Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

8 Comments

  1. If James Shaw had half the backbone of Marama, the Greens would be a force.

    I strongly agree with that.

  2. But for me the actual legislation is wrong. Just wrong. I’m not saying that it will always be wrong, but there is more work to do here.

    And I very strongly agree with that! It is deeply disturbing, and will be a cancer on our social landscape if it goes through. Highly malignant. There are many thoughts on this, many unforeseen consequences, many deliberately overlooked aspects. It is shockingly bad. We have not even had a fragment of a discussion on this. Again, it is very, very wrong.

  3. Disagree with with most of your points and argument. On the areas we do agree, i dont see them as in my, or the society I live in, best interests. And so will definately be voting for completely different people and reasons.

    However I do agree that a vote matters and irrespective of our political views lets celebrate the face we can all vote !

  4. I hope you are right about your vote counting there VK! I am on the; general, rather than Māori roll; specifically because of the mysterious way that thrice the number of Māori votes are disallowed. Say you are in Tauranga (guessing because biggest town in Waiariki?), then in 2017; 1.37% of those Māori who did get to the polling booth (also a mysteriously fewer than general) were deemed to have cast informal votes compared to the 0.45% on the general roll.

    https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2017/statistics/party-votes-and-turnout-by-electorate.html

    However, I am voting for the euthanasia referendum. The doctor consultation is solely to determine if someone is indeed likely to be within their last months of life. I don’t see psychologists (even if you shout it), being much help there – even if you could get to see one in that time frame: For routine consultations (eg pre-lockdown trans issues), if you cant afford to go private, that can easily take a year on a waiting list before you actually see anyone. And that’s if you don’t have health issues that require you to reschedule. Plus post-pandemic; good luck getting a consultation that fast, unless you are actively a danger to others.

    Yes; the bill as written, may not be perfect. But I do not feel justified in condemning the terminally ill to months of agony until unquestionable perfection is achieved.

    1. A few days ago 36 psychologists published an open letter explaining why they are concerned about being left out of the End of Life Choice Act:

      “In writing this we are not making any comment about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia. We uphold the right of all New Zealanders to have their own opinion on this issue. We recognise and uphold the right of every health practitioner to determine their involvement in euthanasia as their conscience directs.

      We are writing because we are seriously concerned about the way the legislation is addressing competence and decision-making capability in New Zealanders with a terminal illness.” Search for “Unsafelaw”

  5. The ecological Left will vote to keep the Greens in the AONZ parliament. Not because they think that these are doing a great political job, on contrary, but because they know that a defeat of the Greens is a generic defeat of the Left spectrum.

    Just making it into parliament again, some Greens will be tempted to read this as a confirmation of the party leadership, or the main political direction the Greens have taken under the aegis of Shaw. Nothing could be more wrong and seductively deceptive.

    But it can be expected to become a popular pattern of explanation within some Green party circles, therefore avoiding the required re-structuring of the Green party, both in terms of personnel as well as more cohesive strategic, tactical and practical orientation toward climate resilience and socioeconomic adaptation.

    The real measurement for the Greens’ performance is not whether they reach the 5% threshold, but why they are polling so far below their actual potentials.

    Any result below 10% of the popular vote calls for responsive action by the Green party. However, is the organization ready for a more radical re-configuration?

    Most of the Green members of parliament are solid parliamentarians, some far above the usual standards set by the other parties, and this quality is widely acknowledged.

    The point is, that exceeding these normal standards by becoming the ‘parliamentary model student’, so to say, is not the purpose of green parliamentarism.

    Nor is this by any means adequate to cover the strategic and historic challenges of the Greens in the unfolding global and local de-industrializiation process.

    More courageously, a Green party must be an avant-garde actor and groundbreaking shaker and mover in leading the socio-ecological transformation process. Otherwise, there is no need for a Green party.

    Business as usual can be done by a Labour party alone. As things stand now, and with all the access to government resources, assuming that there is the political will and intention, Labour could easily outsmart the Greens on all environmental matters.

    My assumption is that the Greens make it into the next national parliament but my hope is that they are not becoming part of the new government. A strong green opposition party is far better than a toothless appendix glued to the governing Labour party.

    Medium-term political gains can be successfully developed in collaboration with a community-centred, socio-ecological platform that rolls back all facets of neo-liberalism.

    System. Change. Now.

    On popular demand …
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHHc7POovg

  6. Great blog.
    I agree- No to this euthanasia fantasia, it’s nebulous to say the least.
    My take is, if we have good weed why would we want to kark it and end up as spare parts lining someone else’s pockets? just sayin’..

Comments are closed.