Nandor is one of the great political and cultural thinkers in our country and he is a voice that should be listened to and promoted far more often in the mainstream media.
He posted some thoughts on the political philosophy of where the Greens need to move towards in the future and I think his targeting of new generation small and medium ethical business is very smart.
The truth for the Greens is that their dreams of being a 15% Party are dependent on the strength or weakness at any given time of Labour. The Greens vote was actually far softer than anyone suspected and with Jacinda now in charge of Labour, it is unlikely to woo much of that back.
So where do the Greens grow? It can’t be at the exclusion of social welfare policy, but it could be an extension of Green values into business.
The Greens could gain support from NZ’s small and medium ethical business community by promoting ethical tax breaks for those businesses. The Greens are all about allowing the market to decide by using state regulation to send the market signals. What better signal could you send the market than by supporting and promoting ethical business?
If small and medium sized business complied with independently tested environmental, ethical and sustainability standards then they should be eligible for a tax break for making that investment.
Promoting Green values into business doesn’t weaken the stance they take on poverty, it simply broadens their voter appeal and that’s what the Greens need to desperately be doing between now and the next election because the vote they lost to Jacinda won’t just walk back to them.
The greens reaped what they sowed.
Next time around don’t elect a leader that admits to fraud.
Nice to be in a perfect position to be judgemental, Awanderer. I guess you’ve never been in a position to be desperately juggling meagre funds and have to choose between the rent and food? Have you? I’m guessing not and that you have a very well fed stomach. Your lack of empathy is noted.
Samwise: I HAVE been in the position of ‘desperately juggling meagre funds’ over a long stretch of years and I noted with utter disgust just how little Mrs Turei did for those of us who don’t have boyfriends, helpful mothers, flatmates, plus a significant lack of conscience or forethought.
Think about the following – all she did was confirm the largely false impression that people on benefits rort the system. Made it hard for those who have no show whatsoever of stepping up to a near-free tertiary education or the kind of pay she was receiving.
She made it hard for the rest of us.
If you want her canonised – go ahead. But the moment she started with her ‘brave expose’ she lost a fair number of us as Green supporters for the harm she delivered.
That is unfair, Andrea.
When Metiria Turei did not supply correct information to WINZ in the early ’90s, it was at a time of sheer desperation for thousands of beneficiaries after Ruth Richardson cut welfare payments in the “Mother of all Budgets”.
It was at a time of unemployment reaching 11% – 200,000-plus out of work.
As Jon Johansson wrote in 2007;
ref: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418702
The drastic austerity cuts not only impacted on those on welfare, but businesses as well. (Including mine.) Many small-medium businesses collapsed, sending thousands more onto the unemployment scrapheap and into the tender arms of National’s Minister of Social Welfare, Jenny Shipley.
New Zealand was thrust into a deep recession after those cuts to government spending.
That was “ruthenasia”. Metiria Turei and tens of thousands of others lived through that grim period. I remember it well and it angers me that so many New Zealanders have a collective amnesia about that dark time in our recent history.
Even today, many are forced not to reveal their full circumstances to WINZ because it will imnpact of what little welfare assistance they receive.
As for relying on “boyfriends, helpful mothers, flatmates” – that is a blanket statement without any real insight as to her true circumstances at the time. We simply don’t know the full story.
But even so, why should unemployed, solo-parents, sickness beneficiaries, etc, have to rely on “boyfriends, helpful mothers, flatmates”?!?! That is the Libertarian/Victorian England style of moving welfare from the State to religious charities and families. Is that what you’re suggesting? What happens if there aren’t any “boyfriends, helpful mothers, flatmates”?!
I have no idea if you’ve ever been on welfare. Because I have. And I can tell you that it is bureaucratic, impersonal, and is insufficient to live on. Here’s an example of the bureaucratic madness of WINZ: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/winz-waste-and-wonky-numbers/
Now if you’re going to condemn Metiria Turei for withholding information from WINZ, will you apply the same measure to WINZ?
ref: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/339064/winz-staff-accused-of-withholding-entitlements
Perhaps if WINZ paid out the correct welfare payments, people wouldn’t have to “rort” the system.
I sincerely hope that once we pass on into heaven (or the place where Elvis went to) that a chunk of global poverty will have disappeared.
+1
I recall the welfare cuts in the 1990s as well. It was a grim time. Sad to see so many have forgotten what Ruth Richardson wrought as she took a machete to government spending.
It may come as a surprise to some, but having to lie to survive became the norm at the time. Otherwise you starved to death.
The National Party Social Media Team never sleeps! Always first in the comments section 🙂
You’re a Nasty voter right, Awanderer? You’re the reason a National-Green coalition would be toxic.
Nandor has written a good piece and worthy of consideration. But they will have to tread carefully with national. The demise of the Maori Party and United future points to how national devours its partners.
Nandor seems to think that National whose economy is based upon capitalist growth, externalisation of costs onto the environment, etc etc can be made to do Green bidding. Good luck there.
I was under the impression that the Greens are already promoting ethical business practices. So what is the big difference to the status quo, that Nandor proposes?
Or is it all about finding the right tune to dance with National, at times?
No, HC, it’s about policies to safeguard the environment, clean up our rivers, address child poverty and homelessness, make housing more affordable, reduce the widening wealth-gap, and all the other things the Nats have failed to achieve in nine years of rule.
If they couldn’t do it in nine years, what on earth are they expecting from the Green Party?
No, it would destroy the Greens just as it destroyed the Maori Party, Peter Dunne’s career, and knee-capped Act. The Nats devour their coalition partners as recent history has shown us.
The Greens would be very ill advised to EVER go with a party that let this happen:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/341219/auckland-housing-accord-dismal-failure-on-affordability
Perhaps note the challenges the German Greens have faced, and will now face, with realos wanting a different direction from what the more fundamentalist members may want:
http://www.politico.eu/article/german-greens-caught-in-coalition-dilemma-germany-election-spd-fdp/
With all that, we get the NZ MSM go on about Germany and the Greens there, as if they are so ‘pragmatic’, they can coalescence with any major party. That is far from the truth, and the Greens there have been close to tear the party apart, the situation could be the same here.
Hence their support did drop over the years, and they only did reasonably well last election, because many left the larger parties, to vote for smaller ones.
Going too pro business can pose major problems for the future, as that may mean, moving towards pro establishment politics.
The BIG DIFFERENCE in Germany is that the Greens have joined Merkel to keep the neo-nazis from the reigns of power. We face no such crisis here in NZ. Thank god.
Comments are closed.