Vote, vote, vote

[labellementeuse]

Hey, guess what? It's an election year! I know, I know, I've been a little lax in the area of political ranting lately. But here, have a PSA: ENROL TO VOTE. In New Zealand, it is actually compulsory to enrol to vote if you're eligible, so you're being law-abiding as well as exercising your right as a citizen or permanent resident. EVEN IF YOU ARE OVERSEAS, now and at election time, if you're a citizen and have been in NZ in the last THREE YEARS, you can still enrol to vote, and eventually vote either by ballot or in person at diplomatic postings in your country of residence (I know, cool eh?)

I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone that this is a terrifically nerve-racking election for me. GO. ENROL. VOTE.

Comments

Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I think many Greens would not appreciate being described as Left, and the party's main appeal does rest in large part on a philosophy that rejects the Left/Right divide as outdated.

I agree with you re: GE, but if you can forgive Labour for flogging Telecom and Air New Zealand, do you think you could ever find it in your heart to forgive the Greens for that?

Re: Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I appreciate their finer feelings on the matter, but their economic and social policies make them attractive to people who want a more left-wing government than Labour (such as, indeed, myself.) It's all very well to scream "we're not a left-wing party" but broadly pro-taxation, multiculturalist, and anti-social-conservatism policies are, well, left wing markers. Right-wing social and economic policies can certainly be combined with environmentalism, but the Green Party as-is is not exemplary of that to me.

in re: telescum, AirNZ, GE: but it's not just GE, it's almost *every* environmentalist position they take. It's not like there aren't sound scientific reasons to be environmentalist, but I never hear them from the Greens, and I do hear a *lot* of faffing around.

Re: Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean, and I guess I agree that while it's theoretically possible for environmentalism to co-exist with free market ethics and for Green parties to co-operate with non-Left parties, I've yet to see it happen. Then again, if the Green movement truly is a political movement on par with conservatism and social democracy, it's in its early days.

But looking at the Greens in isolation, to me too many of the Green's policies show a casual disregard for the material wellbeing of the working class to really classify them as a Leftist party. Ironically, when the Greens proclaim themselves not to be a party of the Left it is, I presume, self-congratulation, but when I agree with them it's a critique.

As an aside I'm not sure that being multiculturalist and anti social-conservatism are hallmarks of the Left. Unless you consider ACT partly Leftist.

Re: Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

It's a good point about the Green movement still being young. And naturally, your sentiments and mine wrt: Leftism, critiques, and compliments are similar (and it's funny because there's so much about the left that even I don't like, stuff that's potentially exactly what they're talking about, which they don't appear to be able to articulate clearly. If, for example, they found themselves suddenly able to eloquently express the fact that they oppose antilibertarian laws like controls on smoking, drinking, and other drugs - at least they'd have made a point.)

I'm sorry, when I meant Left I was referring specifically to our "new left" not... um, the actual meaning of left wing. Rather some of the hallmarks of NZ left wing liberalism. However, ACT is not a party that is anti social conservatism and I wish people would stop saying that they were. Some members of the ACT party are against social conservatism and have commendable voting record on these issues. However, ACT's willingness to tolerate a deputy leader like Muriel Newman, and their unwillingness to go to bat in support of controversial bills like prostitution law reform and the civil union act, clearly demonstrates to me that social concerns are not important to ACT. Frankly, in a party that calls itself libertarian, that really pisses me off.

Re: Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

It's a good point about the Green movement still being young.

I was being charitable and assuming that the Green movement is broadly on par with socialism or market capitalism, of course. I'm not entirely certain.

However, ACT is not a party that is anti social conservatism and I wish people would stop saying that they were.

Well, it's obviously more complicated than that, but on many occassions ACT has taken more socially liberal stances than Labour (for instance, the recent ban on BZP pills). ACT is the main inheritor of the Lange Labour government, and that was a government that was staunchly socially liberal and arguably did more to enact legislation giving force to that liberalism than any other post-war government. OTOH, I see your point about the party's inability to support (or for that matter to oppose) the Civil Union Bill, which is the most iconic (if not necessarily the most substantive) test of social liberalism in the 21st century within the New Zealand political context. ACT has, in common with most of the smaller parties (and against all logic, when you think about it), often been quite schizophrenic in its ideology. But on balance I think that ACT would rank third, after the Greens and Labour. It's certainly less socially conservative than National.

Re: Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

and it's funny because there's so much about the left that even I don't like, stuff that's potentially exactly what they're talking about, which they don't appear to be able to articulate clearly. If, for example, they found themselves suddenly able to eloquently express the fact that they oppose antilibertarian laws like controls on smoking, drinking, and other drugs - at least they'd have made a point.)

When you say 'they', who are you talking about here? The parliamentary Left, or the broader popular Left, or the Left's 'opinion-leaders' (such as they are) or...?

I'm sorry, when I meant Left I was referring specifically to our "new left" not... um, the actual meaning of left wing.

You see, this rather saddens me.