Optional hypocrisy

The Green Party has announced it won’t be contesting the Mt Roskill by-election, should there be one.

Not wasting time and resources on a contest they can’t win isn’t stupid but it shows up both the Greens and Labour as hypocrites.

Both have been highly critical of National for not trying to win Epsom and Ohariu to help Act’s and United Future’s candidates.

The hypocrisy is particularly bad for Labour’s candidate who stood in Epsom at the last election.

The Opposition’s hypocrisy over ‘dirty deals’ is brazen, says ACT Leader David Seymour as the Green Party confirms that they won’t stand a candidate in Mt Roskill as part of an arrangement with Labour.

“Michael Wood’s campaign in Mt Roskill is set to be a brazen display of hypocrisy,” says Mr Seymour. “Two years ago he was bemoaning John Key’s endorsement of a vote for me in Epsom as a ‘dodgy deal’. Now look at him.

The Greens ought to be just as embarrassed, with Julie-Anne Genter having called John Key’s Epsom endorsement ‘undemocratic’. Clearly, this was nothing more than faux-outrage.

Strategic voting is a reality of MMP, but hypocrisy is optional. Labour and the Greens have shown how cheap their words are by participating in a deal that far eclipses the electoral arrangements they criticise every election.”

Labour and the Greens claimed the principled high ground in their criticism of what they called ‘dirty deals’.

Neither can claim to be so principled and both are guilty of making the wrong choice when faced with otional hypocrisy.

8 Responses to Optional hypocrisy

  1. Nonsense. It’s above board and honest, instead of a wink and a nudge and a cup of tea and a candidate who pretends to stand for a seat but spends the entire campaign doing his best to avoid the public eye.

    You may not like the deal, but at least it’s open and straightforward.


  2. pdm` says:

    Good try Deborah but you fail miserably.

    The hypocrisy of the left over many years is indisputable and is based on the following premise:

    `It is okay when we do it!!!’


  3. Will says:

    I find the difference interesting. In Epsom, the two parties sent a clear signal to their supporters what outcome they wanted, but the choice still remained open. If an Epsom voter really preferred to vote National instead of Act, they could.

    Not so with the Left. It’s always force and coercion in one form or another.


  4. Andrei says:

    What difference does it make? – its politics and politics is all about deceit and lies and attracts self serving scuzzbuckets

    The average whore has more honor and decency than a politician


  5. Dave Kennedy says:

    At least Labour and the Greens have a support base that provides a mandate for their existence. The Greens didn’t stand a candidate in the Northland by-election either. There are financial and strategic elements to deciding whether to stand candidates or not in by-elections and having an MOU with another party to progress shared goals around the future of this country also makes sense.

    The difference with the Green/Labour MOU and the National/Act arrangement in my mind is that ACT has no voter mandate any longer (being well below the 5% threshold at 1%). In this case we have a party that only exists because of National’s manipulation and to implement its policies, like Charter Schools, when there was no public mandate to do so is appalling.

    Deborah is right about the transparency of the Greens’ decision and a by-election is more about supporting the Government or the opposition. Cooperation between opposition parties in Mt Roskill is an indication of a Labour/Green Government in waiting that can function as a collective force.

    The latest Roy Morgan poll will create real concerns for Mr Seymour. His desperate attempts to claim his party is the real environmental party has been received with the ridicule it deserved and his party languishes in the margins of error territory. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11595631


  6. Actually Dave

    the four Ps mr Seymour talked about are pretty reasonable unless you think there is only one environmental discourse out there


  7. Dave I know you are trying hard to justify the hypocrisy, but Act does have a mandate to be there because the voters put them there knowing full well the situation.


  8. Paranormal says:

    Act has a mandate, just as the Greens did when they were below the threshold but remained in parliament thanks to too many greenies in Coromandel.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: