Snippets
Looking forward to Taito Phillip Field’s new ‘family values’ party ? Aren’t we all? After all, allowing migrants desperate to stay in the country to work for free on one’s private property in return for a word in a well placed ear, wink, wink, must surely encapsulate the type of upright, decent moral values missing on the New Zealand political scene since the unfortunate demise of Graham Capill’s Christian Heritage Party.
***
Thank goodness Auckland has sorted out its infrastructure, housing, transport and poverty issues so it can focus exclusively on the Battle of the Billboards.
***
How’s this for getting out on the trail? Billed as the “possibly the best theatrical production in Invercargill”, this public meeting held by the Maori Party seems to defy belief – not only does it sound positively fun, by all reports it was a meeting affirming their commitment to amend Section 59 of the Crimes Act that ended without anyone threatening hellfire and damnation, or screaming about the ‘femi-nazis’ and their ‘facist nanny-state.’
Bloody good work chaps.
***
In other good news, it appears 77 per cent of New Zealanders are smarter than Augie Auer (actually I’d be tempted to up that statistic). The Business Council for Sustainable Development has released the results of it’s survey of 960 people (conducted prior to the IPCC report release) 77 per cent of whom believed climate change was a problem, and 35 per cent classified it as an urgent and immediate problem.
About 77 per cent agreed on the need to cut waste whether or not climate change was happening. Like this, say?
The poll also found that nine in 10 respondents would support a Government policy of mass housing insulation programmes. Whaddabout this?
More details on the survey and the NZBCSD response here.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
frog said: “Looking forward to Taito Phillip Field’s new ‘family values’ party ? Aren’t we all?”
Well, if it fails, which it inevitably will, I guess there’s always the chance Wolfowitz will offer him a job at the World Bank. He’s got all the right credentials re opposing corruption and nepotism and supporting family values to really impress Wolfie.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Dr Sharples said their support for the bill was based on several principles but he acknowledged there was a lot of opposition to their stance.
The first principle was that in New Zealand animals and adults are protected from being hurt by law, but children are not because of the loophole that the “reasonable force� section of the Crimes Act sometimes gives people who hurt them.
Secondly, he argued that there was a clear link between smacking children and the development in children of violent tendencies.
There were other ways of dealing with problems with children, such as talking problems through, he said.
“Perhaps we should try a non-violent New Zealand. Why not? We lead the world in lots of other ways.�
Good tactic, refer obliquely to the arguments, and avoid having to address whether those arguments were soundly made, or not, (ie) ignore the fact that all these points have been chewed over and spat out before. Appropriate Decision Making ??? , I think not, disingenuous debate, I think yes.
Nobody said politics was about telling the truth but jeez, didn`t we go after Don Brash!.
jh
April 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I think the bill-board advertising thing is important as it is an issue where imparting information crosses into manipulation. We ought to be aware of the way our values and attitudes are influenced and to what degree this is healthy.
jh
April 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I dunno, maybe Taito Phillip Field was simply helping out some mates.
Isn’t that how things really work in NZ?
We may be number two “least corrupt” in the world according to Transparency International, but I’d really be interested to see how closely they examined local body politics for example.
Or if they took any notice of the National Party’s last election campaign
Then again, that was simply Don Brash being helped out by some mates.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I find it incredible that the Greens think we should consider the views of the majority who have no scientific training on an issue such as the claim that any action by New Zealand will have some effect on world temperature in 50 years time yet ignore the view of the real expert – parents – when it come to disciplining their children.
What qualification do Green MPs let alone Green members have that make them thing they are so much wiser than the majority of the population many of whom have had far more life experience?
April 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Responsible parenthood> Green
Welfarism (breeding ferals)> Red
jh
April 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
>>77 per cent of New Zealanders are smarter than Augie Auer
No they’re (clearly) not.
It’s more accurate to say 77% believe what they’ve been told. I wonder how many of the 77% could explain the scientific basis for that belief?
April 17th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Chuck:
“…the claim that any action by New Zealand will have some effect on world temperature in 50 years time…” Nobody’s made that claim (yet) because nobody would believe it.
Peter:
“…77% believe what they’ve been told.” I agree. Only insofar as that Shape NZ poll participants are likely to be “seriously sympathetic” to the views of nzbcsd (the poll hosts). In other words, in the true sense of valid polling, it’s probably flawed.
Other more rigorous polls have produced resoundingly “take action now” sentiment though. Here’s a reasonably up to date summary of mine.
There need not be a scientific basis for the belief either. Observational basis alone should do it. You cant swim in many rivers and air pollution in two of our big cities is dire. Global market dynamics may do it for others. The food miles falacy argued by Brits against our products for eg. Some still will have boned up on AGW science.
And no, I didn’t vote in that poll.
Cheers
Mike
April 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Mike, if there is not strong evidence that action taken by New Zealand that will cost New Zealand economically will affect world temperature why should New Zealand take such action? The Greens advocate New Zealand setting an example at considerable cost to the economy.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
CB said
The Greens advocate New Zealand setting an example at considerable cost to the economy
Actually CB, you’d do well to read up on Green policy. Your allegation IS absurd and patently wrong.
GP policy will keep the money in NZ, being used for benefit of NZers and NZ industry.
If the current govt (or for that matter if the Nats were in govt - they signed us up to Kyoto remember) keep up their record of passing the buck and refusing to take the issue seriously, then Billions of NZD will be paid to Russia for Kyoto penalties. This is clearly in no-one’s interest.
It doesn’t have to be that way - GP policy would avoid that outcome.
You have access to the information, why not study up on it instead of peddling FUD.
And, if you really are worried about considerable costs to our economy, then there’s a long list:
- ballooning FF import bill
- taxes we pay to the Aussie banks
- taxes we pay to Telecom
- etc
April 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
>>GP policy would avoid that outcome
GP policy would ensure we couldn’t generate billions in the first place.
I presume the pollys aren’t taking Kyoto seriously, because no one else is. DOA. tinyurl.com/2zu42k
April 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
chuck
that is the cost of our production system. we’ll have to bear it one day. as our competitors will have to bear theirs. a price on carbon is logical and it will eventually be universal. it may well ensue that we save in the long run by paying “early”…
there are financial costs of not addressing emissions (as i said above: “Global market dynamics… [t]he food miles falacy argued by Brits against our products for eg.”).
there are non-financial costs too (again, above: “You cant swim in many rivers and air pollution in two of our big cities is dire”).
the reality is that it costs both ways. by addressing it now we’ll incentivise change that may just clean up a city sky or lowland stream or two.
by addressing it now we’ll also help ensure future production is less financially exposed. it may come with some very short term financial pressure, but on balance we’d be better off.
for me the cost-benefit balance says act. having decided that, we then find we’re a way behind in terms of preparedness.
governments are especially behind on this - ours is still (just) in the lead bunch. globally, many businesses and significant consumer markets have a lead.
that’s the crux when you consider it in light of ability to benefit from innovation. so act now or be swamped. ask anchor butter.
the way i see it its a no brainer…
mike
April 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
# Chuck Bird Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
>I find it incredible that the Greens think we should consider the views of the majority who have no scientific training on an issue such as the claim that any action by New Zealand will have some effect on world temperature in 50 years time yet ignore the view of the real expert – parents – when it come to disciplining their children.
I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone reading Frog’s post that he/she was not suggesting that the number of laypeople who believe anthropogenic global warming is happening is evidence that it is. Frog way merely saying that, seeing as it is true, its a good thing that so many people recognise it is true.
