Monday, February 14, 2011

The petty Greens

Stuff reports:

The Greens are blocking Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's speech to Parliament.

Ms Gillard arrives tomorrow for her two-day visit. On Wednesday she will become the first foreign leader to speak in Parliament's debating chamber, but Prime Minister John Key said there was some opposition to her proposed speech.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said no international head of state had ever addressed Parliament and allowing Ms Gillard to speak would set a precedent.

"The government of the day could invite all sorts of unpleasant people, like (former United States president) George Bush for example they had in Australia, that I think a lot of Members of Parliament would be uncomfortable with and so we thought the best thing was to keep a simple precedent."


Instead of that, Ms Gillard will speak tomorrow at an informal sitting of Parliament, because the Greens would not grant leave for history to be made.

We believe that this is an incredibly petty and short-sighted decision by Russel Norman and his fellow Greens. Given his reference to "unpleasant" former US President George Bush, we can only speculate that there is a political motivation behind this decision, given Australia's support for the US-led invasion of Iraq and participation in the war against the Taleban in Afghanistan.

A Facebook friend has made an interesting suggestion, saying:

If only enough people thought enough not to vote green - then we can block them from speaking in parliament also.

That's a very good thought. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Greens' determination to keep Parliament's debating chamber Kiwi-only led to the Greens losing their places in it? We'll keep everything crossed!

39 comments:

robertguyton said...

You've got 'everything crossed' in the hope that the Greens will disappear from Parliament Inv2?
And you call the Greens petty!
How miserly and bitter that statement makes you sound!
I see you in a new light and it's a turgid one.

Inventory2 said...

The Greens of 2011 are a vastly different group from the Fitzsimons/Donald Greens Robert, and the agenda has changed as well. It would not surprise me at all if they struggled to reach the 5% threshhold this year.

And don't tell me that you don't have everything crossed hoping for the left to win this year, even if that means the return of WRP ...

Gary said...

Russel Norman - an Aussie who is allowed to speak in our parliament preventing the leader of the country which is our closest ally to speak in the same venue. How rich is that??? Rod Donald would despair over what has happened to the Green Party with such short-sighted views...

robertguyton said...

Has anyone here wondered why it wasn't already standard practice to have international head's of state speak in our Parliament?
No thought as to why that might be?
No?

Anonymous said...

Petty? You have to be kidding. Have a wee think about constitutions and precedents and get back to us INV2. Astounding.

Inventory2 said...

A new precedent can be set at any time. It would, IMHO have been entirely appropriate for the Australian PM (even allowing for the fact that she is of the left) to be the first to address the Parliament, given our close ties to Australia.

Had Norman restricted his comments to the issue of precedent he might have got away with it. But his comments about preventing unpleasant people, like (former United States president) George Bush was more than a hint as to the underlying agenda.

Anonymous said...

Barking up the wrong tree once again Invention... stop playing the man and think about what really happened for a change instead of your usual cut'n'paste bullshit.

Santa

Inventory2 said...

"Stop playing the man"

Pot; meet kettle. Where is your comment on the content-matter of the thread rather than the blogger Santa? Is that a whiff of hypocisy I smell?

Anonymous said...

nope.

You're the blogger, you're waving the smoke about to create something out of nothing...

You get it right Invention and my comment will be more constructive....

but then again, as you never debate an issue, but prefer to launch into irrelevant side-issues like you have done here.... what's the point?

Santa

Anonymous said...

Why do you want to stop people choosing their representation as they wish? I'd be interested in knowing just what irks you about the Greens as I can not fathom what they have done that is so evil that warrents your continual pettiness.

Mary.

robertguyton said...

Have you looked into it Inv2?
Do you know what the 'standing orders' are around allowing international hos to speak yet?
Santa/mary's question around your snarky anti-Green comment is a fair one - why did you say that? What do you care that they challenged this 'precedent'?
Don't you appreciate the vigour of an opposition?
Like National to have Full Power do you?

James Stephenson said...

Not standard practice? Jeez, maybe because it's a privilege and an honour we might afford to the only country we term "cousins" and who hold open a spot in their Federation should we ever wish to join?

Can we invite the Chinese back to bash Russel again?

robertguyton said...

