I just don’t understand why the Greens could even begin to think working with National is a sane idea. First up today, day 1, take away workers right to have a break at work.That’s a National first Policy that will pass.How could the Greens work with a Party prepared to do that?
Now personally, I'm quite one for face spiting nose cutting but...
As I understand it, (and I'm by no means a Green insider) The Greens make a decision based on whether the situation would be better if they engage than if they didn't.
In this situation, The National Government is going to do what it's going to do. If the Greens manage to make the situation better by coming to an understanding on some issues (or perhaps we should say, "Less Bad") then they might well do that.
With your example, Maybe National is going to remove smoko breaks and poison the rivers if the Greens do nothing, and by engaging, maybe National only removes smoko breaks. Should the Greens engage or not?
I think a case could be made that they should salvage what they can. There would probably be other costs (such as potentially losing some support for choosing to have anything to do with National) and I'm sure the Greens would consider that, especially since they do a lot of their policy decisions in concert with their wider membership.
Unlikely, yes; insane, I don't think so.
So they were happy to wait until after the Election to try deal with National but not Labour? I recall Greens wanting Labour to make a deal with Labour before the Election.
One of the things that an opposition needs in order to be taken seriously as a potential government is a story that convinces people they could form a government that wasn't full of internecine struggles, backstabbing and dysfunction.
Bits of Labour seemed to delight in firing more barbs at the Greens than at National. I saw the Greens invitation to campaign together as an attempt to look like a credible alternative to National, AND to reduce the amount of strife between Labour and the Greens (which I think affected the support of both parties negatively).
The Greens asking National for a memorandum of understanding is a tad strange. Key constantly puts them down.
Maybe it will shut up the chattering classes who say the Greens should suck up to National. Now the Greens can say "We offered to talk and they said no" and that's the end of it.
Or print it, sanitise it, scan it, and use the scan..
Who ever redacted the e-mail address didn't do a very good job. Just "alt-tabbing" between program windows makes the redacted part visible for a while.
Or you can highlight and copy-paste and get the original value.
Please someone make the point that sending troops endangers New Zealanders traveling overseas, it effectively devalues our passports and the security they provide.
But think of the Trade treaty we might get if we do!
And if I were Nicky, I'd think seriously about never using those devices for sensitive work ever again...
Once the laptops/phones have been in the hands of police/SIS for any length of time, there's no real way to assure yourself that they're not compromised.
They also may well have Nicky's private keys on, which makes decrypting any previously intercepted communications an easier task (especially if you managed to get a keylogger on his laptop, either now or in the future).
Craig, please enlighten me, is someone righteous like you happy to have someone as your current party leader and prime minister who lies as freely and frequently as John Key does?
I find it very easy to imagine a reasonable person voting National because they like National's economic policies, and more importantly because even assuming the allegations in Dirty Politics are true, that a National led government would still be a better government than Labour led government, given Labour's apparent internal divisions.
I happen to disagree, but that doesn't mean Craig is a monster for thinking so, nor that he automatically approves of everything National does.
Party politics - it's a package, you choose the best package you can with the fewest dead rats. Different people tolerate different rats.
And that's just what having a profoundly dysfunctional party looks like (and a reminder of how pinning it all on Cunliffe or his faction is just ludicrous).
I totally agree that it's not all Cunliffe's fault, but I also agree that the party looks profoundly dysfunctional. I'm not sure keeping or changing the leader is going to make the party look more functional without other major changes.
I don't know what would, but I do think that until they look less like a mess, they're not going to do well in the polls.
In part that's because the only other thing I've done with the Fabians struck me as offering the basis of a coherent and credible economic strategy that got us beyond the short-term window of much current policy
I very much enjoyed attending the voyage of a lifetime discussion in Wellington. Any idea if this is likely to travel south this time?