Two polls, two stories
Roy Morgan and Fairfax Neilsen polls both came in the last two days. Neither poll is great for the Greens (4% and 7.5%) - although both tell much the same story for the Green vote as the polls have all year - somewhere between 4 and 9 percent.
Neilsen has National able to govern alone with a 15 seat majority, even without the support of Act or United Future.
Roy Morgan has National, Act and United Future three seats short of a majority and needing the support of one of the Greens, Maori or NZ First to govern. And National will be worried that Dunne is quite likely to put his neo-liberal credentials in the box for three years in return for baubles.
The major difference in the polls is what happens when you remove the Greens from the equation by dropping them below 5 percent; suddenly there are no checks and balances to National’s domination in the polls.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
‘Neither poll is great for the Greens’
When will the Greens transform from an activist to a strategist party?
Perhaps then the polls will show an upwards glide path.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
>>‘Neither poll is great for the Greens’
The solution is simple. Form an actual *green* party….
August 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
ditto the first two
August 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
There’s 5% of voters in those three alone!
Count me in on that too and you are well on your way to world domination, unless the Big Bro party….
Or the Fill Ewe party….
August 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
For once I agree with BP. A party that focused solely on environmental issues would do much better in the polls. This is largely due to the false perception that environmental issues can be solved without addressing social justice and poverty, but its true nonetheless, though actually forming such a party would not be as easy was BP suggests (past attempts have failed).
Greens up until now have been happy to ignore this possibility for the very good reason that rejecting one dearly held fundamental principle of the Party to make progress on another is anathema. It wouldn’t be the same Party and wouldn’t include most of the people who have advanced it this far.
But now that environmental issues are so pressing, whether you like the 100 months model or prefer Pachauri’s warning that real change is needed within two years to avert climate change disaster (and therefore represents the biggest social justice issue as well), what does this say about what our current Green Party’s priorities should be?
So my questions for (big G or small g) greens reading this (no doubt the usual others will insist on some irrelevant commentary as well, so let’s try not to take that bait) are 1) Do you really, really accept the urgency as stated above and if so 2) to what extent should the Party put this emergency above all else?
August 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The Green party should put green issues above all else only if it wants to get green votes.
Why would the Green party want green votes? What a silly idea. Much better to chase unemployed workers rights.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I personally get the feeling that there are plenty of people who vote for the Greens at present because they believe they are primarily concerned about the environment. They may not actually agree with the socialist and moral stances of the Greens, but they don’t actually know about those either as they aren’t interested in politics - they see the word “Green” and think “I like the environment so I’ll vote Green”.
I expect this is a certain percentage of your voters already. The ones that already think you are a ‘real “green” party’. Those that know better are less likely to vote for you. I agree with everyone else, you’d do much better if you focussed solely on the environment. If you could do this for a term without pushing your social agenda you’d probably get a lot more votes the following election.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Valis,
Firstly I would like to say that I find the second half of the second paragraph to be desirable.
In answer to question 1; I am not so much sure of the urgency but I beleive that the environment should come before social issues as ultimatly without the environment we have no social issues other than ’starvation’ and more ’starvation’.
In answer to question 2; I think the environment should be the mainstay of the party as they are more crucial, better vote winners and open to less debate where as the social issues are open to much potentially harmful controversy and the potential benifits are almost always questionable. Ultimatly I would like to see multiple green parties working together on environmental issues but differing on social and economic policies and interpritations and in doing so catching a much wider range of voters and the movement as a whole is then alienating voters to a lesser extent. Prehaps then ‘Greens’ and ‘Mindless Communists’ wont be interprited as synonyms by the general population.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
The argument that the Greens should concern themselves with only green issues in order to attract more votes is shallow and naive. If it were the case (green issues only) the party would immediately marginalize itself in everyones eyes and leave it vulnerable to any charge of ’special interest’ or being ‘narrow focused’. If the commenters here (Blue Peter, Samian, Mr Dennis,Valis) would care to commit to vote for an ‘environment only’ party, here and now, I’d give them some credence, but I suspect they are talking with ‘disengaged tongues’. Imagine asking a Green Mp about their views on, for example, minimum wage, and have them answer, ‘I have no opinion, nor does my party have policy’. Yeah right!
August 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
In a more serious tone… A green Green party could work like this…Official policy and party voting on green/sustainability issues only. All other issues the Green MPs would be free to vote as they saw fit as a conscience vote.
Undertake to negotiate in good faith with whichever Party won the greatest vote at election time and work with them towards a sustainable future for NZ.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Greenfly, you don’t have to go around medling in the lives of good parents to be a succesful green politician.
This type of policy based on personal humanistic belief should have nothing to do with a party that markets itself as being “green”.
If you want to promote an individuals beliefs about adultism, ageism and any other “ism’s” do so under a different banner instead of the green banner.
I want to engage in a more sustainable lifestyle, but I do not want the state telling me how to raise my kids, or telling me that going to Mc donalds once in a while is evil.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Greenfly; I reckon you can’t get much more marginalized than 5%! Environmental issues have never had more traction/attraction than now and yet The Green party remains a bottom feeder. It kinda must be the non-green agenda that is putting environmentally aware voters off, because sure as heck, the other parties don’t carry any eco-mana.
August 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Greenfly, yours is the only response that comes close addressing my original questions (not surprising as I predicted), but by conflating me with the other three posters, you seem to have seriously misunderstood where I’m coming from.
I’m asking for answers from those whose starting point is the four principles of the Green Party, non-violence, appropriate decision making, social justice and environmentalism. Perhaps I should have addressed only Green Party members. So the questions relate to priority setting in that context. Not whether non-environmental issues should be dropped, but whether current environmental issues amount to such an emergency that they need be given all the resources they need, even at the short-term expense of non-environmental issues we might hold dear.
PS Since a fundamental part of the debate here is what constitutes a “green” issue, I suggest we refer to environmental issues when this is what we mean.
August 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
the major difference in the polls is what happens when you remove the Greens from the equation by dropping them below 5 percent; suddenly there are no checks and balances to National’s domination in the polls.
Oh yes please, dear God please let it be so
No Greens or “Winston first” in parliament would mean all my Christmases would come at once
we could dump the undemocratic MMP replace it with the far better system Supplementary Member( I voted for it in the first referendum anyway) and finally get some real progress in the great little country of ours
August 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Shunda barunda - Sue Bradford said it best in the latest party video -
“Thanks to all the work we’ve done on section 59 of the Crimes Act, children now have the same protection against violence as adults do”. If you care to debate that statement, without shrill invocations of ‘meddling etc. I’d be happy to oblige you. Your suggestion that ‘other issues’ should be persued under other banners is daft. What other banners? Another political party? Are you serious?
samian - your view that the Greens non-environmental (you say ‘green’) areas of policy is hurting the Greens might have some credence, but you’re claiming a good deal of ability to ‘read the minds of voters’ and seem to assume that the Greens themselves, in particular the MP’s and advisors, don’t rigorously consider the issue also. Do you think it hasn’t occured to them? I don’t believe the Greens other issues are putting environmentally aware voters off - I think those voters are placing other issues higher up the ladder of importance. In other words, it’s their call.
Valis - my apologies to you - I responded too quickly and didn’t ‘read for sense’ when I skimmed your post. You have hit the nail on the head and the question you pose is primo. Have you followed the fortunes of Nandor and his return to ‘flaxroots’? He and I (and others) have indeed “really, really accepted the urgency ” and are acting now.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
No worries Greenfly. Too bad there aren’t many Greens online today to debate this with.
