Getting rid of “National are evil baby-eating doers”

I’ve often seen it joked that left wingers see National as baby-eating evil doers, but here it is actually stated:

Why would the GP want to unbundle from Labour when having an agreement with Labour brings them benefits they negotiated and want?

National are baby-eating evil doers. That’s the whole point.

I presume that’s just rhetoric, but it indicates a distinct distaste for anything about National.

The Greens position is (and has been for a long time) that they will work with any party where there is shared policy. For the Greens to work with National in govt National would have to change its economic, social and environmental policies. That’s not going to happen any time soon.

So Greens would only work with National if changed all their policies to Green policies? I don’t think ‘weka’ speaks on behalf of the Green Party, but I’ve seen this attitude expressed before. It’s completely out of touch with how politics works here, especially under MMP (the MMP that allowed Greens to get a presence in Parliament and recently a presence in Government.

And Greens got into Government without Labour and NZ First changing all their policies to Green policies. A lot of Labour policies are very similar or the same as National policies.

And the Greens have had to accept policies put into practice, like the CPTPP (that is supported by both Labour and National), and introduced bills, like the NZ First waka jumping bill, that the greens still oppose, in theory at least.

So this ‘Greens won’t deal with National unless they change all their policies’ is arrogant ignorance.

It’s nothing to do with the Greens being able to tell supporters that National aren’t evil, unless National stop being evil. Has that happened?

There’s an emphasis on ‘National are evil’, minus the baby eating.  It must just be a Green activist attitude – I don’t see James Shaw or Julie Anne Genter saying National are evil, and both seem prepared to work with National if it means progressing some common policy (as happened in the past over cycleways and house insulation).

“we can at least listen to any offer they give us, doesn’t mean they have to accept it but at least it’d mean Labour couldn’t take the Greens for granted any longer”

But the Greens are already in the position of listening to National make offers. National aren’t making any offers (and as above, they don’t have anything that the Greens are interested in).

National have sounded out Greens on some level of cooperation. They did during coalition negotiations. Simon Bridges did when he became National leader.

Green supporters like ‘weka’ are the ones not interested in listening to anyone, including National, who won’t fully accept Green ideals and policies.

“The other is that they have a stated intent to change how parliamentary democracy works in NZ.”

“Forming a government with National would certainly fall under those auspices I’d have thought”

Rofl. Funny as mate.

Not funny – it’s sad that some Green supporters seem like they will never accept working with National (conveniently forgetting when they have), and would hold their MPs to ‘National is evil’ type nonsense.

If Greens are serious about significantly changing how parliamentary democracy works in New Zealand – Chlöe Swarbrick was sounding out ideas on this on Twitter yesterday – then somehow they need to educate some of their supporters that that means they won’t get all their policies and ideals accepted and implemented, it means compromise, and it also means co-operation with all parties.

And it means getting rid of a “National are evil baby-eating evil doers” mentality, or at least democratically voting against the intransigence of those who promote extreme intolerance of other parties.

“Israel is run by evil people”

Comments at Kiwiblog include some extreme views at times. Like this:

On Israel Reid thinks it’s a Satanic creation using a Satanic symbol on it’s flag, and that Israel is behind all the world’s problems and behind all the world’s terrorism, including Islamic terrorism.

Israel is run by evil people. It was founded by evil people. The evil people deliberately allowed Hitler to do what he did to the European Jews in order to encourage them to populate Israel after the war. The evil people set Israel up because they are going to destroy it. Then they can turn to the people of the world and say: look, your God doesn’t exist, or if He does, He’s obviously not very good at being God, because He just stood aside and let his own people be destroyed. Now here is our lovely peacemaker, who some wicked people call the anti-Christ, but he’s really not that at all, and look at how he brought world peace, after all that conflict, during which, in part, Israel was destroyed.

And the evil people are doing this because they are working for their king, who happens to be Satan.

None of this makes Jews evil. It makes the people who commit evil acts in their name, evil.

This is a clear and obvious distinction no-one but a moron would have trouble understanding.

That expression is enabled by David Farrar’s very liberal approach to allowing free speech. While it’s on his blog I’m fairly sure it in no way represents his views given his Jewish background.

The comment is currently on 1 up tick and 13 down ticks, and there has been substantial comment, mostly criticism, of it in the thread that follows.

Cosgrove “is evil, he’s a liar”

Yesterday Duncan Garner addressed the destabilising campaign currently going on in Labour’s caucus. He was scathing about what is happening and how it is happening.

Everyone knows that David Shearer hasn’t measured up as leader and his time is just about up, but Labour’s problems run much deeper than him. Shearer failed in part because of his own inabilities but he has also been very badly served by his fellow MPs.

Garner interviewed Clayton Cosgrove, who acted exactly as predicted by Garner – Cosgrove proves Garner’s coup claim.

Cosgrove has been targeted as representing the worst of Labour and the worst of our politics in New Zealand, a nasty self interested win at any costs mentality.

The implication is that Cosgrove has been one of the prime trouble makers. In response to yesterdays performance by Cosgrove a source told me:

He performed as all those nasty pricks do.

Cosgrove is evil, he’s a liar

Strong words, from someone who has had a close connection with what goes on inside Labour.

And it fits with how Cosgrove presents himself in Parliament – there’s an obvious nasty streak evident there – and in other political hit jobs done openly by Cosgrove. And by some accounts he is worse behind the scenes.

Until Labour addresses their toxic core they will continue to fail at leadership level, they will continue to fail to recover from their losses in 2008 and 2011, and they will fail to begin a credible rebuild.

It looks like Labour is going to get worse before it gets better. They have dead wood to clean out, but more importantly they have saboteurs to confront and deal with.

If they do that they might start on a path to recovery.

Our Parliament needs a strongly competitive multi party environment. At the moment Labour is failing us.

If people within Labour recognise and deal with the Cosgrove crap – it’s not just Cosgrove but he seems to be a significant part of the poxy pack – they might start to become a party that earns credibility and support.

The obvious question – is anyone in Labour capable of confronting and dealing with it?

If they are not honest with themselves, if they don’t excise the evil, they will continue to self destruct.