by frog
Russel launched the Greens Open Government policy this morning down on the steps of parliament. He had a big industrial spot light which was pointing every which way except at the beehive which it was metaphorically meant to be aimed at but thanks to a speaker’s ruling was not allowed to highlight. Anyway the policy itself, if implemented, would take the lid off the Beehive and shine some sanitising light inside it even if the spotlight isn’t allowed to. It includes commitments to:
- A fixed election date
- Annual limit of $35,000 on donations to parties from any one person or entity
- The true identity of the source of any party donation above $1000 must be disclosed
- Citizens Assembly on campaign finance
- International treaties to be voted on by Parliament rather than just signed by cabinet.
The bit I think is most powerful is the plan to make cabinet minutes public:
People have a right to know what has been decided by Government, not just when it is announced with Government spin, but soon after Cabinet has signed it off.
The Green Party will:
- Ensure that Cabinet minutes and decisions are published on the internet within one month of each Cabinet meeting unless there is a pressing reason not to publish (for example, the release of information that would risk our national security or is commercially confidential)
- When decisions or minutes are withheld, require the fact that information is being withheld, and the reason for that, to be publicly provided.
- Ensure that there is the ability to request a judicial review by an in-camera (closed) court, which can see the full minutes
- Ensure that information withheld is published as soon as the risk subsides.
That would dramatically improve the perceived accountability of a powerful body that constitutionally often sits outside the purview of parliamentary accountability.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Mon, November 3rd, 2008
Tags: , cabinet minutes, citizens' assembly, donations, fixed election date, open government, Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
wouldn’t work fwwog,
history proves that
we give where we give fwwog
and you can regulate everything fwwog,
but you can’t regulate anything at all really fwog,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good stuff. We definitely need to do something to restore faith in the system after the EFA and the smacking bill. Good to see you taking a stand.
I suspect $35k would be far too low for both National and Labour. Winston might be happy
But will making minutes public simply force ministers to stop having formal meetings? What’s behind the international treaties idea – is this closer to what they do in the US?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would go one stwep firther and make it mandatory for the government to show monthly accounts versus budget.
As one who has spent considerable time looking at charts of accounts, one get a very good feel very quickly of how an economy is performing by looking at monthly accounts versus budget.
Every business reviews their account status versus budget, so should the government.
That way we wont be suprised every year years in regards were the money has gone, were the cashflow is coming from, what borrowing is required or which innitiative can be funded (or put on the back burner till finaces improve) and were the money is being spent.
Very transparent, every month a set of accounts to be reviewed, just like every business (and I suspect 90% of all households).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit – Good one. I like it anyway. Frog, can you flag this one to Russel to be sure he sees it?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi all
Don’t worry. The Martians will be the second largest opposition party next week. Clark did nothing for getting the Hydra into power next week tonite, JK was abit boring but he avoided the left upper-cuts offered by Helen.
Good to see people on radio (ZB mainly) today associating Labour with Greens in govt. as a disaster for NZ. On ZB at 12-20pm Gavin said he has voted Labour, but once he thought of the Greens being in power with Labour was a massive turn off, so he will vote National. Very sensible decision.
Greens will destroy the NZ economy. Even Kerre Woodham thinks they are fruit loops.
Enjoy opppsoition Greenie freaks.
Regards
Peter Bickle (aka GW Denier)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A $35k limit on donations?
So if I, a citizen of a free and democratic New Zealand, wish to donate $35,001.00 to a party of my choice, that would be deemed unlawful?
Astonishing.
The Greens have truly transmogrified from the freedom fighters I knew about 7 years ago to a suffocating bunch of totalitarians.
Where did this arbitrary figure of $35k come from anyway?
Much like Jeanette’s figure of 15% of farming to be organic under Green rule (which is now 20%, according to figures announced by Green candidate Lisa Er at the Mt Roskill Candidates Forum on Sunday).
I’d love to see your research in reaching these figures.