I know that Nandor is continuing his Tipping Point tour that he started before leaving Parliament and that it has been received very well. I’m not aware what else he’s up to.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Do I not count as a Green? lol.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Valis - maybe the party faces the same problem faced by anyone who stands up to speak about climate change/permaculture/localisation/peak oil/transition town etc. - bringing people on board is a gradual process and the spectre of being labled ‘doom monger’ is real. If you ring the bell too loud, the crowds will scatter (and not in your direction). Nandor’s Tipping Point tour is a clarion for those who are listening and a puzzle (wtf?) to those who are just playing. I see his ‘move to the ground’ as a necessary extension to the party. He’s not the only one of course, building/extending the foundations.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
samian - your 3:54 pm comment “sure as heck, the other parties don’t carry any eco-mana.” provokes me to ask if you believe that and yet don’t vote Green at the coming election, you must feel that those things you don’t like about the Greens are so bad, it causes you to reject the one party that does ‘carry eco-mana’. Am I correct? Are you just playing with ‘caring for the environment’? If so, why are you here on Frogblog?
August 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Each of those visting here have two choices:
1. Don’t cast your Party Vote for Green
or
2. Do cast your Party Vote for Green
(The Greens do NOT want your Candidate Vote, but the more Party Votes we have, the greater the chance that Green can be a meaningful voice in Parliament.)
Each of you will have to live with the decision that you made … for the next three years … as the Planet warms and …
August 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Eredwen
“Each of you will have to live with the decision that you made … for the next three years … as the Planet warms and …”
I will not to vote Green and I will live with that decision quiet happily.
You seem to be suggesting that a vote for the Greens will stop the planet warming, which it is not hence the name change to “Climate change”
If we take that at face value (for the sake of the argument) it is at best deceitful for you to suggest that a party vote for the NZ Greens is going to stop Climate Change.
Not even the most rabid Green I have chatted with has suggested that our efforts would be anything more than symbolic, their argument is that we must be seen to be doing the right thing and that we should be world leaders.
I know you are passionate about causes Green but this type of scare mongering is only ever going to hurt the Greens, it is simply not true to suggest that our efforts are going to make an ounce of difference.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I expect she meant that dealing with global problems requires that we all pull together. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be part of a solution that we’ll be dependent on.
The other reason of course is to save our economy, so if you’re just selfishly minded, at least that should appeal.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
big bro
You do get yourself into a lather, when extrapolating what others MIGHT be thinking from what they originally said!
Your extrapolations probably say more about the way in which you think than anything about me …
However:
First I would remind you that you are criticising what I have said on frogblog which is the Green Party’s blog. It follows that people who come here are either Greens or they generally expect to read Green ideas!
Getting back to your post:
NO I don’t suggest that the Greens will stop the Planet warming nor will we stop Climate Change … I have heard the “must be World Leaders” statement, but the rest sound like “big bro” interpretations, and personally I don’t know any “rabid Greens”.
“Scare mongering” is your interpretation and certainly not my intention … and I DISAGREE with you that our efforts cannot make any difference.
At a local level they will need to make a difference, at least in the realm of preparedness.
Anyone who has read any human history, or who looks at the World will know that humans need to be adaptable … and we are heading for a time in which we will all need to adapt … even big bro.
e
August 16th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
IMO, if the Greens want to remain relevant in the next chapter of NZ politics, which will almost certainly involve a National-led governement, then they must make friends with the business community.
And that’s not as hard as you may think.
In Megatrends 2010, the authors (who 25 years earlier predicted the rise of the IT industry) predict that the next business “wave” will be in what they term Conscious Capitalism. This includes ethical investment, eco technology and the wellness industry (The book is available on Amazon).
Venture capitalists in the US (particularly California) are already pouring money into many of these new emerging industries.
NZ should be purposefully riding the crest of this wave. Hell, we’ve already got the Clean Green branding (even if we are slowly damaging it with greenwash).
The Greens should be about painting a positive, vibrant vision for the NZ, economy where we are seen as world leaders in Conscious Capitalism, particularly our advances in green technology (eg 2nd generation biofuels, innovative renewable energy initiatives like tidal) eco-friendly farming (what about NZ being a big organic farm by 2030?), ethical business practices and we remain a beautiful, and ‘green’ place to visit.
Yes, there may be inherent costs initially, but these costs will be offset if are exports are seen as luxury items and our markets are prepared to pay a premium for them.
Yes, there may be some short term pain during the transitional period, but the Greens would support the government to minimise the fallout and make the conversion as smooth and easy as possible.
etc etc
August 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
How would a party that only focused on environmental issues work in Parliament?
Do they declare their intention to abstain on anything ‘irrelevant’? Do they do the same thing in a coalition agreement?
August 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Greenfly - Sue Bradford said it best in the latest party video -
“Thanks to all the work we’ve done on section 59 of the Crimes Act, children now have the same protection against violence as adults do�.
and just how much protection against violence do adults have?
I doubt if Sue is sage enough to ever admit that all she did was waste a huge amount of resources to achieve an insignificant result.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Kevyn - as much as the law can offer. What more could you ask? Children deserve the same degree of protection, or do you feel they don’t? Sue’s ‘result’ is real, subtle (at this point) and valuable. It won’t be long (if it hasn’t happened already) when New Zealanders absorb the change and will question how we could have taken so long to haave mended that particular loophole.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
StephenR, I can’t really see how it would work. Practically, such a party would have to say they would not oppose any other legislation so long as they got their way on the environment. Pretty bizarre it seems to me. Not only would this mythical party have a hugely difficult time holding itself together, but their environmental policies would sooner or later (sooner I’d say) some up against the Nats growth ideology. This is essentially the reason the Greens have done so poorly with Labour too.
Ecobiz, this really is not far off what the Greens are saying now about how business needs to change. That more is not heard of it is often due to a media that only focus on the negative.
Kevyn, remember section 59 provided a defense for those who were arrested for abuse of children. It wasn’t an anti-smacking bill as smacking has been illegal in NZ for 100 years. The fact is that even in recent times several people got off by appealing to section 59. So thank goodness that can’t happen any more. It is anything but insignificant to the young victims, but I agree a huge amount of resources have been wasted on the issue - by those who don’t even seem to realise that the reform will only affect those who truly violent against their kids.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
hopping along the corridors of power
may become
hopping along the streets to the dole office
Maybe join that George who had his dick cut off going to Australia, you are all useless in the real world, you are welcome in Krudd’s Australia..
August 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
If you are as worried about kids as you say you are, why does Sue Bradford (among other greens), promote the idea opening up kids to the worst, nastiest, most exploitive people in NZ,….. POLITICIANS!!!!!
Giving kids the vote is idealistic garbage. The section 59 repeal has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with promoting a particilar form of humanist idealogy. It comes from Sue Bradfords belief that all children are “fully realised human beings as soon as they are born” (shame about before they are born). No matter how much you plead the case for this bill, it is political in nature and is designed to attack an opposing idealogy, namely the traditional family unit.
This bill has done nothing to stop child abuse and never will. The one thing that can, a strong family unit based on correct parental authority, has been made weaker.
When the greens stop legislating morality, you will get my party vote and probably many others.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Valis,
The point is not what the Greens “are saying now about how business needs to change”.
That is activism
Stategism wil be how to implement change at legislative level so that the change actually occurs while the nation continues to function in a sustainable social and economically sound environment.
We have a statement from Sue Bradford relating to Green policy, “All New Zealanders will live in qarm houses”.
