Full text of Green-Govt deal
The full text of the Labour-led Government Co-operation Agreement with Greens is now on the Green website.
All the detail available for the current debate…
Bookmark to:
47 Responses to “Full text of Green-Govt deal”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 17th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
From a quick skim, there’s some worthy things spelt out in Appendix 3 of the document. But I cannot see anything specific in the document about Labour having signed up to these. Any further elucidation on this, Frog?
October 17th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
You may also like to compare this with the 2002 co-operation agreement …
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other5555.html
There are lots and lots of positive sounding things in the 2005 agreement, Labour have promised us much, but yeah, there are no figures. I guess the proof in the pudding will come each Budget Day.
I particularly like the fact that there is:
* Input into the budget process and inclusion of Green Party budget initiatives in each of the three years.
* The Green Party will not be bound by collective responsibility on government decisions.
* the government will publicly acknowledge the area as being one of specific green party influence and the green party representative will be a designated spokesperson in the area.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
“The relationship between the Green Party and the government will be based on good faith and no surprises. ”
need i say more?
- ps. 123mmp
October 17th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
“The relationship between the Green Party and the government will be based on good faith and no surprises. �
… errrm, starting from now, right? let’s just put this past month behind us, right?
I have a feeling that Appendix 3 is more like the deal we would have had in return for voting confidence and supply.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
I suppose that cultivating the “we got shafted” theme might give us a bit of leverage come budget time… sympathy from the general public, even perhaps from Labour caucus and ministers, might translate to more substance… perhaps?
on second thoughts, I’m sceptical. Abused spouses rarely get much credit for staying submissive.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Ah, “good faith and no surprises”. Isn’t that the political equivalent of, “It was just the once, I was drunk and lonely, and it’s all your fault anyway - but I promise I’ll never, ever screw your sister again”?
October 17th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
We can either continue to try to appeal to the centre by acting polite and saying yessir-thankyasir to whatever falls off the table or we can demand our leadership protect the core values of the Greens. If anyone thinks “A progressive increase in EECA’s budget” and “maintaing a dialogue on peacemaking,” along with polite “heckling from the sidelines” represents the core values and intent of the Green voters (not the leadership), then please make the case here.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
… unless it seems like a real cracker of an idea at the time. Eh Craig?
October 17th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
For comparison, here are the other agreements :
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0510/LabourNZF.pdf
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0510/LabourUF.pdf
Lots of waffle, little substance… rather like our one really!
Winston gets a thousand cops… also a “perks for seniors” package (talk about Winston First! am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here??)
Dunny gets a “no change of cannabis legislation” promise… number one on his list… also some stuff about zoning of brothels. Gee yes, he’s going to be influential.
I note that both have inserted waffly paragraphs about Kyoto and carbon (in order to attempt to neuter any attempts to comply I guess)
Which would explain the lack of any such reference in the Greens document.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
They also got ministerial posts.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
Thing is, Tony, that Clark had to choose between completely incompatible directions on a number of issues. She chose the centrists, to get the numbers.
I fail to see what a different leadership, however radical, might have done to change that outcome (other than hook up with the MP to present a clearcut alternative, which I agree is preferable, but they need to make their own mistakes for the moment)
For example :
What does the extreme centre want done about Kyoto?
NZFirst :
Review the appropriateness or otherwise of progressing a carbon tax policy as a response to Kyoto Treaty obligations.
UF:
a new cost benefit analysis of the proposal to introduce a carbon tax as part of our Kyoto obligations will be conducted and no legislation introduced before the analysis is completed. The criteria and/or the terms of reference for this analysis will be agreed through sector wide consultation.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Thanks Alistair,
I can always rely on the Green board to explain Labour political decisions.
Now, here’s an idea — Greens, cut out of government, don’t try to spin this disaster as a win for the 4th largest bloc of votes but attack it, pointing out the flaws of the agreements with Winston and Peter.
Your own quotes from UF and NZF on Kyoto and lack of quotes on peak oil illustrate the failure of the Green strategy completely.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
It’s not called a “failure of strategy”, Tony, it’s called “not having the numbers”.
