by frog
Metiria Turei is the new co-leader of the Green Party.
The official announcement, made a couple of hours ago, is here.
Congrats to Metiria and also to Sue Bradford. Together they ran a dignified and mature campaign that involved the Party in some calm self-reflection.
Spoiled for choice, the Party’s membership opted for Metiria in the end which is all a far cry from how other parties in NZ do their business – no coups and no power struggles among some secretive inner cadre, instead a democratic decision by the Party’s membership.
The media were at the Dunedin AGM in force plus Metiria is on TVNZ’s Q+A tomorrow about 9.30 AM.
Published in Parliament by frog on Sat, May 30th, 2009
Tags: Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Just a shame that the Party couldn’t sort out an actual democratic vote. I get a form to select the order of the list MPs, but the most important decision the Greens have faced in several years is left up to delegates, disenfranchising hundreds of Green members who didn’t turn up to their local meetings.
What a shame. Hopefully this can be sorted before the next big decision, and we can all have a say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
members who didn’t turn up to their local meetings.
And if a member doesn’t turn up to a meeting, nor inform the organiser of the meeting as to their views and preferences – why should they expect their view to be “magically” heard ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Next time …get on your fast bike and ride to your local meeting, have your say and you’ll enjoy a natural high through participating in the Greens inclusive decision making process!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or you might find your with a group of red infiltraitors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Believe me I was participating. I am talking about the hundreds of members who didn’t, who nonetheless are members. When I argue democracy, its not just for me its for everyone. But clearly so long as you both had your opinions heard then everything is ok.
So quick to judge…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And on that note, both your arguments completely miss the point that we have a mail ballot for list ranking, but we don’t get to individually vote on an important issue such as this, but must vote through unanimous decision making or vote splitting at the meetings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
let’s face it the greens have more in common with the Maori Party or peace justice Aotearoa or the Auckland Council For Civil liberties than the Forest and Bird Society or other mainstream conservation groups.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
membership is rather low I suspect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is that a bad thing? Should the Greens be merely an environmental party? Of course not, social justice issues and environmental issues are not separable. They are both totally vital.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Spoiled for choice”
as in the old eastern europe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh perceptive notes that the Greens (a political party) have more in common with the Maori (political) Party, than they do with Forest and Bird. That’s top stuff, jh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, I’d still appreciate a response from you. As I mentioned, I did participate and I voted. I am active at a local and regional level, however the system as it is, is far from inclusive!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
She’s got the big hetiki around her neck weighing her down. How will she operationalise te tiritti and it’s wide ranging implications such as reinstating tino rangitiratanga over tribal roho. I suppose a policy on land tax would sit behind tino ranitiratanga… Presumably tangatawhenua would collect the rental and (obviously) not the visitors (pakeha).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair enough natural, I commented too soon! Was it too difficult, do you think, for people to get to the meetings and make their feelings known, so that the reps could ..represent them at the AGM? In my instance, Metiria and Sue spoke expansively and answered all questions then left us to discuss. I thought it very fair indeed. There had been a lot of notice given to all party members re the meetings and I’ve heard no complaints from anyone here. You’d like to see an individual voting system for issues of this sort. Ok, but do you think justice was not served here? From where I stand, it was fair and good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I made it to a meeting with difficulty (some may note that I have been absent a while… work is not easy at present).
I heard others give the names of members who were absent and their opinions were heard.
We went through a process, and I do not think that process was “undemocratic”. It was in fact, a VERY useful reminder of how democracy actually works. People at the meetings got to see presentations from both candidates addressing major questions that the party faces. Members made informed choices. Something that is not really possible to ensure by mail.
In my electorate… every Green who paid the slightest bit of attention had their opportunity to be heard… and have their voice echoed through their representatives.
It is called “representative” democracy. Direct democracy is a different beast and far more difficult to manage because the information flow to each individual will vary.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – she carries the heitiki well and is strong enough, and adroit enough to navigate the rapids. Do you not think she’s up to it? I’ve been at meetings where she has wowed people from across the spectrum. As to the details of her stand on tinorangatira etc. you’d have to ask her. I think she’s the buzz.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is not the outcome I had hoped for clearly, however I don’t necessarily believe a different voting method would have changed the outcome. It seems though a shame to not give Green Party members a voice simply because they are paying members?
I think in some instances it may well have been difficult to make the meetings. I know my local meeting isn’t often doable, and I also know several regulars were missing from our meeting for whatever reason. These people should still have had a right to cast a vote.
I am not sure if you are confusing the debates, which were done fantastically by both parties, with the meetings where the votes were finally cast which for my electorate were two separate meetings. Would a result with a much higher participation level from Green Party members not have been more representative? One would need to look at the stats however we had an attendance of a little more than a dozen, yet have a good deal more members than that (at least 4 times as many).
I simply do not understand why we feel the need to give individual members a vote on List matters, but not on Co-leadership which for me outweighs the former ten-fold in importance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip, I think our general elections should be indication enough that being informed is not a pre-requisite to casting a vote. One can simply have a preference. And people who have neither, would most likely not bother returning the voting form.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro will be SO disappointed! He’s a huge Sue B fan.
A good move by the Greens I think
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury – Bro will just transfer his affections to Metiria, give her a demeaning ‘title’ and repeat it ad nauseum. He’s like that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But he was so keen on Sue B. He was begging everyone to vote for her during the past few days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“and adroit enough to navigate the rapids. “….
the rapids being that she is a treaty and cultural fundamentalist. She’s going to have to side step (walk along the bank for a bit) or keep to using metaphors rather than come up with something suitable for this planet at this time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
….AND THE 23RD COMMENT SAYS….’CONGRATULATIONS METIRIA!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im not so sure………………….
One so often see people return to type when they have got into position…
Wasnt she an anarchist at heart, anti any sort of system? Its when people get under pressure that they revert to type. It happen to Bradford (she threw everything out the window over section 59 and reverted to her old communist belief of enforced ‘change from the top’) and I suspect that it will happen to turei just when the greens dont need it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well mikke, I am sure! On Q&A this morning, Metiria gracefully presented herself and the party to the viewers and panel, answering all questions effortlessly, charming them at the same time and looking and sounding STRONG. Even Richard Prebble sang her praises. We are now in a very, very fortunate position with our leadership (not that we weren’t before) but it’s hugely encouraging to find that we are so well positioned.
btw – Metiria swatted Paul Homes’ niggly questions without blinking, then smiled an audience-winning smile to emphasise just how easy it was. Sweet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Warm Homes
Paul Holmes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve always found her contributions to this Blog to be sensitive, humble, intelligent considerate and exceptionally well informed…..sorry I missed her TV appearance.
People evolve Mikke – I don’t recognise the Character you portray.
Anyway – she’s certainly got the chance – not like the Nats who had to change leaders along with their socks and won the election by default.
And are using the Braille technique to Govern.
Warm Homes though Hey?
Suppose Mets agin that too…..but she’s in favour of protecting our wildlife, won me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well if you’re sure greenfly, I don’t know what I am worrying about….. *facepalm*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – Metiria led the eel tour, I guess you know and has he tuna as her avatar. I ‘opened’ for her once at a public talk (I spoke about the whitebait habitat we’d created on our wetland) and she followed by wowing the fairly conservative audience with her balanced politics and quick mind, all tempered with an ability to be genuinely warm. I’ve every confidence in her (though I’d get someone else to arrange the tea cups!)
Richard Prebble made the comment of the morning,
“The Greens did well. They got more in the budget than Act!”
natural – sorry if my exuberance makes you cringe…*facepalm* is funny though, so much better than *faceplant*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“dignified and mature campaign”
I am so proud of being a Green. It is so positive to have role models such as the Green MPs – for instance Russel in the Mt Albert bye-election; Metiria with such dignity on TV1 this morning (Sunday), Jeanette and Russel always coming up trumps, members at the Green Party Conference etc.
Well done to you all. Keep it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well imagine I’m an Ozzie moved to New Zealand….from each i learn something and from others a great good deal – nice to read BJ and hope he sticks around…finds time
Metiria certainly will.
Yes – I love the Logo – there are certain kiwi characteristics one misses abroad, except you’ll find ‘em (kiwis) everywhere you go.
But one does reflect that our best people are lured overseas – mayhap we are fortunate to retain certain talent….to properly value people, according their capabilities – we’ve had two hundred years of white male lawyers…some of the differences can be jewell like.
Plus the preponderance of Green Values amongst our younger generation is a promising sky i reckon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS Fly; Don’t believe exuberance has ever made me cringe – hardly!
I’m usually the one playing bagpipes in the bath.
Well those Greens got more of the Vote than Act didn’t they?
Political Parties do try and understand numbers….
I catch a definite note of envy amonst the throng of posts.
If ah wiz a gambler….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice timing, Frog
I saw it on the news & cheered – once more, my famous ability to work out the odds (thanks Dad, a childhood on the track is occasionally relevant to the real world …) has made me look good to all the friends to whom I predicted this result
It’s been freezing in Welli, & I have stopped envying those who did the long trip to Dunedin; is it snowing yet, lol? Perhaps a nice piccy of Sue & Meyt throwing snowballs could be arranged?
Arohanui ki nga kakariki katoa, taku mihi ki te tane co-convenor anei!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh, oops, just floated thru the e-mails – a mihi to the new male policy co-convenor is in order, too. Arohanui, e hoa, ka nui te mana ka hika koe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bill English got a well-deserved whupping on Q&A this morning over the dishonest budget. He looked unnerved and gaunt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Congratulations Metiria Turei!
And well done the Greens for a good example of truly democratic action.
Metiria, you have a serious duty to make sure the Government does the right thing in Copenhagen in December. There is no time for complacency or half-measures. We have two duties: To join the global fight against climate change, and to prepare our nation as best we can for what is to come.
We must act locally to achieve global change.
See: http://the100metreline.blogspot.com/
for something you can do.
Support http://www.350.org/mission
Metiria we are right behind you. Go the right way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Poor Bill – he does the Haka – the Boxing Ring – lives up a dirt road in the freezing cold far south – he’s geographically challenged – then someone told him he was in with the Nats….
I would have liked Cath to be a two week Caretaker Leader – if only to send ParataNui nuttin’ orf ‘is ‘ead – might’ve moved to Oz with a bit of luck….no doubt he’ll fire up when he gets to (harhar) work
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – perhaps the Blowcrastinator was told that the apple of his eye was successful and he’s spontaniously combusted! Even now, investigators might be sifting through his ashes, asking, “What could have caused a man to flare so brightly that he cooked his own goose?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
First of all, congrats to Met. Well done.
Also thanks to Sue for running a good campaign and for all her contributions to the Green Party over many years. I supported Met for co-leader, but I have enormous respect for Sue, the work she does, her intellect and her capacity for hard work.
I wanted to address NaturalhighNZ’s comment. I totally agree with you. I support the outcome, and don’t think it would have been any different as a result of a process change, but I think it is fundementally wrong that the list is decided by an all member postal ballot, and the co-leadership (which influences, if not conditions, the first two place on the list) is decided by a delegate vote.
The problems with a delegated vote are:
1. Delegates may vote differently to the wishes of the branch, especially if the branch is closely split in its position.
2. Key individuals can be highly influential on how branches decide
3. The processes may be variable, according to the culture of the branch
4. It doesn’t deal well with the situation where one candidate is supported by substantial minorities in some areas, but have overwhelming support in a slightly smaller number of other areas – ie one candidate has the support of the majority of the people voting at branch meetings, but a minority of branches. How branches handle this may be variable.
5. It doesn’t at all take account of people who don’t come to the meeting, unless they organise proxies (which may or may not be accepted at the meeting). I cannot agree that on the issue of co-leadership, meeting attending members should have more rights than those that do not attend meetings. This should be a decision of the membership as a whole IMO.
I would support an amendment to the constitution which said that contested co-leadership contests should be by postal ballot. You could even put limitations on that, to avoid wasting paper and stamps on frivolous contests. I’ll even write such an amendment one day….
In the mean time – its kind of academic at this stage. As I say, I don’t think it would have made any difference to the outcome here, I just think as a matter of principle it is something that should be addressed sooner or later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Co-leadership decided by postal ballot is more representative of Green members than the delegate vote, but I suspect the overheads are way higher though and the result may be the a similar percentage either way, which isn’t really a win for the party, more a waste of resources that could be used better elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Chances are we won’t be having another one for some time, so there’s plenty of time to sort out the process. It’s very encouraging to know that Sue Bradford has been mentoring Metiria for so long. Sue is a tremendously powerful woman and if Metiria can harness that power, there will be much ahead that is good for the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi,
The change of leadership has got me thinking about the shape of the Party generally.
I remember some years ago I went to a seminar on the life cycle of political movements. There is a point at which movements go from ‘movement’ to ‘mainstream’ and at that point often a change of personnel is required to accommodate the new paradigm. In a ideal world, that’s the point at which the ‘originals’ should be celebrated out. Unfortunately what usually happens is they hang on and get shoved out. That’s one of the reasons there are so many disillusioned and/or marginalised older greenies and social change agents out there.
So that leads to me to think:
1. It’s time for Sue Kedgley and Sue Bradford to move on. In my view they’re both polarising and the party needs to more mainstream cross-over or risk other parties stealing your thunder.
2. Russell Norman needs to be a hell of a lot more gracious. The Nats gave the Greens major cred for the Insulation allocation in Budget ’09, and then Russell got straight up there started going on about roading et al. How ungracious and arrogant. I can understand that the thinking is ‘let’s stake out our ground on these issues before the Nats or someone else steals our turf’ but pick your time and your battles. And yes, I agree building roads and more roads is stupid but tere is a time and a place.
I reckon Clean Streams is goer. Polluted waterways provide good visuals so why not not take a lead from the Mike King/Pork stuff and get our own celebs standing in streams to make the point? Note that’s another reason for Sue Kedgley to go. Because she’d insist on being the one to stand in the stream despite the fact that her time in farrowing crates didn’t really do much good. That animal welfare stuff should’ve been done and dusted years ago.
3. Stop Catherine Delehunty’s reactionary diatribes. For crying out loud she’s your Education Spokesperson but, judging from her blogs on this site, struggles with spelling and grammar. I reckon she needs at least a sub-editor and probably a minder because obviously there is a tendency to go off half-cocked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yer – we’ll know by ten tomorrow! Else it’ll be another case of ‘Thar She Blows’ I reckin. Funny how one can miss poison what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nigel that is a supremely important point there. The Copenhagen conference in December is one of the most critical international conferences ever – New Zealand must have an informed debate on the issue and put a lot of pressure on our government to represent us with pride at the conference.
The USA’s updated opinion on climate change means that this conference should result in good outcomes – and it would therefore be terrible for New Zealand’s international reputation if we were seen as draggin the chain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“There is in fact, absolutely nothing for Bradford ( or for that wing of the Greens constituency that is motivated by social justice concerns ) in this current engagement with National. In July, there will be only the prospect of the Greens playing cutely again with the government over the question of a “ Yes” vote on the S59 citizens initiated referendum. Primarily, the exercise will give Key a chance to look like Mr Consensus Guy on this divisive issue, all over again.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0905/S00309.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i agree with nandors’ call for a full vote for the leadership roles..
..a textbook case of how delegate votes/system can be more easily ‘worked’/manipulated was his defeat for the male co-leader role..
and that is why the party elite want that delegate system..
..it’sall a matter of control/faux-democracy..
of course the ultimate irony here..
..is that what was just done to her..
..she had a major hand in doing to nandor..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-reasons-why-sue-bradford-should-be-somewhat-pissed-off/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While I have a a great deal of respect for metiria and supported her for co-leader it is almost a disappointment that bradford didint get in. I am somewhat skeptical of metirias ability to stop the party becoming nothing but greenwash over its red interior. Atleast with bradford the party would be guarantied to be rejected by its skin and a real green party would be able to form at long last.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – the party, you say, has a red interior and a green skin. Had Sue won the position of co leader, you continue, the party (red) would be rejected by it’s skin (green) and the new (green) party would begin to form – with the skin as its ‘core’? Odd metaphors. Where would the red ‘meat’ of the party go? Is the skin green because it is ‘environment’ and not ‘social issues’ Would the ‘green skins’ have a position on Section 59? Most organisms die if they lose their skin unless they generate another carbon copy of the original, then it’s back to square one, only in a bigger form. Sue has not left the room, btw, and isn’t one to roll over and expire.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what would be the main differences between the GPofANZ and a “real green party”?
Would it conclude that people are the problem and implement population control policies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfy,
Yes, it was a bit of a mess that statement.
What I ment to convey is that I beleive should Sue had taken the head the party would of moved even further to the left and the environmental side would have been degraded even further. With this degridation the party members whom actualy care for the environment would reach their last straw and the party would fracture into left and green factions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fin,
The major difference being that a social agenda full of contradictions and failed ideology wouldint take precidence at the expence of the parties ability to promote environental matters. A more bipartisan approach would be more than likely. Unlike Sue B who’s forum name is ‘partisian’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its not like the ‘new’ free market eastern europe is much better – ie human traficaking and crime + state corruption etc levels
“Spoiled for choice”
as in the old eastern europe
The paper examines the underlying causes of dramatic differences in corruption patterns pertaining to the process of privatizing state-owned assets in Eastern Europe.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/0/0/8/p140087_index.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
also see some reasonably recent articles like:
The Capitalist Experiment in Eastern Europe
http://www.globalpolitician.com/2843-economics-eastern-europe
and
Human Trafficking Booming in Eastern Europe, but Governments Don’t Seem to Care
http://www.medindia.net/news/Human-Trafficking-Booming-in-Eastern-Europe-but-Governments-Dont-Seem-to-Care-22726-1.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
free market capitalism is pretty partican too – does that need to be less partisan Sapient?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Richard Prebble made the comment of the morning,
“The Greens did well. They got more in the budget than Act!”
wonder if that means maybe act has out of date economic policies according to some of the nats?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Richard Prebble said on Agenda that it was foolish to save in Kiwi Saver while paying off a mortgage. Thus all those Australians paying compulsory amounts of their pay into Super savings before they pay off their mortgage are all fools. They also have 40% tax credits for R and D, while National/Act has none. Foolish those Australians.
The New Zealand right which knows better is going to deliver cross tasman pay parity via a public sector pay freeze and driving up productivity in the private sector by using the word in their press statements until by magic companies choose to forgo profits to shareholders by increasing wages to the Australian award level. FFS no one on the right, National or Act have economic mangement capability. It’s barren landscape, old or new.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Treesoftomorrow,
Where did I state a preference for free-market capitalism?
I try for the realpolitick, I have a distaste for petty politics. I prefer policies that work, taking a partisan approach can hardly even realise this goal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think there is any doubt that a group from (what we metaphorically refer to as) the far left piled into Green parties around the world. Intuitively most people know that humanity is off course. The problem is that the far left come with a pre-exsisting vision and so have dual goals. In Treesoftomorrows example it’s a black and white position as in “are you for free market Capitalism or a state minus any form of capitalism(?). Outside of that position (and finding the “Greens” too radical) are people who take an objective position “we have to go with what works not what we think ought to work”. Basically the Greens lack objectivity and people wont support you until you until you cast off your duplicity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I saw Kevin Hague on Back Benchers his response to the issue of crushing boy racers cars was that we need to find out what is getting at them ( a “these poor kids are really hurting inside” sort of inference). If your model of the world is based on power imbalance and reaction you would think like that (the Greens seem to have a penchant for anything that blows society apart). On the other hand this could be seen as just another way for genes to mix except that the rituals involve high powered cars and brings with it a large social footprint.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Future policy platforms? (No. 2 is already)
“Taxation is a very powerful tool for reshaping society. It works through incentives and disincentives. A useful start would be Treasury’s own idea of moving taxation away from internationally mobile bases like income and profits towards immobile bases like land, rent and consumption. This rewards the enterprising, and makes ticket-clippers share their good fortune.
A second theme is the necessity for a capital gains tax (CGT) on assets other than the family home (conditions apply). Originally part of the great reform package of the 1980’s, governments have shied away from CGT, leaving New Zealand as one of the few OECD countries without it. This distorts investment and its lack drove the recent housing bubble because gains were virtually tax-free.”
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/19/opinion-the-case-for-a-capital-gains-tax-and-a-land-tax/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH; NZ is already the most heavily taxed of the four countries I have lived in – with at least four Taxation systems running concurrently, I can only imagine that this is very much a duplicitous country – the Have’s, and the Havenot’s….
The duplicity you refer to is that the Greens are environmentally conservative (moreso than anyone) and Socially Progressive (moreso than anyone).
There is no Paradox involved in this – it is more to do with particularization of different issues; it is I feel, a fairly different form of political thinking, but to suggest, there are “Left’ or ‘Red’ elements there is to misunderstand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – pardon my naievity – I’m interested in your ‘green faction that is not left’ – how do you believe such a party would vote on social issues, such as the repeal of section 59? Would they have to find and follow the purely ‘environmental’ rammifications of each issue? If so, what would that be in the instance of sec 59? Would they have to abstain? If so, how could such a party have any credence when all other parties have policy to cover issues across the board?
btw – I plan to start a political party myself – narrow in focus, sure, but we’ll not be being accused of being left wing/communist’socialists.
We’ll be called, “The Garden Party”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, I agree, not with it tearing the party apart but I do feel now that the Greens will become an strongly environmental party. Don’t get me wrong, the environment is one of the most important factors in my life and I care immensely for it. But we CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be separating the environment from social justice. It seems that social justice however will have to take a back-seat. Though I do have faith that so long as Sue B. is in the Party she will fight tooth and nail to have social justice issues heard!!!
I hoped for Sue simply to create a more balanced leadership. It feels rather one sided now and I don’t believe that’s a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good idea Greenfly, then you can stop attempting to reduce the NZ Greens to being just that, and let them be all that they can be. Bastions of the left, the real left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The thing about social justice is that the state doesn’t know peoples circumstances well enough and there is a moral hazard issue: people factor in state assistance when they make their plans (Ie increase their needs) > “my right to have as many children as I want; your duty to assist”… “you have to assist the family because it isn’t the children’s fault that their parent’s were irresponsible”. We need a sea change amongst the population. It is only “social justice” in someones opinion*. Who holds the wealth and why is another issue but there are a lot of good thinkers out there (ie elsewhere).
*Sue Bradford was an apologist for the Kahui’s saying that they “don’t see the good side of life” (despite the household racking in a ton on benefits)…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good idea Greenfly, then you can stop attempting to reduce the NZ Greens to being just that, and let them be all that they can be. Bastions of the left, the real left.
………………….
That would be dishonest as traditionally the left is red.
there should be standards/ tests for green issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
naturalhighnz said: you can stop attempting to reduce the NZ Greens to being just that
Did you mean ‘only that’, natural?
Do you think the party needs a change of name then? What do you suggest?
I think you’ve misread my intent, but nevermind. I for one, don’t think there is a place for a purely environmental party (whatever that might mean), as social, environmental, economic etc. issues are interwoven closely and it’s not realistic to exlude some for fear of muddying the brand. I also feel that the mix that the Greens have developed is largely correct. Those who bandy about the ‘watermelon’ tag have yet to propose a better blend of ideologies that would genuinely keep ‘the environment’ in top place, imho.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the lack of a capital gains tax drove the housing bubble in NZ how come the bubble was even more inflated in States of the USA and Australia where they do have a capital gains tax?
Genuine property developers do pay a capital gains tax – its called a tax on profit.
It will affect investment behaviour but we do have to wonder if the costs of calculation net capital gains tax and the tendency to discriminate against improving the existing housing stock is worth the benefits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Congratulations Ian Brackenbury Channell, Wizard of Christchurch, on your Queen’s Service Medal.
“Notable for reviving the ancient art of rhetoric..”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wouldnt put words in yourth mouth, i do think realpolitik is often passive support for capitalism without principles or morales (ie a politician who only cares about power, not people or policy).
you have a lot in common with John Tamihere then (i dont think that is a good thing)
‘refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply politics that are
coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.
———–
Where did I state a preference for free-market capitalism?
I try for the realpolitick, I have a distaste for petty politics. I prefer policies that work, taking a partisan approach can hardly even realise this goal.
Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I Think capitalism lacks objectivity JH – I am not advocating state socialism as the alternative (ie capitalist/communist states like Cuba)
I’ll use an old quote by jeanette to widen the debate:
“They said the key question was not whether centralised industrial capitalism should be controlled by the state or by private interests, but rather the unsustainability of centralised industrial capitalism itself.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
- “until by magic companies choose to forgo profits to shareholders by increasing wages to the Australian award level. ”
I must say, you have an extremely idealistic opinion of American capitalists; after all, American companies pay wages which are vastly higher even than the Australian ones you cite so approvingly.
Of course, there’s really no “magic,” once you grasp that markets set prices, not companies. In a free market, profits are competed down to the bare minimum as companies compete on price for staff and other resources. Hence wages rise in line with productivity.
Try a thought experiment. You believe that NZ companies can simply choose what to pay their staff. So imagine you open a business and you are looking for, say, a company electrician. Do you really suppose for one second that you could “choose” to pay less than the market rate, and retain the difference as extra dividend for your shareholders?
By your logic, African companies must be the most profitable in the world. After all, if low wages are simply taken as evidence of companies retaining more income as profit – rather than being a symptom of very low productivity – then just think of the wealth these companies are stuffing away each year.
- “no one on the right, National or Act have economic mangement capability”
As the saying goes, governments don’t manage the economy, they simply tax it.
If you want high wages you should be seeking ways to encourage higher productivity. There is no “magic” recipe for this, but low taxes is one of them since capital formation is a key component of productivity (it’s the difference between using a shovel and using a digger.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treeofsorrow,
- “They said the key question was not whether centralised industrial capitalism should be controlled by the state or by private interests, but rather the unsustainability of centralised industrial capitalism itself.”
There is simply no such thing as “centralised industrial capitalism.”
There is nothing “centralised” at all about Capitalism.
You mean to tell me that Jeanette didn’t even grasp this most basic and fundamental point?
That’s scary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning then. However the term Green does not indicate a party of mere environmental intent. Can I cast your attention to our charter?
Ecological Wisdom:
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are
part of the natural world. This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.
Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the
key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.
Appropriate Decision-making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the
appropriate level by those affected.
Non-Violence:
Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate
decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.
