Peters torpedos left wing options

Winston Peters appeared to promote a Labour+NZ First coalition option yesterday but it looks more like a torpedo to the left, especially aimed at the Greens, perhaps to try and pick up votes from the debris.

The main question is whether Peters was trying to be noticed on a day that Kim Dotcom was sucking up most of the media attention, or if he was trying to slip a positioning statement in under cover of the big news of the day.

Peters put out a media release yesterday afternoon - Alternatives In Election 2014 which praised both Labour’s David Parker and National’s Bill English.

When David Parker was attacked by a former business partner, alleging a breach of the law by the Hon David Parker, I was the first MP to back David Parker because, over an extensive period of time, I believed that he was a man of honour and integrity.

Similarly, I have observed the Hon Bill English’s conduct regarding the allegations in “Dirty Politics” and his reserve in the defence of the Hon Judith Collins’s conduct.

In addition on the question of tax cuts by National, Mr English’s aversion to claiming that they were possible is further evidence for me, that like Mr Parker, he has a certain integrity and honour.

Consequently, I see both of them as capable of being Ministers of Finance.

By stating he would work with either Labour or National Peters appears to keep his coalition options open. But he also slams the Greens.

In this campaign the Green Party has twice, for reasons best known to them, in essence led an assault on the Labour Party.

“Of late the Greens have been talking about being co-deputy prime ministers and wanting the finance portfolio.

“Does that mean when the Prime Minister is abroad we are going to have two acting prime ministers instead.

“This situation would be farcical.

“If the Greens think they are going to take over the levers of economic management they are assuming other parties are not watching their record.

“This statement in no way challenges the Labour Party’s belief that in the right circumstances they could form an alternative government.

“Voters need to be disabused of the view promoted by the Greens that we in New Zealand First would stand by whilst they promote extremist policies in government.

“This is not indicating a choice but the media seem to have overlooked one option entirely, a Labour-New Zealand First combination in Coalition or Confidence and supply.

“This emerged in 2005, has precedent, and it was a stable, successful government that delivered the greatest surpluses in recent years.”

Things were considerably different in 2005 when Peters shut the Greens out of Government.

Labour got 41.1% (to National’s 39.1), NZ First got 5.72% and the Greens 5.3%. Labour and NZ First combined with United Future (2.67%) giving a total of 49.42%.

Current polling has Labour in the mid twenties and NZ First 4-8%. Even if a miracle happens and Labour recovered to 30%, and NZ First climbed to 10%, that gets only 40%, well short of a majority. Greens (polling 10-15%) would be essential to get over the line.

Labour+NZ First is likely to be closer to 35% and could go as low as 30%.

“A Labour-New Zealand First combination in Coalition or Confidence and supply” looks an unattainable option. Peters must know this.

If Peters rules out combining with the Greens as he appears to have done here then he has only two choices – a coalition with National (possibly alongside Conservatives if they make the threshold, giving National alternatives) or going on the cross benches.

Peters must see potential votes from Green bashing. He has u-turned on his word before but he has consistently avoided working in Government alongside the Greens.

This looks like a torpedo to the left, conceding a left wing coalition is extremely unlikely.

Bad poll for National, Labour

The latest Roy Morgan poll has both National and Labour down into worrying territory with Greens and Conservatives being upwards movers:

  • National 45% (down 3%)
  • Greens 16% (up 4.5%)
  • Labour 26% (down 1.5%)
  • Maori Party 0.5% (down 0.5%)
  • Act NZ (1%, up 0.5%)
  • United Future 0% (down 0.5%)
  • NZ First 6% (down 0.5%)
  • Internet-Mana Party 1% (down 1.5%)
  • Conservative Party of NZ 3.5% (up 2.5%)
  • Independent/ Others is 1% (unchanged)

3% isn’t a huge move but 45% is into real worry territory for National, especially if it’s part of a downwards trend.

Labour appear to be either also tainted by Dirty Politics or just seen as crap. Greens are finally benefiting with their best result ever.

Internet-Mana seem to have lost traction while Conservatives are on the rise.