That is a fine piece of activism. Now the hard part. How to devise a costed, timelined, stategic plan to implement the policy.
Because that is what people will vote on.
That is were the Greens are failing.
Not in the policies, but the lack of having stategic implementation plans of the policies that voters will be able to understand and buy (vote for).
August 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
read “warm” not qarm
grrr, big fingers, little keypad.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Valis: It sounds like they need a clever PR strategy to wrestle back some media attention.
Perhaps we can come up with some Ansell-esque ads for the Greens election campaign. How about:
Greens: Abundancy
The others: Redundancy
August 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I just love how everyone has their own view of exactly what’s wrong with the Greens. If only we’d do X, we’d be just fine. In the face of this, we can do much worse than just stick with the principles that started us out on this path, which really is all that should be expected of anyone.
Shunda barunda,
“This bill has done nothing to stop child abuse and never will.”
This wasn’t the point of changing the law and Sue never claimed otherwise. Supporters of the bill just think that adults that are arrested for beating kids (and don’t kid yourself, this ain’t about smacking) shouldn’t then be able to get off because of a loophole in the law. I’m sure Sue has no issues with the traditional family unit. That beating kids seems to be part of what your definition of a traditional family unit is I find really sad.
“When the greens stop legislating morality, you will get my party vote and probably many others.”
Come on, at least be honest with us! But I’m quite happy not to have your vote if I have to adopt some perverse logic to say beating kids = traditional family values.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Thanks Ecobiz, but too clever by half. It is actually too late in the election cycle to try to educate people, except via what’s said by the candidates. If there’s a better way, it will have to wait until after the election. After several elections with hoardings that were too packed with info to even read, I have think we will do better this time. You’ll have to wait and see.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:54 am
As always, I’m left wondering whether it’s an actual drop in support or simply the fact that our polls have far too small a sample size to accurately predict small party results.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Warning On Eco Bulbs
“The Government’s safety agency has warned the Fire Service about the potential hazard of energy-saving lightbulbs, a memorandum to firefighters reveals.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz//4656248a11.html
August 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
“..As always, I’m left wondering whether it’s an actual drop in support or simply the fact that our polls have far too small a sample size to accurately predict small party results..”
an answer to your question could be found by going and looking at past polling/election results..
eh..?
i’d be interested to hear what you find out..)
..but i am fairly sure the architects of the green ’strategy’..
(is there one..?..are there any..?..
..stand up..!..(don’t) take a bow..!..)
..they should be feeling somewhat uneasy..
..in the pits of their stomachs..
..a 4% poll-result..so close to the election..
..is no laughing matter..
..and if they aren’t..
..they must be seriously in denial..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 17th, 2008 at 9:52 am
i’d like to ’second this emotion’..
“..That is a fine piece of activism. Now the hard part.
How to devise a costed, timelined, stategic plan to implement the policy.
Because that is what people will vote on.
That is were the Greens are failing.
Not in the policies, but the lack of having stategic implementation plans of the policies that voters will be able to understand and buy (vote for)..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am
>>would care to commit to vote for an ‘environment only’ party
Yep. I’ve voted Green before, actually. But at that stage in my life, I fell into the former group (naively, I thought Green meant environment). And I also voted for MMP, a vote I’m even more embarrassed about.
I support environmentalism, with a small e.
I will not vote for the failed left. Ever.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Agree with Valis.
The Greens don’t come across as being serious about imminent global catastrophe. If the Green Party really believed it, then why would they waste an time putting through anti-smacking bills, EFA, and other trifling (by comparison) matters? Wouldn’t every energy be directed at the elephant in the room?
August 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Damn fingers…
“then why would they waste time putting through anti-smacking bills, the EFA, and other trifling (by comparison) bills?
August 17th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I’m sorry phil, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not only is the perfect costed strategy beyond the means of a small party to develop (heck, even the Nats will tell you they can’t do such a thing out of government), but its not what people are actually interested in, let alone vote for. Most people vote on their vague impressions of the emotional content of what parties are telling them. The few that really care about such detail have already read the Greens strategy doc (uncosted).
August 17th, 2008 at 11:01 am
BluePeter - a scerario for you to consider (in light of your comment, “then why would they waste time putting through anti-smacking bills, the EFA, and other trifling (by comparison) bills?)
Your child is being attacked by the neighbours pit-bull. Do you leave the dog to do its work, because it’s only a triffling issue, compared to the tsunami? I’m curious to read your response.
You’re standing watching a tsunami approach your sea-side bach. Perhaps you’ll all be wiped out when it arrives in ten minutes time
August 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
scenario, scenario!
August 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
BP. that’s naughty. You may disagree that the EFA will be effective regarding the environment, but don’t pretend we agree. Btw, what would you support being done about “imminent global catastrophe”?
Also, I’ve never said the Green weren’t serious about it. A huge amount of time and effort goes into environmental work, but six in Parliament cannot set the agenda. That Labour have been so appalling on the environment is the biggest frustration of the Green Caucus.
What I was referring to with my questions is the formation of the next government, should the Greens be in a position of influence. It applies to Labour, but even more so to National, given the visceral dislike most Greens have for their philosophy. Can it be put aside, should it be put aside, and would the Party survive? Again, I’m interested in what Party members and supporters think, not those whose opinions we already know too well.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
>>Your child is being attacked by the neighbours pit-bull.
I wouldn’t waste my time passing a bill that failed to stop pit bulls attacking children….
I’d shoot the pit bull.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Hmmm…I’d foolishly expected a reasoned answer from you Blue P. Your ‘all or nothing’ approach to complex issues (is ‘blast ‘em out of the water!’ another of your ‘planks’?) might explain your frustration at the Green’s involvement in issues other than ’saving the planet’.
Valis - your reference to the ‘visceral dislike for the philosophy’ of the Nats is a very interesting point. Despite efforts I’ve made to spend time with National Party figures, BlueGreens and rank and file Nat voters in my own community, I am frequently appalled by their actions and words. I guess it is, as you say, from the gut. I am very interested in the halfway house figures, the few ‘green’ Nats. How do they reconcile what they see and hear.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Valis,
“Not only is the perfect costed strategy beyond the means of a small party to develop (heck, even the Nats will tell you they can’t do such a thing out of government)”
Wrong tack to take, because the Nats do cost policy. Broadband at $1.5B for example.
Problem with the Greens policy is its wide perception of unachievability.
Going back to Sue Bradfords policy of warm houses for all (that was my comment philU was refering to).
Go up to the voter with that policy and the first questions will be how, when where, who and cost.
If you cant answer any of those (heck even the when cant be beyond the strategic planning department of any party) then the voters eyes will glaze over with disbelieve and the vote will not go towards the Greens.
You simply cannot have a saleable policy without a strategic implementation plan. People read and understand the budget to various degrees and all can see deficit or surplus projections.
All the green party has to do is find where the surplusses are (and if none, where the tax revenue will come from) to pay for Green policiy statements (the only costed on was $150M for something that has slipped my mind - toad remind me for you said, hey guys a costed policy statement).
It is this failure to indivdualise the policies where the Greens fail to persuade the voter.
If Labour ever get arond to publishing policy for the next election (their web site still has 2005 policy published) it will be costed I’m sure.
Same as the National policies which are being released at the moment.
The biggest blunder for the greens has been Russel’s statement that taxation for “bad” environemental practises will be neutralised by cuts in taxation that is currently on “good” environmental practises.
Where are the details?
And philu, not often you second an emotion from a commentator who you have labelled a rightwing nutbar in the past. So I will take it as a comlement!!
