James Shaw: Hurrah! This is green capitalism in action!
The Green Party's decision to obligingly help out the National Party only goes to highlight the politically incestuous and unrepresentative nature of Parliament.

THE GREEN'S PARTY decision that it should hand over its parliamentary questions to the National Party, on the surface at least, appears inexplicable. And it has been suitably lambasted in the social media.

We have also since learnt that this was a unilateral decision made by Green co-leader James Shaw, without consulting the party membership. It seems that 'top down' politics is also alive and well in the Green's.

 Shaw's explanation is that the Green's don't want to ask the government patsy questions and would rather just let the National Party keep the government honest by asking the kind of questions the Green's can't.

Putting aside the obvious fact that there was no reason the Green's could not of asked these more searching questions themselves, the National Party are not the opposition on many issues. As former Green MP Keith Locke has observed, National are not the opposition on such issues as the CPTPP or deep sea oil drilling or New Zealand troops in Iraq.

But this argument only goes so far. This, after all, is the same Green Party that happily signed up to Labour's Fiscal Responsibility Rules last year, a pledge of loyalty to the dogmas of neoliberalism. That means that on economic issues not only will you not be hearing any complaints from the Green's, they won't be proposing anything like a progressive alternative to neoliberalism.

Over the weekend Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that her government's fight against child poverty was limited by her government's commitment to keeping below the neoliberal-prescribed fiscal cap. She might of also added it was limited by her government's cowardly refusal to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Regardless, we heard nothing from the 'progressive' Green's. Zilch.

While its called the House of Representatives, the four political parties and David Seymour who sit in the Parliament represent only one view - that the market is god. It's in this fetid, cloying atmosphere that the Green's can be so obliging to a political party that also shares its view that defending capitalism and protecting the environment are not incompatible.

Corporate-friendly James Shaw, sadly, probably thinks this is 'green capitalism' in action. But the Green's have done little more than swallow the neoliberal orthodoxy hook, line and sinker.

So, with this in mind, its understandable why @CaitlinSnark should be less than happy with James Shaw and the Green Party. She tweeted:

"The whole Greens question thing is honestly the most first years pols student bullshit I've ever heard. This isn't debate club, it's a fight for people's f**king lives."



  1. My argument would be that not all Green MP's are as conservatve as Shaw. I doubt Marama Davidson would agree with Shaw. But the Green's core values have been so thoroughly corrupted you kind of think there's no way back for this party - unless they become a progressive party again. But that won't happen if Mr Corporate Green is still in charge.

  2. So they said party vote Green's to get a progressive voice in Parliament and then they gave that voice to the Nats. What's that all about? Won't vote for them again and probably won't vote at all next time, unless something decent shows up which isn't likely.


Comments are moderated.