Posts by Dennis Frank
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Sacha,
True. That does indeed put the procedural question aside somewhat. The question of the extent to which any politician has a right of free speech is a murky one in our governance system.
Given that Ken & Dave explained themselves in their RNZ interview in terms of conscience, one wonders to what extent caucus rules prevent a parliamentarian acting in accord with his/her conscience. I've disagreed with their rationale in prior online comments - I'm just exploring the nuances of the situation.
From an ethical perspective, the validity of the caucus decision hinges on any recording of consensus being reached, and when, and if the rebels then acted in breach of that agreement. If they did breach it, they owe party members an explanation above and beyond the one they gave RNZ.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Dennis Frank,
Sorry, typo, replace `latter' with `former' in my second paragraph..
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Sacha,
"Yesterday the Green Party's Executive met to consider Dr Graham's request, but found he had breached the Party's Candidate Code of Conduct in a serious manner."
It would be helpful if they told us precisely how he did so. The public info from those involved so far informs us only that he'd been objecting & the caucus had been discussing his objections ever since she made her stand at the AGM. The caucus is supposed to reach consensus, same as the membership. I led the process that got the decision-making rules adopted when I was Convenor of the Standing Orders Committee, but that was pre-MMP when we had no caucus, so I can't comment on the latter. Consensus was defined in the rules as either total or one or two dissenters registering their objection alongside the verdict while deferring to the majority will. Anything else had to go to a vote (as per democratic tradition).
If, as I suspect, the caucus is merely operating as some kind of insiders' club, with no formal rules, then a breach of the code of conduct can be decided on the basis of the subjective impressions of participants. In a leftist caucus, closet-stalinism and the lynch mob mentality will then produce the outcome we've been watching, which has been entertaining nostalgia freaks right across the political spectrum.
Not saying this is what happened. Just pointing out it's as viable an interpretation as the one the caucus wants us to believe.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Mikaere Curtis,
No stereotyping intended, Mikaere. Just reminding folks that plenty of us have clarity of thought & expression despite - or perhaps even because of - getting high often throughout life. You think he joined NORML for some reason other than the justice issue? I think he was operating from experience & solidarity with like-minded others.
Your point about the relation of spirituality to green politics is vital. I've considered that relation essential since embracing it in the early '70s. While I was working intensively as activist & office-holder in the GP in the early '90s I was puzzled to encounter very few others who were motivated similarly.
-
Nandor still has a clarity of thought & expression that no amount of getting high has defeated (takes one to know one) but someone copied a link recently to a 2006 thing he wrote on his own site that outlined why the green movement was neither left nor right. The GP political position ought to become authentic accordingly. It would have helped if he had noted the back-fire effect of the caucus mis-reading its support base.
I went down to see him when he was living in Ngaruawahia a few years ago & asked him if he'd joined the Greens as a consequence of me taking the draft Green justice policy to him & Mike Finlayson to get their approval when they were fronting NORML in the early nineties, & he acknowledged that's why he switched sometime later. I was hoping to recruit him and form an alternative political movement (to finesse rapid progress, that democracy always prevents) but he said his young family situation made him unavailable.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to dcnbwz,
The increasing amounts of homelessness. The increasing inequality. The failures on housing. Why is this not front and centre this election? We are in serious trouble, and this government needs to be held to account in ways it hasn't had to. Instead the bullies seem to have won, aided and abetted by a corporate driven right wing media.
But there's now a clear majority in favour of changing the government according to the poll. Provided there's no more own-goals on the left side, a govt dictated to by Winston remains likeliest outcome.
In respect of the lack of forcefulness of the opposition, I believe it's because they read MMP as a competition rather than an opportunity for collaboration. Thus the zero-sum antics on the left. Democracy is a lowest-common-denominator design, thus the people get the representatives they identify with: those with an average level of intelligence. The system deselects anyone with a track record of competence in solving complex problems. Thus social problems - and those that are widespread are the most complex - tend to persist.
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Neil,
Probably both. Plenty of families like that around, eh?
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to Neil,
She misrepresented the central element of her story.
Too harsh really. Factor in the Rashomon effect: https://pundit.co.nz/content/in-the-end-you-cannot-understand-the-things-people-do
I've caught myself out in precisely this manner several times in recent years. Memory becomes selective. Seems to be a natural process. Quite embarrassing to discover one has remembered only one key facet of a situation when that situation was defined by several such facets - even when the discovery is private, no need to confess to anyone - when you've had a reliable long-term memory all your life. Much of her media critique has been driven by empathy deficit.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to ,
Actually that's a very good point Steven. Imagine if she had entered the new year thinking ahead to the election and how to play her part as a Green leader in the campaign. Realising she was running out of time to champion beneficiaries before her political career ended, she could have decided to do so last summer, got her caucus to endorse her strategy, explained her history and consequent motivation to them.
If they then supported her going public on her past, the election strategy would have been initiated on a consensus basis. Instead, as Kennedy Graham explained to the media, he had been expressing his disapproval privately to the other Green MPs since she announced her stand at our party conference. That means she did not do what the situation obviously required: securing consensus within the caucus before going public with her disclosure. If so, extremely poor political judgment. Even worse, there seems to have been a consequent failure of the party leadership group to manage the consensus process in conformity with the party rules.
I don't regret going online to support her stand on various blogs. I believe beneficiaries deserve to have someone representing them in parliament. I think the moralistic critique that she had received in the media lacks validity. Her substantial problem is that she's using the leftist parliamentary alignment to alienate GP voters in the general public. Gower said this morning that there'll be a TV3 poll tonight but it probably won't have been taken sufficiently recently to tell us how much her strategy has alienated the GP support base. We'll need to wait for another week for the next one to get insight into that.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to izogi,
That'd be because her political opponents are spinning that line. Human nature to misrepresent what others say. Interpretation is a subjective process. We interpret according to our social context, which is constituted by our niche in the ecosystem, our power relations, our origin, our education, and our values - which tend to arise from all of those put together.