Electors were asked: “If a New Zealand Election were held today which party would receive your party vote?” This latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted by telephone – both landline and mobile telephone, with a NZ wide cross-section of 762 electors from August 18-31, 2014. Of all electors surveyed 3.5% (down 3%) didn’t name a party.

Results: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5767-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-september-3-2014-201409030312

PDF including table of results

The best election outcome

The best election outcome for the country is unlikely to happen, but it should be more carefully considered.

Labour don’t yet deserve to lead a Government. They have performed poorly through two terms in opposition. They are yet to clear out dead would and look like seriously rebuilding. They need more time to wake up and shape up.

National have done a reasonable job seeing the country through very difficult economic times. David Cunliffe conceded that in the leader’s debate.They have mostly competent ministers and a moderate approach and being far ahead of Labour in support (up to double) they are the logical option to lead Government again despite being under pressure from some quarters at the moment.

Winston Peters has proven yet again that he’s prepared to smear and make unsubstantiated accusations to hurt parties and ruin careers. He is throwing his dirt now and has done it through his return term. This approach doesn’t deserve political reward.

Conservatives, Internet-Mana and Act are all new and if they get into Parliament they need time to establish themselves and learn the ropes. They need time to earn a place in positions of ministerial responsibility Government.

The other significantly sized party is Greens. They are overdue for playing an active role in Government. They are very well organised and as prepared as any party could be to step up.

While many people like some Green input, especially on environmental and social issues, there’s a resistance to them having to much economic input. They haven’t been helped by Labour’s weakness – this has exaggerated the perception of how influential they would be. Hence they have struggled to raise their support since the last election.

I think a National-Green combination would be well balanced. Greens have all but ruled out considering this but if they did it would be their best chance of increasing support.

If Greens got 15% to Nationals 40-45% we would have a stable coalition. Most Green ministerial positions would be at associate level to let them gain experience at this level.

National’s prudent economic management could continue, with the added benefit of a sizable and vigorous voice for environmental and social considerations.

Greens more reasonable and principled approach would also help moderate the dirtier side of politics.

National would probably include UnitedFuture, ACT and Maori Party as bit players if they survive the election.

If this worked well and I see no reason why it wouldn’t this would benefit Greens in the longer term, to the extent that it could enable them to establish themselves as a political force alongside rather than subservient to Labour.

When National are inevitably voted out (although a successful Green+National arrangement could extend their reign) the Greens would have the experience to transition to a new coalition in a very strong position.

Greens have virtually ruled out working like this with National, but they made that stand months ago. Since then National have shown they need more holding to account for mistakes and dirty politics, Labour have slipped rather than recovered, Internet-Mana has injected a left wing component that is off putting to many, and Winston and his NZ First have proven less deserving of serious consideration than ever.

Greens and National would both benefit if they reconsidered their non-association stances.

And the resulting Government would be the best way for the country to benefit. What’s best for the country should be the primary consideration of the parties and the voters.

I think this would be a very popular (with voters) way out of the current mess.

If Greens reconsidered their current stance they could make a compelling case to go with National. Some of their activists may  spit tacks but they should consider the Maori Party ethos of it being better to be influential at the table than perpetually frustrated out in the cold.

If Tame Iti can learn and change and see the sense in this approach then surely the Greens could.

This is by far the best election outcome I can think of.

Standard promotes Labour over Greens

The party opening addresses were televised last night (competing with the All Black-Wallaby test which is nuts).

The Standard has posts of both the Labour and Green addresses, but have chosen to promote the Labour address as the primary post today.

Labour Green opening addressesThey were posted at similar times last night, but the Labour post has been given prime position on the blog.The Internet-Mana address has been added to the Green post rather than posted separately.

Possibly as a result of greater prominnence given the Labour post and probably due to greater interest in Labour at The Standard it currently has significantly more comments.

Poll hits dirt, rewards clean

There can be many reasons for poll movements but whether by coincidence or not the parties most associated by dirty smear politics have all dropped in the latest NZ Herald poll, and parties not associated with dirt have gone up, especially the Greens.

