Jacinda smacks down the Greens: Gryffindor becomes Slytherin to kill Hufflepuff

67
2869

Election 2020: Greens could be cut out of government as Jacinda Ardern charts course for political centre

The Green Party could be left looking for ways to maintain influence in the next government after now second-term Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern hinted the party’s role in the next government might be seriously downgraded.

After winning 64 seats – the only outright majority in MMP history – Labour doesn’t need any Parliamentary support to govern. Any presence in government would be a bonus for the Greens.

The only thing Labour fears is a sustained attack from the Left.

The Green Party result doesn’t show support for the Greens, it shows Labour voters appalled at how timid Labour policy actually was!

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Left, knowing that Labour were cruising to victory, put aside the Greens alienating woke middle class identity politics shtick and brought the Greens back from the 5% threshold they were sinking to a couple of months ago because Labour supporters saw how tepid Labour’s policies really were.

The politically active Left KNOW that Labour’s last 3 years have been mediocre at best. There’s only so many ‘Good first step’ press releases from the Wellington Union Clique before you have to acknowledge you’re just jogging on the spot.

The Left backed the Greens because the wider policy platform was far more radical than Labour’s.

While Jacinda doesn’t need the Greens, she certainly fears them.

And she should.

The new leadership of Chloe Swarbrick, Steve Able and Ricardo will bring a righteousness to the current debate that highlights the mediocrity of Labour’s neoliberal domestic agenda.

What Jacinda is banking on is the cowardice of the current Green leadership of Davidson and Shaw to be bullied into accepting a substandard deal.

The Greens should resist that.

They should meet with the Māori Party to negotiate a shared 100 day agenda, make that agenda public and if Jacinda walks away from it, open the schism up for the 2023 election.

The demographic dynamics are in the Greens and Māori Party favour, not Labour’s.

Over the next 3 years, expect a vast jump in climate crisis events and rising inequality which the Greens alongside the Māori Party could exploit mercilessly to build a huge mandate for transformative change.

Jacinda knows she can bully and con the current Green leadership into accepting a bullshit deal to gag them for 3 years, but she knows those threats won’t work on the next gen Green MPs.

Jacinda has shown she is prepared to immediately use some of that political capital she gained this weekend to suffocate any agents for actual transformative change.

Incrementalism never looked so ruthless.

Welcome to NeoKindness.

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.

67 COMMENTS

  1. It would not surprise me if Jacinda fears the Greens for no other reason than their penchant for unnecessary self mutilation by thinking being in politics does not apply to them. Shaw all but sunk their chances with his idiotic subsidy of a crystal thingy private school, a coup d’etat in a term of breath taking stupidity.

    The Greens last 3 years was awful, Green they weren’t, progressive, nope, but woke, god yes. As you said yourself, they are probably the single most reason for ACT’s success today.

    You cannot blame Jacinda for wanting to treat the Greens as ever so slightly radioactive!

    • Add in the socialist envy wealth tax & understand why a majority of NZdrs including previously National voters have made very sure that the Greens can’t do any more damage.

      • National Party don’t vote Greens, and never have.
        They vote blue or yellow (or light blue New Conservative).

        I saw a National stalwart once, who told people down the pub he had voted Green.

        He was in the stocks on the main street, with freshly thrown overripe tomatoes and freshly produced dung dripping from his towel hat and staining his Airtex shirt and his Tussock Creek moleskins, and into his Redband gumboots.

      • Ha! – if I had my way there would be a ‘sliding’ taxation system whereby the higher the income bracket the more you pay. And pity help the foreign corporates and foreign banks too!

        And that’s Keynesianism, not socialism.

        Nationalism ( looking after ones own people first ) not Globalism.

    • Do not kid yourself…people voted for ACT due to concerns about gun owners rights and paranoia that was being stirred up by the gun lobby. People did not back ACT because of the Greens, the backed it for guns!

  2. The middle is more important to the Blairite and Labour. The gift of covid19 was to switch the majority from National to Labour. This is now Jacinda’s base, this is where the focus will go on for the next 3 years. 3 years to bribe and sugar coat the coming economic hit and to ensure as many of her new voters form part of the K-shaped recovery (if there is one). There will be sweet nothings whispered in the ear of devotees however as can be seen already you are expendable (just as the right was with Key).

    Look at the initial economic plan – more debt to struggling businesses and further wage subsidies. The futility of paying tax so you can get it back as a pitiful wage subsidy for a low skilled job in some perpetuating ‘circle of life’ dependence on government. This isn’t how you transform NZ from a low-wage economy and from experience (as part of a family SME) there isn’t actually the people out there wanting these jobs. A former airpilot isn’t going to want to work as a part time sales assistant in a mall. Look for more of these timid economic policies that won’t solve our issues but will look good in the eyes of the ‘Ok Karens’ that now make up a significant part of labour’s constituary.

    • Frank the Tank,

      You’d have to be a twisted individual to describe the disease / pandemic that has killed so many in diabolical circumstances as a “GIFT”.

      If you apply that logic, the Christchurch massacre was also a “GIFT”.

      Ever thought about the possibility that the only “GIFT” was that NZ had Ardern at the helm when those tragedies arrived at our door?

      • You always warm my heart when you reply to my posts. I could reply but I regret we would get into a very circular argument.

      • Very well said, JFan. I am so tired of those ghoulish Nats calling the tragedies “gifts”. It is disgusting, loathsome. And they do it all the time, …Sickos!!!!

    • Gee Frank, Your comment has all the good cheer of a Cambodian field of land mines. Maybe sleep off the election results (your worst nightmare, I understand) for a while longer? And, there are some good hangover cures out there too.

      • Chinese tea? Nah i’m all good. Best to stand up after a good kicking rather than wimper in the shadows. It’s the life cycle of politics. There’s more important things such as children and loved ones. And let’s be realistic there really isn’t much difference between a Labour and National government anyway. This i’m sure you’ll all learn the hard way in the next 3 years. Even JFan…….well perhaps not. Each cult has their pure disciples.

