The problem for the Greens is that in his drive to make Labour electable again new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has ditched many items from the government’s agenda that the Greens were champions for.
Co-governance of water resources which the Greens wanted to entrench last year was an early casualty. Last week it was joined by climate change emissions targets in the roading sector which were dropped in favour of repairing highways after the cyclones. This week, the clean car rebate; reductions in road speeds as the part of the Greens-sponsored “Road to Zero” programme; reform of alcohol laws which the Greens have been pushing hard on, and legislation to lower the voting age to 16, another Greens’ favourite, have all been dropped.
Other Greens priorities at present like a wealth tax, and a tax on windfall profits in the banking sector, are also finding little favour with Hipkins’ Labour. All of which leaves the Greens in quite a predicament about what to do post-election if Labour needs their support to form a new government.
But it is also a problem for Labour. Having so emphatically abandoned so many of the policies dearest to the Greens’ hearts as distractions and too expensive, Hipkins will have no credibility if he seeks to re-introduce some or all of them after the election as the price of a coalition or new confidence and supply agreement with the Greens. To do so, would be the ultimate act of duplicity, which voters would take a long time to forgive.
Yet, if Shaw’s comments are to be taken seriously, and not just treated as pre-election shadowboxing, Hipkins will have to offer some significant concessions to the Greens if he wishes to remain Prime Minister after the election. Voters can therefore be rightfully suspicious that policies abandoned now as unaffordable, or undesirable, and a few more besides, will re-emerge after the election as the price of a deal with the Greens.
In a telling remark last week justifying why the RNZ/TVNZ Merger Board was still meeting weeks after the project had been dropped by the Prime Minister, Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson suggested the move was only temporary and that plan could well emerge at some future point. That candid admission inevitably raises the question of what other pet projects that have been jettisoned so quickly now in the quest for electoral popularity will resurface just as quickly if Labour remains in office.
Labour needs to spell out before the election which of the policies the media love to say Hipkins has put on the bonfire, are gone forever, and which ones will be revived if it gets the chance to do so. And the Greens need to make clear what their expectations are in this regard. That way, voters will know whether Labour really has become more pragmatic and responsive under Hipkins, or whether the whole policy review was just a charade to allow Labour breathing space before the election. The Greens, too, need to spell out what policies they have acquiesced on just to get through the election, and which ones they would expect to see reinstated if there is a Labour/Greens government next year.
National’s Luxon makes the point that if the policy bonfire is a genuine scrapping of unpopular policies, then the Labour government is left with very little to show for the last five and a half years in office. He now needs to hammer home this point – that, by its own admission, Labour’s cupboard is bare, and therefore that the last five and a years have been largely a waste of time. National also needs to constantly harry Labour on what policies are gone forever and which ones will return after the election, as the price of doing a deal with the Greens.
In a nutshell, it comes down to this. Labour cannot stay in government without the support of the Greens, notwithstanding their current grumpiness and threats not to support Labour. Each knows the only outcome from that would be a National-led government, which would be political anathema to both. Therefore, some sort of deal will have to be done between them.
Consequently, voters will be rightfully wary about how credible, Hipkins’ self-proclaimed “bread and butter” policy reset is, or whether, as is looking increasingly likely, it is no more than a cynical stunt to save Labour’s electoral bacon.
The Greens may well know the answer already.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com
Other Greens priorities at present like a wealth tax, and a tax on windfall profits in the banking sector, are also finding little favour with Hipkins’ Labour. All of which leaves the Greens in quite a predicament about what to do post-election if Labour needs their support to form a new government.
But it is also a problem for Labour. Having so emphatically abandoned so many of the policies dearest to the Greens’ hearts as distractions and too expensive, Hipkins will have no credibility if he seeks to re-introduce some or all of them after the election as the price of a coalition or new confidence and supply agreement with the Greens. To do so, would be the ultimate act of duplicity, which voters would take a long time to forgive.