Dirty parties:

  • National 50 (down 4.9)
  • Labour 25.2 (down 1.3)
  • NZ First 4.3 (down 0.3)

Clean parties:

  • Greens 13.7 (up 3.8)
  • Conservatives 2.6 (up 1.4)
  • Maori Party 0.7 (up 0.2)
  • Act 0.6 (up 0.6)
  • United Future 0.4 (up 0.4)

Others

  • Mana-Internet 2.1 (down 0.1)
  • Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis (down 0.1)

Having made that point poll to poll movements are not as important as trends.

Herlad poll trends Aug14

  • National’s last poll result may have been an outlier.
  • Labour continue to trend down.
  • Greens have surged but time will tell if it is temoporary or becomes a positive trend.

Herald poll trends small Aug14

  • Winston Peters has been struggling to sustain a profile in a very competitive media.
  • Conservatives will be hoping they are on the rise but 5% is a long way up from there.
  • Internet-Mana climbed initially but may be leveling off.
  • Maori, Act and United Future will be grateful for any scraps they can get.

The poll of 750 respondents was conducted between August 14 and 20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 per cent. On the party vote questions 12.5 per cent were undecided.

Source: Greens spring in polls as National takes hit

Why has overt anti-Semitism surfaced?

Questions are being asked about the higher level of billboard attacks, especially the use of anti-Semitic and Nazi symbolism, and whether it’s related to what’s happening in Gaza.

‘Deep Red’ at Public Address:

So why has overt anti-Semitism only surfaced in the 2014 election, and not the 2011 one? I suspect it’s because what’s happening in Gaza, as well as elections in general, are even more closely tied to social media than they were even only a couple of years ago.

 

BillboardJewNazi

I don’t see it as related to what’s happening in Gaza much if at all.

One significant difference in this election is a new party combination that is campaigning on being disruptive with a primary aim of taking down Key and National.I haven’t seen any evidence this party is involved in organised billboard defacement, but two things it is doing may have at least contributed to a significant increase in damage.
– deliberately provoking and using a higher level of political hate
– activating a new breed of party supporter

Old party activists (Labour and National) may dabble in billboard attacks but will know from experience what a costly and time consuming pain checking and repairing damage is so are likely to avoid all out graffiti war.

Greens were embarrassed last campaign when caught doing a nationwide hit job on National billboards so will either have warning off their activists or will be doing it more carefully. Some Greens were caught defacing billboards in Dunedin a couple of weeks ago (“casual fascists”) but I think the party leaders and campaign team would be horrified if any maverick activists were found to be involved in Jewish and Nazi attacks.

So what’s new this campaign?

The Internet Party obviously, targeting new demographics of the young, disaffected and angry. And they have teamed up with Mana giving a small radical party much more coverage – but the socialist core of Mana are old school union activists who should be aware of the disgrace and dangers of indulging in the more extreme attacks that are evident.

The introduction of Nazi and Jewish symbolism in attacks is a very bad look, and may be counter-productive for parties on left regardless of whether they are directly involved or not.

BillboardJew

Have the visionary or the leader of the new party made any statements disassociating themselves from any of this?

Related to this they have disassociated themselves from one chanting video but promoted and defended another which was an odd contradiction. Were they disassociating themselves from responsibility for the content of the second video or just the distribution of it?

They have a potential problem in that having promoted and owned anti-Key rhetoric and actions they may now be perceived as associated with the actions of people who are independent of the party organisation.

Whether they deserve it or not they may reap what revolutionary behaviour and discontent they sow.

Polls and election prospects

A number of recent polls have given pointers to where the parties stand with less than two months to go until the election.

National

National have been polling in the high forties through to mid fifties but are expected to drop back a few percent in the final count. They are aware of this and are trying to minimise that drop by playing as safe a game as possible.

They have had some hiccups with embarrassments through Claudia Hauiti (now withdrawn from candidacy) and Gerry Brownlee’s airport security slip-up. Hauiti was National’s lowest ranked MP so she won’t be a loss, and Brownlee has front footed the damage control with what appears to be genuine contriteness.

