Good point Toad perhaps the problem is that we need to clarify the underlying ideas whereas in our representative system someone gets into an influencial position and we think that it is all about who is saying it.
I do think though that there are major differences as demonstrated recenlty by speeches of supporters of the Urewera 17 (as an example). John Minto could easily replace 3 Green MP’s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Actually blogs produce some good discussion and ideas but they are wasted. How about a team of volunteer moderators who do a summary of points of views on the major issues? (just an idea).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jh, my take on Trevor Louden is that he is an obsessive paranoid who sees a communist under every bed, despite the total rejection of communism by those such as Keith Locke whom many years ago gave it tacit support.

In the world according to Trevor, no-one ever thinks about issues and changes their politics – Trevor dredges up quotes from 20 or 30 years ago and treats them as though they are a person’s beliefs today.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The fish Trevor Louden has on his line is the ideology of groups he writes about. An analogy would be the difference between a Muslim and Muslim fundamentalist. The environmental movement is a convenient cover for groups with agendas only a small minority support. The problem the Green Party has is that it is stacked and doesn’t have clear enough principles to operate by. The Charter is (conveniently) obtuse. Frogblog is mostly a defence of the fait accompli.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

On frogblog only frog and the Green Party MPs can author posts. On g.blog any party member can – so you won’t necessarily get the official party line.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So how is it different from Frogblog?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Or Trevor Louden, for that matter.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

People who are not members of the Green Party can still comment at g.blog – just not author posts. After all, it is a Green Party blog. Can you imagine the shambles it would become if some of our less enlightened contributors (dadforjustice, big bro spring to mind) were able to author on it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Looks like gblog is an attempt to knobble decent? You have to be a paid up member of the Green Party? and your not allowed to say anything to give offence?….. so your not allowed to link to New Zeal?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Completely unrelated, but in the interest of transparency as I reply here often:

I have just been announced as the Family Party candidate for Selwyn:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0808/S00069.htm

More info will be up on the party website shortly
http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Strings Says:
August 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

> It would lead to a situation where local communities, however they are defined, would have to become insular and their currency become a form of barter.

I think local currencies are actually supposed to be non-convertible, so you cannot trade them for other currencies. And they would not replace the national currency – they would just be introduced in addition to it to provide a bit of additional economic activity at times of economic downturn.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Living in a Town that just has begun it’s transition town project I’m very happy to hear that the green party encourages this sort of sustainable development.

For people who want to know more about this visit:

http://transitiontowns.org/Main/HomePage

The local currency propagated here does not infringe upon the National currency but adds value to the local community. It stimulates people to source and produce their produce locally and that stimulates local economies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

oh come on who comes up with all this green policy.
You guys have a tank full of manatees who choose policy ideas for you don’t you Toad.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

test

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad

Intelligent people do not smoke pot.

Phul also votes Green, don’t you think that kinda ruins your argument?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>how most intelligent people vote

They like to think they are…..

There’s a difference.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Well, definitely not Green voters, BB – that is how most intelligent people vote.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Blue Peter

“I’m talking about pokies. Pokies attract morons. Go look in any pokie hall. Morons.”

Yep…Labour voters, each and every one of them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“So we’d like to see them restricted to casinos and clubs, which are generally much better at managing problem gambling than pubs are.”

lol, you can say that with a straight face? well I suppose we are not as bad as las vegas yet…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m talking about pokies. Pokies attract morons. Go look in any pokie hall. Morons. If the pokie machine wasn’t there, the morons would just throw their money away on something equally stupid. At least with pokies, the funds are going to community groups.

As for addiction (to other pursuits) – yes, of course it is real. But most people aren’t addicts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)