Yet, if Shaw’s comments are to be taken seriously, and not just treated as pre-election shadowboxing, Hipkins will have to offer some significant concessions to the Greens if he wishes to remain Prime Minister after the election. Voters can therefore be rightfully suspicious that policies abandoned now as unaffordable, or undesirable, and a few more besides, will re-emerge after the election as the price of a deal with the Greens.
In a telling remark last week justifying why the RNZ/TVNZ Merger Board was still meeting weeks after the project had been dropped by the Prime Minister, Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson suggested the move was only temporary and that plan could well emerge at some future point. That candid admission inevitably raises the question of what other pet projects that have been jettisoned so quickly now in the quest for electoral popularity will resurface just as quickly if Labour remains in office.
Labour needs to spell out before the election which of the policies the media love to say Hipkins has put on the bonfire, are gone forever, and which ones will be revived if it gets the chance to do so. And the Greens need to make clear what their expectations are in this regard. That way, voters will know whether Labour really has become more pragmatic and responsive under Hipkins, or whether the whole policy review was just a charade to allow Labour breathing space before the election. The Greens, too, need to spell out what policies they have acquiesced on just to get through the election, and which ones they would expect to see reinstated if there is a Labour/Greens government next year.
National’s Luxon makes the point that if the policy bonfire is a genuine scrapping of unpopular policies, then the Labour government is left with very little to show for the last five and a half years in office. He now needs to hammer home this point – that, by its own admission, Labour’s cupboard is bare, and therefore that the last five and a years have been largely a waste of time. National also needs to constantly harry Labour on what policies are gone forever and which ones will return after the election, as the price of doing a deal with the Greens.
In a nutshell, it comes down to this. Labour cannot stay in government without the support of the Greens, notwithstanding their current grumpiness and threats not to support Labour. Each knows the only outcome from that would be a National-led government, which would be political anathema to both. Therefore, some sort of deal will have to be done between them.
Consequently, voters will be rightfully wary about how credible, Hipkins’ self-proclaimed “bread and butter” policy reset is, or whether, as is looking increasingly likely, it is no more than a cynical stunt to save Labour’s electoral bacon.
The Greens may well know the answer already.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com
6 comments:
Bang on Peter, it’s all show. Labour have jettisoned nothing. It’s all on the back burner, ready to be rolled right out again if they win.
As for the public getting all grumpy with Chippy if he reneges on his promises, most couldn’t give a rats, they are far too stupid and Labour know it.
Look what happens when Labour change a leader, they go up in the polls. No substance as to why, just change the face and up go the votes.
The NZ public are Dunces, half can’t read, write or add two and two together.
Election night will prove me right.
How can you vote for a Government that locks you up, forces you to take vaccines you don’t want and locks Citizen's out of its own Country?
Any normal person wouldn’t but half on NZ would. The only conclusion, they are stupid beyond belief.
well said anonymous couldnt agree more, unless the polls are rigged and i wouldnt put it past labour
Politics is a charade now. Labour have wasted a rare, precious, never-to-be-seen-again majority in an MMP parliament and squandered an opportunity for real and meaningful change in society. The business and agriculture sectors and the population generally are under huge pressures mostly caused by or exacerbated by Jacinda Ardern's intellectual wasteland of ideologies. History will not be kind to her. And it's not over yet with Hipkins just speaking from both sides of his mouth.
The Greens have nothing even with Chloe. Unicorns anyone?
MC
And stupid is destructive.....
though i'm not eligible to vote and i'm not religious, i'll pray every day that chloe loses auckland central and greens don't cross the mmp threshold. i have never seen a city centre electorate destroyed like this in less than three years :(
Anyone who votes for the greens is just wasting a vote. They are now a completely irrelevant cult with nothing but imaginary AGW as their platform. Why should the population have to waste money on brain dead MPs whose sole purpose is to engender fear amongst the young and the easily influenced(Luxon, Willis and Bishop) about a fictitious scam invented to extort money from weak governments. If Swarbrick is the best that Auckland Central voters can come up with there must be something in Auckland's water that is mind altering.
The labour cult are very little better and have proven that they cannot be trusted.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.