August 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Greenfly
My point is that in order to solve a problem, you need to a) clearly identify the problem then b) come up with an effective solution.
If a pit Bull is attacking a child now, I’d shoot it. I wouldn’t negotiate with the pit bull. If children are getting beaten in South Auckland, I wouldn’t pass legislation targeting middle class people in Wadestown.
Children getting beaten by braindead thugs is a real problem. Parents smacking their children, isn’t, no matter how distasteful you, personally, find it. Your position isn’t supported by the facts.
Most people would like politicians to focus on the real problems, not the pretend problems. Shoot the dog. Don’t shoot the neighbors cow.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Oh, and getting back to your point - the Greens need environmental policies that are agnostic. Conflating environmental issues with socialist dogma puts people off voting for the Greens.
This is the reason your poll position hasn’t moved.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Blue P. The neighbour’s cow is not being shot, it’s being afforded the protection it deserves. Targeting ‘braindead thugs’ is one thing and is covered by other legislation (effectively or not is another question) but there is a valid place for improvements to the general picture. An across the board, ‘don’t drop litter’ campaign will reduce the amount of litter dropped (let’s say). Those who don’t drop it anyway shouldn’t feel agrieved, but enjoy the benefit of an all round improvement, in line with their own philosophy.
My original scenario was intended to reveal whether or not you would act on a ‘minor’ problem in the face of a major disaster, which you showed you would, and likening that to the Green’s action on lesser issues, while still focussing on the big picture, which they do.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Greenfly; glad you asked. Yes I do want to vote Green as my party vote, but the Greens tend to squander it.
How?
They declare their undying support of Labour and promptly get walked all over by Helen. Well I might as well have voted labour.
They declare their support of Maori ownership of the foreshore and seabed when anyone with real Mana Whenua would know that no-one can own the un-ownable.
They declare their undying support for the struggle of the hard done by workers against the greedy evil bosses. Well I’m one of those greedy evil bosses, and I’m damned sure I do more to protect the environment than any of my staff do.
They declare their undying support for the struggle of the poor hard done by tennants against the greedy evil landlords. Well I’m a greedy evil landlord who is constantly cleaning up after the tennants and putting it in the recycling.
When I vote Green I want the Greens to take my endorsement and use it responsibly to hold back the excesses of the other party’s growth-growth-growth madness.
Instead my vote gets used as Helen’s toilet paper.
I’d like Helen’s toilet paper to turn into stinging nettle.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
samian - thank you x2 - firstly for your party vote and secondly, the mental image (nettle, sting, ‘red’ bum - nice!)
The Greens don’t declare such support at all (you know that)
I believe the Greens did everything possible, at the last election, to avoid ‘getting walked over’ by anyone. Do you imagine the played their hand weakly..really? Are you factoring in the Peters’//Dunne effect?
We would all like to see the Greens in a position where they can achieve those things you cite (hold back the mad growth dash etc.) They have to be given every chance, hence my first ‘thank you’.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Maybe Jeanette needs a Winston hairdo! Sorry that’s a bad mental image, maybe a Dunne hairdo, no wait, that’s worse.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Maybe Dunne and Peters need a ‘permanent’ holiday. Hair, hair!
August 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
>>you would act on a ‘minor’ problem in the face of a major disaster,
The perception is that most of your energy is going into mismanaging minor problems.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
B.Peter - yes, it’s a perception problem, for the general public and green supporters alike. In fact, capable people like Jeanette, for example, are steering their way through these issues very well. I challenge your view that the Greens are ‘mismanaging’ the minor issues. They are in fact adroitly guiding them through. The change to Section 59, passed with an unassailable majority in the house - what does that tell you about the real value of the bill, despite the hideous clamour that was engineered outside of the ‘hive’.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
>>They are in fact adroitly guiding them through.
There was zero take-up on a solar subsidy. Zero. Utter mismanagement that would leave you bankrupt if you were a nasty evil business person. Yet if you’re a politician, you get away with such incompetence. In fact, your followers will praise you for having a jolly good try.
>>Section 59, passed with an unassailable majority in the house - what does that tell you
It tells me the National Party wanted some say in an otherwise god-awful bill, in order to help prevent good parents being criminalized.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Here’s a little reminder: tinyurl.com/5daaa6
(now read the comments on that thread, and see who was right, and who was wrong)
And one year later: tinyurl.com/693e2k
August 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“Section 59, passed with an unassailable majority in the house - what does that tell you about the real value of the bill, despite the hideous clamour that was engineered outside of the ‘hive’.”
You mean that hideous display of democracy by nearly 400,000 New Zealanders?
The bill is targeted at traditional familys who smack their kids, it is an idealogical assualt on those aspects of societey that Sue Bradford and others want changed. Just cause some of the greens don’t value intellectual honesty dosen’t change the fact that this is really what this bill is about. If you don’t want people to know what your politicians personal beliefs are, I suggest you remove their profiles from the greens web site and ban all media interviews.
Then we can set up an honest parliament of “esteemed experts” and join the Irainian theocratic system substituting Islam for extremist humanism.
Then the will of the people will be truly irrelevant and our panel of esteemed experts can lead us all into utopian bliss. Child “beaters” like me can then be safeley executed as a service to humanity.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Blue P. The big zero was the result of lack of support from Government and industry at large and while a set back, serves as a prelude to a successful second round. To equate the role of a supportive party in parliament with a business, requiring immediate profitable returns, shows a rigidity in your thinking. A failure by the infrastructure doesn’t transfer to the initiator, if the long term view is taken. Do you think solar water heating is a bad bet? Do you feel that households shouldn’t be encouraged through a subsidy, to adopt long term, efficient technologies like these?
As to your rationale for the involvement of the National Party (read Key - English and co were/are spewing) you can’t be serious. Their ‘ammendment’ was puffery, no more.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
>>Do you think solar water heating is a bad bet?
It is at the moment. Once solar becomes a good bet, you’ll know, because the market (meaning the sum total of the decisions taken by actual people using their own money) will show you - people will install it in droves, and it won’t require subsidies.
>>was the result of lack of support from Government and industry at large
Keep kidding yourself, if you must. You clearly have no idea how markets operate.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Shunda barunda - The bill protects children from assault.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Which will come first BluePeter, capable installers of devices in sufficient numbers to cover the country, or the promotion of the devices. Who makes the first move, when there is an imperitive to act (that is, the wellbeing of a large number of people who themselves cannot initiate the process).
August 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Greenfly
Can a parenting course run by any organisation, legally teach parents how to correctly apply smacking as a form of dicipline under the current legislation?
Don’t even try to tell me it is about stopping assault it is anti smacking and anti parental authority as its author intended.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Shunda barunda - I don’t know, can it? I have tried to tell you that children now enjoy the same legal protection from assualt as adults do, but you aint a’listnin’.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Of course not and nor could such a course be run legally before Sue’s law passed. Section 59 as it was applied provided a defense for beating a child. The only time it could be used was by a parent already on trial. That it has been repealed affects only those people who will cross the line anyway and be arrested for it. The Police have shown that no more arrests will be made simply as a result of the repeal. They have always used their judgment in these matters and nothing need change. The whole media circus around it shows that there is indeed a hidden agenda, but its not a Green one. Its by those who have never liked that NZ got civilized enough 100 years ago to outlaw hitting kids and want to go back to the 19th century.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Valis,
I dont support bashing children, though a corrective smack does have its place. Just for the sake of it I would as you; Would you use a electric cattle rod on a child with severe ADHD? would you consider it ethical to do so?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Certainly not. Trick question?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
It is clear that, despite the clamour from the outraged and those influenced by their witterings, there will be no return to the previous state, (pre-repeal). As with the smoking legislation, shrilly decried by die-hard puffers and Dunnites across the country, but now part and parcel, this is the brave new face of New Zealand. Were not so gormless as to revert to a Family First-condoned state.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
greenfly
If demand ramps up, plumbers will be falling over themselves to supply.