You’re right, this outcome was written on election day.
That was precisely my point in posting the Kyoto stuff — how meaningful would it be to have peak-oil references in the Greens-Labour agreement when the people who she’s actually relying on for the numbers are pulling in the opposite direction?
But I take a bit of solace from this quote, from the Herald :
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10350712
Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said Mr Dunne and Mr Peters had held Labour to ransom.
“We do not believe such a government is in New Zealand’s best interests and therefore cannot in all conscience, actively provide support,” Ms Fitzsimons said.
Her fellow co-leader Rod Donald was also scathing.
“Many of the policy and budgetary demands that Labour has accepted from NZ First and United Future are socially, economically or environmentally destructive,” Mr Donald said.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
I think it will become clearer in the coming months, that the Greens are indeed in opposition. This is muddied somewhat by the current attempt to pose as graceful losers (which seems to be winning plaudits).
With Labour, National and two centrist parties fighting it out for the middle ground, I think the Green MPs will relish the opportunity to point out the wishy-washy inanity of the whole “centre” concept.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:17 am
I hope you guys do figure out you’re in opposition to the new govt - deluding yourselves otherwise could result in failing to make the threshold next election, and I’d hate to see another left-wing party disappear from parliament.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:00 am
The Greens and MP form an alternative support to NZF and United for a Labour led government. This limits what NZF and United can realise in opposition to centre-left government.
Greens maybe on the cross benches for now, but they are not with National and ACT in any opposition. Instead they are in consultation with government.
It’s effectively 61 vs 50, where 61 has 11 reserve votes.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:02 am
Well at least 10.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:31 am
Gosh - what a wonderful achievement for the Maori Party - Winston in the driving seat, Greens on the outer…. hmmm…. smart….
October 18th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Some disappointment here is understandable, but there seems to be a misconception here that the Labour party somehow “owes” the Greens. Gosh, what short memories we all have. Anyone remember what the Greens were polling *before* Helen gave Fitzie that fatefull peck on the check? Labour were willing to take the risk to sacrifice a %tage of their vote to build up a bigger left block, simple as that. It may not have paid off as handsomely as all desired but it did pay off.
Frankly, the only people to blame for not having a bigger say in Government is the Green party itself. To be whining about the current deal shows a complete lack of appreciation about the result of the election and how MMP works. A fault you were attributing to Don Brash a few weeks ago. NZers have essentially voted for a centrist Government. Whilst many have complete (and in my opionion justified) disdain for Peters / Dunne, this Government and the various policy agreements negotiated represent the wishes of a diverse electorate as accurately as possible.
The Green’s biggest mistake is to present themselves so firmly as being on any wing of the political spectrum (that is to say, the left). Green economics and politics should be appealing to a much wider audience than they do. There are a significant number of National party supports who care deaply about environmental and other issues. Never forget that Simon Upton put through the RMA and propably thought about the ecology on an intellectual level that has not been matched by Labour in any way or form, Governments are not ommiscient and we the socialist economies of the world have done *at least* as much damage to the environment as market lead ones. Think 80 million subsidised sheep stripping our hillsides instead of the 40 million we have today.
Kyoto is a classic case where market forces are going to be harnessed in an attempt to gain a positive ecological outcome. It is the sort of deal that could have been put together by many a right wing think tank. Yet the Greens and other Kyoto supporters have allowed opponents to portray it a simple tax and big government initiative.
Until the Greens are able to broden their appeal so that ecologists of all shades of opion can vote for them they will always remain on the margins.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:36 am
bet yous get sweet fa in budget fwwog, could have done better with us,
October 18th, 2005 at 10:35 am
I think, on a number of levels, the result is quite disappointing. I know in Wellington Central, which is a red-green seat, we were desperately hoping for a Labour/Greens coalition. It hasn’t happened, though, and the main reason for that is the numbers.
We’ll just have to do better next time. I hope that the Labour/Greens relationship can remain functional; but the Greens will have to plot a strategy which gives them a larger vote share, and that will inevitably involve some jostling of Labour’s left flank. That should come as no surprise to most of Labour and I hope it’s met with some understanding as it unfolds.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Jeeves,
The Green Party does accept that market solutions can result in an optimal allocation of resources. It’s just how the market is structured that is the question!
And the old left/right labels are well past their use by date. Take a look at the poliical compass website to see how they viewed the NZ 2005 election.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
October 18th, 2005 at 11:00 am
For a party that just refused to support the govt, I think the Greens are doing okay.
The Maori Party is in the same situation the Greens are in: their natural ally (Labour) is the biggest power, and the major party that campaigned strongly against their policies (National) is on the outer. So those who are unhappy at what the Greens have extracted from Labour should look at what the Maori Party’s more hardline policy of “well, we’ll go chat up National then” has accomplished for them. Nothing.
Despite UF and NZF talking the talk, it’s the Greens who are walking the walk on providing a stable govt from the cross-benches. My concern is that if UF and NZF get the action they want on Kyoto and/or the carbon tax, that would be too much for the Green Party’s members to stomach.
But, ironically, hot air and no action on Kyoto may well satisfy Peters and Dunne.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Fastbike,
If what you say is true, why on earth did the Greens keep talking about a centre/left government, with themselves providing the “left” bit? The NZ Green party stands for a more interventionist approach through setting rules and regulations rather than attempting to harness market forces to achieve a more sustainable result.
As I said, the party should be looking for a broader base, they should be able to garner support from people of Upton’s callibre and politics as well as form their current support base. Too much of the current hand wringing sounds like it is coming from failed ex-communists rather than people looking for a sustainable balanced economy.
Case in poin (paurinse says):
“Where the Greens should get TOUGH are in things like [ …] attacking corporations, viciously attack TELECOM and VODAPHONE — or any companies that are inefficient.”
I mean, for God’s sake, where are people of New Zealand supposed to work to earn money to put on the table, DOC?
October 18th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Expat said: “From a quick skim, there’s some worthy things spelt out in Appendix 3 of the document. But I cannot see anything specific in the document about Labour having signed up to these. Any further elucidation on this, Frog?”
The document posted has been signed by the PM on behalf of the Government, including the appendices, so as such they have committed to the “worthy things” you refer to.
‘The proof in the pudding’ comes in how the ‘Budget Initiatives’ are realised, ie the Greens have a committment that each Budget this term will address that wish list, to what degree has to be negotiated with Cullen when he’s drawing them up.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
jeeves,
The Greens are supporting market-based initiatives. And telling everyone so. And yet you seem to be blaming the Greens for the fact that their opponents constantly caricature them as anti-market.
AND you also buy into the same false caricature.
When you say “Yet the Greens and other Kyoto supporters have allowed opponents to portray them as” - what should the Greens do? How should they stop their opponents from telling lies and misrepresenting them?
As for Upton… do you remember his response to the carbon tax? He’s advocated resource taxes before: they’re exactly the sort of market-based mechanism you endorse too. And yet he came out against it when it was introduced because, well, because the Nats don’t like it.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Jeeves,
What does “market” mean in the following quote …
“Planning, regulatory and market decision-making must be coordinated to deliver sustainable energy services and embody a precautionary approach, and be supported by good information. ”
And …
“Market mechanisms can be used within this framework to encourage efficiencies”
Refer to our Energy policy at
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy8699.html for more.
Name calling does nothing for debate. The Greens are happy to use market forces as long as the policy objectives are being delivered.
The Greens are aware of the excesses of both market zealotary and over regulation in the past - and have taken these views on board.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
“The NZ Green party stands for a more interventionist approach through setting rules and regulations rather than attempting to harness market forces to achieve a more sustainable result.”
But you need to set regulations up to harness market forces. They are the harness. Look at Kyoto. Look at carbon taxes. Look at emissions taxes. They’re not a matter of walking away from the market and saying “oh, the market will take care of it” - they’re a matter of getting in, providing some incentives via carrot or stick, and then letting the market take notice of them.
But if you think quoting one Green members views (which you disagree with) suffices to show what the Greens policies are like then may I suggest that you read the policies instead?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Icehawk,
Jeeves was quoting no-one except himself. Don’t let him put words into anyone’s mouth - hence my quote and hyperlink to our policy above.
Regards
October 18th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
fastbike. To be fair to Icehawk I did quote from a comment I regarded typical of the “shock horror” responses to the formation of the government. I do realise the comment does not represent “official” policy but there were lots in that thread in a similar vein.
I stand by my position that the Greens presented themselves as a lefter than Labour alternative, with a strong distrust of business and markets.
Check out Frog’s post here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/10/12/in-black-and-white-gree n-and-red-seem-the-same/#comments
I could pick Sue Kedgley’s somewhat bizarre positions on health (vaccinations anyone?) as another example of the party’s ability to have an individual’s petty agendas side-track it from the main topic at hand. You and Icehawk correctly point to an excellent energy policy but a lack of discipline and a misalignment with the “left” creates unwarranted noise and distraction.
Anyway, I seem to have turned into a bit of a troll here, which was not my intention, but Frog is asking for feedback and so here it is
October 18th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Jeeves:
If you read the literature … “Sue Kedgley’s somewhat bizarre positions on health (vaccinations anyone?)” … are a reflection of a growing concern about accepted medical practices not always being as safe and effecatious as we tend to assume they are. In many areas there are alternatives which, while still considered flakey by some are attracting the attention of researchers and the mainstream … Not just “an individual’s petty agenda”
… and, as you will know, if you follow the news, THAT is only one of Sue’s many areas of interest. She has a high profile in some usually fairly conservative arena/s (What is the plural of arena?)
eredwen
October 18th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Jeeves:
and … please use your imagination!
You quote:
“Where the Greens should get TOUGH are in things like [ …] attacking corporations, viciously attack TELECOM and VODAPHONE — or any companies that are inefficient.�
and comment
“I mean, for God’s sake, where are people of New Zealand supposed to work to earn money to put on the table, DOC?”
My answer:
They can earn money by lighting signal fires and mining slates for writing on of course! … Seriously though. Not every visitor to this site is a Green, nor is every point of view Official Green Policy.
Happy reading
eredwen
October 18th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Jeeves - The Telecom monopoly position of extracting every last cent available from the public for second-rate broadband services has a LOT to do with what makes some business long for foreign shores. There’s a lot not to like there, and there’s a lot that BUSINESS doesn’t like there… Greens notice because most greens are shepherds not sheeple.
Eredwen, accepting that he characterized an overall position based on a single issue and was wrong to do it, Sue Kedgley doesn’t earn any bonus points for discouraging vaccinations. Some things the medical establishment does DO work, and she’s gone for the baby as well as the bathwater with this one. I am quite on her side with respect to supplements and other areas but the meningococcal vaccine looks like a success story in spite of her… which makes her look a bit odd-person-out.
Carbon taxes are the simple act of making users of the commons pay for their use. This is what Kyoto is all about. It is what the market needs in order to know how to govern itself… EMITTING CARBON IS NOT FREE! Using up fresh air isn’t free… or pure clean water or energy…
When we apply the market to the use of the commons “Business Leaders” cry foul and say we’re dangerous. THEY are simply freeloaders. Freeloaders who refuse to accept the discipline of the market they so adore in order to get the system to move to a more natural balance.
They have few good things to say about freeloaders, and they need that name applied as it is one insult that they MAY just understand. The folks at National and ACT too, need to be told exactly what they are..
At the same time there is this to be said for their position. It is impossible for businesses to compete with good success against companies in countries that do not force market forces to apply to the commons. The fact that those countries are consuming their (our) future is clear to all of us, and the ultimate disintegration of their economies is inevitable, but a business lives in a CURRENT profit/loss environment and will need some real consideration given to survival. That’s something that scares them, and fair enough if it does. It is a real fear.
respectfully
BJ
October 18th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
eredwen
Your allow me to rest my case. SK is not above using dubious and unscientific data to make her case, which in turn casts doubt on the veracity of all the *good* policy has been well researched and developed. There is stacks of the latter but the tendency to highlight the former along with terrible positioning has totally undermined the message (all IMHO, of course).
