UK Labour policy to trial Universal Basic Income if elected contrary to research

Labour (UK) is promising to Introduce trials of a Universal Basic Income, but recent research concludes: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time.

Golriz Ghahraman responded:

Yes! Two things:

1) There’s enough longitudinal research around the world to prove UBI works. No need for a ‘trial’. Let’s just pick the most effective version and apply it.

2) UKGreens had this policy first, but nice to see the big parties following the Green movement
💚😊

The most effective version? I don’t know of anywhere that a country-wide UBI has been tried successfully.

From the Green Party Income Support Policy

Specific Policy Points

  • Work with other parties and the public to develop a proposal(s) for the introduction of a UBI and the changes needed to fund and implement it.
  • Set benefit amounts at a level sufficient for all basic needs of the individual/family.

I don’t know whether any work is being done with Labour towards introducing UBI.  I would be very surprised if the Greens are doing anything with NZ First on one.

Last week from Stuff:  Universal Basic Income is a failure, new report says

A new study on universal basic income (UBI) is challenging the central claim used to promote the scheme: that, if done right, it can help alleviate poverty.

Proponents of the basic income argue that it will help those below the poverty line pay for essentials like food, housing, and healthcare, according to the assessment by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) in the UK.

The NEF reviewed 16 real-life UBI trials to see whether a basic income can really bridge the inequality gap.

Its conclusion: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time.

I wonder what Ghahraman’s “There’s enough longitudinal research around the world to prove UBI works” is based on.

James Shaw on “do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?”

In his opening speech in Parliament this year Green co-leader James Shaw suggested that ‘we’ – the Green Party at least – may not deserve to be re-elected unless a more comprehensive Capital Gains Taax – “tax income from capital the same way that we tax income from work” – is introduced.

Green Party Economic Policy:

Capital Gains Tax

  • In order to treat all income the same, introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax on inflation adjusted capital gains at the time the capital gains are realised.
  • Exempt the family home from capital gains tax.

Now Jacinda Ardern has said that not only will the Government not be proceeding with plans to introduce a CGT, but that it will never happen while she leads the Government, Shaw is left looking silly and impotent, again.

And Shaw has made things worse by they do deserve to be re-elected because of other things they are doing on climate change, tackling homelessness, and cleaning up rivers – but progress on those issues is hardly worthy of self praise.

Shaw was interviewed on RNZ Morning Report: Capital gains tax plan dropped – James Shaw responds

The Green Party co-leader James Shaw has been dealt two hefty blows – not only the confirmation the capital gains tax has been ditched but that Jacinda Ardern has also taken it off the table as long as she is Prime Minister.

In February he suggested on this programme that the government didn’t deserved to be re-elected if it didn’t follow through with a capital gains tax. Now he’s changed his mind saying they do deserve to be re-elected for their work on climate change, tackling homelessness, and cleaning up rivers.

Suzie Ferguson: New Zealand First pulled this down, didn’t they.

James Shaw: Well as the prime Minister said they couldn’t form a consensus in Cabinet around that um recommendation on the Capital Gains Tax and so the pulled it.

Suzie Ferguson: And so you are outside Cabinet but clearly were supportive.

James Shaw: Well, you know we were consulted on the indecision, um and so you know we just got to a point where we said well, you know this is clearly not going to go any further so Government has to proceed.

Suzie Ferguson: But the Prime Minister ultimately must have buckled under pressure from Winston Peters, because Labour supported it, and the Greens supported it, so who’s left?

James Shaw: Well, I mean that’s a question for her and the Deputy Prime Minister. I wasn’t privy to those conversations. Um, you know our relationship primarily was through Grant, you know we were talking to him on a regular basis about where we were hoping it might go. Um but it is a coalition government and ultimately in coalition governments not everyone gets everything they want all the time.

Labour and NZ First have a coalition agreement, Greens are outside of this arrangement providing ‘confidence and supply’. It sounds hear like Shaw was not a part of the CGT discussions at all, he was merely being informed by Grant Robertson of the lack of progress. So sitting on the sidelines, impotent.

