We already have a centrist Green Party – it’s called the Green Party – the truth behind Blue-Greens
The funniest thing about all this sudden talk about the creation of a ‘centrist Green Party’ is that we already have a centrist Green Party – it’s called the bloody Green Party!
The Greens actual economic model is pure free market liberalism in gender neutral drag – all they want to do is include the price of pollution in the cost & let market do the rest.
Have you ever been to a Green Party conference? It’s a whiter shade of beige. These days it’s wall to wall with ‘ethical entrepreneurs’ that ugly middle class blue-green colour that bruises turn after a severe beating.
They all see NZ’s pure clean reputation as an economic branding advantage and they want the Greens to champion that cause. If you actually read the Green Party economics policy, it’s about setting the market conditions to allow the free market to work towards that benefit, pretending that they would usher in some type of socialist heaven is such a misreading of the truth it sounds more like Fox News propaganda than political insight.
The Greens stopped being a socialist party the second Sue Bradford lost the co-leadership race in 2009. From that point on it’s been a free market neoliberal economic agenda, James Shaw, (a former corporate greenwash lobbyist to Coke-Cola) signed up to Grant Robertson’s promise to be as economically ruthless as National for our corporate overlords without any problems whatsoever because such an agreement is of no issue to the Greens because they are pro-market, not anti.
They are a middle class vehicle for woke identity politics with a neoliberal economic policy framework, their only ‘state intervention’ is to force the cost of pollution into the final price SO THAT the market does the rest.
The fact that the current Greens can be seen as Left even though they are economically wedded to free markets shows what a success the neoliberal cultural experiment has been.
The one reason why this new political vehicle is being sounded out is because powerful lobbyists behind National are desperate to establish one drawing on anti-1080 fanatics and commercial fishing interests. There was a recent ‘lunch’ late last year with a high ranking National MP and a large corporate fishing identity who pledged $1million towards this project.
The Blue Greens won’t get anywhere near 5% but as a spoiler it could remove just enough Green Party vote for the Greens to slip under 5% and under MMP rules, redistribute that vote to National.
That is the real goal here, not to legitimately give voice to a Blue Green electorate.
And there are a lot of people who are uneasy about 1080, whether you may like it or not including a fair number of green members.
Polarizing the debate as a woke “ our tribe is right 1080 good or you bad” may well drive people away when there is another option.
As will Sages actions undertaking take game animal culls without consulting stakeholders through proper statutory process.
They only have to push the greens under 5%, might be a real way for those getting lazy conservation rammed down their throats, to have a say.
I agree a new blue Green Party will be bullshit, but so is this one, where is the protection for our water and rivers? WTF are the greens actually doing except dumping more poison from helicopters in our mountains?
+100 KEEPCALMCARRYON….good points!
…imo ‘Fish and Game ‘ are the true old NZ environmentalists
…and they support NZF because NZF is for a referendum on 1080
…imo there should be a Commission of Inquiry into the history, stake holders and ‘science’ behind the 1080 blanketing of New Zealand
Indeed, if the this new Blue Green (teal, I guess?) Party syphons off just 20% of the Green Party votes, the Greens are done. Maybe that is the whole point of this: to rob Labour of viable coalition support thus ensuring National wins simply by being the largest party.
Nitrium, thats the only thing that makes any sense out of this whole mickey mouse idea for a Bluegreen Party.
Thanks Martyn for clearly expressing suspicions I have had about the Greens leaning centre /right. You must acknowledge that it’s better than hard right lol!
So, can you name the high ranking National MP and the large corporate fishing identity? Why can we not know who they are?
Interesting analysis and conclusion and probably true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-aI_rbkx0I
“There was a recent ‘lunch’ late last year with a high ranking National MP and a large corporate fishing identity who pledged $1million towards this project.”
Talleys??
The fact that our resident National voter, Andrew, would support this faux Bluegreen party should speak plenty about this proposal. Tava is playing straight into National’s hands and no diubt he’ll be handsomely rewarded with a high-raking on their Party List.
This is a stitch up!!
Mosa there is nothing wrong with the Greens they lost a lot of good members like Sue Bradford, Metiria and they are starting to find there place having been on the outer for a very long time. Greens have some good policies but they need to keep building and stick to their core issues ‘the environment’ and they need to keep plugging labour on these issues. Water is the most import issue to NZers apart from the lack of housing this is an area they can make a difference and green technology we have rubbish piling up in this country and we have polluted waterways. We have climate issues so if they can work hard on some policy in this area and focus on getting their policy across the line. We need to push for green technologies in waters , waste disposal, recycling tyres etc
There is one point that people get consistently wrong. It was not Grant Robertson’s BRR. But James Shaw’s BRR. James Shaw conceived of and proposed the BRR.
I.e. you say “James Shaw, (a former corporate greenwash lobbyist to Coke-Cola) signed up to Grant Robertson’s promise to be as economically ruthless as National for our corporate overlords without any problems whatsoever because such an agreement is of no issue to the Greens because they are pro-market, not anti.”
It was Grant Robertson who signed up to James Shaw’s “promise to be as economically ruthless as National for our corporate overlords” not the other way around.