by frog
Nice.
Nice.
What can I say? I really quite like them. Full press release here.
Vote for me
Published: September 5, 2008
166 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
bloody gorgeous. awesome work. I am so proud to be green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks tonyt. I must say when I first saw them a while back, I was very moved. I, too, am very proud to be Green. And not just when I am hiding behind my amphibian mask…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
FFS…..”Proud to be Green” because of a slogan??????
We are in more trouble than I thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB – No, proud because we actually stand for something, and proud that we’ve got some good billboards!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great images. Does make the Nats billboards look rather sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The implication being that only the Greens care about our children, our future, and our planet.
I think you’ll find every party stands for those exact same things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really BP? I thought that National stood for C130 bombers and empty rhetoric. My mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> I think you’ll find every party stands for those exact same things.
Maybe they should state it more often…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe they should stop doing the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thomas also reports that the Green Party rejected an even more generous amendment where any deforestation would be offset by new plantings elsewhere at a 1.3:1 ratio. This means 10,000 trees chopped down in Rotorua might be replaced by 13,000 trees in Southland. A net gain of 3,000 trees is good for the environment and will reduce carbon emissions.
It is also good for land owners, as the Rotorua land might be more profitable if converted to say dairy farming. And the Southland land more suited to forestry. But the Greens stopped that offset from happening.
Why? Because it would not have counted towards our Kyoto liability. But this is a real case of not seeing the forest for the trees. They have placed reducing out Kyoto liability as being more important than actually reducing carbon emissions. A classic case of putting economics ahead of the environment. A D- on behalf of the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the posters will hit the mark, though. They’re simplistic, idealistic, and communicate the idea that the greens *realllly* care.
Should hook those who never ask the “how” question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is the NZBR article correct? Did the Greens really block tree planting?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, BP, Thomas has got it just plain wrong. No such amendment was ever put up. The offset amendment which we did support allows replacing forest elsewhere, is in the legislation, and when the Kyoto rules change it can be activated immediately. To say that we rejected such an amendment is patently false because no such amendment was ever put by any party. Do show me where!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, you better tell DPF.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – I would try and tell DPF, except he has the comments turned off on that thread. Pity he doesn’t want to engage. it is patently false rumour, probably started by the FLUA spin doctors…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What beauties- the children and the planet, the simple message – these billboards say it so simply and eloquently! I’ll be proud to put these up anywhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
awesome – I especially like the top one
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep. Top one is the hands down favourite of almost everyone I have spoken to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog, why don’t you post something at the NBR site then? Or at least email..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also, where’d the ‘baby in a pram giving the fingers’ poster go? That was awesome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Pity he doesn’t want to engage.
Here’s the link for the comments, Frog:
nbr.co.nz/comment/david-farrar/it-s-economy-stupid
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think they are stunning (literally) in their simple message.
BRILLIANT JOB ! WELL DONE !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
How can the Greens say that stand for our kids when they want to legalise mind altering drugs?
More Green party hypocrisy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, Green team, Yes!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – Stephen – I did comment at the NBR site. It told me it’s in moderation. apparently frogs aren’t real people. Go figure!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bb – something has gotten under your skin. Is it those sweet, positive messages on the Green billboards?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think he’s taken too much viagra today!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Don’t flatter yourself, you know there is only one thing that gets under my skin and billboards (as silly and duplicitous as they are) “ain’t it”
By the way, if the Greens do ever become the govt can I have the job of sentencing people like this..
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4682103a11.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Waterboy
“I think he’s taken too much viagra today!!!!”
What’s it like anyway?, I have a feeling you are way wide of the mark when you attempt to create a mental picture of your opponents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well you don’t know much about Green drug policy, but I suppose that’s not needed to sort out such a terrible person as that farmer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I like them. But it needs two more: a dolphin/whale, and a big tree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
> I think the posters will hit the mark, though. They’re simplistic, idealistic, and communicate the idea that the greens *realllly* care.
> Should hook those who never ask the “how? question.
In 2002 and 2005, the Green party made the mistake of trying to promote policy ideas on billboards. It doesn’t work, because even in Auckland the traffic moves too fast for people to absorb complex messages from billboards. It looks like they’ve since learned that you can’t use billboards to explain your policy solutions. You’ll find that Labour and National don’t use billboards to explain policy either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bb – are you dispassionate enough to be a fair and reasonable judge?
Our billboards, silly? Silly? Very erudite, that assessment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m an ACT voter, no fan of 99% of green policy (except for its OLD drug policy, rather than the namby pamby lets not offend the soccer ones post nandor leaving one the greens have now) but I think these are bloody good billboards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
Does that mean I will get the job?…cool, you do not know what you have let yourself in for.