Suzie Ferguson: Indeed, but what is the quid pro quo?

James Shaw: Ah there isn’t a quid pro quo. I think the, um, you know the thing about this government actually is that you actually look at each issue, um, by issue, and and each thing stands or falls on it’s merits.

This issue fell seemingly without Greens having a say.

Suzie Ferguson: Mmm, but you’re having to swallow quite a dead rat on this one, so are you saying you’re not getting anything in return?

James Shaw: Well like, we’re getting to be in government, ah and along with that ah comes a substantial ah set of policy gains that we wouldn’t have if we weren’t in government.

Greens have achieved or are trying to achieve some policy gains, but these are dwarfed by the policy gains that NZ First have been able to achieve – which must be with Green approval. it looks like Greens give a lot, and get little. Word is that Shaw is struggling to get his Climate Change policy past NZ First. These are big impediments to core Green policies.

Suzie Ferguson: Mmm, but what is the point in being in government if you don’t get some of the major wins?

James Shaw: Well we are getting some of the major wins. So I’ll give you some examples. Um we’ve put fourteen and a half billion dollars into a rapid transit um buses, light rail, aah walking and cycling over the next ten years.

That’s proposed, not done. Greens will struggle to be in Parliament let alone Government for anywhere near that long. Recently the Minister of Transport conceded that light rail is likely top be scaled back. And the Auckland City rail loop cost has just jumped by a billion dollars, this must put pressure on other transport spending.

James Shaw: We’ve had the largest funding in conservation in the last sixteen years.

The funding of most things goes up over time, so it is only a gain if funding increases are significantly above inflation (I don’t know in this case if it is).

James Shaw: Um we’re about to introduce the zero carbon bill into Parliament. So you’ve got you know across the whole range of areas huge progress, more progress than we were able to make in  the last twenty years we were in opposition.

Suzie Ferguson: It’s been reported though this morning on Politik that New Zealand First will be folding their opposition to Labour’s climate change policies, and that is the price. Is that not the case?

James Shaw: I haven’t read Politik this morning, sorry.

Suzie Ferguson: But is that something you know about or not?

James Shaw: Look I’m not aware of that report so I can’t comment on it.

Suzie Ferguson: So there is no quid pro quo as far as you know? That’s what that report would seem to indicate.

James Shaw: Well like I said I haven’t seen it so I couldn’t, it’s hard for me to comment on something I haven’t seen.

Suzie Ferguson: Mmm but it’s not anything you’ve heard from the Prime Minister or indeed as these final negotiations have been taking place?

James Shaw: No it’s not.

This is what was said at Politik:

Jacinda Ardern claimed to her press conference yesterday that the decision to dump the tax was made without any sort of a deal with NZ First.

But nothing comes for nothing in politics.

And NZ First must surely expect there will be a price to pay. Most likely this will be in them folding their opposition to Labour’s climate change policies.

That may just be speculation.

Suzie Ferguson: Can the Government still claim to be transformational?

James Shaw: Yes, I think we can…

Suzie Ferguson: Why?

James Shaw: Well because like I said, on so many areas, and Grant Robertson was talking about that earlier this morning, the work that we’re doing on ending homelessness, on lifting people out of poverty, ending child poverty, on mental health, on climate change, on conservation, on cleaning up our water, those are the areas that really tipped the election in 2017, and those are the areas we are making progress on.

Most of those are being worked on rather than making notable changes. It may take another year (or longer) to judge how successful they have actually been.

James Shaw: Now, I’m not saying that I’m not disappointed about this decision, I am, and Green party policy hasn’t changed on that, but you know as with anything. You’ve got to take it all in the round, and when I said aah that I think that we should you know be questioning ourselves, we should always be questioning ourselves about how transformational our Government is.

And actually I think that we’re doing in fact have done more in the last eighteen months than the previous government did in nine years, and so I would choose it every time.

That’s a tired old comparison that Labour and Greens keep trotting out. It’s rhetoric with no factual basis.

Suzie Ferguson: To achieve targets around lifting children out of poverty and social justice, the only way to achieve those targets now is going to be with borrowing isn’t it.