  3. Interesting to see Ardern “bullying” the Green leadership now being spoken about….but not by me.

    I was really pleased the Greens did so well and especially so with Chlöe Swarbrick but I have zero sympathy toward them at this time. The rabies infected blue attack dog waged a crusade against Labour that Ardern would cave in to the Greens Wealth Tax ” coalition demands”. It was talked about as a formality despite Ardern repeatedly and emphatically stating there would be no Wealth Tax. It must also be remembered that for the tax to even be a remote possibility, Labour would have needed the Greens to form a Government. That possibility increased due only to highly dubious poll results that had Labour at 46% and National at 31%. The Greens helped the toxic blue dogs attack along by saying it wasn’t credible for Ardern to be dismissing the Wealth Tax. Ardern must have been very frustrated and pissed at the Greens stance. That is even more so when you consider Ardern had already stated that even if Labour didn’t need the Greens to form a Government, they would likely have them on board in Government in some way. Take that statement along with Ardern’s known inclusive style into the mix, you would have expected the Greens to box smart, STFU and be happy with the each way bet they had going on. They chose a different path and gambled Labour would need the Greens as a coalition partner.

    The election result showed the polls had been wrong and the Greens gamble had failed. Labour didn’t need the Greens at all. With that in mind, I find it more than ironic to now talk about Ardern bullying the Greens leadership.

    The election result for Labour was unprecedented under MMP. Being able to Govern alone is what the people of NZ have served up for Labour. Ardern is 100% correct to state it’s a mandate for Labour.

    I hope James Shaw retains his position in Government as Climate Change Minister but I wouldn’t give the Greens any other high profile positions when Labour have 64 of their own MP’s to look after. How pissed would you be as a Labour MP to miss a meaningful promotion because that spot was gifted to an MP of a completely different political party?

    Labour are smart so they will bring some of the better performing Greens onboard in the decision making process etc.

    It should also be remembered that Ardern can look forward to being attacked for the next 3 years on anything and everything her own MP’s say or do. I can’t imagine why she’d want to increase that dynamic even more by taking on potential blunders from another party especially when she wasn’t obligated to do so?

    I sincerely believe the election result The Greens just achieved could well turn out to be the lowest they receive for many years. The movement will increase in importance more every year. It makes good sense to have some of them alongside you in Government at one form or another. Ardern is a smart cookie so this will unfold. That situation is amplified when you factor in Ardern’s own perspective on putting much more priority on looking after our planet etc. As mostly a strategic move, I’d also bring Rawiri Waititi from the Maori Party into the room if his result holds up.

    • ‘I hope James Shaw retains his position in Government as Climate Change Minister’

      ????

      What, so he can sit on his hands most of the time and take OUR MONEY for doing nothing, and then, when he’s not sitting on his hands doing nothing, promote scams that do nothing to address the fundamental issue of out-of-control emissions but do provide false hope for devotees of bullshit. Abd the opportunity for corporations top make money.

      I saw him on Breakfast this morning, immaculately dressed in a grey power suit and tie, just like an anachronism from the 1960s (probably spend half-an-hour polishing his shoes, that’s if he didn’t buy new ones for the occasion).

      Here is the guy that came from the corporate world, with all its corporate values and bullshit, and tried to impose them on the masses.

      Where were the hand-knitted jumper, faded jeans and sandals?

      Perhaps more to the point, where were the ethics and brain? Missing in action?

      James Shaw makes any genuine environmentalist want vomit, with is ‘quantitative easing’ and ‘more industrialism’ narratives.

      Seeing him there, dressed up like a well-groomed mannequin, I actually though:” Wrong party. Go and join ACT, James, because they are much more in keeping with your values.”

      Which planet have you been living on, jacindafan? Obviously not the same one as me, which is in rapid (and accelerating) meltdown.

      For your information, the Arctic sea ice cover is at an unprecedented low for the time of year, partly because of the abysmal failure of people like James Shaw to speak up or do anything to prevent it.

      https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      • How about blaming the Govt of the day, going back umteen years. How often have these Govt’s done as the Greens want? S.F.A. Same now, in fact the outrage against the Greens at present is hypocritical, you want them kept out of Govt, yet blame James Shaw for not fixing the environment . Your barking up the wrong tree.

        • Of course I blame the government of the day! In fact I blame ALL politicians, because they have assiduously resisted applying information provided to them and resisted doing the right thing for decades…Labour, National, Green, NZF…..the whole fucking lot of them. That is why we are in the diabolical mess we are in now.

          By the way, the trouble is, the Greens have been part of the government of the day more than once if you count the Clark thing, and have continually barked up the wrong tree -as you put it.

          We can, and should, go back to the early 1970s, when all the makings of the current mess were clearly identified, and the solutions were presented. Indeed, we should go back to the 1950s, when the suspicion were in deep trouble was raised, on the basis of the best scientific evidence available at the time.

          Ignored, ignored, ignored.
          Sabotaged.
          Ignored, ignored, ignored.
          Sabotaged.
          Ignored, ignored, ignored.
          Sabotaged …ad infinitum.

          Now it’s too late.

  4. ‘Jacinda has shown she is prepared to immediately use some of that political capital she gained this weekend to suffocate any agents for actual transformative change.’

    Yep.

    Suffocate actual change, as required by the ‘owners’ of NZ.

    And that is all very well, politically, if not environmentally and socially, in a world that is just plodding along. However, that is not the world we live in

    We are living in a world that is in increasing turmoil as it undergoes collapse -all as a consequence of all the failed policies promoted and implemented by saboteurial governments over many decades.

    The new Adern government will, undoubtedly, attempt to keep promoting BAU and all that BAU implies: more squandering of fossil fuels and other resources; more degradation of the local environment and global environment; more life-threatening CO2 emission and particulate emissions, more waste; more money-printing; more transfer of wealth into the hands (bank accounts) of sociopaths at the top of the economic pyramid; more financial and environmental distress for the bottom 4/5ths of society.

    Just how much longer totally dysfunctional global economic arrangements can keep functioning is still open to debate; the ‘October surprise’ hasn’t happened yet, but major nations, particularly the US, are mired in impossible-to-solve predicaments.

    ‘Standard & Poor’s is saying that the immense costs of supporting health programs, businesses and workers through the pandemic was fundamentally undermining most countries’ finances. And so there are about to be a raft of ratings downgrades to be announced, with most major nations at risk.’

    After barley, wine, beef and coal, the next trade China is punishing Australia with is apparently going to be cotton, as farmers there brace for a Chinese announcement of a 40% tariff imposed by Beijing. The screws are tightening and Canberra has become much more circumspect very recently. Two thirds of all Aussie cotton is exported to China.

    Singapore’s exports fell sharply in September, in an unexpected worsening of their trade balance.

    American industrial production. The latest data fell more than expected in September when actually a rise was expected. This production is now -7.3% lower than in the same month in 2019. Imports (from China) are filling the product demands in a spectacular failure of their avowed industrial strategy.

    And it is now official; the US posted a -US$3.1 tln budget deficit in their fiscal year ended September 2020 – three times more than for the previous year’s terrible outcome.

    And international holdings of US Treasuries fell for the first time in four months in August, with China’s holdings of American government debt falling to the lowest in nearly four years

    The UST 10yr yield is little-changed this morning at just on 0.75%. Their 2-10 rate curve is unchanged at +60 bps, their 1-5 curve is a little steeper at +20 bps, while their 3m-10 year curve is also marginally steeper at +66 bps. The Australian Govt 10 year yield will start the week unchanged at 0.73%. The China Govt 10 year yield is also unchanged at 3.25%. The New Zealand Govt 10 year yield remains at 0.54% as well.’

    https://www.interest.co.nz/news/107573/sp-warns-ratings-downgrades-china-reduces-ust-holdings-china-blocks-cotton-australia-us

    And a fascinating piece, for those who missed it:

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-titanic-analogy-you-havent-heard.html

  5. NZ Labour is more concerned, going by Ardern’s comments, to placate the tory switchers than to finally help the working and underclass.

    Fair Pay Agreements, and Living Wage Employers would start the move from a low wage economy, Massive state house build would fix exploitative rents and property speculation within a decade–and provide training and employment, restore power generation and supply and Refining NZ to full public ownership, abolish WINZ/MSD, and re-establish MoW across the country so private capital gets the hell out of profiting from public infrastructure.

    That is what needs to happen, along with direct action on Climate Change. The Greens may be better to keep well away from direct involvement in Govt. no matter how tempting Ministers and extra cash look, they will also be stifled by Cabinet Manual and right wing Labour Caucus. The Greens should be growing independently anyway if they go class left and direct action now! on Climate Change.

  6. The Greens support grew significantly in the last days of the campaign. What was hitting the news during that time was their proposed wealth tax. It can be safely assumed that this was the issue that attracted their late run in popularity especially as it’s most articulate proponent was by far the most successful candidate winning the only electorate seat they have won since Jeanette won Coromandel.
    This is the kind of policy that will attract strong support from a very small section of voters, and be poison to a very large section.
    The Greens can carry on appealing strongly to a small minority and stay out of government, or appeal less strongly to a much wider demographic and drop such policies and be part of the government. Or as a novelty stick to environmental issues and appeal to everyone.
    D J S

  7. Your comment about the middle is correct Frankie. This was endorse by both Clark and Cullen. Which only confirms that what you say about Labour can be said about National except that National still believe in trickle down. With the likes off Collins Brownlee and Smith still floating around purporting trickle down in the National party, expect a long time in opposition .

    • My Dear Frankie

      Brownlie is gone, Smith goneburger, Collins will stay on (if they are smart) for some small mercy of continuity. The merc without the mouth will try but ultimately he’s not remotely good enough. Bridges is damaged goods. The turd polishers will be working overtime to get Uncle Fester up to speed. Is he the next John Key – time will tell and i’m not banking on him as National’s great white hope. Goodfellow & co need to take a jump as well – their performance over the past 3 years has been at best 2/10.

      It’s 3 years of hard work for National as they need to differentiate themselves to the middle in a positive, constructive manner. There was significant arrogance in the caucus and this has played out somewhat in the result. As a party there is a need to do an independent review top to bottom and chart a course to become relevant to youth, youth adjacent and females. We aren’t at the moment, not even close on this result that while I don’t understand I acknowledge. This needs to be played out in the context of being true to their core principles and not just being “a little less shit than Labour”. It’s a reasonably tall task that will require some individuals to check their ego(s) at the door.

      In regards to a leader – ignoring significant external events such as extreme economic depression that can tilt the field there is really not anyone unless they could coax Key out of retirement (not happening) or Richie McCaw is a shy tory. So at least 3 years of hard work to at least begin to get traditional voters back.

        • One has to be honest. All parties go through it although it appears some of the dregs want to hang on in National. National requires either:

          – a circuit breaker (like Jacinda)
          – Or 3 years hard work with a coherent, non complicated answer with internal discipline

          based off the last 24 hours neither looks viable but things can (and do) change quickly.

      • Frank the Tank,

        It’s really heartbreaking to see the choices your beloved party are offering so you can have at least a tiny bit of hope. Turd polishers, Nick well past his use by date Smith, Slime-on Bwidges damaged goods, Brownstain who will likely stay on as he’d quickly become depressed by no 24 hour buffet tables etc. Even the Party President is inept and as Rob once said, he’s a shiver looking for a spine. The saddest part of your input was that retaining Judith Collins was seen as the smart thing to do. Do you also advise battered wives to stay in a diabolical relationship for…. “stability”? No wonder you’re so bereft of any hope, sad, tearful and bitter at the grinning winners and keep throwing your tear drenched fluff at them.

        Chin up. Perhaps Ruth Richardson could mount a comeback and make all your dreams come true.

        Get well soon.

        JF
        x

        • One has too laugh…keep it coming – we deserve it. But seriously:

          Swings in roundabouts and look on the bright side as part of the ‘landed gentry’ of this country asset accumulation/value increases will numb the pain due to the Blairites’ do nothing, say nothing, don’t upset the middle approach.

