I found this gem over at Scoop. I think Dylan captures the essence of the debate! In the meantime, the open water beckons…
Scoop’s full coverage of the s92(a) blackout can be found here.
44 Comments Posted
Appreciate the compliment, btw. As I said this weekend in another thread, I’m here to learn and a good debate is a great way. I’m often challenged by the arguments you and others make and have had to think very hard at times, which is just great. Thanks to all who engage with respect.
“Because dispite the fact that both of them view social issues to be just as important as environmental issues they both opperate with a high degree of pragmatic consideration rather than ideological drive. While they are both outspoken about issues of justice and equality they do not let it compromise their ability to promote environmental issues. They dont need to share my view to have my support for their actions, they mearly need to approximate my desired outcomes.”
This is an interesting take. So perhaps not necessary to put the environmental principle first, so long as it is treated at least equally, the assumption being of course, that some in caucus do not. And this could be true, Sue being the most obvious example, but it is a difficult standard to apply to every individual because the Party looks for balance across caucus as a whole instead. There are actually few who have a wide breadth of involvement in both environmental and social justice issues (ironically, Catherine is one, though its obviously not what she’s known for). It would be difficult not to attract people who, while seeing the principles as equal, bring strengths to a fewer number of policy areas. But I suppose possible if that’s want the membership clearly wanted.
Don’t think we have any one Policy Parties – since the ‘Get Winston’ ACT went quiet anyway…
Nats can govern outright at the mo yes? Which they’ll wind up doing as compromise is never attractive.
“Real Power” is a loaded notion – the Balance of power is acute power – the Greens have the ability to become more than that. They (we) have the potential to form the next Government – and easily so.
Also a one-policy party will never vie for any real power beyond being a coalition prop. The green party could aspire to become an equal 3rd party contender with the Nats and Labs, but this could never be the case without comprehensive policies across the gamut of governmental issues.
“I’d like to see The Greens positioning themselves to guide NZ out the other side of this recession/depression with an innovative, efficient, sustainable economy/ecology.”
umm. they’ve been doing that for a long time, but a guide has to be followed and this has been the problem thus far.
“Greens just don’t portray such an unambiguous image”
in all their communications the greens are among if not the most clear party. their policies are available, complete, up-to-date and written in a very understandable way (National recently had a blank page for women’s affairs policy). their appearances in the media (over which they have no control of subject) are consistently well-thought out and clear. the apparent ambiguity you perceive is just because the other party’s policies boil down to neat easily consumed meaningless slogans whereas the green’s have actual substance.
I’m sorry about the flippancy of my second comment but I get a bit over the constant flow of criticisms of the green party in this vein. the MPs are hard working across all spectrums of the party’s policies. to focus on a single area would be tantamount to forgetting about any progress in any other direction (given the timescales over which progress occurs in parliament, not having a policy and pursuing it means stagnation or decay).
what is required to attain a green society (and there is no way our impact on the environment will change until this happens) is a broad spectrum change in ways of thinking. and this is slowly coming about (whether it will be in time or will arrest…).
I agree some policies have different balances of impact between society and environment but there are also a lot of unseen connections between social/economic policy and the environment. If poverty was not so prevalent in our society more people would have resources to devote to environmental concerns. If our schools are better funded then perhaps the next generation (or next ‘knowledge wave’) will produce some real environmental breakthroughs. if there was less poverty there might be fewer 2 dollar shops (plastic landfill stores).
the environmental situation is dire and requires our attention but repetition of tired arguments that have been hashed over hundreds of times does not change minds. believe me. for the greens to have any success in protecting the environment they have to do it by helping to change society and society’s by-products. social policy will help to achieve this.
“do not presume that I have not considered your viewpoints in my ideological evolution”
I’m not presuming anything, buddy. how’s the view up there?
haha you misspelled incompetence. that’s one word that it’s important to get right.
nommopilot… Your comments above regards other parties eco polices is irrelevant because they don’t call themselves green.
The Maori party is, in almost all occasions, pushing a maori agenda. What you see is what you get. They do have other issues, but they are secondary. ACT also are good at ‘what you see is what you get’.
The Greens just don’t portray such an unambiguous image and thats a shame as the green policies that we need are sadly lacking in government.
I’d like to see The Greens positioning themselves to guide NZ out the other side of this recession/depression with an innovative, efficient, sustainable economy/ecology.
Is that the way the new leadership will go?
Because dispite the fact that both of them view social issues to be just as important as environmental issues they both opperate with a high degree of pragmatic consideration rather than ideological drive. While they are both outspoken about issues of justice and equality they do not let it compromise their ability to promote environmental issues. They dont need to share my view to have my support for their actions, they mearly need to approximate my desired outcomes.
The reason i vote for the greens and spend so much of my time supporting them is becasue they are the only party with anything more than token acknowledgement of the environment, but that does not make them a environmental party; it makes them a party with environmetnal concerns.