In particular, social responsibility. The Greens have been since their inception more than an environmental party. This potentially also partly due to their transformation from the Values Party of old. If the Greens overemphasise the environment then there will be no place in the party for me, as the two issues, social responsibility and the environment need to stand equally. So far I think the Greens have done this well, however as I have no continually stated, the new leadership strikes me as primarily environmental and I am merely expressing concern over this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks natural. The charter and I are not strangers. I hear detractors from all sides, criticising the Greens for ‘too much of this, too much of that, not enough of this, not enough of that’ and expect that will always be the case.
You say: the new leadership strikes me as primarily environmental and I am merely expressing concern over this.
I’m know there are those who claim the opposite – that Turei and Norman are as red as can be.
I asked Do you think the party needs a change of name then? What do you suggest? and still wonder what your thoughts are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
natural – given that Green strongly indicates an environmental dominance, at least in the wider community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney – Keen to explain how you came to the conclusion capitalism isnt centralised?
supercity if a good example of capitalism and centralisation in new zealand/auckland city.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting that there is such a perceived conflict between “virtue” and “pragmatism” that some folks think this is a mistake. The mistake we might make would be to pay much attention.
As Sapient almost managed to express coherently.
We could have become a party that self-destructs, fails its promise and gets nobody into parliament. Then has to rebuild from scratch. It wouldn’t be Sue B’s failure that, just the way she’s portrayed in the main, but it would be as inevitable as Sunrise.
The people who now perceive this “pragmatism” as a problem for our “virtuous” base are the same ones who regard our “leftist” social justice meme as anathema.
Claims that we can’t align with Labour because we talk to National are so absurd as to render the sanity of the claimant suspect. Yet they get national coverage.
I do not perceive “virtue” and “pragmatism” as being antonyms. Someone correct me if this is a purely New Zealand interpretation of the English language, but I REALLY think that this is more an intentional misrepresentation by people who do not have the best interests of either the Green Party OR the Planet in mind.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well I disagree that that is the perception, internationally Green Parties have considerably more history and are not really seen as such either.
No I like the name, and I like the charter. So long as we continue to live by the charter and create policies by the charter, and have that foremost in our minds as members, then I think we are doing the right thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Val Jones on Green Collar Jobs and environment/climate action and jobs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22FquY2ujMw&feature=related
- environment and social justice
http://www.powershift09.org/ – usa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
there was an attempt at a rightewing green party in aotearoa new zealand and it was a mass failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Green_political_parties_in_New_Zealand
see:
The Progressive Green Party was an environmentalist political party in New Zealand. It was established as a “blue-green” party – that is, one which is environmentalist (“green”), but is economically right-wing (“blue”) rather than left-wing (“red”).
The Progressive Green Party was established on 9 August 1995 as a splinter group of the larger Green Party. The founders of the Progressive Greens were unhappy at the direction taken by the Green Party, which they believed was too left-wing. The Progressive Greens particularly opposed the Green Party’s membership in the Alliance, a broad left-wing coalition. Prominent members of the new party included Stephen Rainbow (a former member of the Wellington city council), Guy Salmon (head of the Maruia Society, forerunner to today’s Ecologic Foundation), and Gary Taylor (a former Waitemata City city councillor).
In the 1996 election, conducted under the new MMP system, the Progressive Greens won only 0.26% of the vote, considerably below what they had hoped for. No Progressive Greens were elected to Parliament. The Progressive Green Party did not contest any further elections, and is now disbanded. Many of the party’s members, however, are now associated with the Bluegreens, an environmental “task force” within the National Party. Stephen Rainbow and Guy Salmon, once prominent in the Progressive Green Party, stood as list candidates for the National Party in the 1999 election and 2002 election, respectively, but were not elected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
here is the solution..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/women-you-have-no-concept-of-the-depth-of-male-simplicity-and-until-you-do-our-world-is-doomed/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen McShane Says:
If the lack of a capital gains tax drove the housing bubble in NZ how come the bubble was even more inflated in States of the USA and Australia where they do have a capital gains tax?
…..
The thinking is/was that you don’t sell but hold your properties but when you want to buy a luxury yacht you sell some. Of course your clawing back expenses to the family trust so capital gains is reduced.
““The deal of the decade comes along once a week!” says de Roos. “If you believe that, you will find deal after deal after deal.” But you will only amass money, he says, when you come from an abundance consciousness instead of a poverty consciousness; when you tell yourself, “I am a magnet for money!”
Tonight, a pumped de Roos tells his audience that he wants people to invest in property and write to him 12 months down the track and tell him they’ve “made one million or three million, or you’ve got 16 properties, or we’re taking six months off because our cash flow now exceeds our outflow!” He says, “I don’t know any other activity where the rewards are so huge. If you want to invest a million dollars in the sharemarket, you need a million dollars. If you want to invest a million in real estate, you only need $100,000.”
You can buy one property, get it revalued, use the equity to buy another property and then buy another and another. “And you do it all with OPM. Other people’s money. OPM. It’s like being high on drugs!” What’s more, the wonder of depreciation claims on the building and contents means “the government subsidises your investment! It’s delightful!”
Later, de Roos will say privately that he agrees that the property bubble might burst if interest rates go up. “It’s all correct. All true. But with every cycle we go through, the peak tends to be higher than the previous peak.” It’s “bollocks”, he says, that it’s a bad thing if the market goes down. “It’s good if it will go down. If interest rates go up, properties get cheaper to buy. Oh, just get in there, boots and all, and do it and in 10 years time you’ll think it’s great.” He tells his seminar audience “doom and gloom, I secretly relish it. I love it. Bring it on! That’s when people ditch things!””
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3314/features/1021/house_of_the_rising_sum,5.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
is property and money all you guys care about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesofthollow,
Capitalism by definition isn’t centralised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was sorry that there wasn’t a postal ballot for this contested leadership. Although I am only moderately active in the Greeens, to the extent of volunteering posting flyers, going to some meetings and giving donations, I did miss out on the opportunity to have my say about this matter. I think if one is interested enough in politics to be a member of a party, one has already proven one’s commitment.( According to Dr Miller of Auckland University only 50,000 people in NZ are fully paid-up members which is not much more than 1.5 % of the adult population – so just being a paid-up member implies a level of commitment far in excess of the average New Zealander). So whilst I might not agree that the democratic model of using delegates is as democratic as it could be (think of the US Presidential elections), it is probably a lot fairer than what other parties manage. It’s that a postal ballot would be even fairer.
I would like to have seen Sue Bradford win because she is on the left wing. We in the Greens know that a revolution in human circumstance is around the corner, that our corporatist and neo-liberal economic model is falling to pieces. It is not Sue Bradford’s fault that being a left winger is presently out of fashion, it is very likely before long that it will become much more fashionable to be a left-winger again, by at least offering some sort of alternative to the failing economic models of today. In addition I think her sheer effectiveness as a working MP hasn’t been rewarded in the way it might have been.
Having said that I have been very impressed by Metiria and I am sure she will be an excellent leader, and I can’t argue that the Greens haven’t made a good decision. After all, Jeanette has been a wonderful leader, and she isn’t really a left winger either.
If I can digress for a second, I would also like to comment that when Wat repeats the silly expression “Governments don’t manage the economy, they simply tax it” he is being obtuse and simplistic to the nth degree. Government’s tax because the population wishes to provide services to the population which otherwise wouldn’t be provided. They wish to see investment in human capital and working infrastructure and maintenance of these which would otherwise be neglected. They wish to see a fairer distribution of income, they wish to see recognition of the value of manual labour, they wish to see free health care, sewage systems that work and immunisations and education for their children etc etc. They don’t wish to live in a modern day equivalent of Victorian England, or modern day New Zealand equivalent of Mumbai. If Wat took the simple step of comparing countries in the OECD total levels of taxation vs individual wealth, he would find that there is a strong positive correlation that higher levels of taxation are associated with higher levels of real individual wealth. (I have already done the calculations and these can be found on my own blog) The reason for this is obvious, that no society is truly sustainable unless the foundations of that society are deep and continually maintained. Free-for-all societies always eventually fall down because the edifice might look magnificent, but the foundations eventually crumble. That is exactly what is happening in the world right now.
I would then add here my very best wishes to Metiria, and to Russell, may they both prosper as co-leaders, and also the party and the policies which they are now responsible to, and the country which the Greens will be trying to turn to a more sustainable and sustaining future -until we dig some deeper foundations for our society, and refurbish the foundations we’ve neglected over the last two generations, we will not achieve either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Capitalism by definition isn’t centralised – prove it, i asked for evidence, not your opinion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj chip said: but I REALLY think that this is more an intentional misrepresentation by people who do not have the best interests of either the Green Party OR the Planet in mind.
and I whole heartedly agree.
Where is BluePeter, btw?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesoftomorrow Says:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
there was an attempt at a rightewing green party in aotearoa new zealand and it was a mass failure.
……….
a) people don’t see the Greens as having a workable economic policy (able to stand on their own feet). As Catherine Ryan put it the greens aren’t seen as “practical”
b)The German greens achieved the highest level of popularity of any Green Party as they moved to the middle.
c) the pendulum swings but the red (and) green’s are on the wrong end. You aint goin nowhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The values party has been a more successful model than the two rightwing green parties in NZ.