Kennedy Graham says:
"The NZ House of Representatives, sitting in session with the mace, is the symbol of national sovereignty. No one apart from New Zealand MPs has ever been allowed to address a sitting session of Parliament, not even our own Governor-General. The reason for this is that sitting sessions of Parliaments are for New Zealand law makers to exercise their democratic powers.

The idea that we would only invite our ‘closest friends’ to address Parliament in session is problematic. Who might they be, and where might the line be drawn? Australia might be seen as no. 1. Perhaps the US would be no. 2, and the UK no. 3. Which other countries might fit in the top ten? What would be the criteria? Where could the line be drawn? Such decisions are intrinsically political, and therefore subjectively influenced by the colours of a particular Government of the day – whereas the issue must be seen as having constitutional implications independent of politics.

The Green Party position, however, pertained only to having a foreign leader address the Parliament in session. We made it clear at the time that we welcomed the proposed visit as we had with previous visits."

Petty Inv2?
Come on, where's your argument?

robertguyton said...

James - no rational argument either?
Sheesh!
Feeble.

robertguyton said...

http://www.imperatorfish.com/2011/02/not-petty.html

Come on Inv2 - front up!

Anonymous said...

I do not believe Inventory wants the Green party to disappear altogether. I believe that, like myself, he wants them to disappear from parliament in a similar ignominious manner that the odious Winston First fan club experienced.

Our democratic [sic] society requires a release valve for the cognitively and socially challenged. This manifests itself in the form of political parties.

All parties, and the left in particular, offer visionary individuals like Robert Guyton a mechanism to harmlessly release potential energy.

However, occasionally tragedies, such as the Green’s obsession with banning stuff your average grown up can rationally manage, become law.

Why do I dislike the Green’s (and those of the “left”), more so than the “right” (that have faults too)?
Their political legerdemain for one, and this is true as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3DhquH12jQ

Liberty Scott presents reasoned arguments on the inadequacies of the Greens better than I can.

http://libertyscott.blogspot.com/search/label/Green%20Party

Ford Anglia (Prefect’s second cousin on his mother’s side).

Inventory2 said...

@ Robert - humble apologies for not being at your beck and call 24/7 to respond, but I do have a life, and a wife who is having surgery today.

Kennedy Graham's submission, considered though it may be does not alter the fact that Parliament can at any time (and frequently does, by consensus) give leave for Standing Orders to be set aside. The Greens are out of step with ALL other parties on this issue by refusing leave.

As I noted earlier, Russel Norman might have got away with this had he stuck to the line that Graham used. However he added the aside about "unpleasant people" and linked in to George Bush (not sure if he meant father, son or both), and that opened up him to allegations of anti-Americanism. The Greens need to be honest about their motives here, but that, of course, is just my opinion.

robertguyton said...

Ford - you dislike both the Left and the Right?
Something of a malcontent then, so I'll not take your grizzles about the Greens too seriously. Perhaps you ought to hook up with those serial fault-finders, the Libertarians and form a circle.
Inv2 - you too are annoyed by the Greens, this time because the didn't do what the Prime Mincer wanted. Despite their clear rationale for their decision, you still maintain they acted badly.
Consensus eh! It's a b*tch when it works against you!
As to the Bushes - surely to God you're not a fan Inv2.
Surely!

Inventory2 said...

Did I say that I was a fan of the Bushes RG? I only commented on them because they were the example that Norman used. I do not follow American politics especially closely, and am largely indifferent to it. Please don't put words in my cyber-mouth!

robertguyton said...

Ok.
I hope Mrs Inventory's day goes well.
She'll have enjoyed your Valentines Day treat from yesterday Inv2 and still be glowing from all the love :-)

Inventory2 said...

Here's hoping RG; thanks for the kind thoughts

robertguyton said...

Inventory2 - all over the NZ blogosphere, the stand taken by the Greens is being supported (not on your usual haunts, Kiwiblog and Gotcha but what would you expect from those shallow, anti-Green cess-pits:-)
You should think more deeply about your statement in this post and get back with a real point of view of your own.
The Greens were right to make the call they did.

getridofthedoublestandardslefties said...