National have just announced their list with no real surprises. They will say this week what other parties they will be prepared to work with and give a nod to some potential support parties in electorates.

They have yet to reveal much about policies. There main plank seems to be more of the same, steady sensible management of the economy.

That will be enough to win the most seats by far but they are not expected to get enough to rule on their own so their fortunes may be dictated by small parties. They will be hoping Winston Peters isn’t the main dictator.

Likely result range 45-50%.

Labour

The polls have not been good for Labour with the last twelve results being in the twenties, as low as 23%.

David Cunliffe continues to fail to impress as leader. He says his string of apologies are behind him but he is dropping in preferred Prime Minister polls, the latest having him on 8%. Some hope he will show his mettle in leader’s debates but it’s unlikely he will do enough to shine over the seasoned Key.

Media are writing Labour off and talking more about how low they might go instead of how much they might get. There’s good reason for this, they look divided and disorganised.

Labour’s best hope seems to limit the damage and not get any lower than their record low in 2011 of 27.28%. A more common hope is probably that their vote doesn’t collapse.

Likely result range 20-29%.

Green Party

The Greens bounce around in the polls, usually in the 10-15% range.

They look to be the best organised party by a long shot, and seem determined to finally get into Government. They deserve it on their own efforts but they are relying on Labour who will be worrying and disappointing them.

Without Labour improving substantially Greens look like at best competing for attention and influence amongst a mish mash coalition but more likely being denied by Labour’s failure.

Many voters are happy to see Greens in the mix but one negative is there is a wariness (and in some cases fear) of Greens getting to much influence, especially on economic matters. Some Green good, too much Green scary is a common sentiment.

Likely result range 10-15%.

NZ First

NZ First have been polling from a bit under to a bit over the magic 5%.

Most expect them to lift a bit in the run up to voting as happened last year but National will be taking as much care as possible not to hand Winston Peters another opportunity like the cup of tea debacle.

Peters is a seasoned campaigner and the media help his cause because he is good for stories, but time will tell whether there is too much seasoning in the old warrior and too little substance in the rest of the party as the other MPs have failed to impress.

One thing that may make it harder is direct competition for attention  and votes with the Conservative Party.

Likely result range 4-6%.

Maori Party

Poll results have been low for the Maori Party. That doesn’t usually matter because in all elections they have contested so far they have got more electorate seats than their party vote would give them so it has been unnecessary. Last election they got 1.43%.

It’s tougher for them in electorates this time with Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia retiring. It will be challenging for them to retain their current three seats, with some suggesting they might lose most or all of them.

There will be strong competition from the Dotcom financed MANA Party, but they may be helped by Labour’s woes.

For the first time the party vote may matter to the Maori Party, especially if they only hold one electorate seat.

Likely result range 1-2%.

Conservative Party

Polls have been in the 1-3% range. It’s now looking unlikely National will help Colin Craig in an electorate so they may have to get 5% to make it. That will be difficult, especially if Winston Peters competes openly with them.

Formed just before the last election the Conservatives got 2.65% and hope to improve on that. They have had much more exposure but that may have lost as much support as it has gained. Craig still seems politically naive. He has tried to turn the ‘Crazy Colin’ meme to his advantage but that’s a risky strategy.

Conservative fortunes are relying on National’s decision this week but it’s not looking positive for them.

UPDATE: John Key has just stated that National won’t help Craig in East Coast Bays so Conservatives only hope is getting 5%, which looks a big hurdle.

Likely result range 2-3%.

ACT Party

Act has been polling poorly, often under 1%.

Act were in turmoil last election with a very Brash takeover and installing John Banks as Epsom candidate. Banks won to save Act but has had a troubled term.

Act have made a concerted effort to rebuild over two elections. They have split responsibilities between Jamie Whyte as party leader and David Seymour in Epsom. Seymour looks a good bet in Epsom but the political jury is still out on Whyte and Act.

Much could come down to how Whyte looks in the minor party debates. He is intelligent and has good political knowledge but can look to serious and too polite – he hasn’t been forceful enough in interviews.

Act may benefit from being an alternative to giving National sole charge.

Likely result range 1-3%.

United Future

UnitedFuture has been languishing in polls, as often on 0% as slightly above.

More than ever UF hopes seem to rest solely on Peter Dunne in Ohariu. His chances are reasonable there. He has held the seat for thirty years so is very well known. He hasn’t had the best of terms but seems determined to rebuild his credibility.

Dunne looks to have been helped by all the major parties:

  • National have a new candidate who looks likely to campaign for the aprty vote only and has been given an almost certain list position.
  • Labour’s Charles Chauvel resigned mid term and has been replaced by a relative unknown.
  • Green’s Gareth Hughes has withdrawn from the electorate to promote youth and party vote and has been replaced by someone.

Like last election voters are likely to return Dunne and ignore the party. The party seems to be virtually ignoring the party.

Likely result range 0.3-0.7%.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

ALCP rarely feature in opinion polls, but they manage to get votes in elections. In 2011 they got 0.52%.

They are under new management this time and are likely to get some stoner and protest votes but 5% is just too high a hurdle for the influential media to pay them any attention.

Likely result range 0.4-0.8%.

Internet Mana Party

As a newly formed combo IMP have been polling 1-2%. They have a huge budget so will feature in the attention seeking stakes.

And while Kim Dotcom can’t stand as a candidate his attention seeking will keep him to the forefront of party success or failure.

Dotcom is promising a town hall circus five days before election day – he thinks this will destroy John Key and National but it could just as easily backfire.

His personal crusade is to oust the National Government. He is more likley to fracture the left wing vote and scare people off a Labour let government.

IMP’s monetary might will gain them some party votes but may fail in the ultimate aim.

Likely result range 2-4%.

Summary

IMP could be pivotal in the final result but it looks most likely to be a failure for them and a win for National with a few small allies.

Greens talk poverty but target middle NZ vote

The Green Party talk a lot about addressing children in poverty. In a policy announcement today they emphasise this:

The Green Party today announced that its key social platform for this election will be to tackle child poverty and inequality by ensuring every child in New Zealand has enough to thrive.

But the policy they announced today seems to be clearly targeting the middle New Zealand vote in Greens announce 20 hours free ECE for two year olds:

In the first of these announcements, made today, the party has announced a package to support families by extending access to free early childhood education and improve the quality of all ECE.

The key policy points in the Green Party’s plan for supporting families’ access to ECE are:

  1. Extend the 20 Hours free early childhood education subsidy to cover two-year-olds, at an initial cost of $255 million. As the benefits of this successful scheme are opened up to at least another 40,000 children, more kids will get a good start in life and the burdens on their families will be eased.
  2. Provide $32 million a year to restore funding for 100 percent qualified teachers, as part of an ambitious plan to boost the quality of early childhood education and make sure every child gets the right care and support.

The total package will cost $297 million a year immediately rising to $367 million in four years.

“Every child should have enough to thrive. Any less is a failure of our society,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

“One in four children lives in poverty, and 205,000 Kiwi kids are now living in severe poverty, and going without the basics.

But this doesn’t seem to be directly targeting poverty. Some poor families may benefit, but middle and upper income families will also benefit. Not extending EXCE down a year is hardly a “failure of our society”.

“Extending 20 hours free ECE to two-year-olds will make a real financial difference to thousands of families. We estimate that families with two-year-olds in ECE could be up to $95 a week better off under our policy.

“About two thirds of all two-year-olds are currently enrolled in ECE, but their parents miss out on the ’20 Hours’ subsidy given to three and four year olds. We will make the system fair by extending the same subsidy to the large number of two-year-olds in ECE.

“Despite the relatively low level of current subsidy, around 40,000 two-year-olds are still enrolled in ECE, significantly more than a decade ago. Our policy helps will make a big difference to those families straight away.

It will be popular to some, but a one year of childhood is very narrow.

“This is an investment in families and our kids’ education and in reducing poverty.”