James Shaw: (deep breath) Ah well that is a question for the Minister of Finance, um and…

Suzie Ferguson: But I’m asking you because it’s Green Party policy as well, so how would you be wanting to achieve those targets. You’re going to need extra money coming from somewhere. Are you going to borrow it?

James Shaw: Yes we are. Um but but I can’t comment on this year’s budget obviously because that’s about to be announced.

This year’s budget has nothing to do with the future plans that will be affected by no longer being able to get on previously relied on tax from a CGT.

Suzie Ferguson: But you’ve been talking about relaxation, or possible relaxation of the fiscal rules you signed up to. Is that how you get these over the table.

James Shaw: I believe so, yes.

Suzie Ferguson: So there is going to be extra borrowing.

James Shaw: I can’t tell you that.

Shaw is Associate Minister of Finance so must be privy to some sort of discussions on how policy promise might be funded without having a CGT.

Suzie Ferguson: But you believe so.

James Shaw: Well well look no ultimately I think that if you look at the long term fiscal strategy ah of ah Government um you know we have said that we think that needs to be reviewed, and we intend to do so.

Um at the moment actually the economy is doing very well, ah and we’ve got revenue coming in, so you know we are able to invest in things we wouldn’t have otherwise been able to invest in otherwise.

Suzie Ferguson: You famously said that the government didn’t deserve to be re-elected if you didn’t follow through with a capital gains tax…

James Shaw: …that’s not strictly true…

Suzie Ferguson: …hang on a minute. Um why did you say that?

James Shaw: What I said was we should be asking ourselves the question of whether or not we deserved to be, and we should be asking ourselves that question al the time, on the basis that at the last election ah you know a majority of New Zealanders voted for change, they voted for bold change.

I don’t see how he can claim that. People vote the way they do for a wide variety of reasons. Some may even have voted for NZ First hoping they would go into Government with National. The party wanting the most radical change, the Greens, got substantially fewer votes than they got in the previous election.

James Shaw: Now you know tax reform was…

Suzie Ferguson: And now you say they’re not getting it as of yesterday.

James Shaw: …well no tax reform is a part of that picture but it’s only a part of that picture. And like I said if you look at everything that we’re doing, whether it’s in the domain of lifting people out of poverty or ending homelessness or cleaning up the environment, ah you know action on climate change.

We have taken some really big calls and we will be taking some really big calls over the course of the coming eighteen months before the next election.

Depending on what Winston allows them to call.

James Shaw: And so in the round yes, I do believe that we deserve to be re-elected, but we should never stop asking ourselves that question.

On the basis of losing the CGT battle, and the big calls to be made over the next 18 months, I think it is premature to claim the Greens deserve to be re-elected.

From Shaw’s big speech to start the year in Parliament in February:

Now, the Green Party has long been calling for that fundamental imbalance to be addressed, and every single expert working group in living memory has agreed with us, but no Government—no Government—has been bold enough to actually do it. But if we are to be the Government of change that New Zealanders wanted and elected, we must be bold.

The crises that we face on multiple fronts—the wealth gap, climate change, the housing crisis—we cannot solve without fundamental reform. These crises have been allowed to metastasise because generations of politicians have timidly tinkered rather than actually cut to the core of the problem.

And the consequences of that timidity—the consequences of that timidity—are being felt by Karen and by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders just like her, trapped in “Generation Rent”. So when the commentators pontificate about whether this Government can politically afford to do what no other Government before it has done, I ask “Can we afford not to?”

Can we afford not to?

We were elected on the promise of change. If we want to reduce the wealth gap, if we want to fix the housing crisis and to build a productive high-wage economy, we need to tax income from capital the same way that we tax income from work.

The very last question that we should be asking ourselves is: can we be re-elected if we do this? The only question we really ought to be asking ourselves is: do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?

That’s a question that voters will answer in 18 months.

See James Shaw slams tax timidity, calls on Labour, NZ First to be bold with CGT

 

 

“Stop infantilising us. I personally hate the Rainbow whanau/family nonsense.”

