Why Andrea Vance is wrong about Russel Norman being a problem


Andrea Vance writes that Russel Norman is a problem for Labour in that he is perceived too anti-big business and that this will make life difficult for Shearer.

I think Andrea Vance is correct in her assumptions, but wrong in her conclusion.

When Helen Clarke finally won power, the Business community threatened to wreck the entire economy with their manufactured winter of discontent. Clarke had to fold and back away from any serious attempt at economic reforms and the elites toasted their plutocracy.

Labour MUST be prepared this time around that if they win power and attempt to implement real economic change that they will run up against the very same corporate oligarchy.

Russel, far from being Labour’s achilles heal, could become Labour’s ultimate stick.

Everytime the corporate elites howl at Labour Policy, Labour can point to the Greens as a ‘it could get far worse for you’ threat. Turning Russel’s perceived weakness into a tactical strength is the sort of games Labour should be plotting.


  1. So if the business community want to try that stunt again, then there should be a name and shame website, to arrange for protests outside their businesses, and also other companies listed where they can buy the same products.

  2. Threatening to wreck the entire economy? That sounds a lot like treason. One day we’ll have to take away any possible means for them to do this, in the interests of self preservation. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner the better.

  3. The Greens aren’t anti business. It’s pretty obvious New Zealand needs businesses to survive and thrive. It is against businesses such as agriculture saving money by polluting and expecting other businesses such as tourism to carry the cost of that polution. It has the best policies for IT businesses which will be harmed by the spying bill. It also knows that New Zealand will be better off economically if resources such as fish stock are managed sustainably rather than fished out. What some so called “businesses” might not like is that making the right economic decisions for the good of the country is not in their financial best interests.It is the relationship between these businesses and some political parties that hurts the New Zealand economy overall.

    • Thank you fambo.

      I am so over seeing comments about the ‘weird, anti-business’ ways of the Greens.

      The main ‘problem’ with the Greens is their, generally, long term view compared with the myopia of most businesses and politicians.

      They tend to be growers rather than harvesters and gleaners. Sowing before they reap instead of ripping off the communities and the environment for the indulgences of a few.

      I’m glad you made your point.

      • Indeed, Andrea.

        Most critics of the Greens – especially on internet fora – have no clue as to why they’s anti-Green. They generally come up with things like “communists” or “anti business”, etc. But when you ask for specifics, they can’t give any.

        Because there aren’t any.

    • The Greeds are just anti environment and a living future for future generations, they are business as usual and nothing else … full of shit they are.

  4. The Greens are here to keep the Nat’s in check, and I only hope they will continue to do the same. There is an obvious need for us to continue to develop as a country with more emphasis on social and environmental responsibilities as well. Dr Norman is obviously smart and well spoken. If we listen to what he is saying, we may understand better why he is saying it. And if the Nat’s listened to what he was saying, maybe we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Comments are closed.