As to Society and the Environment, they are not seperate entities. But there are issues that are primarily of their environmental impact, the interactions of humans with the non-human environment, and there are issues that are primarily of their effect on society, interhuman interaction. The DPB has strong effects on the environment as it alters the number of humans, the abilities of humans, and the priorities of humans but it is primarily a social issue as its main purpose is to affect interhuman relations and what effects is has on the environment as a whole are a side effect of the intended affect.
Furthermore, I, and others on this blog, have observed the strength of Valis’ arguements increase substantially over time, he/she often makes very valid points and on more than one occasion has nearly, or completly, out argued me and often has me on my back leg, esspecially when I get bored and choose to make subjective arguements such as this. Your arguements however lack any merit, you and your incompetance just annoy me; you display a cognitive ability inferior to the common individual, do not presume that I have not considered your viewpoints in my ideological evolution and judged them naive and of a blind mind.
^^ Very intelligent addition to the discussion there.
“…I have said repeatedly on various threads…” blah blah communism blah blah REAL green party
Sapient, I really wasn’t trying to elicit another screed from you. I know exactly what you think. So when you said that Meyt is brilliant and you’d like to see her and Jeanette as co-leaders, I had to wonder why, since neither of them agree with you.
“far too fussed with social issues to the detriment of environmental issues.”
so exactly where does your society stop and your environment begin, Sapient? Society is a very large part of our environment and our social structure greatly affects our natural environment: the way we use resources, the way we deal with waste, the way we distribute food and goods is all both social and environmental.
“The environment is all-important, the party is just full if idiotic ideologues.”
so name me a NZ party that is more outspoken on the major environmental threats than the greens. I’ll make it easy on you; name me ten that combined are as outspoken as the greens.
It is just a mark of your ideology that you think the green party should consider society to be separate from the environment.
No, you said “or if i should support bradford so that i can watch the party fall apart and a real green party arise”, which I took at face value, perhaps incorrectly.
At face value the implication is that this party is not a green party. A green party is a party primarily motivated by concern for the survival of gaian life. This party is far too fussed with social issues to the detriment of environmental issues. One cannot call our caucus green, there are some green tendancies but all in all one might as well be looking at a soviet councel.
Social issues have a place in an environmental party as stability, prosperity, and knowledge are vital for the long term maitenence of a sustainable society, but name for me a single social issue more important than the survival of gaian life. Or, to make it easy on you, name me ten which together combine to surpass the importance of the survival of gaian life. You cant, i will bet you that, no social advance can be as important as the continuation of gaian life as the ceasation of gaian life would cease also any socail advances. The environment is all-important, the party is just full if idiotic ideologues.
No, you said “or if i should support bradford so that i can watch the party fall apart and a real green party arise”, which I took at face value, perhaps incorrectly.
And which politicians do you refer? I know of none in the current Caucus that support your position, certainly not Meyt or Jeanette. And the last substantive discussion in the Party on the principles in 2007 concluded that nothing should change, i.e. all four are equal.
i never said that the party should have only one pillar, I have said repeatedly on various threads that they have their place; My arguement is that the environmenal pillar should be the most important of the pillars. This is a point that several of the politicians have conceded at various points and one which obviously has support since it has come up many times in meetings, etc.
Because they all agree that all four of our principals are essential. The only one who didn’t was Ian Ewan-Street and I can’t quite see a party forming around him.
Sorry, Ive not been on this thread for awhile, why would this party not have rod donald or the like in? because of the love for pc?
Not to mention Jeanette?
This “real” green party you talk of would have none of the current MPs in it, nor Rod Donald for that matter. How do you reconcile that with your obvious appreciation for Meyt?
Of course women have just as much entitlement to such places.
To me though, there is no decent reason that one leader should be male and one female or that the list should be balanced along such lines. It should be the best person for the job regardless of how much testostrone and MIH one was exposed to as a fetus.
In the past the two best suited people in the party just happened to be male and female, though one kicked over and now we have a male co-leader whom, while competent, doesint really match up to some of the females on the list whom are lower only because they are female.
I would like to see both jeanette and meyt as co-leaders.
That said, I am split as to if i support meyts leaderships since she is brillent and would do wonders for the party, both because of skill and ethnicity, or if i should support bradford so that i can watch the party fall apart and a real green party arise.
Katie appears to think I’m a misogamist.
When the market tells you what you need to know.
Women of a certain age present more employment risk to an employer.
Higher risk = higher cost.
Women who aim for a career of motherhood don’t charge up corporate ladders. They tend to aim for flexibility.
The market – meaning the billions of decisions taking place, by humans, ever second – places a value on those choices.
There will be some prejudice shown by some employers, but that’s not driving those figure, but it is where you are (incorrectly) focusing all your attention. I suspect the reason for that is because you would like to believe it is “da man” keeping the sister down.
There’s a strong whiff of misandry about such a view, which is ironic.
Just BP’s attempt at humour.
Another one who doesn’t get it.