Politically, the best thing the Greens did in the last 6 years was remove themselves from the Alliance, they now need to firmly remove themselves from the left/right debate.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
apologies for my lack of proof reading in all posts…
BJ, your beef with Telecom is spot on, the comments I was quoting from were simply “anti” business for the sake of it, not for any specific reason. I picked the SK example to back my case, I am not sure how else to illustrate my views other than with pertinent examples. The point is that these examples are easy to find and this shows me that the Greens need to be *more* disciplined, better briefed and on a sounder scientific and economic footing than other parties - due to the desire of so many people to misrepresent their cause. They did this well with the energy policy but the same standard needs to be applied across the board.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
eredwen..arenae..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 18th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
The carbon tax is one of the best steps the NZ government has taken in a long time. It would be a tragedy if NZF and UFO endangered that progress. Instead of being reviewed the carbon tax should be implemented post haste and we should continue pushing it further. Building environmental costs directly into our economic models may be the one thing that saves us from ourselves by automatically using market forces for good rather than world-eating.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
jeeves:
I agree about the Greens leaving the Alliance (I rejoined the Green Party at that time, having formerly been an early Values Party member.)
I hear what you say. However, I hope you recognise that it takes a lot of time and effort for a small Party to get an ambitiously comprehensive dossier together as the Greens are doing … and even longer to get every document to the highest standard.
It would be great if people with the knowledge/expertise would point out errors, offer constructive criticism, or recommend changes, or indeed replacement documents, rather than scoring points off Green “incompetence?” “gullibility?” “lack of veracity?”… whatever.
But I guess that is not why bloggers visit this site!
eredwen
October 18th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
phil:
I thought so … Thanks!
October 18th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Jeeves
Of course Greens will always be at the margins - only when it has successfully realised critical mass in the centre, will it leave right wing parties little choice but to come on board.
Resistance to responsible long term policy comes from those who favour the unfettered free market and an amoral lack of concern for others - workers, the poor, future generations AND the environment.
So its no surprise that there is no successful neither left or right “apolitical” Green party anywhere. Some right wing parties have very small blue green cells which make the points you do, but they don’t effect their party policy.
Movements are formed around concerned activism. Where the left, can place concern for the poor in the here and now alongside the long term environment cause, they can work with Greens.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
All going on at sucha rate before I havent even have had a word in ….
I couldn’t possibly read all this stuff in one night so after reading a few at the top I went with Alastair’s :
” Abused spouses rarely get much credit for staying submissive.”
You are so correct, and as one who has tried quite bit of Samaritan stuff in my time, rule one is:
“If you do not make a stand, nobody can help you.”
That is not a sermon, but a law of humanity.
The Greens have become parliamentary wimps, and the best that will be said of them will be “Nice guys come last.”
We know Dunn, Peters (and do not forget Anderton in this little plot) have given their pledge on condition that the Greens are rejected publicly.
Helen Clark will go down in history as a prime minister of very superior political management and strategic skills, whose controlling personality seemed to prefer deals with the pragmatic and had difficulty with issues of personal loyalty.
The Maori Party and the Greens have a clear message.
The mission over three years is to oppose on all points of difference and to put resources into organising support.
The single aim is to ensure an increase of representation at the next election.
It they fail in this mission they will be reduced to mere footnotes in the country’s history.
If both parties succeed, their combined force of a dozen or more m.p.s
will hold the balance of power for the next decade.
Those two parties look to me the proper initiators of change over that period.
To achieve their goal the Greens must:
Replace at least one of the co-leaders with the most vital and charismatic and likely to be successful member high in the candidate list.
Because of the gender equality policy this means Jeanette is much more likely to be the one to step down.
Simply because I cannot see a man of charism, and the necessary passion and energy, putting his hand up.
On the woman’s side there is a heap of justifiable options.
I would personally think Meht should be part of a new leadership that has to be put in place quite soon.
She solves the South Island issue in a single blow.
So we go looking for a sympathetic North Island public figure, preferably a bity blokeish, more Greenpeace than Values would be good.