          History will show that nothing lasts forever and there are now significant hurdles for this government in terms of doing things. One of life’s true isms is that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. So in order to satisfy the middle, you have to piss off the left. Enjoy your Koolaid as methinks there will be a little bit of bitter aftertaste this time around. Remember ‘Ok Karens’ and the local PaperPlus store owners are now above you in this government’s pecking order.

          • Frank the Tank,

            I actually agree with some of what you say. Those who put their faith in politicians of any brand will inevitably end up dealing with disappointment. Billy Connolly said the desire to be a politician should ban you for life from ever becoming one…and don’t vote, it only encourages them.

            I’m interested in your take on Judith Collins, especially in regard to the campaign she ran and her retaining the leadership.

            My contention is she’s a divisive leader that appeals to a % on the right but most other people recoil at her. I find it very difficult to imagine how she could have run a worse campaign. I appreciate there are not a lot of options for National at the moment but why retain a leader who is only ever going to cause so many kiwis to feel nauseous, especially when there is an urgent need to heal and get started on repairing the brand ASAP. It staggers me to believe the answer to any positive question would be Judith Collins. Delaying the inevitable would just create a scab that you know will be ripped off later and have another shitstorm just when people were getting over the previous epic shitstorm.

            I’m surprised that Mark Mitchell has totally ruled out challenging Collins for the leadership despite putting his hand up to replace English, then Bridges, then Muller.

            What was Christopher Luxon up to on election night? He told Jesse Mulligan that he felt Collins did an excellent job, he wasn’t interested in challenging her for the leadership and was looking forward to working under her. I was shocked. Mulligan said you didn’t leave the C.E.O role at Air NZ to become an air hostess. Luxon’s statements set it up so he would appear a hypercritical and untrustworthy liar if he later challenged Collins for the leadership role. Surely, he should have just STFU?

            So who, and when?

            • If I may, whilst many ridiculed Jacinda for working “at a fish and chip shop” and had no experience, what she did have in abundance was no “bad” history. Why? Because she has integrity.
              Collins issue, whilst she has “business experience” has a lot of “bad” history and therefore very little integrity. This is born out previously by many in the National caucus disliking her. If she is not liked by her own, then how does she expect most of the country to like her or her policies.
              Until National get a leader of say Bolgers character. they will be in opposition for a very long time.

              • Bolger’s character? Bertie you are kidding aren’t you? History will point to him being arguably NZ’s dumbest PM with his only lasting legacy being able to pour Winston’s whiskey and being lead around on a lead by first, Ruth and then Jenny. He made Geoffrey Palmer look like an effective PM.

                In other words perfect for chairperson roles in government SOEs.

                We need someone that is relatable and will also connect with both youth and youth adjacent grouping to the point these aren’t total whitewashes and can regain our rural and ethnic urban base (South Asian immigrants) through competency and good policy.

                There are some good young female MPs coming into the party (albeit some missed out and continue to miss out while turds fester). These individuals is where arguably (Labour fuck up pending) where our next national PM comes from (2 terms minimum). We won’t know who is the best until they begin their parliamentary term(s). Emma Mellow is one to look out for as well. Auckland central next time up (if she stands again) should be a bellringer of a fight.

                As can be seen, our selection of young male colleagues has been an epic disaster to the point where i’m beginning to think they sourced them from the extras in the American Pie movie franchise.

            • As someone said last night you need someone that can at least go toe to toe with Jacinda in the chamber. That leaves Collins with Bishop and Willis too inexperienced and Uncle Fester untested. The rest I wouldn’t even feed or are first term MPs therefore untested as much as Fester. The Merc without a mouth (unfortunately my MP) doesn’t have it, not even close and sometimes struggles to speak english properly let alone go toe to toe with Jacinda. Simon well Simon is Simon.

              Is Collins a divisive leader? Maybe? Perhaps? I don’t buy it outside of those on the left – certainly those on the ground didn’t seem to indicate that was the reason they switched. I put the result down to:

              -Labour ran an almost faultless campaign outside of being devoid of policy
              -National continued to look like a shambles and whenever they looked like getting their shit together self imploded
              -Covid was a bigger player than even I thought
              -The economy was far more resilient than I thought it would be

              I’m personally a big fan of Judith and mid-election switched my vote from Act to National and felt she ran a half decent campaign albeit with one hand behind her back and colleagues trying to ankle tap her.

              Long term prognosis – not good and reality is that it is sitting there for uncle Fester if he is as good as he thinks he is. Short term – unless you can coax Key, Joyce or English out of retirement (good luck with that) there is realistically nobody else that could make a difference.

              A sticky middle and an incompetent government (sans covid/March 15) meant the issues within National as a party were papered over during the last term. The next 3 years the party needs to take itself back to the foundations, read the electorate, find the next generation of candidates and install a sense of discipline. Do that and have an understandable and relatable policy framework and they can win back the middle. It is a tall ask however given the egos involved.

              • Interesting take Frank. How Ironic that I’m communicating with one of the very few Judith Collins fans. You’re as rare as rocking horse poo.

                I find the situation with Judith Collins retaining the National Party leadership astonishing. Some people have purchased a bag of rotting fish guts believing it was fresh John Dory fillets. Collins has done a complete hatchet job on them. There is so much more to the role than just going toe to toe with Ardern was incredibly shortsighted. Yes, it would appeal to the life long true blue supporters but it wasn’t just them you needed on board.

                The first myth is that Collins was “asked” to take on the Nat leadership almost against her will. It’s devoid of credibility. Collins has desperately wanted the role for decades.

