Ummmmm – James Shaw seems confused at the Summer Policy Conference as to why the Greens got smashed so let’s spell it out for him

19
5

At their Summer Policy Conference this weekend, The Green Party announced that they would ban any and all kickbacks for their MPs, meaning Yoga Corporations, Big Tofu and The Bicycle Industrial Complex will be outraged!

At first blush this looks more symbolic than transparent because who the hell would bribe the humourless about their veganism Greens? It’s like a crossfitter boasting about searching their fridge for a carbohydrate.

I do children’s parties and Bar Mitzvah’s as well.

Putting aside how Green MPs will now be able to afford their Lululemon action wear, the truly amazing part of this conference is the total lack of fury amongst members.

If this was any other political party, the membership would be screaming for blood at the total incompetence exhibited by the Green tacticians and strategists for rolling out Metiria’s brave admission with no foresight whatsoever.

Incredulously, James Shaw seems to be unaware why the Greens went from 15% to barely crossing the 5% threshold…

Shaw said there would be sessions about what the party has been up to in the past 127 days and what dilemmas it faces.

He said they would look at a series of hypothetical situations, role-play them and ask members what they would do in those situations.

…they are going to role-play scenarios?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Suddenly this is 50 Shades of Green?

This conference should be focused on why and how the fuck Metiria’s brave admission went so horrifically wrong instead of role-playing scenarios.

Here’s a scenario James, what if you hadn’t been held hostage by the no talent Wellington clique strategists and tacticians you have and had actually allowed any one of us left wing political consultants to sit down for just 1 hour to point out the enormous problems not paying the debt back first would create and suggest that the only way this could work is if Met had privately contacted WINZ, sorted out the debt, paid it and THEN make her announcement so that she wasn’t left like a bleeding lamb in a pool of hungry sharks named Paddy Gower?

What if that had happened James?

What if you had brought in someone from outside your group think pool of talentless Wellington shmucks to avoid the self-mutilation you led the Greens into?

Would you now be having to role-play out scenarios at a Summer Conference if you’d done that James?

James?

Earth to James?

Houston, we have a problem.

As a Green voter I just close my eyes and hope for the best now. These people are checkers players trying to play Chess and the result is as devastating as going from 15% to 6.3%

19 COMMENTS

  1. Meteria made it real by resigning, she should have brazened it out, but certainly she should have made arrangements to repay.
    But the critical effect was to trigger Andrew to resign and hand over to Jacinda. That’s where the green vote went, not to the nats.
    What it shows is that the green vote is fragile . It can come backs as easily, but only from Labour. But it will be a long time before they loose a core 5%.
    D J S

    • Narrative based communication style ‘? That’s exactly the problem!’
      No narrative style will help, when the content of the narrative is the problem.

      The whole welfare issue has been glued with green-left political narrative in a solid, probably permanent way.

      As such, it works really great on people associated with the green-left political narrative.

      As for the vast majority, they find it as platable (or unplatable) as they find the green-left political narrative.

      Even worse, its not just the question of size, shape and existence of welfare (aka the purely data driven question that could be in theory politically neutral even if it isn’t) that has been glued to that political narrative, but also the question of actions\solutions in reaction to all the above mentioned (which is way more political by nature, as it includes a question of priorities, money and power) was, in an even stronger way, with the most preferred solutions being those most championed by the people of green-left political narrative – the welfare issue being the most obvious example of that association; aka green-left glues every fucking piece of their agenda onto justice issues, no matter how extremist, and no matter how it bogs down that issue and makes it look like just a balant excuse for giving green-left the steering wheel.

  2. Some of the highlights of the past 127 days

    Defending the overlooking of the Waka jumping bill in negotiations.

    Defending Golriz Ghahraman’s backstory.

    Defending the swallowing of dead rats.

    And what has been notably missing since Metiria’s departure is an effort to secure more money (either via a larger and extended energy payment, a Christmas bonus, or by any other means) for beneficiaries.

    • Well there are people in the debating community that make sensationalist content with zero value who swoon people that are beta orbiting around there feminine charm, or they’re click bait or sensationalist content as I said. And then there are some people who make reviews the second a press release is put out with a single paragraph and that’s all they do, right? Post snippets of other people’s content. And then makes the entire community react to there content and makes people like us hate the community for shit posting other people’s content, like can normies even come up with original content.