The industry will train their people up, followed by a formalization of the education process.
There is no demand. There is no demand because the technology doesn’t solve a problem (i.e. hot water can be delivered cheaper using existing methods). There isn’t even any demand from people who see it as a planet-saving option, indicating a lot of people pay-lip service to a non-problem.
I’ve recently put in a central heating system (European radiators). The installers were English, demonstrating the market found a way. The company is ramping up, and there is a long waiting list. We know about radiators because we’ve lived in Europe. None of this required a $15m government spend, because the company solved a problem people are prepared to spend money to solve.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
BluePeter - hot water can be delivered cheaper using existing methods? I’m completely puzzled by this statement. Have the claims by all and sundry, that the cost of hot water heating represents the bulk of the domestic power bill and that an efficient solar hot water unit will drastically reduce those costs, been wrong? My world is turned upside down! (I built one, incidentally, from a coil of black piping. It provides free hot water for a post-swimming, boating, sporting shower (hot, hot, hot!). I’m confused about how this is more expensive than an electric-powered equivalent. I’ve a friend using vaccuated tubes to awesome effect- what gives?).
August 17th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Valis, only partialy.
The use of an electric cattle prod on a child with severe ADHD is accually a reasonably common and accepted meathod of correction and is considered, by psychologists, to be ethical to the extent that to not do it is unethical.
This is because severe ADHD stops an individual from being able to learn and almost always results in severe self mutilation, often to the extent that an individual is put in a straight jacket and put in a padded cell. The use of a cattle prod works in exactly the same way as a corrective smack, that is to say as a form of positive punishment, in that it is used whenever they start to self mutilate or participate in other costly behaviour, the pain induced by the electric current acts as a stimulas that gradually teaches the individual to refrain from such actions and in doing so allows the individual to start on the path to near normality and gain the ability to learn and participate in life. lol.
Smacking does have its place, through the same mechanisims, even if the incidents themselves are nowhere near as severe. an interesting peice of psychological knowledge often used to demonstrate to new psychology students that face-value is not always the correct interpritation, particuly with ethics.
So yes it is a trick question of sorts, but serious at the same time.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
greenfly
I looked into it when I was deciding on a heating system, and the numbers do not work. Water heating is only one aspect of the system. You’d still need another system to heat the rest of the house.
There are also reliability issues: http://www.rustypanels.info/
And there is industry research:
“BRANZ Ltd identified that one of the biggest uncertainties in the cost/benefit analysis of solar water heating systems is the lack of reliable field data for system performances. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most existing systems fall significantly short of the calculated values used during the system design”
Do you have a solar system in your house?
August 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“I wonder when the politicians are going to acknowledge the real reasons why there have been no sign-ups. It is because the New Zealand public is not stupid and NZ is such a small place that the word gets around very quickly. The internet helps and when it comes to the internet, the average Kiwi is savvy. The drop in sales coincides with the launch of this website in December 2007.
A “20 year life” is highly assumptive to the point of being ridiculous. I have yet to find a solar water heating system that is lasting anywhere near that kind of time without showing significant signs of deterioration. 5-6 years would be more like it (For evidence, browse the dozens of posts on this website using the “labels” tab in the right hand column).
If there is to be a 20 year lifespan, or near to that, then we must place the emphasis on quality rather than price. I do not believe that it is possible to make cheaper solar water heating systems without the serious risk of compromising performance and durability.”
August 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
So lets look at this flawed logic shall we.
People who believe canabis should be legalised say that keeping laws against it…..
dose not stop canabis abuse,
dose not stop criminals,
and encourages irresponsible and ignorant ues of the drug.
I could, on that logic argue making laws on parental dicipline…..
Does not stop child abuse
Does not stop criminal offending against children
and encourages ignorance on the correct way to physically dicipline a child leading to more child abuse.
This is why people struggle to see the greens as a serious option for the party vote. The rules are changed to suit the agenda at hand, and have nothing to do with the protection of the most vulnerable people in society.
Perhaps the greens could give a definition of parental authority, then the real truth would come out about the nature of section 59. Problem is truth and politics don’t mix and any fringe voters would be well and truely scared off .
August 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Blue Peter - ‘Water heating is only one aspect’, yyyes, that was what I was talking about. You’ve dragged in ‘home heating’ to the discussion as well (?) but o.k. I heat my home largely with heat from the sun, let in through the north windows and captured by thermal mass floors. We are very well insulated and have good ‘heat retention habits’. I’m a great believer in site-specific solutions. Hence the grey water to reed bed we’ve just constructed to take the kitchen sink water. We’ll do another for the bath and a third for the laundry. Simple solutions are best, at the household, community and national level. Sun shines, we are warm
August 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Sapient - crap. I worked with severely autistic children for several years and became aware of this ‘treatment’ and it’s practitioners. Theirs is an appalling misunderstanding of the situation those children find themselves in and you are appallingly misguided to support and promote the use of, as you said, cattle prods on humans. Perhaps you are just trying to provoke debate. In that case, your judgement is poor.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Well then greenfly, you would know that autism and ADHD are totally different disorders.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I do sapient and I know that the method you describe is ‘prescribed’ for both of them by those ‘practitioners’. Are you an ect fan as well? Short sharp shock for criminals too?
August 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
greenfly, I can see no benifit for prescription of such meathods for autism as the basis for autism is totaly differnet and would not respond to such behaviourist therapies.
I suggest you do some reading as the use of this meathod for extreme cases of ADHD is approved by the APA and is approved on a case by case basis. every one of my lecturers which has brought this up in lectures (3) has approved of its use also.
ECT was widley used but is no longer used to any great extent, although I do not approve of such brute force meathods and beleive that it was used incorrectly, just like frontal lobe lobotomies, it may well have its place, though I do not know where, the ethical decision would be made on the basis of the individual case and potential benifits.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Greenfly,
The point is that water heating is integrated into other systems, such as ours. Many people would fall into a similar market segment. It makes no sense investing in two separate infrastructures.
In any case, we run cheaper than solar + electrical heating, and our system is robust and heats the entire house, and supplies infinite hot water, whatever the weather.
Solar systems do not compare. The tech isn’t there yet.
>>Sun shines, we are warm
How do you heat when it doesn’t?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
BluePeter - you are hinting at, but not revealing, what your system is. Are you a wood burner/coal burner. Do you have a geyser in your lawn? Water heating certainly doesn’t have to be bundled with other systems, especially if that leads to the issue you raise.
When the sun don’t shine, I turn on an electric heater. My home is a work in progress, and work on the wind turbine, Achimedes screw etc. is ongoing (and going well). Why not de-centralise your household systems, BP? Water from a spring can be pumped to a header tank using a windmill, why drive it with electricity, simply because it’s there?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
sapient - in your original post you talked about using cattle rods on children, yet you say in your last post, ‘I do not approve of such brute force meathods’ (sic) refering to ECT! Should I take note of what your lecturers say?? Have you seen the ‘treatment’ being applied? Could be sobering for you.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
>>you are hinting at, but not revealing, what your system is.
