Comments on: Truly tiresome Trev

By: Christiaan

Christiaan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:37:12 +0000

Haha, check out Trevor’s latest: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-best-ever-threat_28.html

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Christiaan

Christiaan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:34:26 +0000

The funny thing is, one of my biggest disappointments about the Greens is their emphatic embrace of capitalism.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: phil u.

phil u. — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:28:32 +0000

oo-er..(miaow..!..)..that’s a low blow russell..knowing that i have been banned from joining the green party..

and therefor have no access to the undoubted intellectual delights of the ‘green members forum’..

and then you just not answering the question..eh..?

let’s hope you are more forthcoming there ..eh..?

‘cos no..”brief and in general terms’ would pretty much sum it up…

‘just giving it a big swerve’ would be another..eh..?

tho’ i am pleased to hear the greens are now talking about this internally..

‘i’ll just keep banging away out here..eh..?..in public..as it were..:)

(ooh..i am looking forward to blogging questiontime…..should be fun..eh..?)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

(p.s. to frog censor…i did mention something about ‘an exercise in pomposity’…but i took it out ..eh..?…see how you’ve got me so browbeaten i’m censoring myself…!..)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Russel

Russel — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:15:17 +0000

Hi Phil,

OK, I’ll have another go at answering your question briefly and in general terms.

I think that we are an independent party and we decide how closely or otherwise to work with other political parties, including the Maori Party, based on how closely or otherwise they are to our policies and philosophy. So that means we keep an open mind while sticking to our principles.

russel

PS. I note that there is a related discussion in the Green members’ forum and members may wish to discuss it further there.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: phil u.

phil u. — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:29:11 +0000

um russell…is there still a dialogue going on here..?

if so..could you have another go at answering that question..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: fastbike

fastbike — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:42:28 +0000

Just in, Trev wants to be vice prez for act

go trev .

That’ll be good for the party.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: JesusCrux

JesusCrux — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:45:41 +0000

what the fuck you talkin’ ’bout phil?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: phil u.

phil u. — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:20:41 +0000

russel..thank you for responding (in part)..tho’ i note you have fallen into the same trap as pip and katie..

can i repeat for the fourth(?) time….i am not talking about the present..nor the recent past..

i am talking about the future..(i really thought i was at pains to point that out..but i obviously failed..)..i also noted that this brash-led mutation of national was not what i was talking about…

so..95% of your response is a ‘fisking’ of something that wasn’t there…eh..?

and you paid no atention to the nub of the question..namely the
‘what if?’ scenarios around the complexities of the relationships with the maori party and their (probably) warming relationship with national..and what that would/could mean for the greens…?..and the inherent pitfalls/shortcomings of “we only go with labour..”

surely you can see this…?..and the possible implications/complications..as far as advancing (or not) the green message/agenda is concerned..?

could you please address those issues..?..

which were..after all..what i was asking you…i wasn’t asking for a denunciation of the personal histories of brash and key….(i know how to do that…:)

if i could just repeat my original question..

“so the scenario is…say..come next election….or the one after…or the one after…other parties than labour have stronger environmental policies than labour….(or some ‘killer-punch’ gordian knot-cutter offer).. and (your expected partners) the maori party would look at some other arrangment..with those other parties..

what do you think the greens should do in a situation like that..?

do you think those doors to other possible coalition partners should always be kept closed..?..”

that is the question i (and others) would really like a response to…

and brave rhetoric to one side..”..We are not Labour’s handmaidens. We are free and independent to speak our minds…”

the reality is somewhat different tho’..eh..?

and ..pray..how have the greens not been playing the (often spurned) handmaiden role up untill now…?…surely history would make a falsity of your ‘we are not handmaidens’ claim..?

i would note a failure to grapple with this issue could well leave the greens (as you say) “.. free and independent to speak our minds…”

but speaking to an empty room…

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Russel

Russel — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:52:04 +0000

Responding to Phil U

If I may cut to the chase, your real question is whether I could envisage a future scenario in which we were willing to form a coalition with National.

And at this stage my answer is no, as the Nats are so anti-people and anti the environment. This may be because National is currently under the control of two ex-bankers – John Key and Don Brash – who had closer relations with international finance than NZ industry. Key’s job as an investment banker was to make money by moving it wherever it could make a buck regardless of the social or environmental costs – I wonder what environmental destruction the man has funded and what kind of regimes he has invested in (in fact someone should look into it). And Brash’s job as Reserve Bank Governor was to protect the NZ investments of overseas investors by keeping a lid on inflation and keeping interest rates high. Neither Key nor Brash strike me as the kind of people that are going to promote the interests of NZ business, people or the NZ environment ahead of the interests of global finance capital. It might be harder to answer if Key and Brash were replaced by English, and Labour continued on its rightward direction (eg by continuing to oppose the right of international environmental treaties to trump WTO rules). But that is in the realm of theory…

National is possibly not as bad as United Future who actually received direct assistance from the US Embassy in the 2002 election (Dunne admitted this in Raymond Miller’s recent book on political parties).

