As usual, the voter suffers the most out of all of these “games” politicians play.

Any bleating of what National *might* do has to be offset by what Labour *are* doing (or not doing as the case may be.

Unfortunately, I have many hours of work ahead of me tonight, so this conversation will have to wait for another day.

Andrew - the New Right may well rule the roost at National (in the same way that they do at Labour), and this means that we have a very New Right economic framework that both major parties agree upon (and parties like the Greens are increasingly silent on). But that doesn’t mean that there’s an incredible enthusiasm, momentum, or plans for another New Right revolution. The New Right have pretty much achieved what they wanted already. Now the parliamentary parties just fight about the crumbs and details. We now have a very different political context to that of the 1980s and 1990s - which is why Don Brash had to compromise so many of his policies and principles when he was leader of National. Read the Hollow Men - it’s essentially the story of Brash and his supporters having to moderate all their beliefs to have a chance at power.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

As for the EB… I have already accepted that point… though they were misleading on several points and issues, there WAS more truth in parts of it than I was aware of (thanks Keith), and it does point up that I need to pay additional attention to the Defense Policy project. Some people have motives that need further examination.

I hate politics and I have nothing but disdain for people who think that the cavalry can come to their rescue after they’ve turned the horses into dog food. .

No Greens would read that pamphlet the way you state. A good half the steam generated was related to their characterization of good policies as bad. There were still some lies and but there was the little bit (and a bit more than I thought) of truth contained.

With respect to defence spending I think there is not as much traction as Keith or the EB would like there to be…. we will see…. but Keith definitely said what he said and if I ever meet him in person he will find himself less comfortable for it. Defence spending cannot ever be driven by a desire to get money for other projects… it has to be governed by defence policy and the needs set forth by the defence professionals who are tasked to implement that policy.

Defence policy itself IS negotiable in terms of what tasks are required, but the spending cannot be at the mercy of domestic bliss… though there are limits to what the country can afford… it has to provide for the continued survival of the country BEFORE any other consideration. That minimum HAS to be afforded.

Imagine a defence policy that required 3 full Carrier Task Groups with multiple strike wings embarked to implement it, for an example of that last. That would be a force-projection defence policy, required only if an interventionist foreign policy were in vogue. That’s something we CAN’T afford, but we can’t afford to be without the ability to stop ships we don’t want coming here, to protect trans-tasman traffic and to protect our fisheries.

respectfully
BJ

Lies Whale0il…
Lies Edge…
Lies Zen…

(your comment, further up the page). The way I read that short sentence, in light of the entire comment was to take inference that you were indeed calling me a liar. With other people I might be very disbelieving if you protest otherwise, but from what I have seen by the way you conduct yourself, I can understand this was simply a side effect of “rant mode”, and thus I accept that you may not have meant it that way.

You say the EB thing is misleading, because 5 years had passed, this was the reason I commented about about the still up to date Green idea about the Peace Dividend (on the Greens Archive Home Page) which states that the intention is to halve Defence Spending.

I accept that as our Defence Forces are decimated, (have been decimated) the Greens will be able to revise the percentage of cuts downwards, but equally, the money available for the “Peace Dividend” also decreases.

We are back to arguing about semantics and shades, and to me all that means is the EB had a point when they leveled the criticisms they did. Remember, just because they criticise the Greens over a policy doesn’t mean the Greens are “wrong” as many Greens would read the EB brochure and go “halve Defence spending - great. I’m definitely voting for them; support Kyoto, fantastic; up the price of diesel - has to happen.”

My reasons for bothering to defend the EB brochure are more complex than this, and I am to explain it better via a post on my blog at some point.

respectfully
BJ

http://pc.blogspot.com/2008/01/minto-vs-history.html#86340999907280344 02

http://antidismal.blogspot.com/2008/01/minto-on-property-rights.html

bj - I don’t have any facts on it, but I had the impression that Labour were increasing the amount of money spent on defence.

Zen… I never called YOU a liar. I called the EB liars and now I have a date and a condition which rather makes some sense of this… and makes me at least partly wrong.

The EB is still misleading. If I call for halving defence spending in 1999 and 5 years of defence reductions later someone says I am still calling for halving the spending, there’s a time problem. Some things are already done and the inference that I would halve it again from a lower base is NOT real truthful.

However, that said, I have to accept that Keith did do something I regard as unforgivably stupid. He tied defence policy to reducing defence spending to get money for other programs. THAT would have been a more universal and damning criticism that is not subject to any time question. It is less forgivable in my eyes.

Moreover, it makes the EB pamphlet truthful (at least if we ignore the passage of time and events)… and AGAIN undermines my ability to support the party.

Sigh… Maybe I AM a sucker. Mostly I only arrived here 4 years after he shot my feet off. Current conditions and policies are the ones that are important and the EB didn’t do very well on that basis, but my absence earlier was important. I read Green policy carefully enough before joining and while I regard Keith as a bit of a loose cannon, I didn’t go through all the releases in detail.

I still have no choice because the damned environment is the first problem and this party is the only party which puts it in a place of proper importance.

However, defence of the country IS equally important.

respectfully
BJ