      But apparently the debating community is bad, but in the shit post community is probably the most ironic, it’s like an All Blacks fanboy showing up to like a Green Party donors party. And yeah even the Green Party Coms team are like yeah some times dark green doesn’t really work when collecting doonors. You know? Because people want to give the Green Party time and money it’s just some times these people can’t really mix with the Green Party membership and it’s hard to create a culture out of the Greens membership. And basically every one knows this.

      But with things like climate change and justice, or woman, politics and economics or what ever… These rulz don’t exist. Because they never state there economic theory. It’s literally our interpretations of there arguments. I wouldn’t even say well if they use plot armour (bans) because once you make an argument it’s up to the people reading it to interpret what the meaning is, and determine how Green politics should work, not some artificial construct written on pieces of paper. It’s the voters interpretation of Green Party policy. And there are many examples of this like on economic policy you’ll butt up against standardistas how ever in this case, any mention of fundamental economic performance is always Green Politics vs everything else. And text books, indicators, everything says economics really does matter.

      And so the only thing that doesn’t matter is this Green fandom interpretation of economics, and the negative stigma that capitalism creates in there opinion. How ever there opinions fall under hitchens razor because they have no evidence or modling. And Ocam’s razor because when I have a mountain of evidence that capitalism matters. But when normies say capitalism dosnt matter it mainly comes down to “but muh feelings though.”

      So that’s all I really wanted to say. I know I’m going to get a lot of hate but that’s just salt. What can I say I do like salt on my chips. But this is important because people are starting to target our community, especially from the contrarian community. I have zero respect for these sudo intellectual contrarians that have no presence, they have no fight because they don’t want to fight or prove there opinion at all. Why should people like me sit down and take that, that would make me a cuck, – ‘I ain’t trying to do that.’

      I tell people like Weka – ‘hey debate me on this’ – and they just either ignore or say I don’t know what that means? Even The Chairmen has more balls.

      Think about the Standard or the entire debating community and Cemetery Jones and I… We discover fire on our ventures, we see lightning strikes dry leaves and boom we get fire. And we try and make ways that work to get that fire again. And once we get that fire we come back and show the whole tribe and every ones like – HOW DARE YOU!!! How dare you change our lifestyle and political view. And then they are like BURN THE WITCHES, which in turn forces people like Martyn Bradbury to respond and bring something to the table, instead of like 30 other pundits doing shit post reviews.

      But I mean if any one has anything against us go ahead and debate us on The Daily Blog. Instead of talking shit like little dogs barking at each on either side of the gate, and the gate has a motion sensor that automatically opens and they step to fenced off section (aka bans) so they can keep barking at each other. So debate us or shut the fuck up. Because it sounds like normies try and whittle down our credibility with out trying to debate us. And like I said it’s just pussy shit, I have no respect for it.

      And be sure to Question The Chairmans ban from TheStandard.co.nz. He’s got more balls than any other low testosterone members of the debating community but other than that till next time.

      • If you need a dealer I don’t want to know you. Sorry I couldn’t help you in your search for a dealer Phillip. But you seem to have ideas for how to communicate, ie insert irrelevant questions.

        Considering what I, as a vaguely Green Party proponent, got from your comment (too left-wing for me, but they dont make me butthurt), imagine what blue-greens like those in swing electorates might get out of Green Politics.

        My point is that James Shaw and the Green Party is fighting an up-hill battle. Even more so than the Luddites, considering the Chinese skew in NZ politics.

  3. Should the Greens be championed for their stance on the TPP or criticized for not going far enough?

    Their current opposition will have no impact on the signing of the TPP.

    Therefore, is it really something to champion?

    Whereas, if they were to fully utilize the platform they’ve been given, they could threaten to pull their support of the Government, forcing Labour to choose between remaining the Government or maintaining their support for the TPP.

    After nine long years in opposition, I don’t see Labour (or NZF) opting for another election and risk losing their newly attained power.

    • Totally agree with you.
      Greens should be pulling out of confidence and supply to stop the signing. Let’s try something new like a binding public referendum.

  4. You make the Green’s sound like the go-to party for wannabe hipsters, who are far more “concerned” about their self-congratulatory image of seeming to be concerned about left leaning policy than they are about actual left leaning policy. No wonder they’ve haemorrhaged votes.
    This trend is the Greens own fault though. Just putting it out there as something to debate, but the party has completely lost focus imo. Rather than being solely devoted to environmental issues, they’ve become so splintered with various socialist policy (most of which has nothing to do with the environment whatsoever), that a lot of (predominantly right-leaning) people just can’t stomach voting for them. I think they can only really become relevant again if they return to their literal green roots (pun intended).

  5. Sad that trying to contribute to the debate as to what and how the Greens should be doing things brings out so many troll comments from self proclaimed ‘lefties’.