Some sensible words from @aniobrien on the Israel Folau fallout, and some strong words to Green MPs, who are politicising lesbians and gays, on their “Rainbow whanau/family” nonsense.

Just as there are diverse gender and sexuality preferences, there are diverse views within the LABC…XYZ – everyone who is not purely heterosexual (if that exists) – groups, communities and individuals.

I’m not a lesbian or gay but I agree with what Ani says about Israel Folau’s insistence that anyone who doesn’t ‘repent’ follow his beliefs will go to some sort of hell.

Dismissing Folau is entirely the decision of Rugby Australia and it is likely that he breached his contract with them by bringing the sport into disrepute. This is simply Folau reaping the consequences of his actions. This isn’t the first time he has courted controversy.

Folau has rightly been publicly condemned, however I don’t think his speech should be subject to legal measures. It is not illegal to be offensive. It is not illegal to practice religion. Nor should it be.

Just as I have a right to call Folau a religious nutbar with a habit of hypocrisy who is reaping what he has sowed, he has the right to say I am going to hell for being a total homo. Hilarious because hell doesn’t exist!

Hell is a threat rather than a place. It’s been used as the ultimate bogeyman, a place equivalent of Knecht Ruprecht just as heaven is a place equivalent of Saint Nicholas/Santa – age old threat/reward trick.

Ani then lays into politicians who are politicising homosexuality.

There has been a lot of pearl clutching by heterosexual politicians invested in portraying lesbians and gays as fragile and on the precipice of suicide. I really wish they would cut it out. We are one of the most resilient groups of people on the planet.

I have a few messages for NZ politicians who’re politicising me & other lesbians and gays:

  1. Stop with the irresponsible suicide rhetoric. All research shows that this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy and risks contagion. You can support us without invoking dodgy suicide stats.
  2. Stop infantilising us. I personally hate the “Rainbow whanau/family” nonsense. Partly because our “community” has never been so divided & partly because it sounds like a kindergarton play group.
  3. Stop conflating transgenderism with homosexuality. Folau didn’t even mention trans people. We are not synonymous. We are very different & piggy-backing them on to all of our issues is unhelpful.
  4. Stop hyperbolising what hate speech is. 50 people were massacred in Christchurch & when you lump in offensive speech with the hate & violence of the man responsible for the terrorist attack you insult their memory.
  5. Stop undermining free speech principles. When you censor & restrict speech it is those in power who dictate acceptability. This means minority groups & those challenging systems of oppression are the first to be silenced.
  6. Stop virtue-signalling & playing identity politics & for the love of goddess please focus on the policies that acutely affect us – you know like our planet becoming rapidly uninhabitable. I’m looking at you
  7. Start listening to all of your constituents – even those you don’t agree with.
  8. Start basing your policy decisions on science and fact not the ideology of a small minority. Most of us do not want to be governed by the religion or belief systems we don’t subscribe to. We are a secular nation.
  9. Start leading by example. Divisive messaging does not solve anything. Your mates in your (not so) secret Facebook groups might cheer you on, but it is not smart politics or good for NZ.
  10. Start speaking up. I know a great number of you can see the harm that comes from this brand of silencing, divisive identity politics. It’s time to get brave and say something.

Divisive messaging does not solve anything. Can you take that on board Marama Davidson? Golriz Gharaman?

Marama Davidson lays into the blame game

The degree to which Marama Davidson takes her arguments here is alarming, especially for a political party leader.

While most of the country is coming together with a common purpose of sympathy and empathy, she seems to be intent on blaming and dividing.

Yesterday from her speech in Ministerial Statements — Mosque Terror Attacks—Christchurch

I know that we must work together, all of us, to become an Aotearoa where everyone is safe to pray, or not—an Aotearoa where people are safe to be who they are.

I also acknowledge the calls from those in Muslim communities to ensure that we tell the truth right from the start. I note the Muslim voices highlighting the truth that New Zealand has a long history of colonial policy, discourse, and violence that sought to harm indigenous peoples. As tangata whenua, I am aware that we need to build connections now more than ever, to heal, and to create loving futures for everyone.