Actually I can see this working, Toad can be minister of Sport (given his love of cricket he must be a good chap) and I will be minister of Justice.
ELECTORAL VOTE BRUV and PARTY VOTE GREEN!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Green Party seem to have gone all monocultural with its billboard language! Where’s the te reo Maori of previous billboards? Suddenly it seems that you guys aren’t practicing what you preach.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“bb – are you dispassionate enough to be a fair and reasonable judge?”
Yes, as BP says they simply continue the Green policy of uncosted promises and policy, there is no mention of “how”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce – kia tau e hoa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks MikeE. Note though, that Green drug policy has not changed for years and what updateing there was when last looked at fully involved Nandor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have heard rumours of a Reo version which I think are even better than the English, complete with Reo authorisation statements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce, three billboards does not a campaign make. You’ll have to hold on a bit to see the rest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, I was referring to Met’s medpot bill… i.e. the communism of weed…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, but I’d say that’s just a step in the direction of the policy goal, not a changing of the ultimate goal. Don’t know what you mean by communism of weed, the idea is just to make it available medically as an interim step.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce said: Where’s the te reo Maori of previous billboards?
They are on their way Bryce, I can assure you. This is just the start.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
These posters are great. Sharp and compelling.
“Where’s the te reo Maori of previous billboards?”
At least they’re linguistically competent, unlike…
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2940
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Toad can be minister of Sport (given his love of cricket he must be a good chap) and I will be minister of Justice.
The bad news BB, is that I wouldn’t take the job unless I could also be Minister of Social Development and Employment – which is a portfolio that I’m sure you would never want me to get my hands on.
Need I go on? Oops, actually these are Green policies.
Anyway, as Minister of Sport I would ensure in the interests of Daniel Vettori and Jeetan Patel that all our test pitches are sandpit turners that pack up and turn square on day 3.
Except when we’re hosting Sri Lanka or India, of course.
BTW, have you seen the young Sri Lankan spinner, Ajantha Mendis in action? Murali reckons he’s better than even he was at the same age. And Mendis doesn’t throw!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trolling toad?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Should you stray into those unfortunate areas and insist on giving hand outs to bludgers then my first act as Minister of Justice and Minister of Police will be to lock you up.
You will of course be eligible for day release when there is a test match on but at the end of each days play you will be straight back to Crawford.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cindy Crawford?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, BB! The Mugabe solution!
(Sorry, Valis, I can’t resist).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great billboards. Well done! soooo much better than National’s – I still don’t really get what they were thinking with those. Will have to check out Labour’s somewhere. I don’t know why I am interested in this…but I am!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samian
Toad could only dream about that, mind you he would be “mounting” Crawford.
Perhaps you have to be a Wellingtonian to get that pun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Taod
“Ah, BB! The Mugabe solution!”
Yep, I am sure you would not have a problem with that as you support the most corrupt PM we have ever had, I would be a saint compared to her.
And don’t forget, while you are banged up you would still get to keep your Minister of Sport baubles, hell if you were to make T20 and ODI cricket illegal I might even let you out a bit more often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suggested months ago a double picture, one of a cow dumping in a green river and one of a fenced off/planted up blue river. Punch line ‘Vote green or vote Green’ you choose…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now I like the last bit, but not so keen on the first bit BB!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Quite possibly the best quote ever read on frogblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did you guys read the Greens drug policy ?
If you read it, i am sure you will find something to criticize.
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17463
Go and let’s have interesting conversation
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek Says:
” big bro Says:
Frog
How can the Greens say that stand for our kids when they want to legalise mind altering drugs?
More Green party hypocrisy.
Quite possibly the best quote ever read on frogblog.”
Another billboard comes to mind – Yeah right!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro and greengeek – correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t many ‘mind altering drugs’ – (I’m thinking beer, wine, spirits etc, not to mention the miriad of prescription drugs) already legal? I’m sure you will have spotted a liquor store or two and any number of Medical Centres out where you live. Haven’t you wondered what they dispense?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Quite possibly the best quote ever on Frogblog”
I vote for this one from a recidivist visitor, (when asked why he bothers to comment on Frogblog so often)
“Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”
Classic comedy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Take a Helen pill and never leave the Beehive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
These are brilliant!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How droll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cool billboards, I’d love one in my front yard…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, nothing better than a “droll” troll.
Rainman, I spotted a few of the billboards in the swamp.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Children_(politics)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks, Wordpress.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Children_(politics)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j – eh? Actually, don’t bother.
wat – but in this case, X *is* good
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j said: I spotted a few of the billboards in the swamp.
You mean in the frogpond, d4j?
Many swamps make coal – over a few thousand years.
