Should the Green Party have a name change , if so to what ?

[Logen Ninefingers]

Everyone not doing their part shares the blame be it in China or NZ or any oars of the world including a quite a few dinosaurs on here. At least your leader has a Tesla.

If you think China can increase its emissions year on year until 2030 and we will also avert climate change, you are welcome to your view.
There are some big numbers involved: China will burn over 2.3 billion tonnes of coal this year and produce over 1 billion tonnes of steel. Maybe your mind cannot comprehend the size of the problem.

In the meantime, NZ cutting its 0.17% of global emissions may make you feel happy - but it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to what transpires.

[SBQ]

I see a lot of flack against China's pollution. We know it's bad there but i'm confident in the next 20 or 40 years, they will clean up their act. The country today selling the most # of EVs in the world. Largest hydro power station in the world. For the amount of people living there, they are trying to address the issue. Fact being, if there's considerable growth in a country, there's no way you're going to reduce carbon emissions.

I do believe NZ should do it's own part on carbon reduction for Climate Change. But voting for the Greens will be a definite way to run the country in the ground as we lack economic diversity. Agriculture or farming is our main industry. Our tourism industry has been wiped out. There's not a lot of things NZ shines on that can carry us through. Sadly, as prices continue to rise (along with rising building costs / regulations etc.) the net result will always be a lower standard of living.

[Daytr]

I see a lot of flack against China's pollution. We know it's bad there but i'm confident in the next 20 or 40 years, they will clean up their act. The country today selling the most # of EVs in the world. Largest hydro power station in the world. For the amount of people living there, they are trying to address the issue. Fact being, if there's considerable growth in a country, there's no way you're going to reduce carbon emissions.

I do believe NZ should do it's own part on carbon reduction for Climate Change. But voting for the Greens will be a definite way to run the country in the ground as we lack economic diversity. Agriculture or farming is our main industry. Our tourism industry has been wiped out. There's not a lot of things NZ shines on that can carry us through. Sadly, as prices continue to rise (along with rising building costs / regulations etc.) the net result will always be a lower standard of living.

Yep totally agree. I'm certainly not advocating voting Green as unfortunately they let themselves down in many other policy areas. However in a coalition most of their extreme policies won't see the light of day thank goodness.

[Baa_Baa]

Yep totally agree. I'm certainly not advocating voting Green as unfortunately they let themselves down in many other policy areas. However in a coalition most of their extreme policies won't see the light of day thank goodness.

Does it make you wonder how frustrating that must be, for the minor parties who under MMP get a seat or few at the table under a coalition government but still have little or no power to put into effect their policies? It is a the same for the left as it is for the right.

MMP is imo a seriously flawed voting system, it has done no good for the country and led to unprecedented distortions in political influence of governments (the 'king makers' for example), while essentially wasting the votes of the populous who party vote for anything other than the mainstream right or left party's.

[davflaws]

MMP is imo a seriously flawed voting system, it has done no good for the country and led to unprecedented distortions in political influence of governments (the 'king makers' for example), while essentially wasting the votes of the populous who party vote for anything other than the mainstream right or left party's.

As I remember, there was widespread dissatisfaction with the two party system from the early 60s. I can recall lots of people beliving that Social Credit got a rough deal from the system along with the substantial proportion of the population who voted for them. The pressure for a proportional system was hugely increased by the disaster of Rogernomics, and even though proposals in support of change were largely couched in terms of fairness and representation of disparate interests, many people supported MMP to provide "some check on the bastards to make sure no little group of them ever gets to take over again".

As a senior Public Servant in the 90s, I suffered (and generally tried to work around) some of the sillier ideas that the NZF imposed on it's National partner, but I still think NZ would now be better off if it had managed to prevent the extention of Rogernomics that we suffered as Ruthenasia.

MMP dilutes and distributes power. It was meant to.That stops some good things from happening, or slows them down. That is a shame, but IMO it is a price worth paying if it also reduces the chance that a group of ideologues will be able to effectively sieze power and ram through extreme and damaging policies.

[jonu]

As I remember, there was widespread dissatisfaction with the two party system from the early 60s. I can recall lots of people beliving that Social Credit got a rough deal from the system along with the substantial proportion of the population who voted for them. The pressure for a proportional system was hugely increased by the disaster of Rogernomics, and even though proposals in support of change were largely couched in terms of fairness and representation of disparate interests, many people supported MMP to provide "some check on the bastards to make sure no little group of them ever gets to take over again".