                Simon Bridges was incredibly negative toward Ardern and it backfired big time. He saw his pathway to being the PM via undermining everything Ardern said and did. One Facebook thread alone highlighted what an epic fail Bridges strategy was. He had a well-earned reputation for barking at every passing car. He was replaced by Todd Muller who trotted out bullshit of how he wasn’t going to be opposing for the sake of opposing. He’d clearly seen how poorly that tactic had gone for Bridges. Unfortunately, Muller was full of shit and immediately set about undermining Ardern’s very high approval rating of her pandemic handling. Everything Ardern was doing to keep NZ safe was a “shambles” or “shambolic”. In one 90 second interview, Muller used those words a remarkable 8 times. Everything National did was negative and reflected on their personal and professional integrity. They were even happy to manufacture situations to undermine the all-important confidence Kiwis had in Ardern’s pandemic handling. This farcically became their only pathway back into Government. The desperation involved in that devious plan resulted in the situation that unfolded with Michelle Boag and Hamish Walker….and “others”, This was always going to fail and it did. Then, up steps Judith Collins. Her plan was somehow even more negative than Bridges and Muller combined. I can’t understand how anyone with a brain bigger than a sultana would not learn a thing from the two epic National Party leadership failures that unfolded in the weeks and months leading up to Collins taking over.

                Not only was Collins extremely negative, but she was also routinely totally disrespectful to Prime Minister Ardern. Clarke Gayford made a comment on election night that I felt was poignant and obviously directed at Collins. He said he was proud of Jacinda and how you don’t need to get in the gutter to sell your message to people. Most kiwis have been recoiling at Collins all through the election campaign.

                Yes, Collins only had 12 weeks leading the Nats prior to the election but Ardern only had 7 weeks and she wasn’t going up against the well oiled National Party machine desperate to retain power. I sincerely believe Collins was so negative, toxic, and divisive that she could have been the Nat leader for two years and the only difference it made would have been an even bigger train wreck for National.

                If you genuinely have a “strong team” you would allow and encourage it to be seen. Instead, Collins dominated and made up policy on the fly without consulting with the “strong team”. When confronted Collins said she was the leader and was doing what leaders do. I call bullshit on that. Any suggestion made by the vested interest that Collins was doing all the heavy lifting was a joke. She designed it that way. The main campaign wasn’t National v Labour. It was Collins v Ardern. It’s clear that Collins is a bully and usually gets what she wants via that method. She arrogantly believed that method / gameplan would work in the election campaign. That was yet another epic miscalculation by Collins. Interesting to read an article on Stuff this morning that states National MP’s that stood alongside Collins were punished by voters where as those that didn’t were rewarded.

                https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300137102/election-2020-voters-reward-national-candidates-who-spoke-against-judith-collins

                I’m convinced Collins conceded the election victory at least a week out from election day. After then it was all about getting enough support to retain the National Party leadership. Anyone who doubts that just needs to compare her first TVNZ leaders debate performance with her last one which was all about not causing more droves of people to recoil from her.

                Collins has a shameful history with the diabolical Cameron Slater. As a result, there are huge trust issues between her and the NZ Public. All she did during the campaign was to make those people feel justified in not trusting her. Her obviously contrived moments turned many people cold.

                Her bullying ways were also on show highlighting how far away she is from the reality of 2020 where bullying is not tolerated the way it once was.

                The contrived scene when Collins arrived at the Royal NZ yacht squadron venue on election night was nauseating. It was her close supporters making as much noise as possible to support her well-known claim to retain the Nat leadership despite the trainwreck she’d helped create. Did anyone else notice the almost complete absence of other National Party MP’s at the venue? Hardly the sign of a strong united team on election night is it?

                It was noted she refused an interview after that with a TVNZ reporter who said she was disappointed after being alongside Collins for the entire campaign. The next day Collins appeared and farcically greeted the media with a jovial “hello my media friends”.

                Didn’t go unnoticed that Collins told the media that the “leak” regarding the Auckland Council cost National 5%. This was Collins playing the blame game and throwing a colleague under the bus. Something Collins has a history of doing. If that 5% was correct, what percentage of that was made up by a leader making up policy on the fly without consulting their “strong team”?. What % did they lose from the ridiculous and contrived church praying scene? What % was lost from the diabolical Ponsonby walkabout? What % was lost from Collins’s decision to alienate so many people with her pointless and simplistic bullshit regarding obesity? What % was lost from not trusting Collins? What % was lost by the blatant disrespect she treated Ardern with? It may have been raw meat to her devotees but the rest of NZ once again recoiled. What % was lost by Collins fearmongering? What % was lost be incessantly attacking Ardern? What % was lost by her negativity? What % was lost by her cynical ACT vote-buying exercise via that totally inappropriate Taxcuts that were to be funded by the Covid emergency fund? etc etc etc etc etc etc.

                Collins is now reaching for the “stability” ticket as to why she should stay on as the National Party leader.

                The sooner National cut their cancer away, the sooner they can heal and rebuild their badly damaged brand. I would wager my arms and legs that Collins is not the person for that job. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting a different result. It’s just a matter of time until Collins is rolled. Nothing can be done until the specials are counted. By then Luxon will feel more comfortable in his surroundings and the strong team will be asking him to step up. There will be a few pushing that agenda including John Key etc. When they add those numbers up, Nats will feel little braver about sending Collins packing. That will be followed by an retirement announcement from politics by Collins.

                Luxon will not have covered himself in glory. On election night he claimed Collins had done a great job, he was happy to work under her and wasn’t interested in mounting a leadership challenge against her. Nek minute.

                That will create a new leader who is happy to be a hypocrite and happy to be a liar and happy to roll a leader he stated he was happy to work under. Hardly an auspicious start for a new leader wanting to regain lost public trust and rebrand National.

                Any farcical comments made by Collins and her team at this time regarding her retaining the leadership and the support she has are best treated with the contempt they deserve. The very moment Luxon puts his hand up, the reality of the true situation will arrive. The alleged review of National’s epic loss will also be utterly worthless as long as Collins is the leader and the elephant in the room is very deliberately overlooked.

                National already hot favourites to stay in opposition for a very long period.

                • 35% of the electorate (including Act says hi). That’s still a fair sized rump and given this was arguably the worst team electoral performance on record in some ways its an astonishing result. If Bridges and/or Muller had stayed on the result would have been sub 20%. True Act would have been on 15% but many more would have left or indeed not voted at all.