I reckon that fellow who goes in for public nudity would be a possibility, what’s his name?
That’s right Mark Ellis.
Well you get the idea anyway …..
October 18th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
To Eredwen,
arena is a plural, I think it means sand as in lots of … not a grain ….
October 18th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Bruce T :
Wow! that makes sense … and that is why I couldn’t think of its “plural” !
I thought it might be Latin ending “a” singular to “ae” plural … as did one other blogger.
We both know better now. THANKS!
October 19th, 2005 at 8:42 am
yeah sorry eredwen..i was piss-taking…sorta..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 19th, 2005 at 8:57 am
eredwen
bloggers probably visit this arena because it is thoughtful, tries to be fair, is constantly updated and is well written. You don’t have to agree with every thing frog posts to appreciate that. I certainly followed it with interest during the election, as a non-participant.
Constructive criticism is always harder than points scoring. For example, the words you put in quotes are not my words. The truth is that at the last election I could not bring myself to vote Green as I have done in the past. I guess I would like the party to hear my reasons which were not to do with tactical voting (hardly possible with the party vote, IMO). If the Greens chose to disagree with my points that is absolutely their right but I don’t want to be like those who don’t vote and then spend three years complaining about the Government.
P.S. On the points scoring front, can anyone explain why the self appointed leader of the “business community”, Kerr, seems to have such a tenuous grasp of basic economics? The man has no idea how GDP is calculated, scary thought if he represents the future of NZ business.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Jeeves;
to back track slightly and repond to your comment about vaccinations;
if you were a teacher, a truancy officer, or a medical receptionist, you would know that illness this winter in the age-group that has been mass-vaccinated has been extremely high.
A lot of children, much higher than statistically predicted, have reacted to the vaccine, and a lot of parents have withdrawn consent after a violent reaction to the 1st or 2nd dose.
The reactions cover a wide range of symptoms, some of which are sub-clinical (ie: not onthe reporting documents given to children after vaccination) but still bad enough to prevent school or sports participation.
We have just participated as a nation in one of the bigggest drug trials in the Southern hemisphere, at public cost, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical company; whether it will show to have benefited the susceptable, targetable communities is the evaluation that needs to be done, and done publicly.
Susceptable individuals will continue to get Meningococcal disease, simply because the vaccine does not address the conditions of poverty and overcrowding, poor diet and overwork that flourish in the communities which have most been struck by this illness - lower socio-economic groups, pacific/polynesian ethnic groups, and university students trying to hold down jobs as well as study. The vaccine addresses none of these problems, and never will.
Might as well invest in lucky string, it would be as effective.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:11 am
eredwen, jeeves, etc…
I’ve got to agree with jeeves regards Sue K’s take on vaccinations.
I voted Green despite Sue K’s take on immunizations.
The Greens say “oh those deniers of climate change are supporting oddball claims that oppose the current scientific consensus, ignore what the real experts on the area say, and they take seriously a grain of evidence for their view and ignoring the mountain of evidence that opposes them”.
Then, on immunization, the Greens do exactly the same: take oddball claims that oppose the current scientific consensus, ignore what the real experts in the area say, and take seriously the grain of evidence for their view while ignoring the mountain of evidence that opposes them.
Eredwen, I’ve READ that literature on the evils of the modern medical-industrial complex. There are areas where it’s dead right (look at the current US craze for diagnosing and drugging hundreds of thousands of kids to slow them down if they’re overactive or speed them up if they’re down- eek! medicine gone mad!). But that’s just not true about the vaccinations carried out in this country.
Vaccinations do have dangers, and risks. But they also have benefits. The only way to compare those two sets of risks is through careful statistical analysis. Sue K’s claims reflected a dismal lack of care in doing such analysis. While the maths and analysis is really boring, people’s lives will be ruined (or tragically ended) if you get it wrong.
The Greens combine a love of nature and the natural which is mystic, with a hard-headed scientific take on the world (this science underpins the cold hard logic of limited resources and unlimited demand). Both parts are needed: the problem is balance. Because if you drift to far in your suspicion of technology and the status quo, it can overflow into paranoia and conspiracy theory.