In the final elections results released today, the Greens picked up a 9th MP - Kennedy Graham. Kennedy is brother to former National Party minister, Sir Douglas Graham.I'm glad he made it. He's a credible person and will make a worthwhile contribution.
The Green vote share in the specials improved enough over the preliminary result to get them to 6.72% of the vote and win that final seat. National's Cam Calder, their 59th MP, came out the loser on the day. They now have 58 MPs.
"He's a credible person and will make a worthwhile contribution."
ReplyDeletePerhaps he could approach John Key and offer to make a positive contribution.
Unless he was party to the decision to take the negative position.
Anon: I'm sure the Greens will support any policy National might have that is consistent with Green policies. The problem might be that National doesn't have many supportable policies. They want to make it easier to degrade the environment and further "privatise" the things we share in common. On climate change, they aren't good at all.
ReplyDeleteWhy anyone would expect a party to support and enable policies contrary to those they support isn't clear to me. Perhaps you could explain why someone might do such a thing.
"Why anyone would expect a party to support and enable policies contrary to those they support isn't clear to me. Perhaps you could explain why someone might do such a thing."
ReplyDeleteI find that if I do not pre-judge people's attitudes, then we can often have a very useful discussion. Sometimes individuals are way less than 100% for, or against, something. Sometimes, also, they have way less than all the facts before they have to make a decision. I much prefer discussions with people with whom I have differences because I learn something and, hopefully, I have something they can learn from. Obviously this does not work with closed minds. Discussions only with people entirely of one's own view is sometimes crudely described as posturing.
Anon: FWIW, I agree 100%. But that doesn't answer the question as to why anyone would be EXPECTED to support a policy that is contrary to their own.
ReplyDeleteYou're comment presumes room for compromise. Greens rightly have little time or interest for a denialist legislative programme where climate change is concerned.
The evidence there is more than clear enough.
On other issues, constructive compromise would be great and I have no doubt the Greens would co-operate happily on the basis you describe provided the result was concsistent with Green policy and not hostile to it, otherwise, weren't back at square one: Why support a policy contrary ot your own?
That isn't a "closed mind". It's what you do when you don't agree. There is ample evidence that the policies National advances in many areas don't actually work. Greens have seen the evidence and seek other solutions. National - judging by their policies - are keen to repeat their mistakes and to make new ones.
PPPs? Frought with peril...and simply monitoring contract compliance requires MORE bureaucrats....not fewer. Unless you have no plans to monitor compliance and wish to enjoy the perils that inevitably lie there.
"You're comment presumes room for compromise. Greens rightly have little time or interest for a denialist legislative programme where climate change is concerned."
ReplyDeleteThe Greens have all the time in the world to live with decisions they are not party to.
"On other issues, constructive compromise would be great and I have no doubt the Greens would co-operate happily on the basis you describe provided the result was concsistent with Green policy and not hostile to it, otherwise, weren't back at square one: Why support a policy contrary ot your own?"
This paragraph actually contradicts itself.
Constructive compromise will only work if it is Green's policy that is implemented?
Actually, I am not a big fan of compromise. The term itself suggests nobody is going to be happy with the outcome.
Co-operation is preferable, however it really only works if cards are laid on the table by all concerned and the best possible hand is picked up. This generally requires more goodwill than is ever available. My experience of such "thinking out loud" is that someone will inevitably claim "but you promised!" if a "thought" is not proceeded with in the final analysis.
"..why anyone would be EXPECTED to support a policy that is contrary to their own.
I agree that this co-operation probably won't work with Greens. The Greens are essentially a protest group. They hold a position regardless of any other view and demand compliance. Negotiated coalition, when the arithmetic allows, has worked for a little advantage, but mostly will be seen as a price to pay only for those needing power. Not likely to be a winning stategy often, but if that is all they have then patience may be the best policy.
As you say, they may have the opportunity to vote for legislation they agree with, but are not party to, when it comes before Parliament. Hardly a worthwhile contribution, but a choice of their own making.
Anon: For whatever reason, you appear to be dtermined to miss the central point I'm making: By all means talk about whatever, but if the outcome is one that is contrary to your stated aims and policies, then you must not support it. If that means you're not party to the final decision, that that is as it should be.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this example will make it sufficiently clear: I won't agree with, or participate in, robbing your house just to be in on it.
If (and please note the conditional) a - or any - National Party policy is not consistent with what Greens believe to be good policy, then Greens can not be expected to support it just to be in on it.
It's the difference between right and wrong. Some people get that. It means you don't do things you know to be wrong just to be on on them.
You may not agree they are wrong. That doesn't make you right. On climate change, the denialist stance isn't credible any more, no matter how hard the NZ Herald and others try to obscure the latest science on it.
Greens won't back a do-nothing stance on climate change if the only alternate to not backing it to back it.
In my previous comment I noted your comment:
ReplyDelete"..why anyone would be EXPECTED to support a policy that is contrary to their own."
and added mine:
I agree that this co-operation probably won't work with Greens. The Greens are essentially a protest group. They hold a position regardless of any other view and demand compliance.
There is no expectation that they will agree with anything the new administration does. They have made that pretty clear with their pre-election solidarity with Labour. And voters took them at their word.
So I am puzzled by your latest comment:
"Anon: For whatever reason, you appear to be determined to miss the central point I'm making: By all means talk about whatever, but if the outcome is one that is contrary to your stated aims and policies, then you must not support it."
I understand the Greens position exactly. All or nothing (as per the robbery example). I accept that as being their conviction.
Babies drink breast milk, adults drink alcohol. But there is a transition period of 18/20 years.
Greens seem unable to accept that a transition regime from what we have now, to what we want as an optimum, is possible.
Fortunately, in the big picture, that probably doesn't matter.