Central heating incorporating on demand hot water. Single, gas-powered boiler. No hot water storage necessary.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Shunda barundra - your statement that Sue Bradford’s bill has ‘nothing to do with the protection of the most vulnerable people in society’ is pretty silly. If you seriously believe that Sue fought that battle for the sake of ideology, rather than for the ’sake of the children’ as she says, (that is, she’s not telling the truth) then I’m no use to you. Cheers.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
greenfly, by brute force I mearly ment unfocused methods, in this case shocking the brain, which have no particular mechinism of action and are mearly games of ‘pin the tail on the donkey’, the ADHD method which I highlighted does not posses this characteristic as it is a well defined process that utilises a well known psychological mechanism rather than just being a lucky guess like the origional implimentation of ECT.
And even if this were not the case, my qualification that the ethics of an action should be based on the potential benifits weighed against the potential costs still stands.
I have not in practice seen this technique applied as cases which are extreme enough to warrent such treatment are relativly rare and in most cases at present drugs can be used to reduce the state of the individual.
The reason I brought this up was mearly to demonstrate that positive punishment can be effective and in some cases it the most effective form. That and its always an interesting ethical arguement.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
BluePeter -
gas? Feeling a little vulnerable to the vagaries of the overseas market? Do you mean biogas, produced from your own waste 
Have you back-up, in case peak oil is, god forbid, a reality? Self reliance - it’s the way of the future. Petrochemicals are so … Luddite 
August 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
sapient - out of interest, some questions;
Does the child get to o.k the treatment?
Where on the child’s body is the shock administered (eyelids, soles of feet)?
How young are those so ‘treated’? (babies? Toddlers?)
Is this done in New Zealand?
Thanks for raising this issue.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Sorry folks… I have a busy time now.
BP is correctly identifying a serious defect in the emphasis on current solar hot water systems. In the NZ climate you need to protect against mold and rot of all sorts on the roof. Products designed for Australian and California conditions won’t cut it. To do well in our environment you have to use real glass, thick with vacuum seals and something rather heavier duty than PVC. Bronze. Titanium…. You have to have easy access to the thing so you can clean and inspect yearly. It isn’t maintenance free because the mold grows on everything. It isn’t IMHO EVER going to be cheap.
In other words, this is not a ready-made easy answer. It is in fact, a lot like some of the policy criticisms leveled at us above. It looks good but it isn’t nearly as easily done as stated.
BP… have you considered a wood-pellet fired boiler? They are available in NZ… actually made somewhere on South Island… doesn’t match your on-demand scenario but removes dependency on gas supply.
BJ
August 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Shunda barunda:
“So lets look at this flawed logic shall we.”
Oh lets! You could make the same sort of argument for corporal punishment in schools, or even for adults in prison, say. The difference between that and faulty cannabis laws is that society has decided hitting each other is not the best way to go about discipline, even if it is effective in some circumstances (any many will argue with that premise too).
One last time since you can’t seem to focus on what section 59 really was about. From the Green Party website:
“Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 stated that the parent of a child, or a person in the place of a parent “is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.” It was up to a jury to decide if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. This was interpreted by a jury in Napier in recent years to mean that it was reasonable for a father to hit his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm – leaving linear bruising visible for days. Also in recent years a jury in Hamilton considered it reasonable for a father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm-long lump with red edges on the girl’s back.”
We can’t do this to adults for “correction” and thank goodness we can no longer do it to children and get away with it.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Greenfly
No, I’m not in the least bit worried. Gas supplies in New Zealand are fine for the foreseeable future. Known reserves at 2413 bcf.
I think you’ve allowed yourself to be be scared into survivalist mode.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
greenfly,
I do not know of any cases of it been used in New Zealand, though since it is a considered a medical procedure I suspect the practice in New Zealand would be regulated by the relivant new zealand body, I would guess the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychologists.
Its only something I covered relativly breifly in my first year of studies so I dont know all the details of the procedure, there is of course pain as that is what causes the change, I beleive it is applied to the torso and would suspect, by the nature of ADHD and the procedure, that it wouldint be done until atleast around school age. But once again I admit my ignorance on the accual shocking, although I do know it is non-damaging. I would suspect that instead of using a accual cattle prod these days they would use some other device such as an injection of potasium ions under the skin.
Although I do agree that if there is any other meathod that is just as effective and involves less suffering then it is unethical to use this procedure, the same goes for electro convulsive therapy and lobotomies.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
BluePeter - not scared at all, enjoying the ride. I’m no survivalist - I am however of the opinion that the ‘eggs in one basket’ saying is a wise one. Spread the load, look for the most resiliant system, use what you have locally, don’t be beholden to distant markets. Do you grow your food at home? Do you have a supportive community? and so on… The suggestion that you look at wood pellets by bjchip is a good one and the kind of thing I’d have said
August 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
law and order conspicuous by its absence from the green party advocacy….
very weak on that. Not very credible on related social justice either eg med marijuana, tackling gang crime and cycle of ‘violation’.
= Greens not very credible, full stop.
= low poll result.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Greenfly,
If it came to it, I’d just buy something else. No big deal. But it is highly unlikely to ever come to that in my lifetime - the chances, whilst real, are tiny, and aren’t worth worrying about.
The bigger risk for New Zealand in my lifetime is maintaining a sustainable economy. Government spending is far too high and productivity, too low.
>>Do you grow your food at home?
No. I like the idea, however. The opportunity cost for my time would be too great. It makes more sense to generate revenue, and then buy food with the profits.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
>>BP… have you considered a wood-pellet fired boiler?
No, BJ. The gas works fine.
If gas ever ran out (unlikely) I certainly would.
Your comments about solar are spot on. I think it is irresponsible for politicians to be pushing technology that they know is unsuitable.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I have to agree with BP here. Gas supplies, at least for domestic purposes, have a pretty long time to go here in NZ. We will hit a serious shortage in 2015 for electricity generation purposes, which is why Genesis and Contact are applying for consent to import LNG. If that happens, all gas in NZ will be tied to the world price and BP would them be likely to consider other options as life will get very expensive. I personally don’t think it will happen. Genesis would be foolish in the extreme to build the Rodney gas fire plant with so much uncertainty in large gas quantities. As far as the home user is concerned, direct use of gas is a very good option for at least the medium, if not the long term.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
did you see the poll on stuff..?
greens on 3.5%..(!)
so..two of the latest polls have the greens at 4$..and 3.5%..
..how to spin that..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Phil -are you going to spit the dummy again at the ALCP if they knock greens below 5%?
cannabis party is gearing up to get votes again, and not too many freindly words for teh green party, and gunning for the disenchanted Labour voters too, so i hear thru the grapevine….
on the cards i reckon (greens losing cannabis voters to ALCP), especially with greens dropping Nandor, and not a skerrit of advocacy against the war on drugs mentality in NZ, corruption in the prohibition system, criminality on rampage, allowing abuse of med patients etc…frog’s mob turned out to be real namby pambies i think.
asking for punishment in the polls?
August 18th, 2008 at 2:03 am
bp, Each to his own of course but the personal satisfaction can be priceless. Like your children’s artwork being more priceless than a Van Goch.
Mind you, having spent this gloriously sunny weekend getting my mini hotbed greenhouse into a workable state of affairs after weeks of deluge, I would say that wouldn’t I.
Beware, vege gardening can be like computing: lots of bugs, nothing is ready on time, and there’s always some upgrade you need to get everything just right.
Not that I’m one to brag but…
http://www.petroltax.org.nz/images/Photos-213.jpg
and 215 and 217 too.