I’ll give you a clue: I think Metiria is by far and away the best choice for co-leader. It’s not even a competition.
BP – Ari, and the rest of us, get it.
End of story.
Women in this party have valid, valued and dignified places to stand and speak.
I’m sure that’s a paradigm that you cannot understand, let alone condone participation in; so let’s just leave your misogyny right where it belongs, in your own nest.
I don’t think you get it, Ari 🙂
I loved the way BP totally missed the possibility of Metiria running.
Well, actually, no I don’t, but it’s very typical.
Sue B. Very strong candidate for co-leader.
Make it happen, Greens!
LOL! When BB votes for Sue B I’ll go to France for dinner!
Well spotted Valis
To B or not to B
Don’t tell him people. Let’s see if he notices by himself.
Yep, good on Sue B for her animal welfare stance, sadly she is the only one who seems to care.
I do not agree that she will gain support through her safe food stance, one of the reasons the left were so soundly defeated at the last election was because of the way Labour and the Greens wanted to run our lives.
Actually it is rather a moot point anyway, Sue B is from the Green wing of the party and they do not seem to be in the ascendency, the co leadership will go to one of the socialist/communist candidates.
I’m tossing up between Braford and Delahunty. Both very strong candidates who I’m certain will take the Green party in the direction it needs to go.
Blue Peter said: I might join the party and vote for Sue Bradford…
Sorry, BP, much as I am sure Sue would appreciate your support, party rules prevent members who have joined withing the last 6 months participating in decisions re the Co-Leadership or the Party List ranking. That rule is to prevent precisely the sort of vote stacking you are suggesting.
Now, back on topic please. I’m sure frog will post a thread about the Co-Leadership sometime in the future when things are a bit clearer than the speculation by the Sunday Star-Times.
Jeanette will be sorely missed, but I can see where she is coming from in standing down well before the next election so the next leader can build up a profile. My vote for female co-leader would be Sue Kedgley, who does not seem to have been mentioned, but who has been an MP for as long as Sue Bradford, and has popular appeal through her safe food and anti-GM stance. (and she is also the only MP to have made any sort of stand on animal welfare).
China tried to control information flow via the internet during the Olympics, and we all know how that backfired on them.
Why on earth would NZ try to copy something that even one of the most powerful economies couldn’t pull off?
The entire premise of the legislation is badly-thought-out, ill-conceived, and unworkable – how, in these recessionary times, are we to expect ISP’s to take on a policing role, which requires them to shut down their customers without investigation ( for which we already have a very competent team at Internal Affairs, btw), thus affecting their profits and their staff-use-of-time in one hit?
Even a ‘less-business paradigm’ person like me can see the tautology in this reasoning! 😉
Great cartoon, Dylan is very entertaining and an acute observer of local opinions.
“..Hence this sanctimonious publicity about an obscure internet bill, whilst at the same time completely gutting your property rights and freedom of speech..”
what absolute drivel dabney..
..the greens opposed the foreshore and seabed travesty..
..(oh..!..you aren’t talking about that..?..)
..and this is not “.an obscure internet bill..”
..it is a horror show..pushed promoted by fat-cat record companies..
..who have been gouging artists and punters..
..for quite long enough..
..and if that wasn’t enough of an outrage..
..this bill overturns the whole concept/belief-system..
..of innocence untill proven guilty..
..accusations are enough for a presumption of guilt..
..(and you..as a rightie..support that..?
..that’s a bit like your support for monkey-boy president..isn’t it..?
..support for a president who has destroyed all you presumably hold dear..
..in hindsight..kinda ‘stoopid’..eh..?..
..and the complete opposite of what you pretend to believe in..
..(‘first they came for the down-loaders..i did nothing..”..etc etc..)
..this is no small/trifling matter..
It’s probably almost impossible to control the internet anyway, and when governments do, it tends to backfire.
Since huge numbers of people now trade and do business on the internet, it makes more sense for those involved to work out systems of moderation that everyone agrees to and that will work.
There will always be misinformation and downright lies, but the print and other media have always done that too. In terms of intellectual property, writers and musicians are working through those issues themselves; after all they are the ones most affected by the free use of their work.
Some have used free circulation as promotion for example.
The ones who appear to be bleating about it most are the middlemen – if they are doing their job, they won’t miss out. Many however were gatekeepers and their artists are simply bypassing the gate. Others, like publishers, have found ways to use the internet for everyone’s benefit.
It’s not an obscure bill in that it attempts to make criminals of a huge number of people without having thought through it.
As for the last bit Wat, you are spouting nonsense as usual.
Remember, when Greens talk about support for human rights they are only referring to their highly-selective version of the concept. Basically, they only support those rights that they happen to agree with and which are not an obstacle to their controlling whatever aspects of your life that they so choose.
Hence this sanctimonious publicity about an obscure internet bill, whilst at the same time completely gutting your property rights and freedom of speech.
..and will russel norman be able to make good on his ‘promise’ to sue bradford..?