see frog even your own people are confused .. tell you why frogg .. red rod .. he not gween fwog he red .. not look good against winston eh .. very bad publicity .. twubble is you can’t sack him .. he invented the voting system .. i used to be in the party to frog ..

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Actually I was referring to that policy page.

The problem with it is what is missing. What is there is OK, as it goes, but I reiterate that if the Greens are to be taken seriously as an alternative, they have to fill in the blanks.

Having a few lines on immigration in the human-rights policy is NOT the same as having an immigration policy. Having a “peace” policy is peachy, but gives no shelter if something nasty comes our way… these things are responsibilities of government, and if we wish to be stewards of government so that we can be stewards of the environment, we’d better get these blanks filled in with something other than blank looks.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ, here’s a list of the Greens policies.

http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Um, there are some immigration things in the newly released Human Rights policy (or see summary). For example:

• Remove the ability for Ministers of Government to overturn a decision by a judicial body, for example, with the Security Risk Certificate procedure.
• Create fairer and more transparent short-stay visa processes.
• Support freer movement of people between Samoa and New Zealand in consultation with Samoa, in recognition of the special relationship with Samoan people reflected in the Treaty of Friendship.
• Progressively increase our refugee quota from 750 per year to 1000 per year, and provide adequate resources to implement this.
• Ensure that all refugees and asylum seekers are treated humanely, with detention only used in exceptional cases, where a genuine security risk can be identified.
• Abide by the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and related international agreements, including upholding the independence of the final refugee appeal body, in this country the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, and abide by the provision in the convention that the government cannot overturn its decisions.
• Provide all new immigrants with a copy of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in their preferred language.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

True, there ARE policies for all those things… not to imply that there is no opinion held, but the library of policy papers reads rather unevenly, and all these things are missing from it. That’s the website. Which is where any reasonable person would expect an indication of what Greens stand for… and against.

There is a practical problem here. I came in, joined actually, and was smacked in the face by the absence of anything that resembles a responsible platform… except with respect to the environment.

Where does Peters get the scope to run FUD programs at immigrants? It is partly the failing of the Greens to put anything like an immigration policy in place. The perception of the party in the “white community”, is NOT a very positive one. The scope that Peters gets is largely defined by the absence of ANY limits in the apparent green position. I suspect that the actual position of the party is more complex and responsible than it appears to be, but that would not be difficult, given the appearance.

I also suspect that a more responsible Green party would get a lot more and better attention from prospective voters.

My co-workers LAUGHED when they learned I had joined this party. I pointed out my own fundamental environmentalism and they quit laughing… of course, I also happen to be the boss. That however, is the perception that Greens have to combat.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Actually they do have a tax policy, which is often mentioned here. It is to tax the ‘bads’ in our society/environment, and move the burden off income. starting with making the first $5000 tax free.

DPF, I think the disagreement comes from blogging styles. You blog moods and trends as if they are definite and certain. Frog is more factually correct.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Fascinating…

We have no position/polict papers on Defense, Immigration OR Taxation.

What is a “normal” voter to think?

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

fwwog .. fwoggy .. how are you .. centre right wiun election
fwog but ther’s space for you on the billboards .. take opportunity to place GREEN clearly to left of billboards .. to get yopur message of tax increases across raise the word “NO”
I suggest a picture of Rod to go with it
It would read
NO to tax cuts and everyone would see what you stand for
or RAISE TAX NOW

come on Amphibian be bwave

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Oh come on, to pretend this is not a massive shift in opinion is to blind yourself. Having 67% of Labour voters saying yes to tax cuts now is somewhat akin to 67% of NZ First voters saying we want more immigrants.

I noted that it was more 50/50 after the *if it meant a cut in public spending*. Now putting aside for one moment that one can be achieved without the other, that is still an amazing result. Traditionally when asked that question only around 25% say they support tax cuts over spending. The fact it has near doubled to 50% is a huge swing.

It also ignores that on current budgets one could deliver say $3 to $4 billion of tax relief and not even cut a dollar of public spending.

More importantly more voters I suspect begin to see that cutting spending does not always mean cutting services. The waste under this Government is almost an epidemic.

So the headlines and analysis is quite correct. As it is quite possible to cut taxes without cutting spending (let alone services) there is a huge majority in favour of tax relief.

I’ll predict now that Labour will announce further tax cuts before the election, if they do not get a big lead in the polls.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)