Russell's NZ correspondent (who I will address directly) writes:
> Although the Greens present themselves as 'left' on the political
> spectrum [...] there is nothing left-wing about the Greens that I can
> see.
> In effect, the Greens are the most naked face of the anti-humanist
> and irrationalist trends that are so prevalent in contemporary
> society.
but then rightly points out that they have:
> plunder[ed] a large amount of Alliance socio-economic policy
... which would seem to leave nobody on the left.
> It is hardly accidental that
> the Greens did best in the party vote in the more privileged white middle
> and upper income constituencies.
cf. http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electoratestatus.html - The greens did well in the highly stratified urban centres, but also in seats like Te Tai Tonga, Te Tai Tokerau, Hauraki, West Coast/Tasman, and Coromandel. In super-rich Epsom, they did slightly better than the national average of 5.2%, but in super-rich Ohariu-Belmont they did slightly worse. Poor people vote Labour - up to 90% in Porirua East polling booths.
AFAICT the Greens gained most of their support by promising marijuana law reform, which is popular with young voters across class boundaries.
anyway you insist:
> Indeed they draw from a similar constituency to ACT.
and so what is wrong with would-be ACT supporters wanting to plunder Alliance socio-economic policy?
>[snip many lines about the Green's callous treachery]
> Exploiting the Alliance and thus getting near capturing a constituency seat
> and then leaving, plundering a large amount of Alliance socio-economic
> policy in the process, all the time presenting themselves as innocuous,
> touchy-feely, lovely people - and actually managing to come out of the
> whole business smelling of roses and positioning themselves on the moral
> high ground - is quite some achievement. Not to mention, entirely
> manipulative, cynical and duplicitous. The Greens' road into parliament is
> thus no different from any other bourgeois politicians.
Of course. Every politician in NZ is a duplicitous bourgeois reformist liberal. A huge number of them are fruitcakes, including many of the greens and several Alliance members. One third of the Alliance, remember, is the Social Credit Party whose founding political document was _The Mysterious Protocols_.
> The first thing they called for was
> $20 more a week for beneficiaries, which they said would be nice for Xmas
> for the poor.
What Bradford actually called for was an extra weekly payment for beneficiaries for christmas, which incidentally was a trick used at least once by the infamous 1984 Lange government.
> Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the Greens is the way they will use
> their parliamentary position to push their wider luddite, anti-humanist and
> pro-irrationalist agenda. Expect more media coverage of Green nonsense
> about 'Frankenstein food' and panics over anything and everything that the
> increasingly insecure liberal middle class gets shaken up by these days.
look then at the Alliance GM food policy: http://www.alliance.org.nz/policy/genetic_engineering_index.html
> The rise of the Greens has already prompted Labour to adapt to
> environmentalist pressure at the expense of workers' jobs in the logging
> industry on the West Coast.
Labour announced that policy when the Greens were running at >1% in the polls.
> The Greens don't want sustainable logging on the Coast - logging
> which is entirely sensible since it maintains jobs while allowing for the
> replacement of logged timber - but instead have demanded a halt to all
> logging of native timber.
What they actually said is they want pine plantations to be used instead. And the Alliance agrees, since they were the same party until 2 years ago and have voted in unison at every opportunity since. As you point out, the Greens plundered Alliance policy.
> So far, Labour has at least baulked at most panic-mongering positionsand
> demands of the Greens on GM food. However, since Labour MPs are drawn from
> the same increasingly insecure and irrational class as the Greens, perhaps
> it is only a matter of time before ground is given in this area as well.
causing exactly what harm?
douglas