                  Interestingly a lot of people on the centre right didn’t vote this time up. Already 3 of our workers said they didn’t vote, would have voted National but for various reasons stayed away. I suspect there is a lot of this going on.

                  I get you don’t like Collins and I am coming around to the belief she won’t be the saviour for National long term however into the medium term horizon she will keep Ardern on her toes.

                  Depressingly National doesn’t seem to get it. Brownlee and Smith staying on is wrong and some of the other MPs don’t seem to get it judging by their comments yesterday. On a bright spot Uncle Fester appeared semi coherent and said the right things so perhaps there is hope for the turd polishers.

                  • I didn’t warm to smarmy Simon Bridges and neither did voters in terms of being the preferred PM but I’m confident he would have done much better than Collins. Ardern’s popularity increasing was always going to reflect in that of Bridges and National, decreasing. A group of self interest Nat MP’s panicked at one poll and lost sight of the bigger picture. This is exactly when National imploded in so many ways. The Muller experiment that followed was a disaster. Had he stayed on as leader, you’re contention that the Nats wouldn’t have hit 20% would have been accurate.

                    If we could travel back in time I’m sure most Nat MP’s would retain Bridges as leader. National clearly wouldn’t have won the election but Bridges would have prevented the level of carnage that resulted under Collins along with the appearance of a desperate and divided party in free fall. Not my circus, not my monkey.

                    Agree on Brownlee and Smith. They have both arrogantly given an enormous fuck you to voters and put their own wants ahead of everything else. Smith was clearly way past his use by date. Brownlee farcically justified staying by bullshitting on about what Christchurch needs. We all saw what Christchurch needed / wanted and that was to finally see the back of him. There is a strong perception in NZ that National is both arrogant and selfish. The actions of both Smith and Brownlee has that up in lights. Perhaps if the community had a whip around and promised Brownlee a 24 hour buffet table at his home, he would have retired with at least some integrity and dignity.

  8. I think you misunderstand the Greens Martyn
    The last thing the Greens want is to get involved in the dirty business of developing *actual* policy, because that would mean having to face a reality outside of their fantasy bubble. Developing policy is also hard work and my experience of Greens is that most would rather sit on the sidelines and remain ‘morally pure’. Sure they’ll get a sop ministry to keep them sweet – Ministry of the Environment maybe, but not much more. Sticky labels off fruit maybe? 😉

    Jacinda is not stupid. She is on the phone to Helen on a daily basis and I suspect/hope that Helen tells her not to get ahead of herself and do anything radical to scare away the middle class in three years time, like she did. She has already stated that it was a ‘Covid election’ and my interpretation of that is she’ll offer little in the way of policy change, and instead we have three years of ‘steady as she goes’ while the economy repairs itself. Besides, she must have realized by now that she doesn’t have a strong team behind her sufficient to make many changes. We ended the last term with Hipkins running three ministries and another one had a vacancy. So outside of Woods, Robertson and Hipkins, she has no strong, safe hands.
    The one major change she’s promised is a repeal of the RMA. Again, if she’s smart she should do a deal with National over such a fundamental issue, so getting cross party support, and thus no chance of it becoming a cudgel that she can later be beaten with.

    • You sure have it in for the Green Party, don’t you! Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions but you shouldn’t dose your comments with out and out bullshit. As a start point, the Green Party had well developed policy, though most of it may not have been spelled out in single syllables, or a salve for whatever ails you. The concept of the economy healing itself with ‘steady as she goes’ would have to be the epitome of head in the sand thinking – though the anatomical equivalent is doubtlessly more apt. When the Government repeals the RMA, the last second to last place of refuge should be National – only ACT would go the whole hog to make sure there would be no enforceable environmental protections. Finally, the concept of Jacinda being radical and needing Helen Clark to temper her radicalism is downright ridiculous. She has even vetoed the tame recommendations on tax and welfare as captain’s calls which must irk he more progressive MPs.

      • Andrew has it for any left wing parties, such as this comment…

        “Besides, she must have realized by now that she doesn’t have a strong team behind her sufficient to make many changes. We ended the last term with Hipkins running three ministries and another one had a vacancy. So outside of Woods, Robertson and Hipkins, she has no strong, safe hands.”

        David Parker, Damien O’Connor, Michael Wood,Kieran McAnulty, Willow -Jean Prime just to name a few more but that is Andrews and Nationals fault and reasons why they lost the election. Arrogance in believing they were a stronger team when in fact they certainly were not. The infighting tells the real story.

        And with the influx of highly intelligent newbies for Labour, National will continue with the same weak ministers that were left behind.

  9. My thoughts written on Selwyn Manning’s post.

    ” Nandor Tanczos tweeted at the weekend that they should stay out of the tent ”

    Yes that is my view given the NZLP has a workable majority. The Greens will be pissed on inside the tent so that leaves the option of supporting reasonable legislation or voting against or abstaining. I am sure they will be there for confidence and supply but that won’t be necessary given the configuration of parliament with the results being confirmed on November 6th. 2023 will be a different prospect entirely and the Greens need to keep that in mind going ahead. There is a big difference between being needed and being surplus to requirements.

    • ” Nandor Tanczos tweeted at the weekend that they should stay out of the tent”

      Sit down urinators can’t piss to outside the tent.

  10. I wish there was some discussion on how we get from here (a country when almost no-one can afford to live) to there (a country where everyone can afford to live). Forceful government repossession of people’s assets (AKA wealth tax) is never going to work (even practically – how do you value all of those assets without a massive bureaucracy?).

    We need something that protects the boomers’ retirement savings to date, but then moves everyone to a system that invests in other assets like stocks (or even government provided mortgages for the next generation).

    The way things are going the next generation will just leave and the country will go bankrupt. Not much of a retirement then.

    • There is no real way to do it without friction, since preciously few willingly give up their wealth (which many consider “hard-earned” and belongs to them) to help others. People are inherently only superficially “social”, as exemplified by Facebook and Twitter which have been (hilariously) coined “social media”.
      In theory there is the option of full communism (frighteningly, probably 50% of TDB regulars would go for that), where “The State” simply seizes any and all assets by force and redistributes it as it sees fit. As seen in countries that have done this (e.g. Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba etc) it never seems to provide a long-term solution or result in anything that can be described as a “utopia”.