There are some major contradictions in this.

So what do we do now? I am energised by the signs of people now reflecting on their own bias and prejudice and committing to fighting racism with all their might.

We have a big shift ahead of us. We have lessons to learn. We have conversations to have. It’s just that this seems like it was too big a price to pay to get us to this point. In closing, to our Muslim communities, we love you, not just because you are us, but because you are you. Kia ora.

Davidson needs to learn that those of us who have some colonial history in our whanau are also part of ‘us’.

She is correct in saying “we must work together, all of us” – she just needs to learn what that actually means, and she needs to learn that divisive speech is contrary to what she is imploring here.

 

Marama Davidson: “I had to pull the party together”

Marama Davidson is a radical activist who has struggled to work with the realities of being in Parliament, and especially the realities of leading a party in Government.

She had an opportunity to mmake a mark while co-leader James Shaw is busy being a Minister trying to establish the Greens as a party in power, but she is still more of a niche politician trying to appeal to a wider audience.

She has a long way to go to lift the Green Party out of Labour’s shadow, and the big challenge here is to do this without appearing to be too left wing radical, which would deter support from those who prefer the greens as an environmental party.

Newsroom – Davidson: very Green, very outspoken and a lot to prove

On the reality of last year’s Green leadership contest:

But all was not well behind the scenes. The contest brought to the fore an identity crisis for the very soul of the party. At its heart was a question of whether the Greens were radical enough — and whether, as a party of Government, it would naturally move further to the centre, losing its activist raison d’être.

Eugenie Sage and Julie Anne Genter were prospects for taking the leadership position left vacant by Metiria Turei.

Then there was Marama Davidson. Entering Parliament in 2015, she was the least experienced potential contender and initially hesitant to run. But she was popular with the party’s activist left, who lobbied strongly for her to put her hat in the ring in the hope she would counterbalance Shaw’s perceived corporate-ness and pull the party back to the left.

Sitting down one year later, Davidson admitted the time after the leadership battle was difficult.

“We went through some tough stuff and none of it was very secret,” she said.

“I had to pull the party together”.

But has she?

But the first few months were difficult. The Greens had haemorrhaged staff through the first half of 2018, stretching the party’s back room. The chaos came to a head in June when the party forgot to lodge its Parliamentary questions.

Then further chaos erupted in August, when Davidson told a protest she would reclaim the C-word because she was sick of being slandered with it online. The episode quickly spiralled out of control.

Looking back on it now, Davidson is mostly disappointed the story became about the appropriateness of the word, rather than the fact she was campaigning against the online abuse she received.

Observers felt it showed a lack of focus from the Green leadership as the campaign drew ever more attention, diverting people from the party’s work elsewhere. Less time thinking about climate change, more time thinking about, well, the c-word.

That didn’t pull the party together.

Davidson still has a lot to prove — especially to the hard left of the party who lobbied so effectively to elevate her to the leadership. Criticising the Government from her position is hard — some would say impossible.

Davidson could go harder in future. She thinks one of the main reasons the Maori Party didn’t survive was because it failed to properly hold the National Government to account. She sees continuing to put pressure on Labour as being essential to the Greens’ survival in Government.

On the other side of the equation, concessions won by Davidson from within Government, like Phil Twyford’s work on improving rental properties, are significant but hardly enough to take back to a hungry electorate in 2020.

There is the suggestion this has meant some on the hard-left of the party are dissatisfied with her leadership.

On Sunday, she will make a speech to party members at the Greens’ summer policy conference about the wellbeing budget and the environment.

She has made that speech: Marama Davidson – Summer Policy Conference

The conference has some big decisions to make, not least of which is whether to sign the Greens up to another round of Budget Responsibility Rules for the next parliamentary term.

With both Davidson and the membership strongly opposed, its likely the party will junk the rules for the next election. However Labour, which will control the finance portfolio in any future left-wing Government is likely to sign back up.

The looming question for the Greens is whether or not they can force the larger party’s hand – getting them to release, or even loosen the purse strings in any future Government.