As a senior Public Servant in the 90s, I suffered (and generally tried to work around) some of the sillier ideas that the NZF imposed on it's National partner, but I still think NZ would now be better off if it had managed to prevent the extention of Rogernomics that we suffered as Ruthenasia.

MMP dilutes and distributes power. It was meant to.That stops some good things from happening, or slows them down. That is a shame, but IMO it is a price worth paying if it also reduces the chance that a group of ideologues will be able to effectively sieze power and ram through extreme and damaging policies.

Some good points there davflaws. This Labour government, being the first since to have an absolute majority highlights what I have placed in BOLD in your quote.

Perversely, under MMP you get the opposite with a tiny minority acting as Kingmaker, eg, Winston in 2017 or potentially Te Pati Maori this year, who can have a disproportionate influence.

[causecelebre]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/greens-launch-maori-land-policy-hoki-whenua-mai-vows-to-return-stolen-land-revisit-claims-and-redress/IH4JRCB53BFAZD2VAJA2GUH774/

"Mana whenua would be given right of first refusal over any land deemed to have been wrongfully alienated, and the Waitangi Tribunal powers restored to make recommendations, including private land."

hmmmm

[Logen Ninefingers]

Amazing that Daytr can say that in a Left wing coalition the Greens most extreme policies won’t be adopted. Labour caved in to Winnie in 2017 with a massive slush fund for a regional spend-up at Shane Jones’ discretion, but we are expected to believe that a Labour dependent on the Greens and Te Pati Maori will not cave into them….so the radical Greens and Te Pati Maori will happily go into government and get virtually nothing in return(?) Really?

Just about everything in the Greens and Te Pati Maori platforms are radical policies that don’t appeal to mainstream voters, and they are getting more extreme by the day. Yet apparently Labour will be able to tell them ‘no’ when it comes to adopting these policies, and will go and sit on the opposition benches if need be. That is not the Labour I know. Moreover, the Maori caucus within Labour would be more than happy to implement radical policies that pertain to maori, while the Robertson / Parker faction are itching to implement wealth taxes and a CGT.

What all this means is that voters are expected to trust that one man - Chris Hipkins - will be able to deftly preside over the whole emerging circus, and contain his radical coalition partners and a disgruntled faction within his own cabinet and caucus.
But will Hipkins even want to constrain any of these groups if he finds himself heading a government at the start of a fresh 3 year term? ‘Just trust him’, is that the message? Sure, trust him now when he wants your vote; after the election when he has power within his grasp all bets will be off.

New Zealand is on a dangerous precipice going into this election, where the most radical government in this nations history could be elected and utterly destroy racial harmony and living standards within a short span of time.

[Bjauck]

As I remember, there was widespread dissatisfaction with the two party system from the early 60s. I can recall lots of people beliving that Social Credit got a rough deal from the system along with the substantial proportion of the population who voted for them. The pressure for a proportional system was hugely increased by the disaster of Rogernomics, and even though proposals in support of change were largely couched in terms of fairness and representation of disparate interests, many people supported MMP to provide "some check on the bastards to make sure no little group of them ever gets to take over again".

As a senior Public Servant in the 90s, I suffered (and generally tried to work around) some of the sillier ideas that the NZF imposed on it's National partner, but I still think NZ would now be better off if it had managed to prevent the extention of Rogernomics that we suffered as Ruthenasia.

MMP dilutes and distributes power. It was meant to.That stops some good things from happening, or slows them down. That is a shame, but IMO it is a price worth paying if it also reduces the chance that a group of ideologues will be able to effectively sieze power and ram through extreme and damaging policies.

We need to look at the UK which has the electoral system NZ used to have. Last UK election (2019) The Conservatives got 42% of the vote but a landslide number of MPs. They then stuffed the UK’s trade and economy by taking it on a damaging hard Brexit. Prior to that election, many hard right UKIP party members switched membership to the conservatives and helped deselect moderate Conservative MPs and candidates. Luckily NZ has slightly more of a safeguard than the UK against such extreme government based on a minority of voters.

[nztx]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/greens-launch-maori-land-policy-hoki-whenua-mai-vows-to-return-stolen-land-revisit-claims-and-redress/IH4JRCB53BFAZD2VAJA2GUH774/

"Mana whenua would be given right of first refusal over any land deemed to have been wrongfully alienated, and the Waitangi Tribunal powers restored to make recommendations, including private land."

hmmmm

Who is paying ?

Show us the Money