Russel Norman is all upset. Not only did his Overseas Investment Bill get voted down at First Reading last night, but he had this little outburst on Twitter:
We agree with Russel Norman; MP's should be focused on issues, and not personalities.
And therein lies Russel's dilemma; he's not above a bit of name-calling himself, as Stuff reports:
Greens co-leader Russel Norman says his member’s bill to restrict foreign land ownership is likely to be narrowly defeated tonight by an ‘‘evil coalition’’.
9 comments:
The Greens made a big mistake in going for Norman over Tanzcos, Norman comes across as a smarmy Aussie with a superiority complex.
@ Michael..... you mean like any politician does???
Realistically I think Norman is the reason the Greens are performing so well in the Polls. despite some shortcomings and behaving like a petulant pratt, he has brought "an acceptable face" to the Watermelons.
Is this sarcasm? You can't honestly believe Nachos was better for the Greens than Russ the Muss? The Greens, IMHO, have played a very strong game in getting rid of the lunatic face of the party (Nachos, Bradford) in order to be taken more seriously. And thanks to Labour's incompetence as well, they're doing well.
Will be interesting to see how many seats they lose when Labour sorts their shit out.
I agree that Russel's comments were not helpful but I can appreciate why he made them. It is extremely frustrating when bills with merit are voted down by a Government supported by an MP whose very existence in Parliament is through questionable circumstances whose ethics have also been justifiably questioned.
While I wouldn't go as far as using the word evil (the Green's generally avoid this kind of broad descriptor or label) this appears to be common practice from National and other parties.
The Greens have proved themselves as a worthy opposition party that is well informed and prepared to offer alternatives to policies they disagree with. I have noted that responses to genuine questions to Ministers have often been answered with personal attacks rather than direct answers and the speaker frequently has to ask for the question to be addressed properly and comments to be withdrawn.
Given Paula Bennett's recent response to the Privacy Commissioners decision and lack of understanding of the issue of privacy and breach of power; the disregard of basic ethics and good conduct in the support of John Banks; the misinformation and innuendo used in progressing legislation and policies like Charter Schools and drug testing beneficiaries, I can understand Russel's frustration.
Rather than "evil" I would have used a more factually based and specific adjective like unethical, ill-informed, impetuous, callous, self-serving etc-all of which have a multitude of actual examples to support them. The word "evil" may collectively cover them all, but is a value judgment that goes a step too far.
I agree that Russel's comments were not helpful but I can appreciate why he made them. It is extremely frustrating when bills with merit are voted down by a Government supported by an MP whose very existence in Parliament is through questionable circumstances whose ethics have also been justifiably questioned.
@ bsprout - I presume you mean by one; no, make that two ELECTORATE MP's who have a mandate from the voters who chose them. How many Green MP's are electorate MP's?
KS, when voters place a tick in the box for the party vote, they are voting for a combination of party policy and their confidence in who is represented on the party list. A person who is elected on the party list have just as much right to be in parliament as a candidate who wins an electorate seat. MMP allows for both and both have a clear a voter mandate (perhaps this is a separate argument we need to have).
I struggle with the process that enabled John Banks to represent Epsom as an MP and to continue in that role when:
-He needed the support of the National Party to be successful as an Act candidate in the electorate
-judging by his campaign and numerous statements since, there is ample doubt around his commitment to the philosophies of the Act Party and what he really stands for.
-His unethical behaviour as a mayoral candidate create doubts around his suitability as a Minister, where honesty and integrity must count for something.
Banks' election as the MP for Epsom is no more dodgy than Russel Norman's ascension to Parliament bsprout. I'll happily elaborate if you want :D
I guess that you are implying that an illegal process or coercion was used to elevate Russel up the list as the new co leader of the party.
As an "insider" I believe the Greens processes in establishing our list rankings are very democratic, our party leaders are accountable to the party members every year when they are re-elected and those whom we support into parliament are seen as the best to represent us in that forum and on behalf of all New Zealanders. As with any party, Russel's position on the list and role as co-leader is mandated by our membership (as it should be with any party list or electorate candidate).
I am not conversant with Act's rules or procedure, but from an outside perspective I struggle to understand the party processes that determine their leadership (apparently non members can challenge party leaders successfully). John Banks continually forgets he is an Act MP and the extent of the coalition agreement between Act and National seems questionable considering the level of support Act received in the election (and is it just coincidence that Lesley Longstone was appointed to lead the Ministry of Education in NZ when she was responsible foe the implementation of Charter Schools in England?).
Ah the good old lacky bspit defence of the hypocrite migrant Wed Wussel.
As for their accountability ... well the only reason they are called green is because they are too YELLOW to admit they are RED
Post a Comment