And some of the rhetoric is getting kinda ridiculous, particularly the automatic pooh poohing of any idea of another party's, even when you're pretty sure that the naysayer secretly thinks that it's a good idea. Like, for instance, Labour wants to raise the retirement age and National claims that it's a bad idea. Isn't this the wrong way around according to their core values?
And another bit of weird logic - John Key has been saying for a while that NZ really needs to sell off half our core infrastructure assets, in order to "pay off debt faster". Today, we get told that, hey, really it's to build up other assets, like schools and stuff! Really? Future spend on school buildings is either:
- business as usual spend that was going to happen anyway - in which case the Future Investment Fund is a meaningless gesture, or
- it's building up new assets, in which case the government debt problem isn't nearly so bad as the National Party is making it out to be.
Another thing that came up on Saturday was political chitchat at Fright Night, after our game finished a bit early and people were hanging out. One of the guys running the D&D for MMP campaign in and offered to take requests (I totally bought a couple of politician zombies to afflict the party with. Yay!), but we also had several people there who are either in the Green party, or sympathetic to its ideals, and we got talking about their decision making model. The thing is, a friend had told me a while ago that policy has got to be set by consensus - everyone has to agree before it goes ahead, and I was curious about how that actually worked in practice. (Everyone's had an experience of a committee that goes around and around a subject for ever, or That One Particular Guy who always argues, just for the sake of arguing, right?) So the party member talked about some of the checks and balances that they've got - you can choose to disagree but not block consensus, perhaps for something that you don't like but don't feel like dying in a ditch over; or you can choose to block consensus, and if it's a really important issue, then and only then will the caucus move to a conscience vote. So it sounds like it could be a slow system on a contentious issue, but also that the group has to at least consider everyone's views before it makes a decision. And if a group of people have got liberal views, well, there tends to be a lot of diversity of opinion.
So how are the Greens doing, given that their natural constituency is inclined to have many different opinions, and they want everyone to agree? Well, you've got to admit that for a small party they've got staying power - their first MP was elected in 1999. In that time, the Alliance unallied, Winston Peter's personality party got knocked out (but possibly back for another round this election), and ACT, the party for argumentative people, can't manage to keep any of its line up of MPs in the first election since they officially became part of the government. And the Greens are polling at 10%. So that's worth thinking about. The other thing - they seem to have a really good knack at getting their policy into law. The anti-smacking law, the weatherproofing fund, and making youth rates identical to minimum wage are the three things that come to mind immediately, but there are others, and the now-in-Mana Sue Bradford holds the record for private member's bills by a backbencher to be passed.
Maybe it's worth thinking about consensus more often.