“Good-quality ECE helps children reach their full potential, both in education and in leading healthy and productive lives. It can even make the difference, according to recent research, between being in or out of poverty in later life.

“Investment in ECE is a great education spend today, but it can also reduce poverty and inequality overtime.

They have pushed the poverty line eight times in this media release. Perhaps they have more policies to come that will specifically target more pressing poverty needs, but despite their insistence this one seems to miss the mark.

It’s a good enough policy, if the cost can be justified in an overall budget, but they are trying to oversell the poverty pandering.

$300-400 million a year is a lot to allocate to all two year olds, not just those who are really deprived.

This looks a bit like a vote buying exercise dressed as a pauper.

RockEnrol and Action Station

On a post on Kiwiblog Rock Enrol and the unions a commenter AG asks for a source for Generation Zero being a left wing group. Looking into this brought up some interesting names and causes in common.

Generation Zero is also a left-wing group.

Source?

If the folks running Generation Zero consist of three Green Party/Labour Party activist members under the figurehead of some ex-journo, then yes, there is a direct comparison to be drawn. I accept that.

Why three? Interesting that AG chose Generation Zero. Why not Action Station?

What is ActionStation?

ActionStation is here to enable the large community of Kiwis with shared progressive values to take powerful, coordinated action on urgent issues we care about.

“Progressive” is usually associated with the left wing. They say:

Who’s behind ActionStation?

Independent and member-led, we are affiliated with no political party, and answer only to our members.

The website is ” Authorised by Megan Salole” – she has been involved in setting up Action Station.

Megan Salole is a social innovator and agitator who is actively championing green issues, social justice and democratic voice.

http://www.philanthropy.org.nz/node/8563

And Megan has more then an interest in green issues, she was Green campaign director last election.

Campaign Kickoff! with Megan Salole

Megan Salole, National Campaign Manager, introduces hersef and kicks off the campaign!

https://my.greens.org.nz/campaign-resources/campaign-kickoff-with-megan-salole

See also her LinkedIn Overview, Past:

National Campaign Manager at Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

National Campaign Manager at Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

http://nz.linkedin.com/in/megansalole

Her web page About Me:

I ran the 2011 Green Party National Campaign.

I am in the process of establishing ActionStation – New Zealand’s own progressive community here to active call power to account.

And Metiria Turei commented on an Action Station job advertisement on her Facebook page: “Jobs like this are rare, closes Friday”.

Talking of Facebook, earlier this year Megan had a Generation Zero graphic on her cover page. Details of all of this: How Green is ActionStation?

There’s more at Happyzine, including:

8. Who should be NZ’s Prime Minister and why?
I am interested in a Co-Prime Ministership, and look forward to a time when extraordinary politicians like Metiria Turei and Russel Norman are at the helm.

http://happyzine.co.nz/2012/06/13/world-changer-megan-salole-actionstation-intersect-and-more/

The Action Station web address is registered under this name:

registrant_contact_name: Joseph Cederwall

http://www.whois.com/whois/actionstation.org.nz

Joe was involved in ‘Stand Up’, along with Megan, from which Action Station has evolved.

StandUp, an independent, citizen-led platform for online activism, will begin campaigning in New Zealand next month.

The first campaigns will potentially target asset sales, paid parental leave, coal mining in conservation areas and a sustainable rebuild in Christchurch.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1204/S00256/online-campaign-group-launched.htm

There’s more than a little hint of left wing there.

‘We will enable tens of thousands of Kiwis to have their say,’ said acting director Joe Cederwall, a Wellington barrister. ‘New Zealanders believe in a fair go, yet there’s a glaring disconnect between the values of the majority and the actions of government and business. StandUp will collaborate with the growing progressive movement, to bring participation back into politics.’

There’s that word “progressive” again.

