Green Party

The essential problem with Green (and left) messages

Check this out

dqwdqew

How does that pass your BS detector?   Not only do these people want you to believe that half of all the earth’s species have become extinct since 1970, they also use an image of a lion – an animal we all know has been extinct for some time.

Why do they do this?

Why is it that the left completely oversell their messages?  It’s simply not effective.  They lost an election because of it too.  Nobody believed the extremes that they were selling to every day New Zealanders.

The question is:   Do they oversell on purpose, or have they started to believe their own doomsday scenarios?

Let’s say this is even true.  Is it bad?  It sounds bad…  but is it? Read more »

Green Party East Coast candidate goes super nasty in a Gisborne Herald article

The tears of impotent rage are still flowing from the Green Party after the voters gave them such a spanking Sue Bradford would also want to make it illegal.

When commenting in The Gisborne Herald about how the voters walked away from the left in droves on September 20, East Coast Green Party candidate Gavan McLean had this to say:

How do we explain the extraordinary lack of support for those who care? It’s not just the number of non-voters; not just the media, some almost falling over in their lean to the right; not just the demeaning circus of shouting matches called “debates”, or the subsequent navel-gazing “Who won?” editorials; not just National’s dishonesty and adoption of the rhetoric of altruism — of which more later; not just fear of disunity, within a party or a coalition of parties (a fear that is undemocratic in a mixed society).

On the face of it, the voters declared themselves callous and cowardly, which is how history will view this election. How can otherwise intelligent and caring people so thoroughly misrepresent themselves? Of course, many are complacent — life is good, she’ll be right — but the refusal to face the future or even fix immediate problems reflects not real contentment, but deep insecurity. This is a childish reaction, as in the childish song by Sia:

“I’m gonna swing from the chandelier, I’m gonna live like tomorrow doesn’t exist . . .

“But I’m holding on for dear life, won’t look down, won’t open my eyes.”

Read more »

Chris Trotter on why changing leaders won’t be enough for Labour

Chris Trotter is a wise man of the left, more’s the pity that they don’t listen to him more often.

WHY DOES LABOUR do this to itself? Yes, they have just suffered an unprecedented (post-1922) election defeat, but that’s only because the 2014 General Election was itself unprecedented (post-1951).

And, besides, I’m tempted to say ‘so what?’ In 2002 the National Party suffered an even more embarrassing result when Bill English led his party to its worst defeat ever. National’s Party Vote plunged from a bad 30.5 percent in 1999, to an even worse 20.9 percent in 2002. (A whopping percentage point slide of 9.6, compared to David Cunliffe’s 2.8.)

The interesting thing about that debacle, however, is not what the National Party did in response, but what it didn’t do.

For a start, it didn’t change its leader. National understood (as Labour apparently does not) that a debacle on the scale of 2002 has many more contributing factors than simply a poor performance by the party leader. Defeat on such a scale is clear evidence of systemic – as well as personal – failures. Which is why the first priority of National’s hard-headed businessmen and farmers was to give the party organisation a very solid kick in the bum – not to sack Bill English. (He would keep.)

In the months following its 2002 defeat National thoroughly renovated itself: achieving for the Right what Jim Anderton, between 1979 and 1984, had achieved for the Left. Namely, the transformation of an ageing party into a vehicle more appropriately aligned to the economic, social and political context in which it operated.

Crucial to the success of such operations is the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of those best equipped to wield it. Under MMP, one of the most important functions to streamline is the formation of the Party List. National has achieved this by means of an all-powerful board of directors; the Greens by giving the job to their party members. For Labour, however, the list formation process remains the Party’s Achilles’ heel.

Bluntly, party list formation in the Labour Party is a colossal rort; a travesty of democratic principle on the scale of the “rotten boroughs” that once allowed the British aristocracy to control the composition of the House of Commons. More horse-trading takes place during this dangerously opaque process than at an Irish county fair – with considerably worse outcomes.

It’s ironic really, because Labour once boasted the most ruthless and centralised mechanism for selecting candidates of all the political parties. Seventy years ago it was the selector representatives of the all-powerful Labour Party Executive who called the shots – and they seldom missed. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then National, when renovating its structures, post-2002, paid Labour the most fulsome of compliments.

Read more »

Anyone still keen to disband the GCSB?

With the globe gearing up to yet another middle eastern conflict pushing thoughts towards a WWIII scenario, it seems rather inconveniently timed for parties and individuals that want New Zealand to stop playing its part in global and domestic security.

The Prime Minister says he is seriously concerned about New Zealanders joining the terrorist group Islamic State.

John Key told Newstalk ZB’s Leighton Smith the Government was aware of a small group of Kiwis who may pose a threat.

I suspect that those are the sort of people that the government gets a search warrant organised for, and then puts them under surveillance.   As if it needs saying – to protect the rest of us.

“They are brutal, they are highly sophisticated, they’re well organised and they’re spreading out.

“We are not immune, so we know there are foreign fighters fighting overseas and we know and can identify at least a reasonably sized that group that want to leave and join that cause,” he said.

Mr Key has said in the past that the Government had concerns about New Zealanders returning home after fighting with foreign rebel groups as they could be a terrorist threat.

Mr Wrongly Wrongson (Aka Martyn Martin Bradbury) and his technology sugardaddy Kim Dotcom wanted to get rid of the GCSB.  The Green Party moaned and moaned over a “New Zealander” indiscriminately killed while accidentally walking under a US drone minding his own business.

These people either directly want to run this country, or they want to be part of making the rules that we live by.  Even though National won fairly comfortably, we were only a few percentage points, a sunny day and an absent Kim Dotcom away from having these people in charge.