RNZ: Greens want wide-ranging tax reform

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson wants a capital gains tax to be just the start of wide-ranging tax reform.

There’s real doubt Labour will even go for the CGT.

Speaking at the party’s summer policy conference Ms Davidson told members that resistance to a tax on capital gains came from a wealthy elite who are holding the country’s political system hostage.

She said the Greens want more reform including a tax rate for the richest 1 percent and taxing polluting big businesses and housing speculators.

Davidson was asked about this on RNZ this morning, and she came across as waffly and unsure. Outside her radical Green circles, her comfort zone, she struggles.

It may be to soon to judge whether Davidson is more asset or liability for the Green re-election chances. She has to find an assured and credible way of talking to a wider audience.

I see no sign of her pulling the party together. More like the opposite.

 

Greens versus NZ First and Labour conservatism

Does Labour use NZ First as an excuse to be conservative on economic and other policies to avoid being linked to Green radicalism? They do use the Budget Responsibility Rules to be conservative. They are an agreement with the Green Party to allay fears of a swing too far left in the last election campaign, but there is disagreement over having the Rules within the Green Party.

I have seen dismay expressed from the the left that the Government is nowwhere near progressive enough,.

Henry Cooke (Stuff):  The Greens are looking forward to 2020 already, and the possibility of a world without Winston

At their annual conference last year, a prominent Green Party member gave a speech which called for the party to tear up a central tenet of their partnership with Labour.

He received a standing ovation. Most of the Green MPs present, who had signed off the policy, were in the room. Several agreed with him.

The policy was the Budget Responsibility Rules a set of tight government spending guidelines Labour and the Greens agreed to ahead of the 2017 election. They have gone on to play a huge role in how the parties have governed.

The idea was to blunt the attacks from the right that a Labour-Green government would blow up the surplus and destroy the economy.

Ever since Green supporters and some MPs have been agitating for the party to get rid of the rules. In the last week this began. A “review” of those budgetary constraints has been launched, but this is just a procedural step on the way to either scrapping them or modifying them before the 2020 election.

There always seemed a likelihood that Labour and the Greens would need NZ First to give them any chance of getting into Government last election, and so it turned out.

It’s a long way from the election but there appears to be a greater chance that NZ First won’t make the threshold next year. This would give the Greens more influence over Labour, depending on how many seats they get. If Greens recovered back up to ten to fifteen seats, and were in Cabinet with Labour, they should get significantly more say and sway.

In the same week, co-leader James Shaw made the most forceful argument for a capital gains tax anyone has in years, saying the Government wouldn’t deserve to be re-elected if they didn’t implement one.

That was a big play from Shaw, mostly to his party wanting more reform from Government.

​The election is next year, and the Greens are getting ready by staking out positions on the left. At the same time, some in the party are daring to look forward to a world without Winston Peters.

Fixing this requires not just talking up wins in Government but very clearly pushing left on tax – an issue likely to dominate through this year and into the next thanks to the tax working group – as well as balancing the books. These might seem like small bore issues but they are very important to that core of committed supporters.

NZ First are likely to try to distance themselves from relying on Labour next year to try to fool voters and Labour negotiators into thinking they could go either way.

So Labour+Green will be an important consideration for voters.

Many Greens see Peters and NZ First as the reactionary laggard keeping this Government from truly transforming the country. But it has long been useful for centrist Labour MPs to blame NZ First for their own conservatism. Labour will be extremely conscious of how scared the wider public might feel about a radical Labour-Green government in 2020.

Keeping the budget deal in place might well be Ardern’s plan to placate those fears.

For Labour, yes. And possibly for Shaw. But what about green supporters disappointed with the lack of progress leftwards this term, and impatient for more radical reforms?

Possibly one of the most significant decisions for the next election will be what the Green party decides to do about the Rules, that some see as a brick wall in front of progress and real progressivism.

One thing that may make it easier for Greens pulling Labour left is the conservatism of Simon Bridges pulling National further right.

Unless the Sustainability Party gets some support in the centre.