Joe’s profile on Loomio:

Oh – I’m Joseph Cederwall. I am a Lawyer, social entrepeneur and currently co-editing a journal on ‘the commons’ as well as working on a crowd investment platform. I was part of the team that founded ActionStation with the goal of seeing it create a citizen led campaigning tool and currently act as secretary of the society. I am currently very interested in exploring the potential of a ‘commons’ approach to resource ownership in New Zealand and how this could radically change the way we deal with issues such as indigenous sovereignty and environmental stewardship in the future.

https://www.loomio.org/d/4TqCUjIo/welcome-introduce-yourself-here

Joe is keen on the Commons approach, see http://www.projectfreerange.com/author/joe-cederwall/ – this seems to be an alternative to property ownership and people holding wealth.

As AG likes to see three connections here’s another:

Laura O’Connell-Rapira is our Campaigns Director focusing on membership engagement. She’s been doing amazing things with RockEnrol and Oxfam, and we are thrilled to have her.

There’s those RockEnrol and Oxfam names again. And this from Volunteering New Zealand:

Campaign Director, Laura O’Connell-Rapira has joined forces with youth-led groups Generation Zero, AskAway and The Wireless, as well as various promoters, venue owners, and event organisers to build and activate political power for young people in Aotearoa.

And there’s that Generation Zero name again. And again here:

Who wants to be a Climate Voter?

Game shows don’t come with a bigger jackpot than a safe climate future.
Brought to you by Generation Zero.

Panel discussion – Laura O’Connell-Rapira.

On Laura’s Facebook page:

Organising a RockEnrol + AUSA – Auckland University Students’ Association + Generation Zero bass + beats + hip hop night on Thursday 24th July at SHADOWS TAVERN – your student bar. We have booked Third3ye + Tali.

Her take on Action Station:

ActionStation is getting ready to launch. Led by you, we are committed to making New Zealand a more fair and equitable country with thriving environments and an accountable government.

And up to July 2 2014 she worked at another name in common, Oxfam:

My last day at Oxfam NZ today. Thanks for the good times team. I love the wonderful work you do to bring about a fairer, safer, more sustainable & equitable world.

Laura organised a picnic and concert in March:

Another young organiser is Laura O’Connell-Rapira from Laingholm who is running New Zealand’s first post-carbon picnic and holding a concert with a one-of-a-kind soundsystem.

She specialises in creating “people powered parties with purpose” such as the post-carbon picnic which will encourage people to “share more and waste less” she says.

“It’s a celebration of what our lives will look like without being so dependent on fossil fuels, while also getting to experience the amenities New Lynn has to offer,” Ms O’Connell-Rapira says.

“The whole idea is to get a conversation going around how we use transport, food and how we consume material possessions and energy.”

Teachings in Dub with Lion Rockers HiFi will raise money for Generation Zero with reggae music blasting from the home-built, giant Lion Rock soundsystem.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/western-leader/9849075/Try-out-weed-dating

A fundaiser for Generation Zero.

Matthew Beveridge also addressed the leftishness of Rock Enrol and it’s connections with other organisations in ROCK ENROL: NON PARTISAN OR NOT?

A group of young voters have started an organisation called Rock Enrol. It is based on the Rock the Vote campaign in the US.

On this page they make the following claim “Rock Enrol is a non-partisan campaign”. But there are some things that indicate this may not be the case.

The three people behind Rock Enrol are Laura O’Connell-Rapira, Sam Dyson and Lizzie Sullivan.

Laura O’Connell-Rapira has been in the media before, ‘Business hippie’ plans $1m eco retreat, she also runs Our Place Events, who claim to be “tree huggers”.

Sam Dyson is a key person in the Generation Zero campaign.

Lizzie Sullivan has been a little harder to track down, however a Elizabeth Sullivan made a submission against the VSM bill on behalf of The Victoria University Young Greens.

I also found a linkedin profile in the same name that has a number of details that indicate it is the same person. Who has worked for Caritas.

http://www.matthewbeveridge.co.nz/politics/rock-enrol-non-partisan-or-not/

There seem to be quite a few people and organisations in common here. And a number of issues in common with the Greens and Generation Zero.

Thinking outside the Green square

The Green Party has virtually led the opposition this term. It looks the best organised party apart from National, and it appears to be well funded. Green leadership looks secure and sound.