The bad thing about [former] swamps is that we decide to mine the swamps’ coal and burn it – over a few decades, in many cases. This is one of the worst contributions we make to greenhouse emissions.
And watch out for Peal Coal!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..nothing better than a “droll? troll”
I can think of heaps, but at least you admit it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know this is the wrong topic/post for this but anyway… the drug policy you refer to is well-meaning but mis-directed.
If you truly care about kids you will ring-fence them to protect them from harm. They can go live life when they are adults.
“Harm reduction” means different things to different people.
You think it is advisable to make drug abusers feel ‘normal’.
I think it is better to make them feel ‘abnormal’ and ’stupid’, yet still provide a housing policy that gives them a roof over their head when they make the wrong decision, and use drugs.
There is absolutely NO harm minimisation achieved in liberalising cannabis availability.
We’ll never agree.
Anyway…clever billboards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So since alcohol is a worse drug than cannabis, let’s make it illegal too. I’m sure less harm would result by setting up a black market, driving usage underground and making it harder for abusers to get help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree Valis , why did successive governments shut down alcohol treatment centers like Queen Mary Hospital. We smoke more dak than most countries and addiction levels are not being addressed.
The dak or the bottle? Not much else to cheer about. Cool lets have a party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought you greenies didn’t favour havng children anyway
http://www.vhemt.org/
Anyway the are very good billboards, a marketing executives dream – maybe you lot have moved on from dope to coke as your drug of choice
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
emmess
“I thought you greenies didn’t favour havng children anyway”
OK … You asked for it!
The Greens who do have children, seem to be good at having one or two kids per family. That is just under “replacement” numbers so that we don’t add to the overpopulation problem, while giving the Planet the gift of another generation of educated and environmentally aware citizens.
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..# frog Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
BP – Stephen – I did comment at the NBR site. It told me it’s in moderation. apparently frogs aren’t real people. Go figure!..”
there really is ‘black hole moderation’ at the farrar/nbr incarnation..
..i’ve had comments sent there twice..never to return..
.. and no..!..they were ‘calm/reasoned’ me..
..just critical of/dismantling farrars’ presumptions..
..(was it something i said..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and i’ll say it again..
..great billboards..
..and good to see the planet one recycled..
..(very ‘green’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘calm/reasoned’
Really philu, your recent internet behaviour does indicate advanced psychosis and paranoia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wot..!..
..you mean my reactions to rightwng scumbags slagging/attacking my son..?
..or accusing me of ‘p’ manufacture/trafficking..?
..i don’t retract a single word..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
philu get used to the cowardly internet where creeps hide behind anonymity and I have been accused of murder and paedophilia by creeps on blogosphere. I do believe your fake attempt at trying to say you were banned indefinably from kiwiblog was pure rot. I know how you lefties just love playing the victimhood card.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“.I do believe your fake attempt at trying to say you were banned indefinably from kiwiblog was pure rot…
.and that’s pure drivel from you..
..i really couldn’t be bothered..eh..?
..and the reason..?
..and i ended up looking the dick..
(for believing it..)
..so how does that fit into your ’story’..?
that it was me..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“that it was me..?”
I rest my case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The people in the top and bottom billboards looks a little young to be a candidates – are they new photos of Gareth Hughes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They’re very good billboards in the sense that they will do the job they are supposed to do. Probably the best of any party, thus far.
But they are vacuous. “Won’t Anyone Think Of The Children!”. Especially cute white ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, at last! I knew there must be something we could agree on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter
… “Especially cute white ones”.
Two out of the three kids do look Pakeha, (and two out of three look female … so why miss the opportunity to imply that the Greens are “sexist too?)
As toad said, “This is just a start” of the Green campaign
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheers greengeek!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Green bill board should have women and men in South Auckland pushing the pram down to CYF’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Accoding to frog “Yep. Top one is the hands down favourite of almost everyone I have spoken to.”
That’s either because of the background image or subcutaneous racism amongst people frog speaks to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Maude Flanders of billboards.
>>so why miss the opportunity to imply that the Greens are “sexist too?)
Because “everyone” loves the top one. Because it’s soooo white New Zealand.
How about placing a welfare office in the background?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Correction. Helen Lovejoy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Lovejoy#Helen_Lovejoy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That gorgeous kid looks very like my niece, who is 75% British and 25% African, “genetically”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Numbers one and three are very interesting
SHould remind everyone of the anti-smacking bill which is not, I guess, the idea!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
VERY NICE ONE pingpong ! ( … both your comment and your niece ! )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Question:
when a car manufacturer uses an emotive, fallacious approach i.e. car in environment with cute bunnies = car must therefore be good for the environment…
….it is dismissed -rightly – as garbage….