The only bright spot is that the international insurance industry is extremely cognisant of the implications of climate change because they’re the ones that have to pay out eveytime a hurricane hits Florida, so maybe if Brash and Key listened more to them then they wouldn’t be head in the sands climate change deniers/downplayers.

Having said all that, I really agree with Jeanette’s fomulation in her state of the planet address: “We are not part of government or of opposition. We are a free and independent Green Party and are free to speak our minds and to stand up for the environment, for justice, for peace and for democracy in opposition to the Government where our policies differ.” We are not Labour’s handmaidens. We are free and independent to speak our minds.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:32:17 +0000

you right pip, we gotta stop this,
lets face it, if yous fwwog things get extinquistincted
in 2008 because of having another communist leader and then the votes in 2008 go to try to make a helengrad 4,
so we really got to changed our mines on this issue
and we decided we like you, we going to tell people to give you votes and we promise to say nice things about the new red head,
look i was talking to the fascist and heres what stront said look he said,
” i rather have jeanette in parliemant than that helengrad thing”, so there you go,

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: andrewfalloon

andrewfalloon — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:06:49 +0000

Russell, thank you for answering those. I wasn’t aware Trevor had endorsed me.

Stuey, I was on dial-up at the time and the questions didn’t come up when i refreshed the page so I figured I had “lost” them which has happened to me a couple of times on this site. The second question was asked because they were also listed on Trevor’s blog. I can assure you I most certainly have a life

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Pip

Pip — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 01:46:34 +0000

This is nuts. Andrew and Trev are both going for positions on ACTs board, David has been elected unopposed for Auckland South. PeterQuixote, well, he’s active in ACT at least. And at least interesting.

But, don’t you guys have some issues of your own to deal with? Or have you figured that presenting a positive vision that’ll gain your own platform some support is a lost cause, and the best you can hope to do from now on is attack those you see as the greatest threat?

Personally, I think the Greens should take your obsessiveness as a compliment.

Cheers.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: RedGreen

RedGreen — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:39:01 +0000

Gosh Mr Seymour,

You seem a little flustered that Russel has actually responded to – and in fact successfully rebutted – AF/Trev’s questions.

The only vitriol and ad hominem attacks come from the ACT camp.

Build a bridge and get over yourself. Otherwise get some multinational corporation to build it for you.

- Shawn Tan

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: JTF

JTF — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 06:48:45 +0000

I’m glad Russel answered Trev’s questions because it showed that his “facts�? are not necessarily true. What can we conclude from Trev’s silence on Russel’s questions?

I agree with fastbike: Trev’s whole blog consists of ad hominem attacks, focussing on people’s affiliations (or past affiliations) rather than what they actually say and do. Doesn’t he have the ability to argue with ideas he doesn’t like?

I’m still puzzled as to why someone would obsess over New Zealand Marxists and ex-Marxists in this day and age. They have probably never amounted to more than a few hundred people and, of those still living, many have grown beyond their youthful political convictions. If “the commies�? weren’t able to hold back the tide of Rogernomics twenty years ago, what possible danger do they pose to ACT’s agenda today? I really don’t get it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Asher

Asher — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 05:33:28 +0000

I note Trevor still hasn’t answered Russel’s questions, which include much of what I was referring to in my post.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:27:55 +0000

also why do Norman idiotically carry on Rod Donald’s and Green’s claim that increased consumption be given the misnomer ‘progress’ thus allowing you to think that progressive tax, is equivalent to more tax,
and according to you a ‘progressive tax’ is taxing some people more than others,
sorry dudes this is regressive, provenly regressive,
drop yous social policies and come out with you web feet up,
because this you last term in parliament,
we going to steal green from you
and we going to leave you as you are,
reds,

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: phil u.

phil u. — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:20:52 +0000

i have been censored again….a whole post…(which is why my last comment above makes no sense)….

um…thinking about what i wrote..wtf is going on frog..?..aren’t you carrying censorship to ridiculous levels..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:20:35 +0000

you dudes been notice how many fascist neo liberal using the word ‘green’ lately, like even in ACT, awful isn’t it we might have them riparian boundary trees and fertiliser suctions up and running along the cow trail, while you still talking about that dead Coyote, and, apparently there going to be quite a lot of attack at Noman especially when Locke go,

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: stuey

stuey — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:19:13 +0000

frogblog one of the nastiest blogs in the blogosphere? eh? what? have you actually read any others?

vitriolic response? er, where exactly? I think most of the response is one of incredulity and hilarity.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: fastbike

fastbike — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:26:03 +0000

I could spell it out for you DS …
- ad hominen – Trev’s whole blog is about personal attacks on people who he doesn’t agree with
- nasty blogsphere – take a peak at the comments left by Trev’s supporters
- vitriol – OK, maybe I’d settle for describing the tone of that blog as obsessive
…

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)