Now I don’t know how Frog woirked out that AGW is real. Assuming frog is not a climate scientist, it was probably the way I worked it out - by the fact that every one of the over 2000 climate scientists on the IPCC, selected by universities, research institutes and governments all over the world, have reached an agreement that the evidence is so compelling as be essentially definite. By contrast, Augie Auer is one retired climate scientist, who has worked in weather forecasting and weather forecast presentation for so long as to be potentially out of touch with the science of long-term climate forecasting, and has only become newsworthy because he happens to disagree with every single climate scientist on the IPCC.
Of course, when all the experts agree they might all be wrong, but it would be insane to bet the future of the planet on it.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Thank you Fastbike…. that pretty well sums it up.
Just so you CB and PEL understand, this is a problem for everyone on this planet, we are on this planet, we cannot expect others to act if we do not.
We should not be paying prohibitive costs and Green policy is decently clear on this.
As Fastbike points out, there’s a LOT worse going on with our economy under this government than even your worst Kyoto nightmare could do to us.
As for our qualifications, I think you’d be surprised.
The average punter hasn’t much chance, but when given the choice between trusting a scientist or a businessman or a politician, it seems that the scientist is still regarded as the most trustworthy. So when it comes to the IPCC vs the business community vs the party hack, the public goes with the IPCC,,, is it really so surprising?
respectfullly
BJ
April 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
>>this is a problem for everyone on this planet
It’s not a problem for me. And others: tinyurl.com/99lbe
>>LOT worse going on with our economy under this government
Indeed.
>>given the choice between trusting a scientist or a businessman or a politician
I disagree. I think they’ve swallowed the FUD from Gore, and the like, hook, line and sinker.
I think the real choice is between which scientist you choose to believe.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
PeterPiker :
I find it funny as hell that the evidence you present for Kyoto being DOA dates from … 2005. (tinyurl.com/2zu42k). Also that article is very much in favour of workable measures to reduce global warming…
Which all illustrates the difficulty that AGW denialists of your stripe are having in finding straws to clutch at…
To the substance of your contention that international co-operation is a dead end, and that little nz should do nothing because the big boys are doing nothing : From your article:
Beyond that, they need to look at ways of bringing the US, India, China and Brazil into some kind of treaty
Earth to Petie : That is exactly what has been happening in the long period since that article was published. GWB is not president for life, praise the lord, and even Howard has had an epiphany about AGW. The Chinese and Indians aren’t stupid, and the next US president, whatever their political stripe, will be active in dragging the other great polluters along with them, into treaties with teeth.
In particular, I would expect that the menace of environmental tariffs (carbon tax on international trade) will be quite effective in getting everyone to sign on.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if “clean, green” NZ got it in the neck because of its poor GHG record…
April 17th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Ah the people, who like Pete, have no problem with global warming : your link
tinyurl.com/99lbe
leads to globalwarming.org : a denialist/obfuscation site.
First stop, as always with a spin site : the “About us” link, which tells us that this is a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition, and gives us a link to consumeralert.org … gee the domain name is parked!
Most of the site is very stale, and hasn’t been updated since 2005… hey Rip Van Petie are you in a time warp?
The front page has been updated recently, and notes that the updates are by the Competitive Enterprise Institute… Gee so the concerned citizens/consumers theme seems to be getting a bit strained…
And what is the CEI? (www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm) :
“The best environmental think tank in the country” according to The Wall Street Journal …
Got any other straws you’d like to share with us Petie? This is fun…
April 17th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I am surprised that the Greens are scared of Augie Auer, are the Greens worried that he might convince more Kiwi’s that Global warming is a con?
From what I have heard the man say all he is asking for is a little more research and debate on the issue.
While I think it is gutless to attack the man (perhaps you cannot argue with his logic) I also understand that the more the Greens froth at the mouth every time his name in mentioned the more Joe Average starts to think that there might be some other reason the left are pushing this barrow.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Hi Peter
GP policy would ensure we couldn’t generate billions in the first place.
Show us your figures.
You are losing touch with the reality based world.
Climate change is happening - how we choose to respond is where the debate is at now. Move on.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
# big bruv Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
> I am surprised that the Greens are scared of Augie Auer, are the Greens worried that he might convince more Kiwi’s that Global warming is a con?
> From what I have heard the man say all he is asking for is a little more research and debate on the issue.
I’m not sure if it’s accurate to say he is asking for more research when he has actually been calling for NIWA, the group in New Zealand that is doing the most research on the issue, to be closed down. And most other climate scientists ARE calling for more research.
What makes Augie Auer and his group different is not fundamentally how much research or debate they are calling for, but that they are calling for us to do nothing about the problem in the meantime.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
And the ad hominems begin again. Reminds me that the far left and far right share much in common.
What makes you think I support Bush? Do you kill the messenger from the left, or only from the right?
>>You are losing touch with the reality based world.
How many countries will meet their Kyoto targets?
Here’s something you might like: tinyurl.com/y2zdgm
…although I do wonder how New Zealand, dependent as it is on farming, is going to remain viable?
Does New Zealand have much to fear in terms of GW? A bit drier in places, a bit wetter in places, and the sea rises a few inches. Don’t panic.
What will the effect on New Zealanders be if we commit economic suicide?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:23 am
What will the effect on New Zealanders be if we commit economic suicide?
You’re the only one promoting this - and in fact NZ is well down that track with our unsustainable BOP and “invisibles” deficits. That’s before any Kyoto payments kick in.
GP policies are quite the opposite - and will keep the cash within the NZ economy.
Take the blinker’s off Peter. There’s lots of exciting and profitable Kyoto compliant initiatives in the works. It’s a shame you don’t want to be involved.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:26 am
and
…although I do wonder how New Zealand, dependent as it is on farming, is going to remain viable?
Does New Zealand have much to fear in terms of GW? A bit drier in places, a bit wetter in places, and the sea rises a few inches. Don’t panic.
I detect panic in your posts. Quoting CEI doesn’t cut it as far a science based approach goes. It’s more like faith based, or maybe just an old fashioned head-in-the-sand approach.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Peter:
What makes you think I support Bush?
Are you talking to me? Where did I say that?
And the ad hominems begin again.
Where, Petie? Is it the name “PeterPiker” that you don’t like? I’m making fun of your moniker, not of you.
You can’t rebut the arguments, so you resort to playing the victim, eh?
Your last link actually addresses the subject of yesterday’s post … yes indeed, cows produce a huge proportion of NZ’s greenhouse gases. There are thinks that can be done about this Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research consortium is doing excellent research on this, and is coming up with answers. Nitrous oxide is the worst offender, followed by methane. It turns out that the de-nitrification process which produces both the NO gas and leachable nitrates which pollute groundwater, can be fixed by application of dicyandiamide which neutralises the cow piss. It will probably pay for itself through the improved soil fertility alone.
Methane looks a lot harder — they are working on finding micro-organisms which would out-compete the CH4 producing ones in cows’ guts.
If you were looking for an excuse for doing nothing about cars, Peter, that’s a pretty lame one!
April 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am
>>GP policies are quite the opposite - and will keep the cash within the NZ economy.
I would like to see a cost analysis of implementing Green policy. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of that on the Green Party site? What will the tax rates be? Will they rise or fall? Are you for increasing or decreasing the current tax rates?
>>you don’t want to be involved.
I do own a lot of trees. Does that count?
>>You can’t rebut the arguments
What arguments?
>>Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research consortium
Now that is interesting. Thanks. Faith in science to help solve problems
tinyurl.com/2c3zre
April 18th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Not a matter of “faith”, Pete. I look at the science and make up my own mind. But there is a lot of low-hanging fruit with respect to greenhouse gases produced by agriculture — the farmers need to be firmly steered in the right direction, with taxes and subsidies. Everyone wins.
In general, Green Party policy is designed to be tax-neutral : any specific new tax is offset by the decrease in another tax : with the objective of taxing “bads” instead of “goods”.