Yet put a cute kid on a wharf with the word Green next to it….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
green geek – i see you are still preaching ill-informed prejudice agaisnt the case for legallregulating herb.
u needs to wake up to the fact that prohibition protects noone and maximises supply and demand = double standards are a drug/alchol marketers deeam. prohibitoin endangers and corrupts society. Just lety status quo rule, green geek, but i warn you nothing good comes of wrongly labelling 373,000 newzealders ‘criminal’
pity those little ones in the green propaganda images are going to grow up to be criminals like the rest of young NZ because the greens did nothing to stop the War.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Weedeater…I’m not ill-informed. You are enttled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.
I would be interested to see if you still have the same opinion when you have another 30 years experience under your belt.
Anyway; which is your favourite billboard??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
> There is absolutely NO harm minimisation achieved in liberalising cannabis availability.
Generally, liberalising availability isn’t going to achieve harm reduction, but where the primary effect of the liberalising is to shift a significant proportion of existing trade from illegal circles to legal circles, it can reduce harm. If the adults who buy the bulk of cannabis buy it from legal dealers whose right to sell it depends on not selling it to teenagers and not spiking it with other chemicals, then the availibility of cannabis that teenagers can buy will actually decrease, because the illegal suppliers will only be able to make a profit selling to those who are still unable to buy it legally, which is fewer people. Thus you reduce the availability of cannabis to teenagers, and you reduce the circulation of contaminated or spiked cannabis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – regardless of D4J’s witless comments about your recent presence on the blogs, I have found your contributions over the past week to be measured, mature and certainly worthwhile. Newbys to the blog must wonder what the hell your detractors are on about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – please tell us how,
“a cute kid on a wharf with the word Green next to it”
is fallacious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what time of the month is it..?
(but seriously..cheers..!..
..and..um..!..have you found whoar yet..?
..more ‘worthwhile measured maturity’ there than you can poke a stick at..
..and ‘fresh’..each & every day..!
didn’tyaknow..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry phil u, I must check your blog out, ’cause you get a million visitors a day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hate to admit it but these billboards are pretty good, if I didn’t know better I would probably vote green.
And thats the good news for the greens cause most kiwi’s seem uninformed and don’t know any better, for example the liarbore party actually doing better in the polls even with all the crap and corruption going on.
I do hope you guys drop the more extreme socialist agenda tho, can’t we all just get along?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice billboards shame about our country not signing up to ratify a UN document stating the family is the traditional building block of society. The New Zealand delegation was a disgrace. Eh Sue ! Twist that social policy so you can push feminism and the destruction of the family unit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thats why I can’t vote for em D4J.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Shunda, they have certainly messed up the family unit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
D4J
On this we agree, well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe that little girl on the jetty is looking back at her mum on the beach who’s spaced out on P, while also wondering who and where her father is.
Its so sad…….I’m choking up here……..these bilboards really bring a tear to the eye, great stuff greenies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda Says: Its so sad…….I’m choking up here……..these bilboards really bring a tear to the eye, great stuff greenies
Well, the Herald reports that Jane Berney of Auckland University of Technology, a so called ‘expert’ on advertising creativity prefers the National Party billboards, giving them a 6 out of 10 compared to the Greens 5 out of 10.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Those bill boards aren’t self congratulatory S59 bill boards are they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why does the little girl look so sad?
Oh thats right, she’s not allowed Mc Donalds!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bloody gorgeous. awesome work. I agree that
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
X is good for children. Anything good for children is good. Therefore, X is good.
Appeal to emotion, irrelevant conclusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – Is being gold medalists at child abuse and infanticide good for children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Those bill boards aren’t self congratulatory S59 bill boards are they?
Just as well they don’t say “Vote Capill”, really.
Green voters: in order to see the posters how others may see them, replace the Green logo with “Destiny Party”, “National” or “ACT”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
blue peter, shundra and d4j – the billboards show children and our planet. The text asks voters to give their party vote to the Greens. Viewers of the billboards interpret the messages according to their understanding of the Green Party’s philosophies. Your twisted interpretations reflect your own jaundiced views. Keep them to yourselves. Spoilers like you three are transparent and inconsequential, like skeins of dribble, blowing on the breeze.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sunday, 8am – Midday
8:12 Insight: Auckland – Growing Up Fast
The Auckland region is growing faster than expected and its population is predicted to hit two million, 15 years ahead of schedule. Todd Niall looks at whether Auckland can manage its own growth – and the risks of failing to keep up.
Produced by Todd Niall.
…………….
