And the Prime Minister mentioned it the day before the election. Very cynical. The Nats may be doing a little better on social policy, but that’s not saying much considering their very low starting point, and most of what they’ve done has been for political reasons only, to dilute social matters as issues for the opposition, not because they believe in the policies. And the most urgent social policy, housing, they are still dismal on. But ironically, the Nats are happy to compromise on social policy to form a coalition, as was demonstrated with the Maori Party. What they won’t compromise on is economic policy, as that is what they really care about. The first thing they did upon becoming govt in 2008 was go into urgency to repeal or gut every environmental bill passed in the previous term by Labour and the Greens. That was their very first priority. Later, when they gutted the emissions trading scheme a second time to allow such things as Russian hot air credits into NZ, the Maori Party stated very forcefully and publicly that they would not support the bill, which sent the value of NZ credits – many had been granted to iwi groups – to almost zero. They were told their entire relationship with National was in jeopardy if they did so and had to make a humiliating public retraction. Those, like Gareth Morgan and a lot of the media, who say the Greens should drop their concern for people and focus on the environment so they can work with the Nats have it exactly backwards. They just don’t know what they’re talking about.

And thanks, we had a great trip!

Welcome back!

I agree that the economic policies of the Greens and Nats are too far apart. Currently the Nats are doing a much better job on social policy though than they often have in the past even as recently as last decade.

No one gets all they want in a coalition. However, I think Bolger was mostly being mischievous when he mentioned it. I think it was a tactic to strengthen the Nats negotiating position.

I can understand why Nat supporters would prefer to try things out with the Greens, rather than Winston. I even know Nats at Parliament who have said they’d rather go into opposition than deal with Winston again. But it isn’t the right thing to do, nor do I think it would work. It wouldn’t work because the differences are too great in both policy goals, but also fundamental values. As I heard someone say recently, it’s like asking the Against People’s Faces Being Eaten Off Party to form a govt with the Eating People’s Faces Off Party. Most of the electorate don’t understand the gap is so wide, because they don’t understand how fundamentally at odds green economics is with neo-liberal capitalism. (This is also why some people think social issues shouldn’t be part of the Green kaupapa, when they are actually not separable.) The punditry certainly should know all this, and I don’t know if they are actually ignorant or being mischievous in not educating their readers as to the facts. And it isn’t the right thing to do, because the Greens campaigned specifically to remove the Nats as govt, not prop them up for a forth term. Doing the exact opposite (as Winston did in 1996) would kill them at the polls in 2020.

And the reason it won’t happen is that the membership decides whether to accept a coalition proposal, not the leadership. As James Shaw has said, the Nats would need to entirely change their stripes for a blue/green coalition proposal to have a chance. Just not going to happen. I’m just back from overseas so haven’t been following closely, but this article covers a lot of these points.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97564343/nz-first-talks-with-national-labour

I get confused because when I was a kid there was a famous NZ jockey called Lance On Sullivan. He looks Maori to me. There’s been so much intermarriage that pure-blooded Maori are virtually non-existant. I have cousins who are full siblings with a wide range of skin tone in one family, including whiter than me, and most of my ancestry is Scottish.

No, Kiwi isn’t derogatory – it’s what we call ourselves. It should be capitalized though! 🙂

Lots of people have told me it’s good. Enough that I think I would actually enjoy it!

I read it before it won any awards that I knew of…just a lucky recommendation from an old friend. As a kiwi (that isn’t derogatory is it?) you probably wouldn’t find it as novel (no pun intended) and fascinating as a young adult from the U.S., esp. back in the early 90’s when the earth and its information matrix was much smaller.

Actually, I haven’t read The Bone People. I’ve never got around to it. Everyone says it’s excellent, but every time I read a book that’s won lots of awards I’ve hated it so I never know whether people are just saying it because they think they should. As a result, I tend to avoid books that win awards.

Speaking of the Maori, have you ever read Keri Hulme’s The Bone People? I imagine you have since she’s a national treasure and that’s her most famous novel. I read it around 1990. It was my first introduction to a New Zealand novelist and the Maori people. I absolutely loved the book’s characters, tone, style and imagery. It is also violent and disturbing, but somehow succeeds as a wonderful love story. Hulme seemed optimistic that the West and the Maoris could coincide, integrate and succeed together.