Wrong data analysis of ‘teal vote’ support for the Greens

*/With the possibility of a Blue-Green party being raised again questions are being asked about whether there might be  enough voter support for another environmental party.

However the wrong questions are being asked – of ‘current Green voters’, and those who voted Green last election. They strongly prefer red over blue, or Labour over National.

Stuff: ‘Teal’ vote within Green Party minuscule, data suggests

Data suggests the supposed “teal” section of National-leaning Green voters is tiny.

But data from the New Zealand Election Study, a long-running scientific analysis of voter behaviour, suggests the overwhelming majority of current Green voters lean left.

The study consists of a survey of 3445 respondents following the election, who are asked a huge variety of questions. Their votes are validated and the results weighted to the wider voting public.

Fully 84.42 per cent of those who party voted Green said they would prefer Labour to lead the Government. Just under a tenth (8.47 per cent) picked National while 5.02 per cent said they didn’t know and 2.09 per cent said they didn’t want either party to lead.

Furthermore, these voters overwhelmingly rated themselves as left-of-centre politically – far more than Labour voters did.

Roughly three quarters (74.63 per cent) of Green voters rated themselves as left-of-centre on a ten point scale. Another fifth (20.1 per cent) either “didn’t know” or put themselves in the centre. Just 5.26 per cent rated themselves as right of centre.

This compared to just over half (50.58 per cent) of Labour voters who rated themselves as left-of-centre.

But there were only 6.27% of voters who chose Greens in the 2017 election. This was well down on the 10.7% who voted green in 2014, and much lower than up to 15% they were getting in polls two years ago. That’s a lot of potential voters who could consider an alternative environmental party.

There could easily be voters who chose National, Labour or NZ First last election. Or people who didn’t vote because they didn’t like any of the parties on offer.

The best way of determining possible levels of Blue-green party support is to poll everyone and ask them, and not limiting the data analysis to dedicated Green party voters.

And the only way of knowing for sure is to stand in the next election, and see what all voters indicate their preference.

Green Party donation versus party policy

The Greens have been bequeathed a $350,000 donation, their biggest ever and tens times larger than the limit proposed in their policy.

Green Party policy on donations includes:

Election Financing

  • Initiate a review of the overall operation of campaign finance rules, including rules around donations and spending caps and non-political party election activities
  • Introduce tighter limits on anonymous donations, place an annual limit of $35,000 on total donations from any single person or entity, and introduce a ban on overseas donations

The Greens tend to get smaller donations, but in 2016 the Greens received a donation of  $280,000 from the estate of Elizabeth Riddoch.

Last October Greens urge political donation reform

The Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson says New Zealand is open for corruption under the current rules around political donations.

She told Morning Report powerful businesses can gain influence with large donations.

“I think New Zealanders would be quite keen on a conversation on how we get big money out of politics,” she said.

“What we’ve seen around the world is that those with particular interests can have millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of influence on political policy.

“We’ve already seen a $100,000 donation to the National Party being questioned, from someone who is a powerful businessman.

“I want to see equal access and not just big money having undue influence over our political system.”

“New Zealanders are starting to understand we could go down a slippery slope here”.

She said a cap on donations would give Kiwis more confidence in the political system.

But now $350,000 donation to the Greens, from late party member’s estate, the largest to a major political party in almost a decade (NZ Herald)

A $350,000 donation to the Greens in December is the largest single donation to a major political party in almost a decade.

It was also the largest to the Green Party in its 30-year history.

It was made by Betty Harris on December 13 last year. She died in January 2018 and the donation was part of her will.

The Green’s general-secretary Gwen Shaw said the party was very grateful for Harris’ donation.

She had been a party member since 1999.

“She was a lovely woman; never made a fuss but just got on with whatever she thought she could do to improve the world.”

Harris lived in East Auckland and was an active supporter of her local branch, particularly when she was younger, Shaw said.

A bit of ‘do as I say, not as I do’, but money is money, ‘gratefully accepted’, despite being contrary to Green policy.

What if Greens had been successful in placing ‘an annual limit of $35,000 on total donations from any single person or entity’?