And I think you owe it to the New Zealand public.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Shawn,
$35k a year is more than most New Zealanders get in after tax income.
Undemocratic therefore to allow those with more to dominate the political system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d add compulsory pledge cards from each party @ election time kept on public display in parliament through the next 3 years.
How about a ‘naughty step’ in the house that the speaker can send the most puerile to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bera
Maybe we should just take $1 from every earner every week and put it into a political campaign fund to be split equally between all registered parties. The fund could be distributed to parties on August 31st each year, based on the amount collected in the fiscal year just ended, the interest on the amount collected could be allocated as THE TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE for incremental costs incurred for the administration of the fund. Then we could ban ALL PARTIES from raising money from anything other than Membership fees, which the party in question could set as they see fit.
With this in place we would have a true equal opportunity political system that gives every party an equal chance of election.
Of course, to make this sensible, there would need to be a high hurdle to achieve Party registration, otherwise we’d have dozens of new entities hurling themselves at the registration process each year. To sort this, perhaps a process whereby the party had to pay its registration fee (say $50,000) to the electoral commission no later than February 1st of each fund collection year; the registration documentation should include details of not less than 1% of the population (currently that would be about 45,000) who have paid to be members of the party and who can be verified as being on the then current electoral roll. This should ensure that there is reasonable filtering of applicants. (Note, the $50,000 should just about cover the cost of confirming all aspects of registration, including member verification).
To me, this seems a much more ‘democratic’ approach than the $35,000 single entity donation cap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
I don’t know why you addressed your previous post to me, but your proposal sounds far too complicated and expensive.
My was simply that most people don’t have $35k a year to give to political parties, so the Green Party’s proposed limit is not too low.
I believe in one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
I don’t know why you addressed your previous post to me, but your proposal sounds far too complicated and expensive.
My point was simply that most people don’t have $35k a year to give to political parties, so the Green Party’s proposed limit is not too low.
I believe in one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“bera Says:
“Hi Shawn,
“$35k a year is more than most New Zealanders get in after tax income.
Undemocratic therefore to allow those with more to dominate the political system.”
So if I decide to save just under half of this annual income ($15k) over three years (a total of $45k), and decide to donate it to a party I support during Election Year, I will be constrained from doing so?
Am I, then, trying to “dominate the political system”?
And what about someone who has $350,000, and gets 9 of his/her friends to each donate $35,000 on his behalf? You now get 10 lots of $35,000, but all of which originated from one person.
Is this person less “dominating” of the political system than I am?
Can you see the absurdities that this rule will create?
Regulation is never justifiable, because it skews outcomes from natural courses of action.
It’s this policy from the Greens that is truly undemocratic and ludicrous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shouldn’t you be out campaigning? I don’t think Act have quite made it to 10 MPs yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn
If there were even ONE person in New Zealand willing to live on 20K per year so they can give 15K per year to a political party voluntarily I might concede you have some sort of point. Fortunately, the population is dominated by people with enough cynicism and common-sense to render the likelihood of finding someone like that as near to zero as is possible in any society.
Someone who elects to cheat would be breaking the law, unless the law is badly written. Speculating on how well or poorly it is written and/or enforced is irrelevant. The principle is the question and you are more clearly objecting to the principle I think.
Which is exactly what I expect from you . For you it is “democracy” that people who have money to spend are allowed to use it to influence parties, policies and elections. I have a hot news flash for you… democracy is “Government by the people” not “Government by the people who have most of the money”.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a great response to my earlier post, Valis. Changing the subject, perhaps due to an inability to respond?
If you really must know, I have a Media Coordinator role in the ACT Campaign Office, so I juggle campaigning with my media duties.
My media duties actually constitute armchair campaigning, without getting into details.
And with all due respect, what I do is none of your business anyway.
Unless you’re genuinely concerned about our campaign, which somehow I suspect ain’t the case.
Typical Greens; always doing the Nanny State’s bidding. Take your nose out of other people’s affairs, please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip:
This is the typical hysteria I hear from lefties: If you don’t control, regulate, monitor and constrain the populace, they will use their copious amounts of money to subvert democracy. What utter rubbish.