Yeah that Tesla is pretty cute, a good demonstration of technology. And apparently price competitive as a boy-toy sports car (though it doesn’t go vroom vroom, that would probably be a problem for some boys). However it doesn’t cut it as a transport solution : Li-Ion batteries don’t look like ever becoming energy-dense enough, or low priced enough, to power cars for the masses.
But there is a technology in the works that will provide a real paradigm shift, if it actually delivers as advertised (volume production in 2007) : the EEStor ultracapacitor.
They claim production costs equivalent to lead-acid batteries, for ten times the energy density. Up to 1.5 to 2.5 times the energy of Li-Ion batteries at 12 to 25% of the cost. Ultra-quick charging, which you can’t do with lead-acid or Li-Ion.
The battery, or ultracapacitor, will not degrade due to being fully discharged or recharged, and also can be rapidly charged without damaging the material or reducing its life. The cycle time to fully charge a 52 kWh EESU would be in the range of 4 to 6 minutes with sufficient cooling of the power cables and connections.
I can see two modes of charging, for the average car : overnight plug-in (need a pretty hefty power supply, of the order of 5 Kw or so, for a 10 hour charge), and service stations. Attendants hook up very thick cables and charge your car in a few minutes (no self service, because the currents involved are huge).
April 18th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Thanks for the info on the EEStor ultracapacitor, Alistair. Interesting stuff.
>>Green Party policy is designed to be tax-neutral : any specific new tax is offset by the decrease in another tax : with the objective of taxing “bads� instead of “goods�.
Hmmm….what, specifically, would business tax, personal tax and GST be?
Is there a cost analysis I can look at?
If the environment is paramount in Green thinking, could the Greens side with National if National policy was more favorable to the envronment than Labour policy?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am
kahikatea Says:
The above is the reason I do not read bother to read Green policy. The statement is very misleading to say the least. To be on the IPCC one must believe the dogma. If you think scientist cannot be bought just look at the history of the tobacco industry. How about industrial pollution? I forget the name of the movie but I am sure others will recall the one where a woman took on an industrial polluter.
I hope some of you Greens are capable on looking at the issue logically.
Firstly, it is debatable if the planet is going to keep warming and if carbon causes global warming. .For the sake of debate let us assume this is true.
Can you state how much of the carbon is caused by humans? Can you state how much of the carbon is caused by New Zealand? If everyone in New Zealand traded their cars for bicycles and the rate of carbon emissions was cut in half that would not make a measurable difference in world temperature.
How many countries have copied New Zealand’s nuclear free policy? None I believe. It is unlikely that any country – particular a major polluter – will take any notice what New Zealand does.
The majority of carbon is not man made. If and it is a big if carbon causes global warming resources would be better directed adapting rather than a futile attempt to change the world climate.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:50 am
>>GP policies are quite the opposite - and will keep the cash within the NZ economy.
Still waiting for a cost analysis of implementing Green policy. Can someone point me to it?
Beginning to wonder if such a document exists…
April 18th, 2007 at 11:54 am
The majority of carbon is not man made.
Actually NO carbon is man made.
However, there are 2 carbon cycles: geological and biological.
Mankind has been transferring massive quantitities from the former to the latter. So that previous stable geological carbon is now active in the biosphere - with the attendant consequences being observed by scientists.
For a readable summary of the likely effects in our part of the world take a look at http://www.niwa.co.nz/media/ipcc_4.pdf
…adapting rather than a futile attempt to change the world climate.
Hey Chuck, you can’t have it both ways. Either additional carbon in the biosphere is causing climate change - and therefore can be reversed, or it’s not.
We’re sticking with the former thesis, based on the science. It sounds like you need to bone up on the basic science so you can differentiate between what is real, and what is spin.
If you are genuinely interested in learning - and not just point scoring - then head over to realclimate.org and ipcc.ch. Fascinating stuff and they do explore both sides of the argument.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
If the environment is paramount in Green thinking, could the Greens side with National if National policy was more favorable to the envronment than Labour policy?
Take a look at the 4 Green Principles.
http://greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
Any negotiation must be consistent with our Charter and policies, regardless of who we are dealing with.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Peter
We’re still waiting for an answer as to why the taxpayer is expected to pick up after the polluters.
For example take a read of Stern.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/999/76/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summ ary.pdf
Or do you think he’s part of some wider conspiracy ?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Chuck
Nuclear Free was never feasible for the USA or Russia or India or China or Pakistan or France or England. You can’t put that genie back in its bottle, nor was influencing other people’s policy the principal reason for doing it. If you do not understand that we’re not going to have a very productive debate here.
As for how much of the increase in CO2 comes from humans I can very easily say almost all of it, and show you where and how that answer is scientifically derived. Yes the NZ CO2 footprint is microscopic on the world stage, but each Kiwi has exactly the same responsibility for reducing it as each American and each Chinese and each Indian and German and Russian and Swede. Most of THEM are working on this problem more earnestly than you are willing for this government to do.
Your claim that if NZ fails its responsibility no-one will notice fails to impress this American. When the next US election occurs climate change can only be made an issue if it is clear that others are “taking the high road”. If “clean-green-NZ” fails in its responsibilities it WILL be noticed and it will be used. I know how US elections work (and fail to work), and the effectiveness of the issue in the election CAN be nullified to a significant by our failure.
Your assertion about most of the carbon at the end is correct and irrelevant as carbon cycles THROUGH the environment. That natural balance is what keeps the planet from being a snowball… and is not relevant to climate change arguments, calculations or models. Changes in the balance which are reflected in the elevated CO2 present in the atmosphere, are almost entirely related to human activity and can be shown to be so with quite a lot of scientific certainty.
As to whether the planet will keep warming, I can understand your doubts… you’ve never seen it happen. There’s no record of anything like what is happening in the climate history of the planet. There is always the possibility that the Sun will go dimmer or the changes of insolation that cause Ice-Ages will suddenly become apparent… we haven’t got any evidence that this is the case, but it is POSSIBLE that the increase in CO2 (50x faster than any time in the past million years) that explains the warming so well is merely a coincidence and the real answer is the sun.
It is also possible that I am an alien from the planet Xorp and I have some mad scheme to aid climate scientists to take over world government.
Trust however you like. Trust politicians and businesssmen or trust scientists… most of us understand the value of lying to the first two and the dedication to truth of the latter. Corrupting individuals is always possible, but the climate science community as a whole? Yeah right…
respectfully
BJ
April 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
>>Any negotiation must be consistent with our Charter and policies, regardless of who we are dealing with.
So the answer is “no” then? A vote for Green appears to be a vote for Labour.
>>Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources,
Hmmm…….”just”. What does that mean, exactly? And how?
>>We’re still waiting for an answer as to why the taxpayer is expected to pick up after the polluters.
I want to know the cost of Green Party policies on New Zealand. For example, if the Green Party got a majority, what would the tax rates be?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
So the answer is”no”? then? A vote for Green appears to be a vote for Labour.
If YOU say so. That’s NOT what I said.
I want to know the cost of Green Party policies on New Zealand
Green policy is fiscally neutral and as such moves taxes away from desirable activities such as employment onto undesirable activities such as pollution and waste.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
PEL
Overall cost of Green policies is intended to be zero. Any effort to alter the taxes the way we propose will entail a fair amount of adjustment in the economy and in the tax rates, so it is likely to be unsettling and that IS going to be a cost, but the current tax regime is so bizarre and biased to the benefit of the bankers that it can only be called broken.
respectfully
BJ
April 18th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
PeterExitsLeft says: So the answer is “no� then? A vote for Green appears to be a vote for Labour.
No, Peter, a vote for Green is a vote for GREEN!
At the moment, much of most parties’ policies for the next election are under development and/or not released. There are some encouraging signs that National will abandon some of its far-right policies of the Brash years that worked against the Green social justice principle. For example, they have already abandoned the market rents for state housing policy and pledged that they no longer favour reverting to an Employment Contracts Act / high structural unemployment regime designed to keep wages low.
Since the Greens negotiate on policy, you can’t expect their preferred partner(s) in a Government relationship to be indicated until the other Parties’ policies are public. And at the end of the day, any deal done will be the one that can best advance the Greens’ policies and principles. What other Parties may be prepared to concede in the direction of not advancing policies that are contrary to Green policy following the election will obviously also have a bearing on what arrangements the Greens may come too.
As for tax policy, there are aspects of that the Greens are still working on - too early to give any detail, other than to say that the Greens are committed to cuts in income tax to offset the impact of the proposed carbon charging regime in their Climate Change policy and proposed eco-taxes.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
>>a vote for Green is a vote for GREEN!
Yes, but we all know under MMP it’s about tactical voting.
Put it this way - whilst the Green Party keeps Labour in power, I can’t vote Green. In that respect, the Green track record up until this point isn’t great, although if there were concrete assurances that National was more likely, I’d certainly consider voting Green again.
But I’m just one vote…
I’m all for increased wages, a genuine welfare state (as intended, and not a lifestyle option), less government interference in markets, and a party that is serious about keeping New Zealand a green and pleasant land.
The last bit the Greens could provide, but I’m very suspicious of the socialist bent. Is Green/National really something the Greens are considering?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
PEL
We don’t keep labour in power. We were willing to go a fair long way to keep Brash OUT of power though, given his attitudes to a lot of things we value including the environment. Has the National party changed its tune enough for us to go to the dance with them? I don’t know, but I don’t expect the differences to evaporate. If Nats want to work with us they’re going to have to respect some of the things we respect and we’ll negotiate compromise on the rest. It would not be easy for either side but hostility isn’t as automatic as suspicion is.
respectfully
BJ
April 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
>>We don’t keep labour in power.
C’mon BJ. By keeping National out, you kept Labour in.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
PeterExitsLeft Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
>>We don’t keep labour in power.
> C’mon BJ. By keeping National out, you kept Labour in.
The Greens aren’t really keeping National out or Labour in - New Zealand First and United Future are doing that. The Greens were keen to do a deal to keep Labour in for the purposes of keeping National out, and would have requested certain policy concessions in return for it. However, it didn’t happen. Labour chose to rely on New Zealand First and \United Future instead.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
# Chuck Bird Says:
>The above is the reason I do not read bother to read Green policy. The statement is very misleading to say the least. To be on the IPCC one must believe the dogma
Bullshit.
When the IPCC was first established in the late 1980s, there was a lot of doubt among IPCC members as to whether global warming was happening. By 2002, they were unanimous. This did not happen through people being chucked off the IPCC because they didn’t agree with a certain viewpoint - the membership didn’t change that much. What changed was the evidence the members based their conclusions on - an extra fifteen years of comprehensive data was collected, and computer models became much more sophisticated.
Anyone who says that the IPCC membership was chosed based on whether or not individual scientists believed in global warming is either misinformed or lying.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Without an absolute majority in Parliament, the Greens are forced to find what they think is the best solution when entering political deals. This solution may not be an ideal solution in what any particular person might regard as a perfect world (such as the Greens having a majority!)
April 18th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Fastbike :
Any negotiation must be consistent with our Charter and policies, regardless of who we are dealing with.
Peter :
So the answer is “no� then?
I’ll tell you what Peter. I’d bet that you have a better grasp of National’s principles and policies than us Greens. Why don’t you outline the reasons why you don’t think National could accept the Greens’ charter principles?
As for this bull about keeping Labour in power!! It’s the grey/brown parties of the alleged “centre” who are doing that, not the Greens!
Ironically, the cornerstone of their agreement with Labour was keeping the Greens out of power, and doing nothing about global warming! Talk about sunset parties. I hope the door hits them on the *rse on the way out. (Can anyone point to significant policy achievements of NZF or UF in this term, other than the major one of doing nothing about global warming?)
April 18th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
It’s clear that Key is a very different animal from Brash. He’s young and pliable, probably still capable of moving his world view a bit. If he can embrace our policies on global warming and energy independence, and live with our veto on retrograde social legislation, then we can work with him.
Let’s look at some possible scenarios.
It’s pretty inevitable that Labour will lose seats in the next election. The Greens will almost certainly gain some, both because of the prominence of environmental concerns and because disappointed electors of the left have nowhere else to go. Let’s say for the sake of argument, we get 10 to 15 seats.
In the not particularly improbable event that the Greens are the only small party to get over 5%, this is likely to make us a necessary coalition partner for either or both of the main parties.
In that situation, I would favour choosing the partner which would enable us to govern in a two-party coalition.
For example : for the sake of argument, Nat gets 50, Labour 40, Greens 15. Labour would require the riff-raff of the left and centre, as well as the Greens, in order to govern. I think we tell them to take a walk, and cut a deal with Key.
Conversely, if Key would need another party(ACT or centrist), as well as the Greens, then we tell him no thanks.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
List of creationist arguments:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments.
We could use this approach re, global warming AND Section59 of the Crimes Act.
jh
April 18th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
alistair,
“… Key is a very different animal from Brash. He’s young and pliable, probably still capable of moving his world view a bit.”
Watching his “body language”, facial expression and demenor on TV, I get the impression that John Key is very ambitious, expedient and potentially ruthless (in the nicest possible way!)
I wouldn’t hold my breath for a National-Green “coalition”.
That is FPP thinking, and the Greens are here for the long haul.
The main point of the MMP system (which Rod Donald et al worked to achieve for so many years) is that there is always room for flexibility and cooperation between and among Paties on specific issues …
(”Behind closed doors interesting alliaces may be formed” at the Select Committeee level.)
… rather than fixed coallitions that recreate FPP with its two fixed (protagonistic) “sides”.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:27 am
alistair Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The Greens will almost certainly gain some, both because of the prominence of environmental concerns and because disappointed electors of the left have nowhere else to go.
…………..
People of the center and right won`t be too happy with the influence of the far -left in the Green Party, (despite what Auntie Lettuce say`s about the charter).
The Section59 debate is only a taste of what`s to come.
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 5:44 am
jh: no idea what point you were trying to make about creationism, because your link’s busted.
… People of the right would never vote Green anyway. Some may have done so in the 90s, like Bro, before realising their mistake. The Greens are the most transparent of parties, they have never hidden the fact that they are on the left. So what’s the problem?
April 19th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Eredwen : New Zealand has never yet had a minority government. It is theoretically possible to govern without an agreement on confidence and supply, but unprecedented.
Sooner or later (not necessarily at the next election, though it’s quite likely), we Greens are going to find ourselves in the position of being the only party able to guarantee confidence and supply to one side or another (worst case : either). That doesn’t necessarily mean forming a coalition and having ministers, but frankly democracy does not live by legislation alone, and I think it’s high time we got our hands on some budgets.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:16 am
alistair
“Sooner or later (not necessarily at the next election, though it’s quite likely), we Greens are going to find ourselves in the position of being the only party able to guarantee confidence and supply to one side or another (worst case : either)”
I would not count your chickens just yet, the voters (all 82%) who are against Comrade Bradford’s bill are not going to forgive you that easily.
As for the Greens holding the balance of power, should we ever be in a position where a party (who just scrape over the 5% threshold) end up with “our hands on some budgets” then that would be the death of democracy in NZ.
I can just imagine how the public would react if the co leader got the transport portfolio, or perhaps Comrade Bradford ended up with the social welfare purse.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am
# alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 5:44 am
jh: no idea what point you were trying to make about creationism, because your link’s busted.
…………………
The point about creationism is that on that site they have instant question and reply. Proponents of Sue Bradford’s bill ignore well made arguments in their rhetoric> a quick link to the sort of site above provides an intelligent piece of argument (the evolution creationist argument in that case).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
======
… People of the right would never vote Green anyway. Some may have done so in the 90s, like Bro, before realising their mistake. The Greens are the most transparent of parties, they have never hidden the fact that they are on the left. So what’s the problem?
…………
The problem is that there is nothing that justifies the domination of the Green Party by the far-left (although the Green Charter is used selectively).
It is the green issues that are carrying support. In loading up the party with people from the far-left you betray the environment in favour of a left-wing agenda.
Do you plan a name change, say: `Red Greens` to be even more transparent?
“The Values Party represented a different dimension in politics altogether - they were saying something very different from both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.”
In fact, the Values Party were at the cutting edge of politics - a new political phenomenon. They have been internationally credited with inventing the word ’sustainability’, and even back then were tackling issues such as ecological tax reform, pricing of resources and auctioning of pollution rights. Could it be done? Should it be done? For Jeanette, her involvement with this new political party was “an incredibly formative experience”.
http://www.greens.org.nz/people/fitzsimons_j.asp
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
It’s interesting to consider, she points out, that the highest polling electorate for the Values Party for several elections was in Porirua (a more socially disadvanted electorate), and the second highest was in Remuera (an electorate with one of the highest per capita incomes). “The Values Party represented a different dimension in politics altogether - they were saying something very different from both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.”
PS how is Green support in Hornby (ie blue collar)?
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
>>It is the green issues that are carrying support. In loading up the party with people from the far-left you betray the environment in favour of a left-wing agenda.
Nicely put. That’s my issue with the Greens.
So I’m hoping the National Party integrate a bit more environmentally/animal welfare friendly policy into the mix, and/or the Greens dump their left-wing nonsense.
The former is more likely, I guess.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
PEL said: It is the green issues that are carrying support. In loading up the party with people from the far-left you betray the environment in favour of a left-wing agenda.
Dunno where you get this “far-left” perception from, Peter.
A far-left Party would propose dealing with climate change by nationalising all the climate change forcing industries and centrally controlling them to reduce climate change forcing emissions. That approach was a dismal failure in the Soviet Union.
A centre-left Party would either hope the issue goes away, which it won’t, or tax business and high income-earners more to pay for our Kyoto commitments, so the cost won’t fall on those responsible for climate change forcing emissions.
A centre-right Party would deny anthropogenic climate change exists becasue it is too politically difficult to deal with, or mouth platitudes but do nothing. Eventually, the taxpayer would end up paying here too.
A far right Party would repudiate New Zealand’s commitment to Kyoto and tell the world to get stuffed, because their supporters’ only concern is that the plane survives long enough to make a lot of money in their lifetimes.
Don’t you think the Greens have a moderate and sensible solution here? Make the polluters pay. Isn’t that what the “market” is all about - people paying the real economic cost of what they do.
Of course, the polluters will pass on the costs, which will help to reduce the size of the market for products that pollute and encourage investment in the development of products that don’t. And the policy also involves an income tax cut that proportionately advantages those who can least afford to pay for the increase costs.
Hardly a “far-left” policy - just a sensible one in the tradition of the Values Party that jh talks about nostalgically above.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Toad
Your post avoids the question, most voters have no issue with the Greens stance on the environment, we all know where the Greens are coming from (while not always agreeing) and your position is indeed transparent, a few of us from the right even support you in some areas, for instance in the areas of animal welfare you will ALWAYS have my full support.
The problem a lot of us have is the hard left stance you take on social issues, I know I have said this in the past but the real worry I have (and this concern is shared by a growing number of people) is that you are far from transparent when it comes to social policy, there is a growing perception that you have pushed aside the traditional Green issues for hard left social engineering, it is no wonder many people think the Greens have a hidden agenda.
Make no mistake, social engineering and that constant intrusions of nanny state will cause the downfall of the Klark govt, what the Greens must do is distance themselves from the corrupt Labour party if they have any chance of avoiding the fall out.
They should start right now by dropping the Bradford bill
April 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
test
April 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Bro :
Don’t worry about the Greens disappearing from parliament mate… the most recent poll I can find, carried out between March 19 and April 8, has the Greens up 2% to 9.5%.
Stick that in your section 49 and smoke it.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
alistair
Face it, you will NEVER get your hands on the purse strings.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
jh, peter:
The Green Party certainly doesn’t claim a monopoly on environmentalism. Those who feel that having a coherent political program rather than a narrow focus on ecological issues, and a left of centre focus, is a problem, should found another environmentalist party. I’m really surprised that nobody has.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Bro : 9.5% translates to roughly 12 Green MPs. Only a National landslide with over 50% of the vote will keep our hands off the purse strings. Quite likely, we’ll be able to choose who forms the next government, with a bidding war, just like old Winston did back in the day!
Ahahaha, big bags of money!
April 19th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
In some ways I hope that happens, that particular govt would last about six months before the public demanded an early election.
The reality is this, if you have a property that might be on unstable ground Alistair then I suggest you move it, there is indeed a landslide on its way.
The people of NZ have had enough of the corrupt socialists, you should be getting as far away as possible from them
April 19th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
# alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Stick that in your section 49 and smoke it.
………….
So what the public want doesn’t matter, it is what the comrades can get way with that counts.
Two MP`s from the Unemployed workers party and a rank communist…. is that center left?
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
No one could accuse the far left of being democrats
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
jh : So what the public want doesn’t matter, it is what the comrades can get way with that counts.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I simply pointed out that Green Party support jumped 2% to 9.5% during the period when Sue B and her bill were very prominently in the spotlight. That somewhat undermines the idea being put about that this issue will see the Greens wiped out…
The people who are foaming at the mouth about Sue’s bill have never voted Green, and never will. That’s what proportional representation is. Even ACT gets to have MPs, yet they are reviled by the majority of New Zealanders.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
alister
What proof do you have that Act is reviled by the majority of NZers?, or is this more lies and half truths from the left?
Why is it that you insist on demonising anybody who you do not agree with?
If anybody is reviled I would say it is Comrade Bradford.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
You warn me about landslides Bro… but do you own any beach-front property?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Yep…and I will buy as much of it as I can from people who are conned into believing the Global warming theory.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
um..! big b..
their vote at the last election…(despite spending a kings ransom on their campaign..)
and their poll ratings since then..
they’d be/give you a fairly clear indication of how new zealanders feel about act…
eh..?
b.t.w…how about that rumour about brash returning…?
to lead act..?
(whoar..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 19th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Dr Brash should come back into the house, I heard an interesting interview with Sir Roger Douglas this week where he said that had it not been for the shocking waste of money this Labour govt has squandered we could ALL be enjoying a tax rate of something like 4 or 5 %.
Dr Brash share the views of a lot of New Zealanders Phil, in fact his views are far more popular than those of the Greens, you would do well to remember that.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
How much support did the socialist unity party get? Without `green` that`s where the red greens would be.
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Phil
One more thing, Act has at least one real member of Parliament, that is not something that the Greens can say.
Name me ONE Green MP that would be elected to a constituency seat?…go on, I have all night to wait.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
jh : at the risk of repeating myself… People know perfectly well who the Greens are, and what we stand for. 9.5% at the height of the section 59 shindig. You don’t like that? Waaah.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Jeanette Fitzsimons already has been elected to a constituency seat.
And the only reason Rodney is there is because of tactical voting by National supporters in Epsom who were cleverer than their party leaders in understanding how MMP works.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Nice to see I haven’t been totally forgotten here. Thanks, Big Bruv - been a long time since anyone’s mentioned me.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Toad
And what happened at the next election Toad?