Economists like Rod Oram agree more with the greens than labour or national.
ring wing economists like rightwing economics. simple eh…?
its not always about ringwing/leftwing tho of course
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the UK greenparty i think is a better model than the pro nuclear and pro war german greenparty
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
also i wld suggest the german green party moved socially and environmentally to the right, not the middle
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And yet the German Greens were a disaster falling from grace relatively quickly too with a surge in actual LEFT WING parties in Germany dominating the last election.
Of course becoming centrist gets you more votes, that’s just common sense. New Zealand however already has two centrist parties and certainly doesn’t need a third.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good move. Looks like the Greens are getting a little smarter. Slowly.
Next, you need someone with a strong business focus in there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“We in the Greens know that a revolution in human circumstance is around the corner, that our corporatist and neo-liberal economic model is falling to pieces.”
that doesn’t mean Sue and Co will step in and claim victory in the battle of ideas. You’re team did badly prior to the 1980′s….Berlin Wall and all that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.greens.org/s-r/27/27-11.html – Synthesis/Regeneration
A Magazine of Green Social Thought
German Greens Off to War Again
by Jim Green, Democratic Socialist Party of Australia (social democrats)
The German Greens, junior partner in a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), voted to support the deployment of 3900 German troops for the United States-led “war on terrorism” in the German parliament on November 16, 2001 and again at a national Greens conference on November 24–25.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
which is a breach of the non violence position most green parties support in practice
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Economists like Rod Oram agree more with the greens than labour or national.”
I’d like to hear him say that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Read his articles and see what you can pick up
He was at the young greens conference at Jeanettes Farm this year. BTW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“which is a breach of the non violence position most green parties support in practice”
except when “freedom fighters” are involved, then it never happened or the response was way over the top.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesofthollow,
That you and Jeanette could be so wholly ignorant on this subject is a real surprise. More so in Jeanette’s case of course because she made a very nice living from condemning the evils of Capitalism. Now it turns out she doesn’t have the faintest clue what she was talking about all that time.
‘“Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for “economic individualism,” which Adam Smith earlier called “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty” (Wealth of Nations). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge…’
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
If you can spot the centralisation inherent in Capitalism there’s probably a Nobel prize in it for you (you’ll have to share it with Jeanette, of course.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There won’t be a return to the left-wing – you’re dreaming. How much extra income tax do you pay, over and above the amount you should? Do you ever practice tax avoidance?
Bunch of hypocrites. What you really want is for those more successful than yourself to be brought down. By encouraging successful, smart people, we grow the tax pie. By discouraging them, you grow some other countries tax pie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rod Oram places a high economic value on a healthy environmet; National and labour can’t just posture they have to push levers that make sections of the economy squeal. Apart from that….?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
thats why i support tax shifting, tax coal and pollution – and not good things like food. thats the canadian green parties approach
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tax isnt a right or leftwing thing, behind the rhetoric governments (like former kings) want tax revenue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rod Oram also ‘rode the bridge’ with all the other despicable characters of Paul Henry’s waking dream. Rod Oram doesn’t fare at all well on the right-wing bile-blogs and this indicates to me that he is greening up. I heard him speak at a ‘futures forum’ where he proposed a pharmaecutical solutions to the ‘heading for a fall’ dairy industry. Seemed a brilliant idea and went down like a lead balloon amongst the right wing audience. Christine Rankin also spoke, if you can call her caterwailing that. I think she has a pinched kindness valve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH i suspect you are into conservative economics, and are even more conservative than the bluegreens – find the good news stories in climate change, and dont just read greenhouse policy coaltion and the coal association of nz, and rio tinto, nz steel etc press releases and media strories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would imagine Rod Oram is being a good journalist and economist if far right blogs are getting grumpy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Non-violence has its own limitations treesoftomorrow.
We have a defense policy. A UN sanctioned peacekeeping mission would be justifiable in its terms.
Green doesn’t mean “pacifist”. It is a mistake to permit people to paint that label on us as well.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# naturalhighNZ Says:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
And yet the German Greens were a disaster falling from grace relatively quickly too with a surge in actual LEFT WING parties in Germany dominating the last election.
what % of popular support = success?
—-
Of course becoming centrist gets you more votes, that’s just common sense. New Zealand however already has two centrist parties and certainly doesn’t need a third.
…………..
but you wouldn’t be brave enough to call yourselves the “Red Party of Aeotearoa /NZ” so your stuck being a green washed red party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat said: (that Jeanette Fitzsimons made) a very nice living from condemning the evils of Capitalism. Now it turns out she doesn’t have the faintest clue what she was talking about all that time.
This must mean then that she wasn’t condemming the ‘evils of Capitalism’. What was she condemming then, wat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i’ll help him out, if he cant do research for himself and back up statements –
capitalism and critiques
The etymology of the word capital has roots in the trade and ownership of animals. The Latin root of capital is capitalis, from the proto-Indo-European kaput, which means “head”, this being how wealth was measured—the number of heads in a person’s livestock. The terms chattel and cattle itself also derive from this same origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Criticism
Main articles:
Criticisms of capitalism and Anti-capitalism
Prominent leftist critics have included marxists (like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Leon Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, Slavoj Zizek, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro)
and anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, Rudolf Rocker, Noam Chomsky, and many others).
Movements like the Luddites, Narodniks, Shakers, Utopian Socialists and others have opposed capitalism for various reasons.
Marxism advocated a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead eventually to communism. Marxism also influenced social democratic and labour parties, which seek change through existing democratic channels instead of revolution, and believe that capitalism should be heavily regulated rather than abolished. Many aspects of capitalism have come under attack from the relatively recent anti-globalization movement.
Religions have criticized or outright opposed specific elements of capitalism. The traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest, although methods of Islamic banking have been developed. Christianity has been a source of both praise and criticism for capitalism, particularly its materialist aspects.[119] The first socialists drew many of their principles from Christian values (see Christian socialism), against “bourgeois” values of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding. Christian critics of capitalism may not oppose capitalism entirely, but support a mixed economy in order to ensure adequate labor standards and relations, as well as economic justice. In addition, there are many prominent Protestant denominations (particularly in the United States) who have reconciled with — or are ardently in favor of — capitalism, particularly in opposition to secular socialism. However, in the U.S. and around the world there are many Protestant Christian traditions which are critical of, or even oppose, capitalism. Another critic is the Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar, founder of the Ananda Marga movement, who developed the Law of Social Cycle to identify the problems of capitalism and then proposed the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) as a solution to its ills.[120][121]
Some problems identified with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. Critics have maintained that there is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. Because of this tendency either laissez-faire, or private property, or both, have drawn fire from critics who believe an essential aspect of economic freedom is the extension of the freedom to have meaningful decision-making control over productive resources to everyone. Economist Branko Horvat asserts, “it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom.”[122] SMU Economics Professor and New York Times #1 best-selling author, Ravi Batra, has long maintained that excessive income and wealth inequalities are a fundamental cause of financial crisis and economic depression which will lead to the collapse of capitalism and the emergence of a new social order.
Near the start of the 20th century, Vladimir Lenin argued that that state use of military power to defend capitalist interests abroad was an inevitable corollary of monopoly capitalism.[123] This concept of political economy concerning the relationship between economic and political power among and within states includes critics of capitalism who assign to it responsibility for not only economic exploitation, but imperialist, colonialist and counter-revolutionary wars, repressions of workers and trade unionists, genocides, massacres, and so on.
Environmentalists have argued that capitalism requires continual economic growth, and will inevitably deplete the finite natural resources of the earth, and other broadly utilized resources. Such thinkers, including Murray Bookchin, have argued that capitalist production externalizes environmental costs to all of society, and is unable to adequately mitigate its impact upon ecosystems and the biosphere at large. Supporters maintain, however, that it would be imprudent for capitalist societies to deplete resources to such an extent.
Labor historians and scholars, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Tom Brass and, latterly Marcel van der Linden, have also argued that unfree labor — the use of a labor force of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners, and/or other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations.[124]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: By encouraging successful, smart people, we grow the tax pie. By discouraging them, you grow some other countries tax pie.
Is this your endorsement of Russel and Metiria, Blue? Both smart, both successful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Monopolism
See also: Gilded Age and Progressive Era
In the late 19th century, the control and direction of large areas of industry came into the hands of financiers. This period has been defined as state capitalism, state monopoly capitalism, or corporate capitalism,[28][88][89] characterized by the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of profits in a financial system.[19] Major characteristics of capitalism in this period included the establishment of large industrial cartels or monopolies; the ownership and management of industry by financiers divorced from the production process; and the development of a complex system of banking, an equity market, and corporate holdings of capital through stock ownership.[19] Increasingly, large industries and land became the subject of profit and loss by financial speculators.