If you’re so worried about money influencing elections, then I expect you to condemn Obama and his campaign, because his enoumous campaign fund has eclipsed McCain’s, which therefore means (following your logic) that he is able to buy more votes than McCain.
For the record, the classic definition of ‘democracy’ states that government must be as minimal as possible, and interfere in the lives of free citizens only to prevent harm to each other, and to maintain law and order.
This was the democracy envisaged by the drafters of the American Constitution.
Whatever it is you’re proposing, it certainly isn’t democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bet that sucker ‘aint solar powered….
http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/green19.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We’ll know quite soon if Obama has been able to buy more votes than McCain…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For what it’s worth, Obama raised a gazillion dollars, with the limit on donations to a candidate being US$2,300.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for that statistic, StephenR.
And there you have it, bera, bjchip and others:
By placing a limit on donations, all you need to do is get a whole bunch of people willing to spend up to that limit, and you can “dominate the political system”.
So, per the Greens’ proposed policy, all a party will need to do to subvert democracy is find numerous individuals to each donate $35,000.
How exactly is this situation more democratic, bjchip?
And is getting lots of people to donate close to the limit:
(a) cheating/breaking the law?
(b) speculating on enforcement?
(c) offending the “principle” of democracy?
Unless you’re also going to place a limit on the number of people who can donate close to the $35,000 – in which case you descend further and further down the spiral of absurdity.
This is what happens when you try and regulate the freedom of free individuals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Go Shawn!!!
I faxed my ACT vote in last week from NY. Go ACT!!!
Of course I think NZ’rs are going to end up with the coalition of death.
Labour,maori,green,nz first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks, turnip28.
You’re doing your country a great service.
No, that won’t happen – don’t you worry. I can’t say why, but I know why. We know the numbers, and the Left cannot win.
Such a shame Ron Paul isn’t the Republican candidate. Sensible individuals like Ron are few and far between.
Ron is the change the US needs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Many people giving money means that each individual giving money has a limited ability to determine the policies and ask for favours. Is this not perfectly clear to you? What part of a donation limit having that DESIRED effect did you not understand?
The US campaign limits have not impeded the free flow of money from large donors who can always choose the soft-money approach. They have started to have some effect on the way the elections are run in the US.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Giving other people your money to “donate” in their own names is quite clearly an offense per your (c) choice. If they choose to donate THEIR OWN money, that is their choice. Perfectly OK….up to a limit. The limit ought to be far lower than $35000 IMAO, and campaigns shouldn’t cost nearly so much (and wouldn’t if I had my way) , but my ideas include gutting the some of the incumbent’s advantages too, which tends to make them unlikely to get a hearing.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The fact that placing an arbitrary limit like that does not prevent the so-called subversion of democracy.
Take the Brethren from 2005 for instance:
Rather than spend $1million campaigning, all you need to do is have 28 individual Brethren, each donating up to $35,000, and the effect is the same.
And you forget that many individuals together can influence outcomes too.
You should know this, being a collectivist and all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bera
I was trying to suggest something more ‘democratic’ for you to comment on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The fact is that there is actually nothing that can entirely prevent the subversion of democracy Shawn. If determined individuals wish to impose their will on the society and they have access to believers who place the will of their leaders ahead of the welfare of their children to donate large chunks of their income to a political cause, then they can do it.
You are unsurprisingly accepting of that sort of abuse as long as if furthers your purpose. It has to be fought wherever it makes its appearance and it is clear that you are too ideologically blind to understand that either you have democracy with all its warts, or you have something that is indistinguishable from despotism.
Thanks for being so obvious about it. You give us so many negative examples to work with as we educate our other readers about the errors made by the right.
Collectivism: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution
No Shawn… not that it is an insult, its just wrong. Maybe you had in mind a more vague definition like this one ?