I ask again, tell me ONE Green MP who would be elected to a constituency seat?
Rodney was elected because the people of Epsom voted him in, he deserves his place in the house.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
- “Sooner or later (not necessarily at the next election, though it’s quite likely), we Greens are going to find ourselves in the position of being the only party able to guarantee confidence”
You barely scraped past the qualifying percentage at the last election to get *anyone* in to office. It takes continually more shrill and hysterical environmental doom-mongering just to keep you at that level of support.
More and more people I talk to are sick of green lies and exaggerations all done not to save the environment but to save the cushy jobs of politicians and multi-million dollar special-interest groups with their well paid staffs.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
# alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
jh : at the risk of repeating myself… People know perfectly well who the Greens are, and what we stand for.
………………
I don`t think people do know what the greens stand for, there is something distinctly not true to label about the green party. As Peter Dunne said `a water melon party`.
=========
9.5% at the height of the section 59 shindig. You don’t like that? Waaah.
……………..
What only 9.5% when 77% of people think global warming is a real threat; when our quality of life (the Green Party motto) has been so severely eroded etc,etc, etc.
At the risk of repeating myself, your side lost the section59 debate (Southern Dave pissed all over you).
jh
April 19th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
You have no trouble believing contradictory things simultaneously, jh… Greens, up 2%, are losing support because we are too far left, yet people don’t know we’re to the left… good luck with the mental confusion.
Mouldy : Funny you should mention “shrill and hysterical”…
April 20th, 2007 at 12:26 am
alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
You have no trouble believing contradictory things simultaneously, jh… Greens, up 2%, are losing support because we are too far left, yet people don’t know we’re to the left… good luck with the mental confusion.
………………
The Greens are gaining support on green issues, while loosing it due to the overdominance of the far left, I think. We don`t know what aspect of Green policy caused a 2% increase in support, but we do know that 77% believe global warming is a real threat to the environment. We also know that 85% opposed Sue Bradfords anti-smacking bill. The 5th principle of the Green Charter is: where green issues conflict with red, the red shall predominate.
jh
April 20th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Dammit. If only Sue’s bill hadn’t come up in the ballot, we’d be at 20% by now, at least!! Pass me a Tui will you jh mate?
Conflict of principles? Ah because smacking children is ecologically sound, is that what you’re saying ?
April 20th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Alistair
I’d be prepared to believe that we’d be close to 15% without the s59 bill, or with a rationally modified bill, but I don’t disagree with you that there’s no conflict of principles involved. No Tui.
I am pleased that we are on 9.5% now but…
1. The s59 bill has not been read into law yet.
2. No bad things have happened to anyone as a result of it yet.
3. No election campaign has been run yet.
Lets not count eggs as chooks. I HOPE you’re right.
respectfully
BJ
April 20th, 2007 at 3:26 am
bj, I just hope that poll mollifies you somewhat with respect to your dire predictions. Very few people are one-issue voters.
Your assumption that Green support would be at 15% otherwise is just silly, frankly. Green support in NZ is very stable over the long term — much more so than any other political party, I’d say — and a 2% jump, if it’s confirmed, is already huge.
(Here in France we’re staring at 2% for Sunday’s presidential election… This, despite global warming etc being very much acknowledged as a hot issue. I think we’ll be more like 3 or 4%, but that’s hoping and wishing rather than anything rational. We generally rate anywhere between 5 and 10%, depending on the elections.)
April 20th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Bruv: I’d actually see all the Green MPs as more democratically elected than electorate MPs. Electorates tend to focus on ‘personality’ (ie. looking good in photos, kissing the most babies, etc…) more than policy. At least candidates from the party list are elected to carry out their party’s policies and not because of showmanship.
JH: That figure is not based on Sue’s bill. It’s based on a survey asking if it was okay to smack children lightly. It didn’t mention the legality, just if it was okay. It also didn’t mention laws which let violent child abusers off, nor repealing them. I’d be REALLY interested to see a proper, non-biased and independant survey based specifically on the repeal of S59 and not smacking in general.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:33 am
The other aspect of Mr Hyde in Epsom, is that the electorate is perhaps the least “representative” in the country, along with Remuera. The concentration of high income earners is such that electing a far-right MP seems like a coherent thing to do in defence of their class interests.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Just to expand on my earlier comment- let’s put it this way:
I’m in Ohariu-Belmont. I got two votes, my party vote and my electorate vote.
Because my candidate was not chosen in my electorate, I effectively get no representation from that vote whatsoever, and have to put up with another term of Peter Dunne residing in the Johnsonville Community Centre, advocating smoking and persecuting minority groups.
Wheras my party vote for the Greens has had a wide, mostly positive impact on government policy, and the only disagreeable consequence I’ve seen so far on it is Green comments attacking all American TV instead of just the trash parts of it. I actually voluntarily watch a lot more American shows on DvD than I do local documentaries and I’d be quite annoyed if I had to buy even more DvDs because of attacks on other types of bad programming. For one thing, the shipping costs can’t be good.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Alistair
I don’t think it’s silly at all to be able to reach 15%… I know that some of us would be getting nosebleeds but it is ENTIRELY possible because, as you say, people are NOT usually one-issue voters. We LOSE support on a number of issues, and because of a couple of loose words in a couple of our existing policies.
“No new prisons” comes to mind, though it made some sense in the context it was an appalling wording and failed IIRC to qualify itself with respect to population or replacement of existing facilities.
The absence *hopefully soon to be corrected* of ANY form of a defence policy.
I know darned well we CAN do better than 9%… it isn’t a ceiling and with 77% of people agreeing with us on our major visible issue it is hard to conceive of us still being in single digits. I want to do well enough that we CANNOT be ignored.
Jeanette for PM.
respectfully
BJ
April 20th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I also think it’s possible to reach 15%, bj. However, an overnight doubling of the Green vote, which you seem to think might have happened, is highly unlikely, and would not be sustainable — so many people changing their mind so suddenly would be a flash in the pan, they would mostly be gone again in a month or two. Steady growth is better.
“No new prisons” sounds both moderate and inspirational to me.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Alistair
Why do you have such a hatred of those you consider to be rich?
April 20th, 2007 at 8:09 am
personally..i’d quite like sue bradford to have a go at auckland central…
(my feeling was auckland central was nandors’ to take..a couple of elections ago..
but that didn’t happen..orders from head office..)
and that was then..this is now..
and now i think bradford would have a fair shot there..
she’d be up against judith (handbag/do-nothing) tizard..
a local m.p. loathed/widely derided for her (non)-record of achievment..
(associate-minister for auckland for how long..?
gizzafeckin’break here..!..eh..?..
tizard only wins auckland central because it is a ’safe’ left/progressive area/electorate..)
and one that could well clasp bradford/green ethos to its’ bosom..
(and b.b..perhaps you could take this question-answering example to heart..
and answer those many i’ve asked you..that you avoid..
you could start with…’are you a national party high-ranking apparatchik/backbencher..?.’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 20th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Ari
“I’d actually see all the Green MPs as more democratically elected than electorate MPs”
That is laughable, not one of the Greens was elected to a constituency seat, and not one of the list MP’s was elected into parliament by the voters.
When you have a system that does not allow the people to get rid of those they do not like then it is not democratic, perhaps I would support MMP if the people had a say in who were their elected representatives but the current system does not allow that.
I would suggest that you have three MP’s who do not represent (even 5%) the thoughts of NZ’ers, please tell me how that is democratic.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Phil
What part of………………n………………..o………. do you not understand?
Bruv (no ego .co.nz)
April 20th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Bro says : Why do you have such a hatred of those you consider to be rich?