      • Nitrium you may be behind the times. Socialism is not Communism and neither are a dirty word but an alternative way of looking at the economics and attempts to improve the drawbacks of straight capitalism.
        Sure there are many examples of countries getting some things wrong but to shy away from understanding the classic economic alternatives to just letting a small group collect most of the pie without leaving crumbs for those in growing poverty is nuts.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s

  11. Brutally honest appraisal, I believe it would be in the Greens best interests to remove Shaw. The man is far too quiet and un assertive for the role. There is time for polite discussion and there is time for bringing out the mongrel. If one is dead set serious about dismantling neo liberalism, of introducing progressive policy, of ridding the country of this disgusting neo liberal induced poverty for so many, – one will be passionate and shouting it from the rooftops.

    I party voted Green to ensure they made it over the line. I at least expect some activity, even rabid activity to push the policy’s they say they believe in. Being Green does not necessarily mean being invisible.

    Unleash the hounds.

    Please.

  12. We all suspected it was going to be another three years of grinding right leaning neo liberalism one way or another. As one commentator on the election night coverage pointed out they have not dismantled neo liberalism and she is dead right. But then, why would they? A National commentator said he had little to fear from Labour, dead right again. Same policies as National, different bunting.

    The only consolation in this is Labour now have no one to point a finger at if they f**k up. I sincerely hope the Greens stay well away from any offer from Labour that comes there way. That said, knowing how arrogant Labour are and after this will be even more so, I suspect that’s unlikely. Born to rule is born to rule, after all.

    So a big thank you to those who pushed Labours cause and played identity politics. The poor will remain poor, our education and healthcare system will continue to suffer, climate change will go on mostly unchecked. I suspect too our basic humans rights are not going to fare to well either. Lets see what happens to free speech in particular under this lot.

    Its a bitter harvest and we all get the reap it. Well all except for big corporations, banks, wealthy farmers and 1% ers, that is.

  13. Sorry Martyn, I like your more general political views but I do’t agree with you on this. Pushing through a raft of radical leftist policies won’t achieve ‘transformative change’ but rather electoral defeat after 3 years, with the opposition campaigning on overturning them. Like Jacinda says, she wants consensus change which is the best way to make new policies stick. You may well feel the Green policies will lead to some form of Nirvana where the whole population of NZ lives in egalitarian bliss happily ever after, but if that were so obviously true I would expect more support for it than 7.8% of the votes cast. Jacinda no doubt wants to make lasting social changes, but she needs to do it gradually without scaring away her support base. Expect to see her rule from the centre but use her political capital to sneak one or two more progressive changes through. John Key showed you could do this with the partial privatization of public assets. That wasn’t popular at the time, but he had the political capital to push it through, and ruled from the centre on every other issue to keep his centrist stable-government image.

    I think you will see the Greens have some form of arrangement with Labour, with the ‘wins’ they get in return being on less contentious issues like climate change or environmental policies as there is more appetite for this with the public. The Greens can campaign on getting these ‘wins’ from Labour, and Labour can campaign on working constructively with the Greens without being bullied into radical social policies. That’s a win-win.

  14. Even if the greens seats were needed they’d be given a confidence agreement. The greens internal machine where sitting ministers can be rolled by grassroots means it’ll be hard for Labour to have faith in them so the worst thing they could do is spend three years attacking Labour.

    I think Jacinda will offer them a confidence deal with an agree to disagree clause and some policy concessions james and eugene and Julie will keep their portfolios and Chloe and Marama will be associate ministers and from the looks of it, the greens will take the deal because once labour picks up a seat or two more in the specials meaning lab/greens have a super majority and it muzzles the greens for some influence, data policy concessions. Looking at the support base of the greens this will be acceptable for them to look like reliable team players

    It’s 50/50 whether the Maori party will be there after the specials as Tamati got 400 votes in specials and noone in London or Melbourne is gonna vote anyone but the international media superstar Jacindas party so until the specials are counted I don’t think the Maori party will be recieving a call until the specials are counted but if they are there I think the Maori caucus should extend an olive branch, the bloke is a former Labour candidate after all.

  15. NZ does need a strong environmental voice in government, party Green or otherwise.
    Environmental catastrophes such as the proposed dumping of a million tonnes of radioactive waste by Japan into the oceans north of New Zealand (The Guardian, 2020; BBC, 2020) needs to be addressed at government level.
    Forget our government’s symbolic nuclear free moment rhetoric, this is a time to push back on an actual toxic threat (yet another one) which threatens world ecosystems. Japan should take responsibility and store this waste inland within it’s borders, instead of spreading it around the Pacific and beyond. If it is safe enough to pour into international waterways (to free up more storage FFS), then it is safe enough to sprinkle over Japanese soil, or on the land of other nuclear nations dumping these materials. The toxic dump will probably be safe for habitation in tens of thousands of years giving plenty of time for the countries to reflect on how dumb they were to play around with nuclear energy in the first place.

    The Guardian. (2020). Japan to release 1m tonnes of contaminated Fukushima water into sea – reports. Retrieved from
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/16/japan-to-release-1m-tonnes-of-contaminated-fukushima-water-into-the-sea

    BBC. (2020). Fukushima: Japan ‘to release contaminated water into sea’. Retrieved from
    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-54566978

    • It’s both fascinating and scary to observe this ‘right to dump’ mentality in action yet again. But it’s not just Japan exercising its perceived right to dump radioactive waste in the Pacific ocean. It applies everywhere, and it applies to the substance that is more likely to terminate life on this planet than contaminated (slightly radioactive) water.

      I am not saying the contaminants in the Japanese water are of no concern but we do have to remember that the Earth itself is radioactive, and our bodies are subject to continuous ‘attack’ by subatomic particles. Some come from the naturally radioactive potassium ingested when we eat bananas; others from rocks, others from cosmic radiation. Life on Earth has been subject to far higher levels of radiation in the past than now because radionuclides decay over millions of years.