Collectivism: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
- that’s closer but I’ve never rejected the individual contribution or reward, I just balance it against the welfare of the group. That balance has to exist for government to work and work as fairly as possible.
When many individuals work together to get an outcome the numbers become important and the individual’s ability to influence the outcome is diluted. It becomes democratic to the extent that more individuals join in the effort.
You really do have an ideological blind spot that one could drive a small planet through… would that you could see it yourself but of course, like all blind spots, it is invisible to you.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nope, I am not accepting of abuse. I simply don’t believe that regulation after regulation is the answer.
Even if something is done with noble intentions, you can create undesirable outcomes.
Tinkering with people’s lives and the markets is exactly what creates the calamities we witness.
Take for example the recent economic crisis in the US: The Left say “Aha! This is why the free market doesn’t work.” Actually, it was the interventions of the state (the Bush administration) that ultimately caused the collapse of the credit markets.
Actually, it’s market cynic/sceptics like you who have the ideological blind spot, thinking regulation is the panacea to “democracy with all its warts”.
Moreover, have you ever wondered how those warts got there in the first place? Red tape and Nanny State interference, that’s what.
Stifle individual freedom, and you stifle innovation – innovation that can right the wrongs in society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just wanted to say that this is fantastic policy. Open government is an idea who’s time has come. Interesting that ACT are opposed, I wonder what they have to hide?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn
I can’t easily ignore that you changed the subject because you do not offer any OTHER answer to the abuse… and you STILL get it wrong.
The market disaster in the USA has been cooking into the cake since the administration of LBJ… or if you want the root cause, since the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank. It isn’t (much as I hate them) the doing of Emperor Dubya and Darth Cheney…. nor is “the left” blaming all of it on the free market. You really do NOT pay attention!
The more proximate cause was the permission/lack of regulation given to the CDS instruments which are explained better here than anywhere else I have seen…..
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/tan041608pv.html
Consider that Greenspan thought this didn’t need regulating because, well, an unregulated market is the best way to run things, and consider that the a55h0les who ran the numbers for this sh!t have managed to screw us all to the tune of the entire gross planetary product several times over (that’s what their bets amount to now) . Tell me again how the answer is NO regulation?
The collapse of the credit markets however, was in the cards from the day we accepted fractional reserve banking. It wasn’t accidental, it was as inevitable as a sunrise.
(warning, long but worth it, except for some of the last bits)
http://www.notjustnotes.ws/howbanksrobyou.htm
Note the REQUIREMENT for perpetual growth that is built into the assumptions behind it. On a finite planet that’s simply the wrong way to do things. Even with CATS it is a dumb way to run this planet and an easy way to ruin it.
Where in the HELL do you get the idea that we think regulation is a panacea? Your imagination is chasing its own tale here.
Nor do I have to “wonder” at how the warts get there. Human beings bring them. People have human limitations and it requires a lot of constant work to maintain a democracy of any sort for any length of time.
You’d abandon half the tools in the toolbox if you leave out government and regulation. We don’t leave out market solutions, we prefer them but the market itself has to have a price signal if it is to work efficiently. Something like a carbon tax or worse, an ETS.
Innovation CAN help right the wrongs in the society and individual freedom is a wonderful thing. No problem with that at all, but what in the hell makes YOU claim we don’t like either? They have their place in a whole spectrum of fairly pragmatic attempts to solve the ills of society.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I need to pop out of the office now, so a fuller reply with be provided (thanks for the comprehensive response); but for now, let me remind you of this:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html
How about letting consumers and the market decide what should be ‘banned’, rather than using state regulation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn Tan Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
> but for now, let me remind you of this:
and let me remind you how seriously unreliable a source of information Kiwiblog is:
Ban fuel inefficient vehicles – the policy is to set a maximum average fuel consumption for the cars brought in by one importer, so any high-consumption vehicle can be brought in if balanced out by other low-consumption vehicles.
Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick – true, but the only reason anyone wants to feed antibiotics to animals that are not sick is so that they can be kept in hideously unsanitary conditions that would be sure to make them sick otherwise, and the way farmers give antibiotics to animals that are not sick breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria which make the antibiotics less likely to be effective for animals or humans who are sick.
Ban further corporate farming – the policy is one of incentives to keep farms in family ownership, not to prohibit any consolidation into corporate units.
Ban crates for sows – true, with the exception of sows during farrowing who may be temporarily confined for up to 72 hours.
Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain – true, to prevent the spread of mad cow disease
Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed – true, we do want to ban forced cannibalism by naturally-herbivorous animals (also to prevent the spread of mad cow disease)
Ban smacking – you can claim that that was the purpose of repealing section 59, but bear in mind that Labour, National, United Future and the Maori Party all agree with our interpretation.
Ban coal mining – almost true. Policy is to ultimately phase out mining of coal for burning, but not coal for chemical processes.
Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves – true. Isn’t that the point of conservation reserves?
Ban fixed electricity charges – actually ban them for homes, but not commercial buildings or holiday homes
Ban nuclear power – actually support continuing the existing ban
Ban further thermal generation – not strictly true. Policy is to remove loopholes in Labour’s law allowing new thermal peaking plants so that it really is only for peaking plants, not base-load
Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills – The policy is for landfill and recycling operators to find alternatives to burying recyclables where possible, not to say they can’t be taken to the landfill or that they won’t be buried if no alternative is found.
Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food- actually a prohibition on advertising the most unhealthy types of food before 8:30 pm.
Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence – slippery wording. It is a policy of withdrawing from certain military treaties which list that as one of their aims, not an opposition to the principle.
Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes – not true.
Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles – it’s a ban on the building materials. So yes, it will lead to buildings being built out of more sustainable materials, but to suggest it would be enforced as a ban on the buildings is just silly.
Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes – the policy is to include the Treaty of Waitangi as one of the issues covered in the education programme migrants go through before obtaining citizenship or permanent residency.
Ban new prisons – sort-of. The Green Party only supports building new prison facilities to replace current ones, not to increase capacity.
Ban genetic mixing between species – true, but note that two plants or animals that can be mated together and produce fertile offspring are counted as the same species. That is the scientific definition of species. So this only applies to genetic engineering using recombinant DNA technology.
Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ – not true. Policy says: “Ensure no mineral extraction, drilling, prospecting, or other industrial activity occurs in the EEZ outside the 12 mile limit until a process for environmental impact assessment and approval is in place which puts the burden of proof of safety on the applicant.”
Ban limited liability companies –not true. We’re proposing a small change to the limits on liability, not an abolition of the concept.
Ban landfills – the Green Party aims to move towards a situation where landfills will no longer be necessary, but by developing alternatives rather than by banning them.
Ban new houses without water saving measures – not true. The only thing that is compulsory with respect to water-saving is for houses put up for sale to be given a water-efficiency rating so that buyers can see how it compares with other houses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bera…that is the beauty of our current system: everyone gets one vote. Including the porr people. The money has nothing to do with it.
Why exactly is it so important to prevent a wealthy person from spending their income on promoting a particular message?
Will the world be a better place if we spend more time listening to the poor? I’m not sure they have much too teach us do they? Don’t forget we all have to exist in the modern world where the structures of business and money affect every aspect of our lives. Even someone who chooses to live off the land has to pay a mortgage.
Do the poor understand how the international money market affects our government? Do they even understand that their benefits can only be paid when more wealthy people make a donation to them???
There is good reason for wealthy people to promote certain political messages, but don’t forget, we all get one vote. Stifling information does not guarantee us a better election, or a better nation.
I love the idea of open government. However, the restrictions on donations have nothing to do with openness. They create restrictive government. And secrecy.