I hate to think what a Labour/Green government would do when faced with ISIS threats on home soil.

 

– Newstalk ZB via NZ Herald

Is Gareth Morgan Stupid Enough to form a Political Party?

Yesterday both me and Arts, Travel and Lifestyle blogger David “Pinko” Farrar blogged that Gareth Morgan is calling for a Blue Green Party.

The time is overdue for a Bluegreens political party, one that is happy to work with whoever is the senior party in government, and is focussed properly on improving our environment, society and economy together. Without this there is a large swathe of voters who are not represented adequately in Parliament. Can the Green Party assume that role? I doubt it very much, theirs is very much a socialist heritage and they exhibit an ongoing reluctance to get real on the importance of the economy. With their voter support capped at 10% (about the same as the craziest party in parliament, Winston Peter’s conspiracy theorists), the electorate continues to see no hope for the Green Party – the adverse impact on jobs and incomes is unpalatable. …

A Bluegreen party would emphatically express New Zealanders’ preference for clever and clean as the way we want our dollars earned, while leaving National and Labour to fight over how social justice is best promoted – via National’s preference for capacity building through education and training, delivering more flexible employment and wage-setting practices; or via Labour’s penchant for widening and lifting of social assistance, greater progressivity of income tax, widening the tax base on income from capital, and greater protection of labour in the workplace.

That is why today I am calling for a Bluegreen party – a party with a true environmental focus rather than a socialist party in drag. Tomorrow we will look at some of the policies such a party could pursue, policies that without a Bluegreen party are being left off the political agenda completely.

I’ve had some additional thoughts about this.  Read more »

Gareth Morgan contemplates a true BlueGreen party

People like me should be Green party supporters.

I enjoy the bush, rivers, and oceans. My hobbies involve the environment…fishing, hunting, camping, tramping, kayaking and swimming. We are all a bit green, in that we all want clean rivers, oceans, air bush and mountains.

We aren’t Green party supporters because simply put their socialist, or should I say communist, roots just scare the pants off most people.

For most of the election cycle the Greens bleat on about socialist issues, and for 6 weeks of the years present themselves as caring environmentalists. The problem they have is most people just see the mentalist part.

If the Greens were smart they’d abandon their socialism, focus on the environment and come to a governing arrangement with John Key. He’d entertain it for sure.

Gareth Morgan, who I rarely agree with (except on cats), takes this one step further. He thinks there should be a BlueGreen party.

The election hasn’t provided answers for people concerned to keep the Kiwi way of life – including those who voted National. On socio-economic issues National is most deserving, but on environmental issues it most definitely has not made the grade. With its intended RMA reforms, National threatens to propel NZ even further toward environmentally-degrading economic growth rather than the ideal of strong economic growth in harmony with environmental protection.

Labour’s ongoing slide confirms that in the voters’ minds at least, its offerings have become less and less relevant to the needs and aspirations of modern day New Zealand. But for me, the most frustrating aspect of the election result is the entrenched inability of the Green Party to grasp that the environmental message is something that appeals to middle-of-the-road New Zealanders, not just Lefties.

Sadly the Green Party’s policies for environmental sustainability have always come with a nasty fishhook – the out-dated edict that social justice can only be achieved by rehashed socialism. This has rendered the Green Party a real melon to mainstream New Zealand – a watermelon to be precise, far too red on the inside for middle New Zealand to stomach.   Read more »

Trotter on the bull-fight that was Election 2014

shutterstock_102875750

Chris Trotter has now commented in writing about the election result.

He summarises:

Overall, the image presented to the electorate was one of John Key as the embattled matador. Alone in the arena, he faced charge after charge from a seemingly never-ending succession of bulls. But with every twirl of his cape and flash of his sword the pile of dispatched cattle-beasts grew higher. The crowd cheered. The roses rained down. “Bravo!” shouted 48 percent of New Zealand. “Three more years!”   Read more »

Dotcom’s actions “reprehensible”

My how the worm has turned.

The left wing is turning on Nicky Hagar and Kim Dotcom…mostly Kim Dotcom.

David Cunliffe has thrown him under the bus in a desperate bid to save his leadership.

Labour leader David Cunliffe has delivered a belated acknowledgement that it was a mistake not to work more closely with the Green Party and lashed out at Kim Dotcom as “reprehensible.”

Asked if Mr Dotcom had affected the chances on the left, Mr Cunliffe said “absolutely.”

“For anybody to wade into New Zealand politics, spend over $4 million and end up wiping out his own supporters and damaging the left I think is reprehensible.”

Read more »

Russell Brown dissects the election

tearsofimpotentragePosts, pans, and pannier bags blogger Russell Brown is having conniptions over the minutiae of the election.

1. Christ, what a shellacking. Click around Harkanwal Singh’s Herald interactive. In electorate after electorate, polling place after polling place, National won at least a plurality of the votes. Even where voters collectively chose to return their Labour MPs to Parliament, they generally gave their party votes to National. Labour won the party vote in only five general electorates. I don’t think it’s viable for Cunliffe to stay on after this.

No it isn’t. Cunliffe must go and go now….he lost his own party vote in New Lynn FFS!

3. The election was not primarily about policy. Although it will understandably be regarded as a mandate for National’s policies, I don’t think this has been an election about policy, but about who the voters have seen as fit to govern. Where discrete policies have been tested in polls, the public has often-as-not favoured Labour’s over National’s. They just didn’t back Labour to enact them. I’m very concerned now over what happens in education, where I think the degree of the mess National has already made (National Standards is objectively a shambles) is not widely appreciated.

Read more »

To Martyn, Martin, Kim, Laila, David, Russel, Metiria, Pam and all their fans