Green Party

List MP Kevin Hague plays #dirtypolitics

You’ll know I’m no fan of List MPs, and while all of the Green Taliban fall into that camp, there’s a few that stand out as particularly sanctimonious scumbags.

Take yesterday’s Question #10 by Kevin Hague asking about conflicts of interest and whether the Food and Grocery Council’s CEO Katherine Rich should be a member of the Health Promotion Agency.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman batted him away saying ‘Katherine Rich is a person of the very highest integrity and that her conduct as a member of the HPA has been excellent’.

Looks like the Green Taliban are going to try and run attacks against the Nats using stolen emails and play more #dirtypolitcs. Good.

Next time Kevin Hague wants to have a crack and call for investigation, maybe the Government should ask what conflicts Kevin Hague has.

You see Kevin Hague has been a frequent target for health lobbyists, particularly those Fizz2030 activists troughers from Otago University. They even went as far as bestowing on him the title ’Hon’.

Maybe Government MPs could ask Hague about who is advising the Greens on their ‘obesity reduction’ policy. The one where he wants controls on price, availability and marketing on the likes of fizzy drinks, chocolate and even breakfast cereals.   Read more »

Face of the day

Introducing the Minister in charge of PM surveillance

His royal Greenness, Russel ‘ How many times did you call Whaleoil ? ‘ Norman.

Russel Norman

Russel Norman

 

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader – Green) to the Prime Minister: How many times since November 2008 has he spoken with blogger Cameron Slater on the phone and how many times, if any, has he texted him?

-nzdoctor.co.nz

Greens want to work together with National

I don’t think they really do.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei acknowledged in notes for a speech to Parliament today that many of the party’s supporters – and even those who did not vote for the Greens – would like them to have more influence at the table.

“Since the election I’ve received a number of letters, even from National Party members, pleading with us to from some kind of arrangement with National because they feel guilty about voting for a party with such a poor record on the environment.

“The idea apparently is that the Greens could act as some kind of foil to National’s anti-environmental agenda if only we just focused on environmental issues.”

But Turei said the Greens were a movement based not just on environmental principles but on the principles of social justice and democracy.

“This is who we are. We couldn’t stop caring about our environment, or our people, or our economic direction for that matter because it might be politically expedient to do so. It’s not our job to move to the centre; it’s to move the centre.” Read more »

Andrew Little is the first in Labour to admit Dotcom was poison

Andrew Little’s claims for the leadership just got a whole lot more credible with his claims that Labour should have distanced themselves sooner from Dotcom.

Which is telling, because it wasn’t pure coincidence that Labour’s election slogan was Vote Positive.

Andrew Little says voters wanted “greater clarity” about Labour’s potential coalition partners and the party should have clearly spurned Internet-Mana

Interviewed on TV3’s The Nation, he said Labour shares “a lot of things“ with the Green Party, as well as New Zealand First.

“We shouldn’t have had anything to do with Internet Mana. We didn’t make that clear, and I think people were then a little bit suspicious of us,” Little said.

During the campaign, then Labour leader David Cunliffe said he would not allow Internet Mana into cabinet, but said he could work with Dotcom’s party in a broader coalition deal.

“New Zealanders looked at that whole thing. They didn’t like the idea of a very wealthy individual writing out a massive cheque, funding a campaign that was really about his self-interest and a bunch of other people signing up to it,” Little said.   Read more »

Dear Danyl…

Before you read on have a look at this tweet and who re-tweeted it.

danyl-retweet

Now, yesterday I received an email from Danyl McLauchlan:

Hi Cameron –

DPF might have mentioned this to you: Victoria University Press has asked me to write a book about Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics book, and one of the aims of the book is to get comments from the people written about in Hager’s book who didn’t get a right of reply there. And, so, gallingly, I have to interview you, or at least ask you for an interview.

If you consent to this – And you DON”T have to! – I’m trying to arrange a time to come up to Auckland, but if you find yourself in Wellington in the near future and have an hour to chat then that’d be great. Also, if you have any questions you want me to put to Hager, or anyone else, then let me know.

Cheers,

Danyl

Read more »

Kiwi troops unlikely to be killing actual ISIS bad guys

It seems we’re going in to help our friends beat those ISIS idiots into submission.  John Key is just slowly softening up the public.

Prime Minister John Key has dropped further hints about what the SAS will do if he sends them into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.

He says it is unlikely to be frontline combat, but instead identifying targets for the other forces to bomb.

“I’m aghast at that [the violence of Islamic State],” says Mr Key. “It’s barbaric, and there is a point at which people need to take steps to stop that.”

And so continue our proud tradition of going to help those that need it in the hope that when we ever need help, we’ll receive it from those we stood next to.

“I can see no reason why New Zealand would want to put boots on the ground in Iraq,” says Labour’s David Shearer. “There is a pretty good chance that our people could come home in body bags.”

That’s particularly galling coming from Shearer.  He knows better than that.  What a sell-out.

Read more »

Should NZ get involved against ISIS?

There are many commenting now on whether or not NZ should get involved in the fight against ISIS.