This program will be on audio file later.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“like skeins of dribble”
Haha , say it don’t spray it. Whatever, I think its better than being experts at spurting copious amounts of meaningless hot air rhetoric after a bong session.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
They reinforce your own prejudices. If you see the Greens in a positive light, the mess age will be positive. However, the problem is that you could replace the word “Green” with any party logo, and the poster would mean the exact same thing.
Nothing.
I’m not saying it’s a bad campaign – my guess is that is will work a treat with, say, politically naive Wadestown housewives – but it is a surprisingly base, emotive approach from the “smart” party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
blue peter – you could ‘replace the word ‘Green’ with any party logo, but immediately, the message would change. The Greens have a recognisable message and these billboards sincerely reflect it. If Act used this imagery, laughter would ring from the hills. In my opinion, all three of you recognise that these are very, very good billboards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
They are good billboards, in the sense that they are aimed at a voting demographic who respond to emotive messages. They won’t work on anyone who asks the logical next question: “how”? I’m sure the campaign will work on various levels, of course.
I wasn’t aware the Green message has ever been “think of the children”. It’s always been about the earth mother. And socialism.
National are more focused on the family, and by extension, children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
to balance the picture there needs to be the billboard that shows rowdy intimidating teenagers drinking in parks late at night leaving their bottles (smashed?), litter and condoms and ‘tinny’ foil around the park seats for no-one to ever pick up.
AND THE KIDS WHO ARE VOIOENT AND DISRUPTIVE BULLYING IN CLASS, (oh poor teachers) – another excellent bill-board idea, frog – smoking behind the bicyle sheds?
how bout scene from south auckland tinny house sell pot to the 80% of kiwi teens who are willing to partake (no age id needed, just $20), maybe catch some methamphetamine in the shot as well as its distributed through the long establised cannabis networks, thanks to the black market. maybe catch a firearm or two in the shot as well, knives angry, staunch, mistrusting faces?
the worst of both world ‘drug and crime’. thats the green geek vision.
i am 44 now. i became an active legaliser about 16 years ago, and everything ive seen and learnt since has only confirmed my opinion that this ist the single most wrong thing going on in NZ and globally. for some reason the greens think criminalising has no connection with the matrix of dysfunction in NZ.
Well as i said i am voting ALCP because they KNOW criminalisation is the root determinant of crime AND THE REVOLTING YOUTH OF NZ.
NOt an opinion. an evidence based analysis. Wheres youres green geek?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – You weren’t aware that the Greens had a ‘think of the children’ message??? Where have you been hanging out?
btw – the vast majority of the ‘voting demographic’ respond to emotive messages and they are fortunaate here that the Greens’ message is so positive. Think of the negative ‘emotive messages’ of some other parties presently being displayed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
weedeater..while i can understand/share your anger at no movement in nine long years..
the realities of this govt..with dunne-the-prohibitionist exercising his veto..
..means that the law-change advocates within labour have also been muzzled..
..this is why tureis’ medical cannabis bill wouldn’t have passed..
..(my railing at their/tureis’ inaction/silence on this issue is because she made absolutely no effort to sell law-liberalisation to the general public/in the court of public opinion..
..and i still think that could have been done..esp in medical marijuana..
..how can it be that turei..knowing that over half the country has tried pot at some time or another..
..felt she couldn’t sell the humanitarian/easing-of-suffering message to them..?
..and to get punters of/from all ideologies to see clearly..that this is ‘not fair’.
..and to get them to demand..from all sides..change..
..and then to have medical marijuana as a strong/featured green party policy-plank..
..(i am still puzzled by that..
..but that was what she/they should have done..
..it’s all hindsight..
..and the reality is that we are facing the election where the green party looks odds-on to be part of a govt..
..one free of dunne..and his veto..
..now..tureis’ bill will still be alive for the next parliamentary term..
..(if she had wanted to truly ‘klll’ it..the bill would have been introduced this term..
..to certain defeat..eh..?…)
..so..as i say/as you well know..i share your anger/dismay..
..but i still think it makes sense not to shoot ourselves in the foot..
..which is what would be done by actively campaigning against the one party with a medical marijuana bill..ready to be introduced..
..and..if in govt after november..
..likely to be passed into law..
(hold that thought..)
..and if you could..
could you lay out the arguments for me..for you/cannabis activists..
..actively campaigning to ‘do them in’..
..i can only see such campaigning as hurting the cannabis-law-reform-movement..
..and ensuring no medical marijuana law reform bill is passed in the next parliament..
..(which helps who..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“… inconsequential, like skeins of dribble, blowing on the breeze.”
Thank you Greenfly.
I’ve put those words above my monitor as “quote of the day”.
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
No more so than any other party.