Greens are overdue for being in government and are ambitious to finally get a share of real power.

But they have a major problem, not of their own doing but a serious impediment to Greens achieving what they want. Labour have seemed an essential part of Green plans but David Cunliffe look like a dead leader walking.

Apart from a weak Labour making a left wing Government look increasingly unlikely the Greens are also hurt by Labour being weak – many voters are sympathetic to some Green input but are wary of too much Green say and too may Green policy. People are uncertain about what a Green dominated coalition might do.

Greens could just resign themselves to being reliant on a Labour recovery and wait. And possibly wait and wait.

But Greens have proven to be smart and also willing to read the political wind and adapt. Green leadership seems well aware of the political need for pragmatism and compromise if a party is to make progress.

They attempted to initiated a campaign partnership with Labour but were rejected.

Will they consider the ultimate in political pragmatism – a coalition with National?

Currently the Green position on working with National is something like “very very unlikely”. But that was determined when Labour+Green looked an electoral possibility. Labour have moved this towards “very very unlikely” and don’t look like changing direction.

They will surely be reassessing this. It’s known that Green activists are not keen on working with National but political pragmatism – and the fear if another three years in the opposition wilderness not knowing if even then Labour will get their act together – must be tempting some in the Green Party to go for a bit of something rather than a lot of nothing.

There would be a number of benefits for Greens going into coalition with National. They would be in a better position to promote some of their policies. They would get some experience at operating in Government and some of their MPs would get experience in ministerial positions.

Their lack of Government experience and their numbers relative to National – something like 55-15 – would mean they wouldn’t be able to claim major roles but they would gain valuable experience and would achieve far more than they could alongside Labour in opposition.

They could prove they can be responsible on Government. This would enhance their chances in 2017.

What about Greens as ministers? Alongside National they would have to accept minor rolls, but this would help easy then into the next level.

Russel Norman with an associate finance role and Metiria Turei in an associate social role – or even Minister of the Environment – would look fine. And Kevin Hague would slot easily into an associate health role.

National would gain from this arrangement as well. They’ve worked successfully on policy with Greens before with insulation schemes, and some more environmental and sustainable influence would be positive.

And it could be easier and safer to work with the principled Greens than Winston Peters or the unknown quantity of Colin Craig.

The country would benefit too from a stable governing arrangement, more social and environmental influence. And once Greens eventually get to be a part of a left leaning government they will be far better experienced.

How would voters see this? I think in the main they would see it as a positive. Swing voters may be far for willing to support Greens if they saw they would be moderated by senior National influence compared to Greens alongside a weak Labour, where voters have some worries about how Green it would be.

Prior to the last election 3 News Reid research polled on a National-Green mix.

We asked voters that if John Key opened the door to a formal coalition deal with the Greens – should the Greens say yes.

  • 55 percent said yes
  • 30 percent said no

Many of those saying no are likely to be Labour supporters who wouldn’t like to be cut out of any deal.

Amongst Green voters:

  • 60 percent said yes
  • 27 percent no

Amongst National voters:

  • 63 percent said yes
  • 25 percent said no

With the current state of the parties, especially Labour’s weakness and fears of the possibility of Labour+Green+NZ First+Internet+MANA or even of National+NZ First then a National-Green alliance may seem even more attractive and less scary to voters.

If John Key saw benefits for National and for the country he should support working with Greens.

Some of the more idealistic in Greens may take more convincing, but the key to successful politics is finding ways of achieving something. Intransigent idealists tend to be impotent. There is far more power in pragmatism.

One of the biggest limiters on Greens increasing their vote is a fear of them having too much influence with their more extreme policies.

National is well supported in the polls but voters are very unlikely to want them to rule with a majority on their own.

Voters may see Greens alongside a much larger National as a much safer bet than most of the current alternatives and they would probably pick up votes that are disillusioned with Labour.

To me National+Green seems to be by far the safest and most sensible choice for the country this year.

Both parties would need to signal there willingness to work together clearly prior to the election. It would likely help both their chances.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 235 other followers