Where do you get the hatred idea, BB? Listen, some of my best friends are rich. (Would I let my sister marry one? That’s another question…)
April 20th, 2007 at 9:23 am
toad
>>Dunno where you get this “far-left� perception from, Peter.
I understand why the Green Party would attempt to frame the debate in terms other than left, centre and right, however I don’t buy the assertion that Greens are anything but entrenched far-left.
What right-wing policy have the Greens backed? Advocated?
If it looks like a duck etc….
April 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Waaaaaah Pete.
Nobody has alleged that the Greens are a right wing party. There is a considerable space between “right wing” and “far left”.
And that’s where the Greens are, on the simplistic left-right axis.
It’s up to the other parties to define themselves on the Green/Brown (or sustainability) axis.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Peter said: What right-wing policy have the Greens backed? Advocated?
Actually, the Greens Climate Change Policy sits much more closely with traditional right thinking than with traditional left thinking.
It is “polluter pays”, and since the climate change gas emmitters will pass on their increased costs to the end users, essentially “user pays”. That is one of the concepts inherent in traditional right, rather than left, economics. The traditional left approach would be to socialise the cost and tax the wealthy more to meet it.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am
alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
The Greens will almost certainly gain some, both because of the prominence of environmental concerns and ……..
The people who are foaming at the mouth about Sue’s bill have never voted Green, and never will. That’s what proportional representation is.
………..
Which goes to show, the Green Party is trading on environment concerns which are dragging along the far left who are in control of the party.
==============
alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
jh, peter:
The Green Party certainly doesn’t claim a monopoly on environmentalism. Those who feel that having a coherent political program rather than a narrow focus on ecological issues, and a left of centre focus, is a problem, should found another environmentalist party. I’m really surprised that nobody has.
———
So The Green Party cares about environmental concerns but onlyto the degree that it would welcome a right of center rival, rather than give up its `social legislation`(socialist agenda)?
The Green Party in the New Zealand parliament is from the Left of the Green movement. For example there are no participants from the more market-oriented Maruria Society and it’s only been a recent revelation that workers’ rights activist Sue Bradford is actually foremost a Green. Oh yeah? - more likely hers was a Green card to getting into parliament.
http://articles.garethmorgan.com/column.php?id=295
I have heard a lot about smacking and Ahmed Zhoui (would we want a Clansman as a refugee?), haven`t heard a peep as a woman in a historic workers cottage gets a wall built along her front window.
jh
April 20th, 2007 at 10:33 am
The point is that GPANZ comes loaded with non-negotiable ideology which isn`t green. Sue Bradfords anti smacking bill is only one example of a whole bag of goodies, which competing parties will dig up.
jh
April 20th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I`d go so far as to say GPANZ is a sham that will hinder progress in dealing with the major environmental problems we face.
jh
April 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
… and it’s only been a recent revelation that workers’ rights activist Sue Bradford is actually foremost a Green. - Gareth Morgan, February 2000, as quoted by JH.
Sue Bradford had joined the Green Party about 9 years before Gareth Morgan wrote that column, and had been the Green Party candidate for the 1998 Auckland City Mayoral election. Seems like Gareth was too busy trying to exploit Roger Douglas’ and Ruth Richardson’s reforms for his personal benefit to notice.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Good article from Mr Morgan.
Being “Green” appears to be the code for being Red.
But red sounds so unfashioable…
>>Waaaaaah Pete, Nobody has alleged that the Greens are a right wing party.
Waaaaaahhhh Alice.
And Neither did I. I said that they appear to back anything that what I perceive would be traditional left issues and policy, and are silent on right wing initiatives.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Good career move, unfortunately the priesience and ambition of the far-left in getting to the front of the queue has stuffed the free evolution of the party up.
jh
April 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am
JH said: would we want a Clansman as a refugee?
It is not a matter of what we want, it is a matter of what we are obliged to do under international human rights law. Much as I despise the ideology of the Klan, if a Klansman were to apply for refugee status on the grounds of persecution for his beliefs, his case would should be assessed according to the refugee status criteria. If he were found to be a genuine refugee (as Ahmed Zaoui was), then we have an obligation to accept him.
Human rights is about human rights, not about whether you happen to like an individual’s politics or religion.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am
PeterExistsLeft said: I said that they appear to back anything that what I perceive would be traditional left issues and policy, and are silent on right wing initiatives.
Since you haven’t responded to my post above re the Greens Climate Change policy being more right than left oriented, how about this one: -
The Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill is being opposed by National, Act, Greens, Maori Party and Taito Phillip Field. Here are the Greens standing with mainly right wing allies in defence of freedom of consumer choice and opposition to the imposition of regulation. That doesn’t look “far left” from where I’m sitting.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I would equate a member of an Islamic fundamentalist party with a Klansman (broadly).
jh
April 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
JH - I wouldn’t. The Ku Klux Klan is essentially a terorist organisation, founded on the principles of white supremacy, antisemitism, racism, homophobia, anti-Catholicism.
The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), to which Zaoui belonged, is an Islamic fundamentalist party founded on the principles of sharia law - ie the literal interpretation of the Qur’an. It has not engaged in or advocated terrorism, attempted to participate in the democratic process in Algeria, and when it appeared to be successpul in that endeavour, was suppressed. If you’re looking for a Christian New Zealand equivalent to the FIS, I’d say the Destiny Party would be the closest you would get. Neither are flavour of the month as far as I am concerned becasue of the bigotry they advocate, but neither are terrorist.
The Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which advocated and carried out terrorism and was bitterly opposed to Zaoui’s FIS, is probably a closer analogy to the Ku Klux Klan.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
>>Since you haven’t responded to my post above re the Greens Climate >>Change policy being more right than left oriented
I think raising taxes is inherently left, and I’m struggling to think of many Green examples where “tax it!” wasn’t the proposed solution.
But it’s fair to say those who disproportionately consume resources pay disproportionately, yes.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
>>The Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill is being opposed by National, Act, Greens, Maori Party and Taito Phillip Field. Here are the Greens standing with mainly right wing allies in defence of freedom of consumer choice
Opposing big pharma has nothing to do with it, then…
April 20th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
PeterExitsLeft said: Opposing big pharma has nothing to do with it, then…
Opposing the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill has nothing to do with “big pharma”, other than that the Bill will remove competition in therapeutic products that they currently have. I thought the right likes competition!
April 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The right does like competition Toad but one of the first rules of Government is to protect its people.
Some of the crap I hear advertised on the radio in NZ that claims to have medicinal qualities amounts to nothing more than snake oil.
The govt should be cleaning this area up.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Toad
“The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), to which Zaoui belonged, is an Islamic fundamentalist party founded on the principles of sharia law - ie the literal interpretation of the Qur’an”
Really!…the same Qur’an that tells them that it is their duty to kill all Infidels.
Zaoui is a terrorist and has NO place in New Zealand.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Alistair
The people who are foaming at the mouth about Sue’s bill have never voted Green, and never will.
I think this is a simplification of a very broad spectrum. We have 77%-80% resistance to that bill. We have about 9% support, Those numbers suggest strongly to me that our natural support IS 15% if we simply take some simple measures. Heckfire. I changed a couple of words in Sue’s bill and made it something that would get passed by acclamation without taking anything away from the stated intent. Add that to an actual defense policy and we’ll be dictating to Winnie said poo and overDunne from a better than 15% share of the electorate vote and likely carry a district or two.
Why should we limit our goal here? Historical 9% my left nut! Jeanette for PM! The limitations we face have nothing to do with Green or Social principles, but with the way some few of us have decided that no trace of pragmatism shall ever creep into our ideological tent. Images that are not about reality.