And I don’t see how encouraging our kids to go to Australia (low wages, ETS), encouraging dependence (out-of-control welfare state and Big Nanny), and doing nothing about child abuse helps our kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..Well, the Herald reports that Jane Berney of Auckland University of Technology, a so called ‘expert’ on advertising creativity prefers the National Party billboards, giving them a 6 out of 10 compared to the Greens 5 out of 10…”
yeah..!..that one had me rolling on the floor..
..i’d love to hear her try and make that case..
..many ‘experts’ don’t like/are scared of..simplicity..
..(apart from anything else..it can make them redundant..)
listen..!..even rightie farrar is admitting the national billboards suck..
and gee..!..reading this thread leads to at least one conclusion..
,.that d4j/bro/shunda should go and open a blog together..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey, thats not very nice. I’m totally against people visiting tinny houses. They do it for reasons that have noting to do with health, or need. They choose to break a law, for no good reason that I can see.
Our kids need a clean future, free from the encouragement to break a law that some see as “irelevant”.
Set kids free; that is my message. Acceptance of good standards and rules is always the first step to freedom.
Our gaols are choked with people who wrongly believe that freedom comes from doing whatever you want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
do you drink alcohol..?..greengeek..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The comments on the emotive nature of the Green billboards remind me of an environmental educator who compared using the tricks of marketers to promote environmental awareness as “Frodo’s dilemma”. Do we take the Ring of Power and attempt to use it for good, or do we attempt to destroy it totally?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly said
“the vast majority of the ‘voting demographic’ respond to emotive messages and they are fortunaate here that the Greens’ message is so positive. Think of the negative ‘emotive messages’ of some other parties presently being displayed.”
Sadly greenfly is correct, people will vote on the most shallow of reasons.
And we can’t really complain cause the greens are doing a better job of it than other parties. I also think it is very clever pushing a positive aspect while the rest are caught up with the current negative political climate.
It all seems a bit “hollywood” but its just the way it is now days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(BP says) “I wasn’t aware the Green message has ever been “think of the children?. It’s always been about the earth mother. And socialism.
National are more focused on the family, and by extension, children.”
I’ve just visited the web sites of all parliamentary parties and only the Greens have a well developed children’s policy. We’ve had this since well before the 2005 electionand even after 3 years none of the other parties can even pretend to have such a policy. The closest that any other party comes is UF’s family policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great billboards – I will be a lot happier putting these up than the last elections ones.
Gee I am glad someone is not my ‘Big Bro”.
It’s a pity that if the hollow men get power it will be because labour lost the election rahter than National winning it.
Give it a rest Big Bro. extra screening of the Hollow men are being arranged everywhere, you might learn something about the difference between parties with the MOST signs and the LEAST policy and the party that has the least signs and the most policy.
Simple the signs maybe – it’s a reflection on what modern people can digest since being raised on a diet of media ‘bites’.
I wonder if the National Signs have a spelling error ? Should not ‘FOR A BRIGHTER FUTURE” actually be ” FOR A RIGHT FUTURE”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For those who continually rant about Sue Bradford destroying families: she has been married to the same man for well over 30 years and they have four well-brought-up children.
I love the billboards, especially the middle and bottom ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said Janine !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What this ‘ranter’ would like is for SB to put her considerable energy towards environmental issues and thus assisting the Green party to attract green votes.
Her image (rightly or wrongly) is of an angry socialist activist, not that of a progressive environmental strategist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And I see you Greens have posted your first election video on the net, showing just how much you care about those cut down trees.
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/09/when-hippies-we .html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sadly, this video was rejected by the campaign comity.
Showing the lifeless body of one of our fellow trees was judged
not respectful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam said:
“What this ‘ranter’ would like is for SB to put her considerable energy towards environmental issues and thus assisting the Green party to attract green votes.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
I reply:
Sue is not in a position to do that.
(THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE, SO PLEASE PAY ATTENTION !)
There are only SIX Green MPs in the current Parliament.
AS with other political parties, these six MPs must each take responsibility for, and speak on behalf of the Green Party, on a number of different areas.
See http://www.greens.org.nz/people/suebradford
and you will find that :
Sue Bradford MP is the Green Party SPOKESPERSON on:
Children’s Affairs, ACC, Gambling, Community & Voluntary Sector, Economic Development, Employment, Housing, Industrial Relations, Internal Affairs, Mental Health, National Library & Archives, Racing, Regional Development, Small Business, Social Services.
She is also Government Spokesperson on Buy Kiwi Made
The other Green MPs speak each have the responsibility to speak on other issues.
NB!
Jeanette Fitzsimons is Green Party Spokesperson on the ENVIRONMENT.
I hope that this clears up the misconception that Sue Bradford is “not really a Green”. I can personally assure you that she is !