From about the American Civil War[90][91] to the early 20th century, capitalism has also been increasingly influenced by large, monopolistic corporations. The oil, telecommunication, railroad, shipping, banking and financial industries are characterized by its monopolistic domination. Inside these corporations, a division of labor separates shareholders, owners, managers, and actual laborers.[92] Although the concept of monopoly capitalism originated among Marxist theorists,[93] non-Marxist economic historians have also commented on the rise of monopolies and trusts in the period. Stromberg, Joseph R. (2001). “The Role of State Monopoly Capitalism in the American Empire”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 15 (3): 74–75. http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_3/15_3_3.pdf. “>
By the last quarter of the 19th century, the emergence of large industrial trusts had provoked legislation in the U.S. to reduce the monopolistic tendencies of the period. Gradually, during this Progressive Era, the U.S. federal government played a larger and larger role in passing antitrust laws and regulation of industrial standards for key industries of special public concern. However, contemporary, non-bourgeois economic historians believe these new laws were in fact designed to aid large corporations at the expense of smaller competitors.[94] By the end of the 19th century, economic depressions and boom and bust business cycles had become a recurring problem, although such problems were most likely caused by government intervention, not failures in free markets (Rand 1967, Friedman 1962, Bernstein 2005). In particular, the Long Depression of the 1870s and 1880s and the Great Depression of the 1930s affected almost the entire capitalist world, and generated discussion about capitalism’s long-term survival prospects. In the early 20th century, a succession of U.S. Presidents, beginning with Warren Harding’s “Return to Normalcy,” the state decreased taxation rates, with the Revenue Act of 1924 and 1926. This allowed for the prosperity of “The Roaring Twenties,” but later was said to be largely responsible for the Great Depression.[95] During the 1930s, Marxist commentators often posited the possibility of capitalism’s decline or demise, often in alleged contrast to the ability of the Soviet Union to avoid suffering the effects of the global depression.[96]
[edit] Keynesianism and neoliberalism
Main articles: Keynesianism and Neoliberalism
In the period following the global depression of the 1930s, the state played an increasingly prominent role in the capitalistic system throughout much of the world. In 1929, for example, total U.S. government expenditures (federal, state, and local) amounted to less than one-tenth of GNP; from the 1970s they amounted to around one-third (EB). Similar increases were seen in all bourgeois economies, some of which, such as France, have reached even higher ratios of government expenditures to GNP than the United States. These economies have since been widely described as “mixed economies.”
The New York stock exchange traders’ floor (1963)During the postwar boom, a broad array of new analytical tools in the social sciences were developed to explain the social and economic trends of the period, including the concepts of post-industrial society and the welfare state.[69] The phase of capitalism from the beginning of the postwar period through the 1970s has sometimes been described as “state capitalism”, especially by Marxian thinkers.[97] This era was greatly influenced by Keynesian economic stabilization policies.
The long postwar boom ended in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the situation was worsened by the rise of stagflation.[98] Exceptionally high inflation combined with slow output growth, rising unemployment, and eventually recession caused loss of credibility of Keynesian welfare-statist mode of regulation. Under the influence of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Western states embraced policy prescriptions inspired by the laissez-faire capitalism and classical liberalism. In particular, monetarism, a theoretical alternative to Keynesianism that is more compatible with laissez-faire, gained increasing prominence in the capitalist world, especially under the leadership of Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the UK in the 1980s
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
next school lesson is on globalisation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh! I thought it was going to be on ‘how to cut and paste’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the UK greens have an open eco socialist faction – and are vocally opposing the neo nazi BNP in the UK -
also this isnt always so ‘Of course becoming centrist gets you more votes’ A good example is United Future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesofthollow,
We’re talking specifically about whether Capitalism is a centralised system or not, remember?
You posting reams of irrelevant guff suggests you should probably let the matter quietly drop…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly on ignore until Greenfly demonstrates some ability to grasp the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
monoply capitalism (ie large coal companies) surely is an example. i havent seen any examles from you wat? -
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rod Oram is just one economist. There are many economists. Many economists hold different views. Rod Oram appears to like some Green ideas. Yes. So what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesofthollow,
A monopoly is not centralisation. It’s just a company with some degree of pricing power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
aka centralisation of power
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rod Oram is an adroit, clear sighted, innovative commentator. Many, many economists are calcified, narrow thinkers, out of touch with reality. I’m delighted that Rod Oram ‘appears to like some green ideas’ as you so grudgingly admit. I’d go further and say he is biking on the same bridge as we are. Those other economists, Blue, you can have.
(If I was to characterise you as an insect, Blue, I’d have to call you ‘ignore-ant’)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ll keep this short – if u have something that suggests otherwise lets hear it. otherwise i am bored of you personal view that doesnt add up – monoplies arent a form of centralisation (about as accurate as george bushe’s WMD ‘facts’).
‘Decentralization or Decentralisation (see spelling differences) is the process of dispersing decision-making governance closer to the people or citizen.
A central theme in decentralization is the difference between a hierarchy, based on:
authority: two players in an unequal-power relationship; and
an interface: a lateral relationship between two players of roughly equal power.
The more decentralized a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships, and the less it can rely on command or force. In most branches of engineering and economics, decentralization is narrowly defined as the study of markets and interfaces between parts of a system. This is most highly developed as general systems theory and neoclassical political economy.
Decentralization—the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government organizations and/or the private sector[1]—is a complex and multifaceted concept. It embraces a variety of concepts. Different types of decentralization shows different characteristics, policy implications, and conditions for success.
Political decentralization aims to give citizens or their elected representatives more power in public decision-making. It is often associated with pluralistic politics and representative government
————————————
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because all the top economic thinkers are lowly paid journalists?
I read a variety of economists, across the political spectrum, not just those whose politics I happen to agree with. A lot of economists aren’t particularly wealthy, which I always find amusing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I read a variety of economists, across the political spectrum, not just those whose politics I happen to agree with.
What do you think of Rod Oram’s views Blue?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi
I would like to register my disappointment in the Green Party membership for not choosing Sue Bradford as Co-Leader. I would have thought it important to back up Sue and her work in the area of Social Issues. And I think she was by far the stronger candidate and for her to have lost shows fear in the Green Party camp and in a way gives tacit support for pro-smacking lobby. (that part of NZ that loves to vilify violent individuals and at the same wishes to reserve that right to assault children) I think that not supporting Sue Bradford as co-Leader lacks back-bone and dilutes the Green Party power and message.
Pita McIntyre
Nga Puhi
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hello,
I would also like to post my extreme disappointment that Sue Bradford was not chosen as the Co-leader. It is clear that she is by far the most worthy candidate for this position and that she was not chosen means that the Green Party really does lack the strength of its convictions. The weak willy wishy washy left has showed its hand. Shame.
Jennifer Purvis
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I support your sentiments Pita. Strongly agree with what you have said. The fact that the Bluepeters of this world thing this is a good thing goes to show we are walking a fine line.
I wouldn’t go as far as to call myself red, no, because I don’t agree with those fundamentals either. However I do believe in a strong social system and caring about other human beings around us, and so long as my tax dollars are going toward that cause you won’t hear me complaining.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are not a lot of personnel changes that would’ve diluted the small-g ‘green’ message more than making Bradford co-leader.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treesofthollow,
In economics, “centralised” has a specific meaning and is exemplified by Communism, with its centralised planning.
If you are going to make an economic argument then you cannot change the meaning of economic terms to mean anything you want them to mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
I enjoy his stuff.
Like this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/44535
And this:
“New Zealand’s troubled national rail operator Tranz Rail was in no danger of toppling despite ministers’ claims trains would have stopped running if the government had not taken a 35 percent stake in the operation, analysts say.
The announcement Friday that the government would prop up the railway was “another costly, unnecessary and dangerous winding back of the clock,” wrote business editor Jim Eagles in the weekend New Zealand Herald.
By pouring money into Tranz Rail, the government was making “a basic mistake,” according to Sunday Star-Times business writer Rod Oram…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can people accept that there were reasons other than s59 why people might have chosen one leader over the other? I fully support Bradford on this issue, and think that there is nothing to be ashamed of – this was absolutely the right thing and the Greens should be proud.
But there are plenty of issues to consider. As a strongly left anarchist, it would have been a very hard decision for me, and I’m glad I didn’t have to make it (being out of reach of an electorate for the moment). I don’t want to reform this system, I want a completely different system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“not supporting Sue Bradford as co-Leader ”
I think the Greens have been pretty smart by not selecting Bradford.
It surely would have been the end of the Greens electoral chances in 2011. Appealing to the far left of the Green Party, whilst calling NZ parents child abusers is an unelectable position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a strong social system and caring about other human beings around us
Metiria Turei doesn’t value these things as highly as Sue Bradford?
I think you’ll find she does. I also think Sue will continue to make effective change as a Green MP, as she always did. I’d be very surprised if Sue’s influence in the party was diminished because of Metiria’s new status.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>strongly left anarchist
You like to tell people what to do, but refuse to let anyone tell you what to do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/comment-whoarbradford-vows-to-continue-in-parliament-good-on-you-sueand-you-are-correctthe-trio-of-legislation-you-drove-through-parliamentare-indeedthe-greens-proudest-momentsbody-of-work-to-datebasi/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“as a strongly left anarchist”
For your information, anarchists are right wingers, not left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You like to tell people what to do, but refuse to let anyone tell you what to do?