As for “No new prisons” - if I have 100 people and need a single cell prison and I then have a million and don’t build another cell I’ve made a mistake. That’s what we have in our dumb policy. If an earthquake knocks it into a heap of rubble we won’t replace it. Maybe it isn’t what we MEANT to say, but it is what we said. Nor was it conditioned in terms of altering the penal code to get non-violent and other divertable offenders out of the prison system and into various types of treatment, though on reading through that policy it seemed to me that this might well have been the intent. It wasn’t stated with any qualification at all,,,, Just a bald assertion.
That sort of thing makes us easy meat for people who want to interpret our policies incorrectly.
Correct that people who support the anti-bishop and foam at the mouth would never vote for us. People who WOULD vote for us because they are on Labour’s left and are green leaning in some ways are the ones who’s votes we are losing. People who would, if we were just a LITTLE more pragmatic/practical about our politics, be comfortable with those politics.
We’ll see about S59. We were at 9% before the last election and nearly lost everything. We may actually do better if it looks like Labour will lose and on current form that’s a real possibility. Me, I’d like to see us on double digits and I DON’T see any reason we can’t do it.
We probably won’t, but there’s no reason to just want 9% cause it’s what we get historically.
respectfully
BJ
April 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
PEL
Our Climate Change Policy does not “RAISE” taxes. It alters who pays what and to whom so that the end result is neutral in terms of amount. This is not a “leftist” approach.
BJ
April 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
BJ
Very well said.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
jh, from your Gareth Morgan quote (published in 2000):
So long as the Greens then support a socialist line it seems they will stand or fall together with Anderton’s old New Labour.
Wow. That was prophetic!
More :
The Green Party in the New Zealand parliament is from the Left of the Green movement.
This Morgan fellow is improperly using the term Green. It’s true that the Green Party of Aotearoa does not encompass the entire environmentalist movement; nor should it. However, the term Green (with a capital G) refers unambiguously to Green political parties. The “Green movement” unambiguously means the Green political parties of the world, not the environmentalists of NZ. And the NZ Greens are very much in the mainstream of that worldwide movement, in terms of left/right positioning. There is no right-wing Green party, anywhere in the world. Many are further left than us.
More from Morgan: For example there are no participants from the more market-oriented Maruria Society
The Green Party is not a coalition of environmentalist organisations. Overlap in membership is, however, considerable. A considerable percentage of Green Party members also belong to the Maruia Society, and vice versa. Just as members of the National Party may be members of Federated Farmers, or of Gareth Morgan Investments Limited. For example.
Maruia Society is not a vehicle for political ideology, therefore to describe it as “more market oriented” than the Greens is gibberish.
Peter : what right-wing initiatives would you expect/hope for the Greens to support? Other than those already outlined by Toad ? I’m genuinely curious.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Wow, Bro is on board with our tax policy!
April 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
PEL :
Opposing big pharma has nothing to do with it, then…
Bro :
The govt should be cleaning this area up.
Good, we’re coming round to discussion of the third political axis.
There is Left/Right.
There is Green/Brown.
There is Authoritarian/Libertarian.
Peter, I suspect that you and I are both for freedom of choice, and competition, with respect to the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (though you haven’t taken an explicit position). Bro, on the other hand, is an authoritarian, he wants more government regulation.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Earth to BJ : 9.5% is NOT what we get historically. It’s at the very upper range of what we get in opinion polls. I will remind you that what we get in elections, so far, is in the range of 5 to 7%.
So 9.5% is pretty good, and I certainly expect it to grow. I hope it grows because people agree with our world view and programme, and not solely because they are afraid of global warming.
With respect to prisons : I suspect you’re obsessing over details. Electors will not read a five-page policy document explaining that we think prisons should have an ever-decreasing role in the justice system because of restorative, non-custodial, blah blah EXCEPT if we have a huge wave of P-induced axe murders in which case exceptionally we’ll build a new prison or two. Which is what you seem to want, painted with a broad brush.
In fact, “No new prisons” encapsulates this idea pretty well. It’s a slogan. The five-page policy document needs to exist, I agree, but the elector who hears the slogan, and knows about Nandor’s extensive and excellent work on the justice system, knows intuitively what we’re talking about, and supports it. OR doesn’t.
This is what we possibly differ on. Frankly, a voter who knows about Nandor’s work, yet is turned off by that slogan “No new prisons”, because he wants to lock ‘em all up and throw away the key, is not a potential Green voter, and frankly I don’t even want him to vote Green. Not until he’s changed his views.
Because if you cook up a slogan on prisons that he agrees with, then either he’ll be voting under false pretences, and will be angry about the deception, or we’ll have to change to align with his views.
OK this is broad-brush caricature, but you get the picture.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Alistair - I tried to show that I recognized the difference between the 9% polling before the election and the 5.nothin margin that we squeaked past the post with… it isn’t an illusion I have about our strength. I don’t think I tried hard enough
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear though.
Voter’s who do NOT know about Nandor’s work will read some broadside by Gods chillun’s claiming that we plan to release a lot of prisoners because we’re not ever going to build new prisons. That advertising is PERFECTLY legal because we wrote something into the policy that says exactly that… unqualified. A point I made relating to advertising in the thread on elections echos resoundingly here. You have to write policy so that misrepresentations are sufficiently falsifiable as to be able to be prosecuted in court. I do not give a hoot about the folks who aren’t potential Green voters,
I care about the way we open ourselves up to misrepresentations to people who might otherwise be potential Green voters.
I care that disinformation about Nandor and his policies gets pushed into the public domain.
I care that when it does we don’t have a leg to stand on.
I wouldn’t put slogans in policy documents unless I were sure that they are ENTIRELY true. We could have one for the defence policy, but I don’t mind if it never appears there… good policy cannot fit on a bumper sticker and bumper stickers almost invariably make poor policy.
respectfully
BJ
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
alistair Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
This Morgan fellow is improperly using the term Green. It’s true that the Green Party of Aotearoa does not encompass the entire environmentalist movement; nor should it. However, the term Green (with a capital G) refers unambiguously to Green political parties. The “Green movement� unambiguously means the Green political parties of the world, not the environmentalists of NZ. And the NZ Greens are very much in the mainstream of that worldwide movement, in terms of left/right positioning. There is no right-wing Green party, anywhere in the world. Many are further left than us.
————————-
Ah! so Green is just marketing, (like BP does), and is not to be confused with the environmental movement (although you won”t mind if people confuse the two)?
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
alistair Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Good, we’re coming round to discussion of the third political axis.
There is Left/Right.
There is Green/Brown.
There is Authoritarian/Libertarian.
+++++++++
… you forgot the bohemian, romantic primitivist/ realist axis.
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
# alistair Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
jh : at the risk of repeating myself… People know perfectly well who the Greens are, and what we stand for. 9.5% at the height of the section 59 shindig. You don’t like that? Waaah.
++++++++++++++++++
Down 1% according to the latest Colmar Brunton
[needs updating]
http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/default.asp?Topic_ID=85&ArticleID=508
:oops:
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
jh : Listen, I know what real coca-cola is, and this stuff that’s made by the so-called Coca Cola Company isn’t the real thing. OK? Just trust me on this. I’m an authority.
so Green is just marketing, (like BP does), and is not to be confused with the environmental movement (although you won�t mind if people confuse the two)
“Green” is not marketing, more like a trademark. “Green” is not to be confused with the environmental movement, though there is considerable overlap, just as there is considerable overlap between National and business and farming lobbies, and between Labour and the trade unions. (though we are considerably more independent from the various associations that are close to us, than Nat and Lab are, because they don’t fund us).
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Election day in France. Just a little rant about how my other political party, the French Greens, is going to get thrashed, and why.
Today is the first round of the presidential elec