    The left needs to be able to do self appraisal without so many bringing weapons of mass destruction to the process.

    Social issues have nothing to do with the environment and are socialist? Yeah, right.

    “The whole welfare issue has been glued with green-left political narrative in a solid, probably permanent way.” Perhaps the main stream media bias has played more of a role in this than the Greens? Nah, the Metiria beat up showed just how neutral and open minded the media is; Right?

    • The divide between economic policy and social policy forms the sharp division between left and right today, but is the division between economic policy and social policy always that clear cut to begin with? Every economic policy has social consequences, and every social policy has economic consequences.

      Also, nobody actually sits down and checks whether a policy is economic or social before they decide to be authoritarian or libertarian (in the relative sense of the words – not the movement sense) on those issues… Do they? That would be pretty myopic, and arbitrary, wouldn’t it? Am I Right?

    • the ‘metira beat-up’ was a self-inflicted injury…let’s not forget that..

      one for which turei must take ultimate responsibility..

      and one for which one would hope the entire green ‘tactician’/advisor cabal was forced to walk the plank..

      that those idiots sat there nodding their fucken heads and tugging their forelocks at the same time..and nobody went: this is a very badly thought out plan of action’ – (or stronger)..?

      really..?…nobody foresaw how this could go so pear-shaped so quickly..?

      and if they didn’t see this – why t.f. are they still there..?

      (the green party leadership has a long history of preferring to surround themselves with yes-people/forelock-tuggers…) valid-criticism is often viewed as dissent..

      the worst-case scenario/outcome from preferring toadies to vigorous critique..

      is what happened to metiria..

      the media were just handed it on a plate..

      blaming them alone is a bit rich..

      anyone with half a brain can see it was self-inflicted..

      will the greens learn from this..?..

      one would hope so..but holding ones’ breath in expectation – could be parlous to health..

  6. I sense that Martyn is angry, the only party in Parliament that may still be wort a vote, stuffing up so much.

  7. After listening to Shaw’s latest speech, one is left wondering is securing more money for beneficiaries one of the things they can’t yet publicly talk about, one of the “exciting” Green announcements in the pipeline, or is it something they have just given up on?

  8. I find it strange that the Green Party are not taking a lead role I opposing the tppa2. To me it should fit so very well to their speak. I think they would then win the blue green vote.

    • All experienced Green Party MPs are ministers. The rest don’t really have the chops for trade and foreign affairs. A lot of the Green trade talent got the purge during the Metiria ruckus. So consider the Greens relative inexperience on this matter.

    • Interestingly enough, as I alluded above, some are championing the Greens stance on the TPP even though their current opposition won’t prevent the signing of the TPP.

      Whereas, the Greens threatening to take a genuine stand (forcing Labour to choose between remaining the Government or maintaining their support for the TPP) is the only thing that has a real chance of stopping the TPP.

      After nine long years in opposition, I don’t see Labour (or NZF) opting for another election and risk losing their newly attained power.

  9. “What if you hadn’t been held hostage by the no talent Wellington clique strategists and tacticians you have.”

    I don’t think James was held hostage as he had a lot to do with choosing who the strategists and tacticians were. Some specifically became involved with the party after he asked them.

    When submissions were invited for opinions on the election, in my contribution I pretty much pointed out the things you have said and even said that if I didn’t know better I would have thought the election was being sabotaged, starting with the dire decision to criticize Winston Peters for being racist at the campaign opening when he was certain to be part of any left wing coalition.

    I would like to know (but probably never will) where the two female co-leader candidates stood in all of this. I think, for all the positive qualities James Shaw has, an alternative is needed to balance his decision making and those of his supporters around him.

    That said, I think a large part of the responsibility for the last campaign has to lie with Metiria.

    I also think a lot of Green members are not asking too many questions because they are relieved to have survived, to even be part of the government, and think James Shaw did a good job of saving the day.

    I think what saved the day was simply the foundation support that the Greens had anyway. James campaigned for the co-leader role on the basis that a lot of people thought about voting for the Greens but didn’t actually vote for them and he would turn this potential into Green votes. I thought it was a sound argument at the time but now see that essentially it was based on an assumption. Just because people say they are thinking about doing something, doesn’t mean they actually ever will. And the given the outcome, James Shaw has to be judged on the fact that the vote count actually dropped significantly and almost saw the party out of Parliament. This should really have seen him resign as co-leader.

    All that said, I too remain a staunch Green supporter because of what it stands for.

Comments are closed.