are easier to work with once they accept that something needs to be done. And because they also are closer to Green policy on social issues, it is simply a more natural fit.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Many of us in the electorate believe that ’social issues’ are becoming less affordable because we are heading toward bankruptcy as a nation, and that whichever party/parties we elect must focus on increasing income for the country as a whole.
I guess that means increasing business variety, affordability and productivity and also reducing fiscal waste.
If Labour did nothing for the environment, and also got us to this position of declining wealth, why is there a natural fit with them?
Why not a natural fit with a party that wants to grow wealth?
Or is there an undercurrent of WANTING the country to head for bankruptcy? Is there some perception that NZ will be a better place when all we can afford to do is lie on a beach in the sun??
I find it hard to believe that Nationals silence is through a lack of policy (as some claim). But then I could be wrong.
We will see what the next few weeks bring.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:44 am
It is ridiculous to claim any party in Parliament wants bankruptcy for the country. You add nothing to the debate with such comments.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Valis, you are too dismissive.
There is indeed a large group of people who want New Zealands financial systems to decay.
White, capitalist culture is not respected by everybody.
The Green party is infused with dopeheads who have no respect for cannabis law, and I’m sure there are many others with little respect for law and the structures within our society and who would like nothing better than for our businesses to collapse and see NZ retreat to a village atmosphere.
There is a significant difference between paying one’s way, and on the other hand, claiming ‘human rights’.
In my experience those who claim there is in fact such a thing as ‘human rights’ fail to see that their ‘rights’ are paid for by the efforts of others. Instead of showing gratitude for these benefits, such people see wealthy, productive citizens as parasites. Ironic.
If the Nats get into power at this election it will be because a significant number of New Zealanders have caught onto the idea that the dopers, no-hopers and general beneficiaries are in danger of outweighing the productive sector, and bankruptcy is a short step away.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
greengeek - we’re thanking our lucky stars we have you to save us from that evil “village atmosphere” (shiver)
September 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Not sure I will be able to save you.
…with your anti-roads policy and your pro-ETS views that atmosphere gets closer every day.
Have you noticed how many businesses/manufacturers are heading overseas??
September 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
greengeek - you are implying that greens would prefer rutted, muddy tracks over comfortable travel. Are you serious? Perhaps they are hoping that a focus away from the standard format will stimulate creative thinking when it comes to transport, thinking that is stymied by ‘more of the same’ and commentators like you who ‘big note’ big road projects.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“Valis, you are too dismissive.
White, capitalist culture is not respected by everybody.”
I certainly have a healthy disrespect for it!
“There is indeed a large group of people who want New Zealands financial systems to decay.”
That’s the part that is bull. The two things are not related in the way you assume they are.
The rest of your post is too absurd to comment on
September 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
…so what you’re saying is that the financial/business health of the country IS a priority for the Green party???
September 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Goes without saying.