(scuse the mess, the weather started turning nasty and I’m untidy (aka lazy and disorganised) by nature)
August 18th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I can think of nothing better than the greens getting under 5% at the election, I so want to vote for a green party except I just can’t vote for a party that doesn’t really care about the enviroment. This is why I hope the party gets under 5% then hopefully all the communist’s will leave the green party and we can rebuild the party to be one that cares about creating a real future for NZ.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I haven’t seen the questions that they ask in these polls.
Do they ask separate questions about each respondent’s 1.Party Vote and 2.Candidate Vote ?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
“..Phil -are you going to spit the dummy again at the ALCP if they knock greens below 5%?..”
i was prepared to..
but i have been both puzzled and silenced..by the green-silence..
(what can i say..?..
..you/the alcp are to the greens as nader is to the democrats..
..and any implications from that will be on your heads..)
the only possible green-spin’ that i can offer you..
..is that a lab/grn/mp/prog ‘gummint’ would be free of the reactionary/prohibitionary demands/ultimatums of dunne..
so…?
..takng a ‘long-game’ view..i would urge alcp to hold out for that hope..
..rather than go on scorched-earth attack on the greens..
..(over their (admittadly lamentable) betrayal of those who put them there in the first place..i know..!..ii know..!..)
we all know the alcp won’t get to 5%..
..and you will ‘hurt’ the greens..
..and you must ask yourselves..
..what ‘wins’ would there be for cannabis law reform..?
..should you help to drive the green party from parliament..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 8:14 am
One stuff poll had National at 70% close to the last election.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
phil u - u r absolutely correct about the alcp, but it’s a bit rich coming from someone who has sledgehammered away at the Greens and Metiria in particular, over drug reform issues. You sound so calm and reasonable now. Don’t you feel just a bit responsible for this ‘development’. Whata ya gonna do now?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hey its just great to see that with all this tiresome political debate we’re having, someone has their eye on the things that really matter. Who needs the Green Party anyway. We may all die from the effects of climate change, but we’ll hopefully be too stoned to notice. Of course, it will still be illegal, particularly if the Greens are knocked out of Parliament, but cannabis grows better in a warm climate anyway, so bring it on. The ALCP has to start somewhere in its world takeover, why not start with its closest allies? And right after that, they might want to get their website unsuspended.
Footnote: So far as I know, I’m in total support of the ALCP’s cannabis policy. I tried to check, but there’s that little website problem.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“..Don’t you feel just a bit responsible for this ‘development’…”
um..!..i am ‘responsible’ for the greens/metiria doing nothing about cannabis law reform..?
..and for the alcp anger at them for this..?
..whoar..!
greenfly..did you have a hand in the compilation of the secret dossier that was used in the (defendant-absent) kangaroo court that got me blacklisted by the green party..?
if not..you should have been..!
..and just cos’ i advocate the alcp taking the ‘long view’..
..this is no way diminishes the (white-hot) anger i feel at the (considered/planned) neglect of their promises/responsibilities by the green party/metiria turei..
..i am just trying to take my own advice..
..and see that ‘long view’..
..and i can see absolutely no point..on any level..
(esp. their (purported) goal of cannabis-law-reform)
..for the alcp to take this path of action..
(save empire-building by the alcp principal..
y’know..!..the more votes..the more of that lovely grubbily gummint-money/funding to play with..eh..?..
my attitudes to the true motives there is as cynical as ever…)
and i know he will be pushing that (shortsighted) scorched earth tactic to alcp members..
..and this..for me..only confirms my cynicism at his motives..
hope that clarifys matters..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
and what exactly does alcp do between those three-yearly injections of that ‘lovely/grubbily gummint money’..?
s.f.a..!
..as far as i can see..
(where was their feckin’ medical marijuana campaign..?
..or ..’anything’..?..)
and of course..this just further ‘confirms my cynicism etc etc..”
alcp supporters/members need to think long and hard about two things..
1)..how hurting the greens would help their cause..
2)..and the motives of the alcp leadership..
..in advocating that ‘hurting’..
..wether they are acting out of shortsighted self-interest..
…or not..
..and they should/must think of the ‘long game’..
..that of getting law change..
..and..(as dead rat swallowing as it may be..in some ways)..
..the greens..not the alcp..are ‘it’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
hey phil i’m just looking for a solution here, as there is much voter sentiment slipping between the cracks because of the 5% threshold. (including MY voter sentiment, and possibly yours too, and them poor old Christian-family parties…)
It is potentially a fatal problem for the green party, and berating ALCP, who are understandably discontent, is not necessarily going to solve the problem. The ALCP didnt want a bar of standing aside for the greens last election (i did try…), and i doubt theyre any happier now with swallowing dead rats.
anyway, thanks for your comments - Aotearoa legzlise needs to chew over that point of view and i will pass it on. (and yes they need to get their site back up!).
im not seeing any solution though….apart from ALCP gleaning support by putting up Nandor in Auckland Central!
August 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
national should have stood in auckland central..
..him going to cowtown was not a good move..
..(everything literally ‘went south’..)
..and thanks for passing that p.o.v thru alcp circles..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Phil u - this thread is largely exhausted I know, but before it expires …
“greenfly..did you have a hand in the compilation of the secret dossier that was used in the (defendant-absent) kangaroo court that got me blacklisted by the green party..?”
this was a pretty flippy comment!
btw - your liberal ways with punctuation draws plenty of flack, but I find you easy to read and refreshing
I hope you can focus your considerable energies on hauling in those peripherals that might stray from the ‘main green block’ and encourage them to cast their vote thoughtfully/strategically
August 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
heh heh..!..nandor should have etc..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
chrs..greenfly..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
i have a solar panel(pv), mobile. works good powers a grunty stereo, looking forward to when i can buy 12v l.e.d. lights, I think they make them overseas, but not in NZ yet?
….
anyway I just threw that in so you know im as green and into science and conservation as many of u lot!
not just obsessed with herb, want to stop global climate emmission just as you do. So dont dismiss the cannabis ‘priority’ folk or the motives of the alcp.
WE are as valid as any of you who think ‘a drug free lyfestyle is healthiest’, perhaps more so, because hemp is god given herb, and there is majic in the medicinal and psychoactive ‘effects’ of ganga (especially when used appropriately!), and great benefit of changing cannabis law in NZ which can happen overnight.
hemp will grow better in the global warming scenario, but if we were growing it to the max now there would be a fricken great souce of biomass and food from the seed.
Ive heard that from the AlcP every second press release for 10 years, but i never head it from greens. And i never saw it in the media.
mate, i honestly dont see the Green party as the marijuana law reform ‘best option’ party. the MPs have proved to be non-beleivers, they think its ‘never never land’ - some time after global warming stops.
I want to vote for the party whose vision i share. Its my right. and yours too. The green party do not seem to comprehend my vision. I am not voting for dill-brains again.
P.s - whats that principle your talking about phil? the alcp policy is based on solid principles - they/we work as a team and always have, the only ‘empire’ is a freindly and conscientious and enlightened one… and they/we dont do kangaroo courts!
August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
principal…not principle..
and my concerns around that are listed..
..and..how is a vote for alcp not a wasted vote..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
if there’s a leaf
on the ballot paper - something for all the unenrolled voters to aspire to!!
August 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Interresting comment from Kiwiblog :
# PhilBest (2284) Add karma Subtract karma +9 Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am
# big bruv (1358) Add karma Subtract karma +5 Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
“Are the Greens in danger of extinction?�
“Be still my beating heart!�
You too, Big Bruv?