No, I believe that the people should control production – not only the allocation of profit but the manner of production, and that power should be strongly decentralised so that people can make their own decisions in their communities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For your information, anarchists are right wingers
For your information, “right wing anarchism” is an oxymoron. The accumulation of value cannot happen without significant coercion. What you’re thinking of is libertarianism, which you’ll find on that door to the right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>that the people should control production
“The people” ( collective) or “people” (individual)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch,
Anarchists are individualists, not collectivists. They are grouped with libertarians and capitalists on the right. Hence the term “anarcho-capitalist.”
So, Anarchists, Libertarians and Capitalists agree with much of what appears at bureaucrash.com for example.
On the left are the statists – the Communists, Socialists and Fascists. And the Green Party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anarchists are individualists, not collectivists.
No.
Anarchists believe that people should not have others have power over them. That does not preclude organising in non-hierarchical ways – if you knew anything at all about the history of the anarchist movement you would know that it is quite common for anarchists to organise in such a manner. Of course, freedom to participate and not participate has to be involved, otherwise it is indeed a coercive and authoritarian relationship.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Anarchists believe that people should not have others have power over them
So how does that reconcile with the left, who want to tell everyone what to do, top-down stylee (poster children – Sue Bradford/Jim Anderton?)
Greeny MP tells you to stop emitting. You want to emit. Do you emit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Notice how Jim Anderton is not popular among leftists. Sue supported the minimum wage raise that many on the left campaigned on.
Sue is more popular on the left than Anderton, who is pro the invasion of Afghanistan and anti fun and drugs.
~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch,
There is all the difference in the world between the voluntary cooperation of the anarchist/capitalist right and the enforced collectivism of the left.
As you said yourself, “freedom to participate and not participate has to be involved.”
Anarchists are fundamentaly opposed and hostile to the statist/fascist Green Party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat – read about the political compass – ie
right — left vs authoritarian —- libertarian
for example someone could be leftwing and libertarian or rightwing and autoritarian or the other way around, and with variations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
that is the same as voluntary capitalism and forced capitalism. anarchists are generally hostille to authoritarianism – be it left or rightwing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greens are anti fascist BTW wat. as seen by the greens being against the national front in NZ, and the BNP in europe/the UK
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hooray for Turei!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
treeoftomorrow,
Forced collectivism – socialism, fascism, communism – is inherently authoritarian.
By contrast anarchism/libertarian/capitalism are the polar opposite, they are expressions of personal liberty based on the recognition of the sovereignty of the individual.
You can’t be a left-wing anarchist. It is a contradiction in terms.
Of course, there are plenty of people who like to call themselves anarchists. But these people are typically students and what they are actually espousing is fascism or socialism.
And by the way, there is no such thing as “forced capitalism” It’s another contradiction in terms.
- “Greens are anti fascist BTW wat. as seen by the greens being against the national front in NZ, and the BNP in europe/the UK”
They might “be against” them but their policies overlap to a remarkable degree. The economic policies of both parties are straight out of the fascist textbook, and racial theory makes up a considerable part of both their agendas. Of course the Green’s aren’t going to call themselves fascists. But if it walks like a duck…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
it might be a pelican?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
For a party to be green it must pursue an agenda which puts environment at the forefront. The party I propose is not green by ideology but green by practicality. The party should be, as pointed out by BJ at multiple points, centred around a centre pillar of survival, for without survival all other pursuits of political parties are somewhat pointless. This central pillar extends to necessitate sustainability as the most important secondary pillar in achieving this goal followed closely by social well-being, a pillar that cannot stand without a well functioning economy. Non-violence and appropriate decision making are not so much necessary from a structural point of view but can serve to lighten the load on the other two secondary pillars, these are tertiary pillars.
With survivability as the main pursuit then this party would pursue policies that benefit our survivability such as maintenance of the environment and would not pursue policies which in their pursuit or realisation ultimately take away more than they contribute towards that goal. If a policy benefits social justice but the cost to survivability is greater than the benefit then it should not be pursued. S59 is an example of this. In achieving this Realpolitik based ideal policies from both perspectives must be weighed. A policy that benefits social justice because it increases benefits and creates jobs must be weighed against the fact that that same policy necessitates a increase in tax which will ultimately hurt the economy and in doing so destroy jobs and degrade wages. Weather the party should be taking the left wing approach on this matter and increasing benefits or the right wing and decreasing tax should be based on its benefit to society, not on naïve ideology.
Natural,
Every action has a cost, as discussed above looking only from one perspective or being dedicated to one ideology can ultimately hurt the achievement of the parties goals and the utility of any achievements for the population. Of a change in benefits necessitates a change in tax the benefits must be weighed against the costs; the party at present does not do this, it is too influenced by left wing ideology to even comprehend it. I’ve had a discussion with Bradford on this matter multiple times, she shows no understanding of cost/benefit analysis, or at least her ideology blinds her to the costs of her approach and the benefits of others approaches.
TreesOfTommorow,
A politician should look to do what is best for the population, this necessitates discarding ideology and personal morals.
The progressive greens were right wing; not pragmatic.
And being pro-nuclear is a bad thing?
You were at the conference? What about the one before that?
Umm, the political compass treats left and right as a totally different scale to authoritarianism and libertarianism; they are independent.
Jockmoron,
Anyone whom thinks a collapsing economy and environment is going to work in their favour is indeed a moron. Especially when they promote an ideology that only works when there is an excess of both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am not saying these things are less important to Met, I am sure she will be a damn fine leader. I fear though that the leadership is too one sided. If people can’t see that then there’s not much I can do, but I feel a better balance might have been struck with Sue. Not to mention that someone with such parliamentary experience and such panache for getting things done across party boundaries (i.e. MP with most private members bills passed) would have been an enormous asset in our leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A better ballance being stuck by having one left wing ideolouge unable to see the flaws in her arguements and a pompous left winger whom only campeigns on environemntal issues because someone has to and he needed to increase his profile? I think meyt with her actual caring about environmental matters is a far better ballance, besides its not exactly like shes centrist by any definition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why would we want someone centrist? The Green Party is built on left-wing ideology…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Horse Puckey!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t see a need for a non violence principle (depending on how violence is defined). A degree of violence is necessary as when police pursue offenders. The general principle is that society represents (or should) the biggest and best (or close too it) and sufficient violence is required to keep those who work against the normal functioning of society in check.. War or civil war occurs when society or relationships between states break down. The “Peace Movement” is to a degree a front for the fifth column (the enemy within).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Natural,
Prehaps so the party has some legitimacy rather than just blind ideology such as seems to inform you. Meyt is very much left, that she is not so left that you consider her to be not a good thing for the left of the green party is a credit to her.
JH,
Agreed, violence is necassary, indeed it is coercion that allows society to exist in the first place. Something anarchists fail to recognise even when their own ‘anachist’ structures utilise it. Violence though should be aviouded if there is a better alternative as violence can lead to feelings of victimisation which create strife and disharmony within society; things that can only be detrimental so the wellbeing of that society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – your party (good luck by the way!) holds ‘sustainability’ as its core aim. Do you mean the sustainability of the party, that is, it will continue on until the end of politics, or do you mean the sustainbability of the environment. You can have one without the other. You’d not pursue policies that don’t contribute to that sustainability (you cite section 59) but there is room to include some actions that temporarily set you back, if you know that others will raise you back up again – do you agree?
(I’m struggling to see how the repeal of sec59 threatens environmental sustainability)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I enjoy Rod Orams analyses on RNZ. I never noticed anything that would place him too far off center.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
natural – I agree that having Sue Bradford as co-leader would have been an enormous asset .
Would you agree that having Metiria Turei as co-leader will be an enormous asset?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(I’m struggling to see how the repeal of sec59 threatens environmental sustainability)
because (a) it is based on a flawed idea that smacking leads to a slippery slope ie “culture of violence”.
(b) it represents a wrong call in so far as smacking is seen as some inferior sort of parental behaviour so that those parents must be dumb with nothing other than a Pavlovian response to bad behaviour.
(c) it’s seems to be pretty much part of a flawed ideology of the left that people of themselves do no wrong, they just respond to an oppressive unjust society.
* Ref:
Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study + good old common sense .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
I mean environmental sustainability.
Its not that i would not pursue policies that do not contribute to sustainability but that I wouldint pursue policies that have greater costs than the benefit they provide when applied to the ultimate goal of the survival, as applied to society not the party.
This allows for social and economic policies and infact necessitates them.