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But is it right for Sue’s family culture to be enforced onto others of a different culture?? Isn’t it rather arrogant to remove certain parenting tools from parents who need different strategies from those preferred by Sue?
Some cultures actually PREFER to use methods that Sue does not like.
What has worked for her does not work for everybody.
If a very large % of the population does not agree with her, is it wise to force them to comply with her own chosen methods?
My parents are still married after 58 years of marriage, and they don’t agree with her.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek – claiming that Sue Bradford forced her beliefs onto the country is a bit lame. She drew up a Private Members bill, had it drawn, then supported by a majority of our elected representitives and it was passed into law. Can’t for the life of me see where ‘forced’ comes into it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes greenfly I tend to think “forced” is a fallacy and think it’s more like nanny state in your face government by stealth and deception.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The thing now is to brand the images with the party message – mail boxes, print, TV etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Author: greenfly
claiming that Sue Bradford forced her beliefs onto the country is a bit lame. She drew up a Private Members bill, had it drawn, then supported by a majority of our elected representitives and it was passed into law. Can’t for the life of me see where ‘forced’ comes into it.
………………
That’s right and wrong
“supported by a majority of our elected representitives”
There’s an implication there that because people who get into parliament decide on others behalf and having been elected….Well that must be what people want…… ding dong ding dong!.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – the implication that you draw is erroneous. I do think though, that an idea that is clearly wrong would be revealed by at least some opposition from members of parliament. This idea of Sue’s got almost unanimous support from almost every MP. It should be very hard to then point to one person and say, “you forced this on us against our will” as so many of you have done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen, I’m sorry you consider me so stupid that you need to shout at me. No need to be grumpy here. I’m not that stupid, I know what her play portfolios are. None of them are green. I said “Her image (rightly or wrongly) is of an angry socialist activist, not that of a progressive environmental strategist.”
To turn play portfolios into real portfolios requires getting into government, that requires votes, that requires a good image.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, and the minor detail of good policies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Author: greenfly
I do think though, that an idea that is clearly wrong would be revealed by at least some opposition from members of parliament. This idea of Sue’s got almost unanimous support from almost every MP. It should be very hard to then point to one person and say, “you forced this on us against our will” as so many of you have done.
……………..
You are disingenuous; the fact that MP’s voted for it is not the same as “no opposition” or “unanimous support”.
For one thing Labor members were coerced. They block voted (from memory). Given the speeches leading up to the first readings of “Sues” bill it is clear most MP’s didn’t support a ban on smacking. Nationals response was more “oh well, lets get on with it with these compromises and (hopefully) Labor will take the rap”. Lets face it our “elected representatives” knew what Kiwi parents thought (80% or so against) and if Bradford and co were honest they would have admitted that there was considerable doubt that mild smacking was harmful. When Dr Millichamp presented her contrarian evidence (“groundbreaking” Dunedin Study) Sue Bradford questioned her motives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – you don’t trust the parliamentary process. You also put words in my mouth (not a good idea when you quote me on the same page,
“almost unaminous” becomes “unaminous support” etc.)
Nevertheless, I understand your points. I enjoyed your comment,
“For one thing Labor members were coerced” and wonder what your take is on the National Party’s block vote
The rest of your opinion on what happened is just that. You are pushing a barrow and I’m not impressed with your use of the,
“what Kiwi parents thought (80% or so against)” mantra. Waving that dodgy flag points to a fundamentalist and I’d be wasting my time and yours trading viewpoints.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam et al
Fascinating replies …
rather like trying to reason with a determined toddler …
(Maybe “what you guys need is a good smack”)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen – I’m finding samiam’s reasoning and questioning fair and reasonable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“what Kiwi parents thought (80% or so against)? mantra. Waving that dodgy flag points to a fundamentalist and I’d be wasting my time and yours trading viewpoints.
Of course proponents of Sues bill try to diminish the poll results : such as commisioned by Family First and executed by David Farrars company . However Sue Bradford and the Greens are hardley likely to commision a poll not in their favour are they.
87% of parents against the anti-smacking law
The http://www.littlies.co.nz poll asked “One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?” 87% said No, and a further 7% were unsure. Only 7% said it was effective.
According to their website, Littlies Magazine is the country’s fastest growing and only monthly parenting magazine. They reach more families with children 0-5 years than any other parenting magazine in New Zealand (81,000 families).
http://www.hawkesbay.co.nz/index.php/200808033091/News/Local-News/87-o f-parents-against-the-anti-smacking-law.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is a recent poll BTW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
as I said before jh, there’s little point in my involvement in your crusade. Littlies Magazine sounds like a powerful force for good though
then going on the say,
I did laugh though at your citing Family First and Farrar polls (as gospel
” However Sue Bradford and the Greens are hardley likely to commision a poll not in their favour are they.”