People like the EB “Secret Seven� who want to target the Greens, instead of attacking them on their resemblance to Commie sympathisers, need to get the main points of Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist� across to people, and the arguments made by Mr Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder, when he messily split from that organisation.
That is, that the main assumptions on which the “Green� movement is based, particularly that “things are steadily getting worse�, our air and water is getting dirtier and our lands are getting more and more “deforested�; and that economic growth and improvements in human condition in free market economies automatically cause environmental deterioration; are FALSE. UNTRUE. WRONG. LIES.
…………
Now why is it interesting?????
Because it comes close to identifying what I consider Green business.
How do we prosper without mindless economic growth? ….
August 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Valis Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hey its just great to see that with all this tiresome political debate we’re having, someone has their eye on the things that really matter.
………………………….
So why did Sue Bradford get to her place on the list by a “huge majority”
August 18th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
More from Property Developer Matey:
“# PhilBest (2284) Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Glutaemus Maximus (143) Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“Could be that the average family is a lot more worried about falling house prices, huge living cost increases, and crime issues.�
The housing cost problem is an example of the ongoing consequences of misguided government meddling; in this case, restrictive zoning.
Yes, people are worried about “falling house prices�. What about the fact that house prices have gone up so much faster than incomes, that an average house price is now 6+ years of average income, when for our parents, the figure was 3 times? What about the claim made by expert Hugh Pavletich recently that this generation of young NZ-ers is going to be the first ever whose options for housing are going to be WORSE than their parents? Or the fact that the housing bubble bursts when first home buyers drop right out of the market, which is what has happened in the last year? (First home buyers are followed by investors, then the collapse really sets in).
Read “We Are In Stage one of the five stages of real estate denial�, by Bernard Hickey; and the many articles by Hugh Pavletich on “Scoop�.
We the people are the victims of yet another betrayal by interfering, we-know-what’s-good-for-you politicians, and in this case, “Green� ideology that exults environmental conservation above human well-being is to blame. Both for the people who have been locked out of home ownership altogether by rising prices, and the people now affected by lost equity as the bubble bursts.
According to Hugh Pavletich, NZ is 1.4% urbanised. Get that - ONE POINT FOUR PERCENT. We could go to 1.6% urbanised with another 1 million people housed, at current densities. But Green land conservation mania means that land must be drip-fed onto the market, so that speculators who have bought up land around urban boundaries can make a killing. The potential for corruption here is huge. As usual, it is Lefty, regulatory politicians who actually do the most enabling of the parasitical, gouging “capitalistsâ€? that are meant to be the main subjects of their distaste, while “the poorâ€? who they are meant to represent, have to suffer the imposition of extra burdens; all of which would not happen under “lassez-faireâ€? politicians.”
August 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
do greens do better in the polls if they advocate cannabis law reform (evidence based r18 or r20 harm minimisation)?
or worse if they dont?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Dunno about the answer to your question, but this is somewhat relevant anyway…
Last election, ALCP got 5,745 (0.25%) votes
The Greens got 120,521 (5.30%). Doesn’t really seem like a lot in it, and they would probably lose of few votes as a result of the position (legalise, decriminalise, whatever), like it or not.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Quoth jh:
>Valis Says:
>August 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
>Hey its just great to see that with all this tiresome political debate we’re
>having, someone has their eye on the things that really matter.
>………………………….
>So why did Sue Bradford get to her place on the list by a “huge majority�
It was humour, jh, about single issue parties. Sue hails from the left for sure, but is not driven by one issue only and has no problem linking social justice issues to and wholeheartedly supporting Green environmental goals, so there’s no reason to think she’d not be popular in the Party.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I am sorry valis, but Sue Bradford has not done a good enough job hiding her real beliefs for people to take your word that she is a moderate left wing politician, if such a thing exists.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
u’s very funny stephenR ‘not a lot in it’. you wont be laughing when u’s get 4.9 percent because the green party is so adamant cannabis-hemp and ‘actual’ social justice is just a side show-issue.
the national party will chop them 48000 useless bureaucats and youll be first!
but seriously
there are possibly a lot of people like me who voted tactically last 3 elections for a bunch of chickens and wont be wasting our vote there this time, ON PRINCIPLE
August 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I sure don’t believe you’re sorry Shunda barunda, and you must be taking straw man lessons from big bro or BluePeter, because I didn’t claim anything you’ve said. And yet we should come to you to discover what Sue really thinks.
Sue Bradford hides her real beliefs? Bwaahahahaha!
What I’d like to hear from you is why an adult on trial for beating a child with a hose pipe or piece of wood should get off.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
They shouldn’t get off.
And neither should a father be investigated for flicking his son behind the ear for endangering his younger sibling.
Micro surgery with an axe often means someone has had an axe to grind for all the wrong reasons.
You have yet to give me the green definition of parental authority.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Er yes weedeater, it would mean a lot at 4.9%. My point was they won’t be much better - I don’t think 0.25% is even another MP.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Minus whatever votes they lose for the legalisation/decriminalisation position.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
“You have yet to give me the green definition of parental authority.”
I wouldn’t say Greens have a particular definition of parental authority. We do have a fundamental principle of non-violence. From there it isn’t difficult to reason that we shouldn’t be able to get away with beating *anyone* with a hose and I’m glad to see that you agree. This was already the case for adults and the repeal of section 59 achieved that for children. It makes no more comment on parental authority than that.
The police report no increase in arrests as a result of the law. That some people may have made a complaint that they otherwise wouldn’t have made I put down to the unjustified hysteria over the repeal.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
yes it was close in 2005 and the smacking bill is not helping green prospects in 2008, inconsequential though it may be.
a pity that initiative didnt go into genuine ’social justice’ in the NZ community environment, some real beneficial reform (eg 373,000 less criminals overnight).
0.25% was the result of a fairly half-hearted ALCP campaign in 2005, StephenR, half the candidates even voted green, and this will not be the case in 2008, the ALCP is absolutely sick of the green party non-attitude, non-advocacy, non-vision.
It is a rock and hard place situation, im sure you appreciate, but for most alcp-ers, the green party has no sympathy whatsoever - that’s of their own making over 9 years of ‘dissing ‘ cannabis law reform, by ommission.
so yes the alcp is ‘gearing up’, and has its broadcasting $10,000 this time, and a bolder ballot logo in the process apparently, and quite a few activists online, infiltrating the bloggisphere (possibly even lurking on the froglist)
and it is confident of attracting a new breed of voters who have had enough of the prohibition parties
(thats all them incl Green because sitting on the fence aint got NZ nowhere)
so the greens should not be complacent. lets seee….. 5.3% - projected minimum alcp vote of 0.5% = 4.8%
Seems like Russel’s parliamentary carreer might be a short one. maybe you shouldnt have strategised the cannabis ‘cone of silence’ as a vote winner Russel ?.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Just read in the Herald somewhere that votes going to er, ‘no hoper’ parties has decreased from around ~8% of votes in 1999 to about 1.4% in 2005. We’ll see what happens…
August 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Go for it weedeater. May even help us more than it hurts.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:28 am
There has been a consistent resistance to the resolution of the cannabis issue since 2002 that will play out this election. Make no mistake. Cannabis has featured in the balance of votes since MMP and it would be a fool to write off the play it will have this time around. Expect the ‘we need more recources, need more police, need longer sentences’ crowd to clamour around dysfunction and mayhem that is occuring on prohibitions watch.
Wellington folk may be interested in attending the following:
Harbour City Rotary Wellington
Judge Jerry Paradis, “Diner with the Judge”
HCR invites you on Wed 27th 6pm, Duxton Hotel (small fee for dinner), RSVP