In that situation if an amount larger than $35,000 was bequeathed to a party what would happen? If the party couldn’t legally accept it, what would happen to the money? Would the estate have to redistribute it elsewhere?

 

 

Genetic modification, carbon emissions and the Greens

An interesting discussion at The Standard yesterday on genetic modification in New Zealand, in general and how this relates to the Green party anti-GE stance.

Andre kicked it off with:

Genetic modification to dramatically improve photosynthetic efficiency. It could help us deal with the challenges of a world on its way to 10 billion humans. If only the rabids can get over their blind kneejerk opposition to genetic modification *because Monsanto*.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/re-engineering-photosynthesis-gives-plants-a-40-growth-boost/

Greens are faced with a dilemma if GE can provide a viable means of reducing carbon emissions.

“Your argument that selective breeding is comparative to GE is, to speak plainly, plainly bullshit.”

They’re different tools for doing the same job, with GE being a faster and more precise tool. Someone who chooses to protect in a plant a natural mutation that’s useful to the person but would be evolutionarily disadvantageous to the plant isn’t taking a “holistic” or “natural” approach any more than a genetic engineer does. They’re both just using the tools they have to achieve a desired outcome.

Your statements about “breaking the planet” and biodiversity are claims about human population growth and industrial farming in general, not genetic engineering in particular. The entire planet could outlaw GE tomorrow and the problems you’re referring to would still exist, and could conceivably be worse. This is a common problem with the arguments of GE opponents, ie the arguments often do not support the conclusions claimed.

https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05-01-19/#comment-1568502

But there’s a lot more to the issue than this. There are a lot of arguments and discussions. I don’t have time at the moment to try to summarise. Discussions are in several threads:

https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05-01-19/#comment-1568075

https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05-01-19/#comment-1568107

https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05-01-19/#comment-1568076

Green involvement in water quality, rangatira and kaitiaki rights

Although Labour’s Environment Minister David Parker introduced Action announced for “a noticeable improvement in water quality” this is a big deal for the Green Party, who ensured water quality would be addressed in their Confidence and Supply Agreement with Labour.

Under ‘Sustainable Economy’:

5. Provide assistance to the agricultural sector to reduce biological emissions, improve water quality, and shift to more diverse and sustainable land use including more forestry

Under ‘Healthy Environment’:

7. Improve water quality and prioritise achieving healthy rivers, lakes and aquifers with stronger regulatory instruments, funding for freshwater enhancement and winding down Government support for irrigation.

a. The Resource Management Act will be better enforced.

I can’t find much on this in the media, but Green co-leader Marama Davidson said this via email – not surprisingly and justifiably Greens see this as a win for them:


Our streams, rivers, and lakes are precious to all of us. Freshwater is the lifeblood of our communities. That’s why we’re pleased that today the Government is continuing work to deliver on the Green Party’s commitment to clean up our rivers so they’re clean and healthy for our kids and grandkids.

The Green Party have long championed cleaning up our waterways and protecting them from pollution.

Russel Norman spent a summer kayaking several awa highlighting the growing pollution. When National slashed the freshwater standards Catherine Delahunty toured the country to restore them, and last year we made rivers a priority in the 2017 election campaign.

Together, we’ve put cleaning up our rivers on the political agenda. And today, with the Greens at the heart of Government, we’re making tangible progress.

As part of our agreement with Labour, we’ve secured prioritising healthy rivers, lakes, and aquifers.

Because of that, today the Government is announcing:

  • A comprehensive work programme to clean up our most at-risk catchments
  • Strengthening the National Policy Statement on freshwater
  • A new environmental standard to protect water
  • Improvements to the RMA
  • Beginning work on catchment-by-catchment allocations

We’ve still got a long journey ahead to make our rivers healthy and safe to swim in. But, today’s announcement shows this government is flowing in the right direction.

However, a key area that we think needs strengthening is to properly recognise that Māori have rangatira and kaitiaki rights over water, as guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We’ll continue to push for this to be honoured.

Protecting the environment and recognising Māori rights go hand-in-hand.