      However, most of the organisms on this planet CANNOT tolerate the effects of planetary overheating, caused by the excessively high (and rising) level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, now around 411 ppm, and on its way to the next annual peak on the ever-increasing staircase of 419-to-420 ppm. That is almost 190 ppm above the 800,000 year average [of 230 ppm] and 140 ppm above the pre-industrial level [of 280 ppm]. Many cannot tolerate the high level of carbon dioxide now contaminating the seas and oceans -particularly those that form shells of calcium carbonate, and corals, which are extremely sensitive to temperature.

      What is more, every nation on Earth dumps this life-threatening contaminant into the atmosphere as if it has a right to do so, some more than others, of course, totalling around 40 billion tonnes per annum. When we look at the per capita emissions, NZ has nothing to be proud of, since they are extraordinarily high (and I’m not talking about the methane from the agricultural sector) because of the high dependence on internal combustion engines..

      What is particularly bad is that individuals within nations behave as if they have the right to dump extraordinarily high quantities of this life-threatening gas into the atmosphere, and governments encourage this idiotic behaviour, and refuse to do anything to curtail such behaviour. Thus, we still have cars going round in circles on race tracks; helicopters taking people on joy rides; ships, aircraft and trucks shifting all sorts of totally unnecessary goods all around the world -because they can.

      Governments don’t just sit on their hands when it comes to CO2 emissions: they actively encourage the squandering of fossil fuels and the generation of humungous quantities of life-threatening emissions in their idiotic quests for GDP and growth. Hence, we are witnessing huge expenditure on infrastructure associated with road transport, and rather than be utterly ashamed of their idiotic policies, politicians actually celebrate the environmental destruction they heap upon the nation and proclaim it to be progress!

      That is why there is no hope for industrial societies, and probably no hope for non-industrial societies, which will be destroyed by the effects of contaminants released into the environment by industrial societies. This is THE BIGGEST CRIME IN ALL OF HISTORY, and unaddressed because the release of CO2 from fossil fuels is integral to the economy, and the economy is ‘worshipped’ above all else by politicians and the business sector.

      Daily CO2
      Oct. 18, 2020: 411.24 ppm

      Oct. 18, 2019: 408.9 ppm

      https://sioweb.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

        • What about our horribly polluted rivers and lakes? The sea itself is getting like toxic soup. Our rivers empty to the oceans in large quantities and they are the most polluted on the planet.

          • Yes agree about getting rid of pollution in NZ…. but the Greens are not the only ones concerned about this

            eg Fish and Game which were allied to NZF ( because of a promised referendum on 1080..and now ACT because of the gun confiscation from law abiding licensed gun owners)….are indigenous rural environmentalists with much on the ground experience of the natural environment

            ….many small ( non corporate) farmers are also on the ground concerned environmentalists ( they dont vote Green)

            …and also you are kidding yourself if you do not think long time Labour voters were/are not environmentalists… with much experience of NZ’s back country

            ….the urban Greens are not necessarily NZ environmentalists

            …the biggest sources of pollution are too many people and too much demand on natural resources ( how many so-called Greens have more than two children?)

            New Zealanders are not big breeders…and have traditionally valued their environmental balance…if we want a good environment we have to have a low population and an economy not based on growth economics or corporatisation

            ….how many Greens are urban globalists who support more immigration and support corporatisation and corporate capitalism?

            ….remember the Green Party supported draining aquifers for Chinese water bottling companies?

            ….being a NZ environmentalist is more than just being able to afford an electric car…it mean living frugally within the environment

      • Generation of electricity using nuclear reactors is the most expensive method ever devised.
        Every nuclear power installation has massive accumulated waste in tanks just like the designs used in Japan.
        Most such power stations are privately owned and when it comes to dealing with the accumulated waste, which will be horrendously expensive if not impossible, companies can declare bankruptcy and walk away.

        The radioactivity is not harmless.
        Deaths over a long period are hard to attribute as cancer rates generally increase after exposure as well as a number of other abnormal conditions.
        Chernobyl estimates go as high as 60,000 across Europe over time but no one will actually know as the complexities of identifying consequences of Chernobyl are restricting. A sizeable area of land is laid waste and many towns have increasing rates of radiation related consequences including health an genetic damage.
        Japan is building statistics after separating deaths caused by the tsunami.
        The surrounding farmland cannot be used for growing food, No one would buy it.
        The 20km exclusion zone is in place for good reasons and while some desperate, mainly older people still live in make shift dwellings there numbers are dwindling.
        Greenpeace was warned not to lift restrictions nor burn debris and trees as that will just spread the contamination. The area will be a risk for many generation apart from the present growing contamination problem with the damaged nuclear plant.

    • I am pretty sure that this catastrofy , and the world’s initial reaction to nuclear power as a result of it is what is fuelling the CO2 emissions narrative . We have a world wide concern for environmental degradation of which this is the worst example so far diverted by a red herring drawing the environmental activists down a blind rabbit hole chasing the one byproduct of industrialisation that happens to be beneficial and essential to life and loosing sight of all the pollution that is detrimental .
      I know I’m on my own on this sight with this view ; and I am not saying that the climate is not changing. It always has and it always will. I am saying that I don’t believe that a small increase in the CO2 levels is the only possible thing that could be causing this or the only thing that ever has or ever could. Is there a rate and degree of change that CO2 proponents would consider to be more than could be explained by rising CO2 levels. Has anyone worked out how much CO2 would be driven out of the sea into the atmosphere if the sea warmed up from some other cause? My research and arithmetic suggests that 1 degree C of ocean warming would triple the atmospheric CO2 content in the air. That is pretty basic general science level chemistry easily accessed.
      D J S

  16. Labour “jogging on the spot” is right. The obvious pride with which Jacinda chants the mindless mantra “Let’s keep moving!” says it all. I fail to see how a party with 49% support having 100% of the power is anything but flagrant disregard of the whole spirit of m.m.p. — never mind the simple arithmetic implied by the word “majority” in a supposed democracy.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.