And a message for shawn tan:
Sadly, the lack of balance shown by yourself and other ACT candidates only harms the likelihood of ousting the current regime. Take note: what the majority of New Zealanders want is a centrist government that takes into account the views of minorities, without being swamped by them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Shawn How’s about a ACT/Green get together. ACT for efficiency, Green for sustainability. After watching the ‘leaders’ ‘debate’ last night I really can’t stand either of that tedious lot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam…efficiency is for machines. Sustainability is for nature. They are mutually exclusive. (Thats why ACT and the greens are at separate ends of the spectrum)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam:
I am not philosophically or strategically opposed to ACT and the Greens working together on ‘crossover’ issues: There have been policy areas with both ACT and the Greens have worked together.
These tend to be on matters of civil liberties and local government.
Sustainability to me is like communism: great in theory, unworkable in practice. Because sustainability involves market interventions and regulations. So I’m not that ‘hot’ about sustainability. But as long as it does not inhibit growth, I have no problem with it.
greengeek:
Not quite; efficiency refers to human labour too. And human labour is involved in interacting with natural resources. I beg to differ about the extent of mutual exclusivity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn…that is the problem with ACT…they tend to think that efficiency is a desirable trait amongst humans.
However; roughly 20% of humans struggle against some physical or mental disability that makes the perform “below par” compared to other humans.
The drive for “efficiency” denies such humans the opportunity to attain the heights of achievement they would normally reach if left to live their lives in peace without having to fight and compete against the capitalist masses.
Take a look at China to see a good example of how overpopulation forces even damaged humans to strive for efficiency when it should not be expected from them
My aim is to avoid seeing NZ stray down the path that China has gone down.
Unfortunately it is going to be difficult to avoid this now that the economic crisis drives us ever closer to asia.
But we should still seek to avoid it.
Eficiency is for machines. Humanity is for people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe that one ought to have only as much market efficiency as one needs, because everything we value in human life is within the realm of inefficiency – love, family, attachment, community, culture, old habits, comfortable old shoes. – Edward Luttwak
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis…I agree 100%
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, Luttwak can be rather weird, but that’s a good line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn argued “Sustainability to me is like communism: great in theory, unworkable in practice. Because sustainability involves market interventions and regulations.”
Which market interventions are you referring to? Placing a price on the commons in the form of air quality standards and water quality standards? Removing subsidies for energy consumption, or in some cases reversing those subsidies to counter the imbedded psychological dependence due to the some of those subsidies being in place for several generations to the point that the consumption subsidies are considered the natural state of affairs, ie mistakenly viewed as a market imperative instead of a state intervention?
Is the market working when your kids need to wear hazchem suits if they want to roaw on the Avon or swim at Coe’s Ford? IMHO, water and air pollution is definitely private tresspass against the commons and, when the tresspassers are aware of the adverse health effects of their tresspass and whine about the “cost” of stopping their tresspass, assume the status of force used against others, an area where regulation is a legitimate state (or state delegated) intervention. No different from prohibiting the initiation of violance through drunk driving.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When someone from the Party has actually been in Cabinet, and seen the issues discussed there, and realises the sensitivity some of them have as they are discussion papers for future rather than imminent policy, they would understand why this is a proposal that cannot stand.
The currency just couldn’t stand up to some of those discussions, never mind the stock and labour exchanges!
As for all the other stuff being debated on this thread – get a room!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn Does not ‘growth’ even more fall under the same statement; great in theory, unworkable in practice.? Now I’ll admit readily that up till now the theory and practice of growth has worked wonders for Humans, enabling us to thrive in ever greater numbers and to dominate all and sundry.
But it by definition growth on a finite planet must reach a limit? Or am I stupid?
Where/when does ACT see that limit? How much growth is enough?
At the end of billions of years of evolution are we any better than bacteria in a petri-dish? Grow, grow, grow.
Greengeek “efficiency is for machines. Sustainability is for nature”
Er Um I beg to differ. Evolution is brutally efficient at weeding out inefficiency, almost every life form is a masterpiece in efficient design. The enlarged cerebral cortex matched up with opposable thumbs and upright gait that we represent is proving to be just a little bit too efficient maybe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)