Andrea Vance has an opinion piece in the Sunday Star-Times about the issue where she takes the side of the cowards and insists parliament must debate the issue.

This of course plays into the hands of the jihadists and Islamists, who don’t ever have to worry about the niceties of a parliamentary democracy.

In 2001, Helen Clark took a resolution to Parliament to supply SAS troops to the War on Terror which passed 112-7. In fact the offer was made in Washington a month earlier, and Clark insisted the approval of Parliament was not necessary, but she wanted troops to know they “had the full support of MPs.” It was the beginning of the end of New Zealand’s ”independent foreign policy.”

New Zealand faces a tough choice. Stand by impotently as many more hostages are murdered by a network of death? Or join another US-led crusade in a Muslim country?

With one foot in the West and one in the East, and vying for a seat on the UN Security Council, it must be remembered that not all nations choose the US as their global policeman.

In the last two decades, Iraq has not been far off the military radar. Military intervention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was built on a fallacy, years of slaughter failed to remove the threat of terrorism or install democracy.

The conflict in Afghanistan also saw mission creep. Initial action was targeted at taking out Osama Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda, but became a protracted quest to implement democracy and destroy the Taleban. Key admitted New Zealand paid a ”heavy price” – the death of 10 soldiers.

The latest strikes on Iraq have been condemned worldwide for lacking strategy and tactics. All the warning signs are that taking on ISIS will be a long, bloody war, with complex and unpredictable consequences.

At the very least all this is worthy of a parliamentary debate.

Read more »

John Roughan: Nature, business and the RMA

Let me ask this. Is the protection of New Zealand’s natural environment more important than its economic development? Or are they equally important?

I know, too easy.

So try this. Must they be given equal consideration under the law that governs almost everything New Zealand industry can do?

I had assumed so, too. The vast majority of us, I suspect, have supposed the Resource Management Act, for all its drawn-out procedures, allowed economic benefits to be weighed against environmental costs.

Not so. That became evident last year when the Government tried to write economic considerations into the act. An outcry erupted from non-government organisations. It came not just from the extremes of Greenpeace but from reasonable voices such as Gary Taylor’s Environmental Defence Society and the Fish and Game Council.

The “father” of the RMA, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, weighed in with a warning that to give equal standing to economic development would upset nearly 25 years of case law under the act.

By implication, and sometimes admission, they told us environmental arguments could not compete with economic gains if they were given equal consideration.

I’m not sure that’s true.   There is a balance to everything.   The problem is that the balance is currently way too far towards preservation at all costs.   As with most things in life, positions on the extreme ends carry a high opportunity cost.   Read more »

Crippled by Crazies

Russel Norman has come out swinging.

In an interview with Willie Jackson at Radio Waatea he described Dotcom and his pals in the Internet Mana party as “crazies” and they crippled the Greens campaign.

Greens co-leader Russel Norman says Internet Mana was a guided missile aimed at the left.

He says he visited Kim Dotcom at the start of the year to try to convince the internet mogul not to start a political party.

The party went ahead under the leadership of former Alliance MP Laila Harre, who had worked during 2013 as the Greens’ Auckland-based issues director.

Mr Norman says dragging Mana leader Hone Harawira into the mess by convincing him to sell his first list position set the scene for disaster.

“I mean we had enough trouble with John Key standing up every day telling all his nonsense about us and on the other had we had to deal with these crazies. Having them on the radio and tv all the time talking their nonsense, it was like ‘Oh god,’ it did make it incredibly difficult to change the Government at that point because a lot of people who might have voted for Labour went ‘Oh god, if a vote for Labour means a vote for Dotcom and Harre, I’m not going to do that,'” he says

Mr Norman says Internet Mana’s party vote strategy was to spend $3 million trying to take votes from potential Green supporters.

Read more »

Herald Editorial on the Greens

The Herald editorial takes some time today to look into the The Greens and their lack lustre election campaign.

Another disappointing election for the Greens ought to be prompting some serious thinking within the party about why it is in politics and where it is going. The second question is easier. The party is going nowhere on its present political settings. It has been around for nearly 25 years with members in Parliament for the past 18 years. In all of that time it has never been part of a government. When it looks around the chamber in the new Parliament, it may notice it is the only party of the seven that has never had a ministerial seat.

The reason is obvious. The Greens position their policies to the left of Labour, which means they are compatible only with a Labour Government. But given a choice between coalition partners of the centre or a party to its extreme, a governing party will reach for the centre, as Helen Clark did when she preferred Peter Dunne and Winston Peters to the Greens.

Their positioning on the left also means that their vote rises when Labour’s falls, and they suffer when Labour does well.

They are weak when Labour is in power and stronger when Labour is out. That is why this election must have been a particular blow. Labour sank to its lowest share of the vote in 92 years, yet the Greens’ share did not rise. Their hopes of attaining 15 per cent were dashed. They remain a party supported by about 10 per cent of voters.

The Greens have positioned themselves as a left wing social justice party, not a centre representative environment party. They have lost their core branding.   Read more »