The Left are the biggest hypocrites in the world.

They spend all day every day saying how "evil" the right are blah blah blah.

Then, when some dares to speak against the lefties, the left come out and attack the right for having an opinion.

Small minded lefties have one rule for themselves and another for everyone who ooposes them.

Especially that pratt robert guyton.

robertguyton said...

getrid - I'm floored by the power and finese of your argument - floored!!
Have decided to give up this commenting lark forever - how could I hope to compete with someone of your calibre???

RobertGuytonCantHandleTheTruth said...

ahhh. the usual tactic of Robert Guyton, Avoid the point that about lefties and instead come up with some lame sarcastic comment.

robertguyton said...

Okay RGCHTT, what is your point 'about the Left'. I'll argue that willingly.

robertguyton said...

The issue of this post is whether the Greens made the right call over people other than NZ MPs speaking in the House.
Is that what you want to debate?

getridofthedoublestandardslefties said...

Yes, I have heard about Robert Guytons antics to avoid the issue. He suffers from leftitis. A disease found in selfrighteous, arrogant, naive, lefties who cant accept the same crap that they give out.

It seems okay for left blogs to attack John "smile and wave" Key and other right wing pollies, but if anyone dares to challenge some of the lefts ideas they call right wingers all sorts of nasty things.

Shame really.

Both the left and the right have good and bad ideas.

Difference is that most right wing bloggers can accept and admit that some left wing ideas are good and that some right wing ideas are not so good.

But the left wing bloggers portray narrow mindedness, acting lilke all their ideas are wonderful and that all right wing ideas are "evil"

Shows th pettiness of the left, and that fact that they are so blinded by ideology that they can't see reality to spite themselves.

robertguyton said...

Gosh! It seems there are many people who think just as you do GROTDSL!!
I just can't quite make out what exactly it is that you are saying!
Can you put your concerns in a single sentence?

Anonymous said...

Robert said:

"your snarky anti-Green comment"

Yet it is alright for lefties to make anti nats comments? and they arent just as snarky?

Inventory2 said...

That's an excellent question Anon; what say you, Mr Guyton?

Anonymous said...

Inv2

He will probably totally ignore the question and tell us how wicked we are and that lefties aren't like that at all.

Inventory2 said...

We wait with bated breath Anon ...

Whalehunter said...

Checkmate Inventory & Anon

I have real friends. said...

No, you're all checkmated. Futile pointless drivel about shit. It shows how pathetic discussion of politics is. Go and live a life FFS.

robertguyton said...

Ha! Very good - I was interrupted by the arrival of a group of 30 women from a garden club, wanting to look around my garden. I had no idea they were arriving but they assured me they'd arranged it with me several months ago. That's done now so I can address your concerns (hopefully).

Anon - your question is (I think):
Do 'Lefties' make snarky comments about the Nats?
Yes.
Are they just as snarky?
Yes. Well, I am anyway.
I don't see the issue here, nor do I feel checkmated, nor have I ignored you, told you how wicked you are or said Lefties aren't like that at all. Your predictions were way off anon, I guess it has to be said.
Inv2 - my challenge to you, and in your usual manner you missed the subtlety of it, as have your minions (don't panic lads, he's only joking) is that while I 'snark' at Key and the Nats, I have never wished them expelled from Parliament as you Inv2 did the Greens. I'm not that shallow. I relish the conflict/tension of opposing parties and ideologies. To wish the National Party extinct would be both stupid and petty. Your wishing the same for the Greens is ...stupid and petty. I do hope you can all see the argument I'm making and I wonder Whalehunter if you still feel I'm checkmated now?

Anonymous said...

@ I Have Real Friends:

The irony in your statement. The fact that you are viewing, and commenting, on political blogs shows you are the same as what you accuse us of.

What a tosser.

Anonymous said...

checkmate! haha

what a circle-jerk of an arguement.

what is left and what is right? Labour is more right economically than National and National is drifting left with its $$ bail-outs and nannystate interference...

The pivot used to be equality but it's probably PCness now...

The reality is they're all shits who rip us off at every opportunity.

s.

robertguyton said...

I agree with IHaveRealFriends but once we've all accepted that it's true, we can get on and have some fun!