Nice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog, toad, and assorted Greens and Green supporters
Some of our “guests” here seem not to have progressed beyond the 14-year-old-male stage of “smart replies for every occasion, whether appropriate or not”.
Because they can remain anonymous, they feel free from that adolescent’s fear of “making a dick of himself” in public … so the situation is even worse.
Purile behaviour, with a noticeably increasing level of adult aggression added, is the major reason that females are heavily under-represented on frogblog (and, I believe, on blogs in general).
Unfortunately despite the large Green input, frogblog is NOT the exception that it would be if “Green Behaviour” was expected (and reinforced) here.
Frankly, despite the excellent work done by “frog et al” I now find that I come here more out of a sense of duty than for any personal satisfaction, and that is rather sad.
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen, if you take the attitude that ’someone on the internet is wrong and I must correct them’, you’ll never get outside!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Adding to my previous post:
My comments are general for frogblog overall. They do not relate to this thread alone, and I am pleased to add that there are some remarkable exceptions to the current trend! (These exceptions are often produced by the excellent communication with visitors by other Greens.)
Well done everyone!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now that’s shame eredwen. My reason for being here is the frustration I feel at the party, I feel has the best opportunity to safeguard our environment for the future, is constantly groveling in the political leaf-litter of around 5%. For me and sooo many people I talk to green issues weigh very heavily on their mind and they would LOVE to vote for an environmental party. They, and I, rate environment way above Children’s Affairs, ACC, Gambling, Community & Voluntary Sector, Economic Development, Employment, Housing, Industrial Relations, Internal Affairs, Mental Health, National Library & Archives, Racing, Regional Development, Small Business, Social Services as core reasons to vote Green. Another way to look at it is that Labour or National are the parties likely to lure votes on the above issues, what we need is the Green party to get around the cabinet table to guard the environment. The problem is that the Green party just doesn’t see the opportunity cost in pushing a socialist utopia when a centrist environmentalist stance would gain so much more leverage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam – I think the Green MPs do see the “opportunity cost in pushing …”
but weigh it up, do it anyway, because they, like so many others who care deeply about the environment, can’t stand by and watch injustice, whether to nature or to their fellow humans. I think they are taking a realistic, humanitarian approach. It does make their path much more complex, agreed, but a simpler line (environment only) is not viable in reality. A single pole is not as stable as a tipi. Better to have 4 ‘pillars’ to hold up your temple than one. (excuse the mixing of metaphors)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“constantly groveling in the political leaf-litter”
great line (if a little graphic for a Green supporter-I see trotters and curly tails)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam, (and others with similar “concerns”)
Of course I share your concerns about the Environment and the future !!!
I joined the Values Party when it formed in the Early 1970’s …
Where Greens are now has taken a lot of vision, planning and hard work, including changing the old FPP voting system to MMP so that AotearoaNZ could have a representative Government (that the Greens can be a part of)!
Currently we have only six very hard working Green MPs in PARLIAMENT.
We MUST, however, have a Spokesperson for every portfolio.
Parliament does not deal with matters concerning the Envoronment all day and every day! (and isn’t ALL human activity potentially of concern to “the Environment” ?)
To be considered seriously by the Electors our MPs must be able to give the Green point of view on ALL MATTERS …
We have intelligent educated and hard working MPs dedecated to the job. We have a network of intelligent, educated and hard working members in every Electorate in the country.
In Local Body elections we now have some sitting members.
This is what we must do to be taken seriously as a Political Party … and thus be able to speak effectively for the Planet and the Environment.
Our Number 1 Leader Jeanette Fitzsimmons (an academic who is expert in the subject) holds the Environment Portfolio …
What is your problem with this ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A sub 10% poll rating and an allergy to working with National are the main problems I can identify.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem is eredwen that in these times of great change and there being a great vacuum as to how we develop a sustainable economy etc, we have a dominating group of you who come fired up with a ready made set of solutions: solutions which are mostly old and smelly.
Your favourite poly’s are dinosaurs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Share a smelly one with us jh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen…
In response to your question, Samiam’s comment raises another interesting question:
If the Green party could (hypothetically) tolerate a coalition with National, and thereby increase it’s vote beyond 10%, would you consider doing so?
It is a huge stumbling block for me that the Greens seem to remain shackled to a larger party that seems to be bleeding our productive sectors dry.
I’d love to vote Green if it was more business friendly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I found an Act Party Billboard:
Monday, September 08, 2008
[edited by moderator for unnecessary abuse]
http://tinyurl.com/6r6d67
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)