If the realisation or pursuit of a policy does more harm for the primary pillar than it does good then it should not be pursued. In the example of S59; S59 should not have been pursued if its pursuit or realisation created a net detriment to the primary pillar. So, if by pursung S59 we decrease our representation in parliment and shake our credibility as a green party then our ability to push other policies which better benefit the first pillar is compromised and as such, due to the next-best option forgone, we make a net loss due to its pursuit then simply we should not pursue it. So, if the costs of pursuing S59 outweigh the benefits it provides then we should not pursue it, if the benefits outweigh the costs we shoudl do it. I would suggest that the benefits were so minimal and the costs so large that we should not have pursued that policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is is a place for a environment sustainability advocate independent of Greenpeace and a Green political party. As a lobbyist of councils and governments and international gatherings of nations/UN etc – and obviously in environment RMA type matters.
But I doubt it has a future as a political party. Single interest groups do not do well in the matter of providing a representative party to run government.
The closest the environment movement can do to that is a party that believes in society sustainability – economic and social sustainability alongside their environment sustainability. Thus it would have a programme for government. But for that they will be called left wing because any focus on the collective needs in a society or in an economy is seen as socialist in right wing theory.
For that reason a group which can inter-act with all political groups as an environment sustainability lobby would be useful. But imagining it had a political future in a partisan role is counter-productive and to any useful purpose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – don’t take risks, I take you to mean?
I would suggest that the benefits were so minimal and the costs so large that we should not have pursued that policy.
How are you judging the benefits of the repeal, I wonder? From whose point of view – the party’s? The community’s? The children’s?
It does sound as though your idea, when applied to other parties, let’s say, National, would have them rejecting sound and vital environmental ideas, because their political future might be threatened because of the tendencies of their support voters – yes? That’s a very cynical view to take. I believe the repeal etc. was worthwhile because it has and will change behaviour amongst New Zealanders and it will not damage the Green Party unduely, in fact, will become a recognisable ‘green’ accomplishment in time (in the same way that anti-nuclear protests of decades ago are seen now
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>If the realisation or pursuit of a policy does more harm for the primary pillar than it does good then it should not be pursued.
Primary pillar=environmental sustainability.
.
Sounds pretty good to me. A nice utilitarian flavour too
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – I’ve reposted my statement with two words highlighted because I think you missed seeing them –
(I’m struggling to see how the repeal of sec59 threatens environmental sustainability )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
Read it again, nowhere have I stated it should be a single issue party but rather i have suggested it should take many issues but weight them respective to their ultimate benefit to survivability.
Greenfly,
Under this framework national probally wouldint survive exist as it is a party founded in ideological devide and the ignorance of the masses as they pursue their own short term benefit. or atleast their perception of that benefit.
It is sad when a child is abused and can have profound effects on the child, it is in part why i am like i am, but ultimatly people get screwed up, they get bashed, they die, its terrible but it happens. This change affects very very little, those whom bash will still bash they will just do so more carefully, my father knows how to leave no evidence, its not hard. All it means is that one or two more convictions per year will happen that wouldint otherwise, and thats on the high side. Ultimatly however it has lost us alot of support and potentially many seats. We coudl of used those seats for influence and we could of gotten passed far more environmental efforts over three years. Infact if we had left the bill untill now we would have the best of both worlds. Ultimatly when it comes to the environment those one or two convictions are worthless. That bill cost us big time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
Well there is a vacancy for an evironment lobby.
Whether there is room for two environment based parties, I am not so sure.
I suspect few voters would switch their allegiance from this Green Party to some rival until it gained 5% support on its own. Then once both existed some more might switch over, and some might learn to vote for another party and then switch to this one (as once it was no longer the environment party in a pure form but a political party taking positions on a range of policy it would divide into rival factions). Such a party would tend to attract people not comfortable with “collectivist” positions, or those less interested in traditional party politics, or the more puritan (in terms of exclusive focus on the environment – they should form an independent lobby group) environmentalists.
Good luck. But despite reservations on some policy, I will vote on as I am. I may even join the party sometime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS If the concern is how a sustainable social and economic policy undermine a larger pro Green vote (in terms of number of seats in parliament), would not competing for the larger Green vote (dividing it into 2 groups) risk exactly the same?
Personally I doubt anyone anti the Greens over S59 was ever a supporter of the Greens on social and economic policy before then either. And of those who were prepared to vote Green on the environment policy alone, did any find S59 a problem to doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
.
Im not a fan of lobby groups
Thats the thing though, there isint really even one environment based party at the moment, just a red one pretending to be green and untill the red party admits that it is only pretending to be green a real green party wont be able to arise because there is only room for one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
h – I’ve reposted my statement with two words highlighted because I think you missed seeing them -
(I’m struggling to see how the repeal of sec59 threatens environmental sustainability
…..
It doesn’t appear to be justified by any of the green charter principles (although it was claimed to be a born out of the non-violence principle) and was is piece of flawed social engineering (IMHO).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – your story sounds sad. There will be some change to the way adults in New Zealand behave toward their children as a result of the repeal of the crimes bill (section 59) and the huge awareness programme that has developed around it. There already has been in my experience (talking with others, especially those who hadn’t thought much about the issue of non-physical management of children’s behaviour).
If we had left the bill until now hmmmm…. at what point would you you like to have seen the bill put into the ballot box (you know how those work … randomly, slowly, quickly, who knows)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
Yes, I suspect that unless there was actually a split within the party one or both would be sub-critical. But if the party does form into a green party that adopts my approach and a red party which is honest about being red it does not mean that the red party cannot still be pro-environement. All those whom presently support the party would still vote for one of those groups and more would be attracted as the left group would be uncontaminated and the greens would be more pragmatic. ultimatly, if done at the correct time, it would only gain votes for the green cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some of you seem avante-garde; but maybe that is the chasm awaiting your progress.
Violence is not, ever, necessary – believe that and you are lost
Hurt people hurt people – did someone prescribe yo0u violence darling?
With correct punctuation (excuse me).
Including emotional violence, no none, not ever.
One reaches a time when going in circles is no longer good enough…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – You are adressing some other issue. I’ll leave it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Sad would be if I was illogical and emotional like everyone else.
If we had of had that extra influence we could of had the government submit it as a government bill, and thus be viewed immediatly, rather than as a members bill. if it wernt for S59 its quite possible labour would still be in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Private Member’s Bills do present a problem if you have thinking people in your party, rather than drones
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Labour did not lose on S59.
Sapient, given your criticisms of the Green Party mirror those of the political right do not expect your line of reasoning to sway those of the Green Party.
The sort of people who would join this new party are not in the current Green Party. They are not even those of the right who take this critical line of the Green Party while saying they are pro environment right wingers
themselves. How many of them would actually join an environment based party not specifically right wing is not known, but probably not many. The real target group are centrists – who would be more suited to an independent lobbying effort, rather than a new party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
Lol, I am a green party member. I have been heavily involved in the party for a number of years. There are many others in the party whom hold these views or slight modifications there of. Not all of the party is as irrational as you seem to expect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good thinking green
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
red fwogs is is dead fwog, and we know you know that
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
It is delusional to describe those who disagree with you as irrational and your opinion as the more rational one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…Someone is deluded and in this case its not me…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I dunno, it’s certainly looking like you Sapient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I will avoid the philosophical side of interpritations of reality given I have no way of not knowing im not a brain in a vat, but please do elaborate as to how I am deluded in my thinking. Most here woud agree that I am generally extremly logical to the point that it is a fault, Ive seen very little display of logic by eaither fo you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Either of you? I’m not sure what it is that we are engaging in Sapient.
In any case, I would say the majority of the party is in fact quite rational. The Green Party is one of the few on the political arena in New Zealand to actually make any sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like implementing a solar watering heating scheme that not one person in the country took up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
You ascribe being rational as one you have and label thsoe who disagree with you as irrational.
On one thread you argued that the law is the law is the law and on this thread that violence is the way of getting things done. No matter how rational you think you are asserting your position, this sort of inconsistency does not lead others to see your position as more rational than everyone elses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Quotes on this thread
“Sad would be if I was illogical and emotional like everyone else.”
“There are many others in the party whom hold these views or slight modifications there of. Not all of the party is as irrational as you seem to expect”
Here you suggest that anyone in the Green Party not agreeing with you is irrational.
“Agreed, violence is necassary, indeed it is coercion that allows society to exist in the first place. Something anarchists fail to recognise even when their own ‘anachist’ structures utilise it. Violence though should be aviouded if there is a better alternative as violence can lead to feelings of victimisation which create strife and disharmony within society; things that can only be detrimental so the wellbeing of that society.”
Here you say violence is an option, if there is no better alternative, but on another thread you argued strongly against protestors going onto a bridge and for limiting protest action to operating within the law including trespass and for there being no tolerance for protestors when the law is broken. A little inconsistent?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
LOL.
Its not that someone disagrees with me that makes them irrational but that their conclusions do not logically follow from their premises.
Force is the way of the world, nowhere have I stated that force is iligetimate, even in the thread you point to I argued just that. I did not argue that protesters should not protest or that they should not break the law but that granting exclusion from prosecution just because an individual does not agree with a law will result in consequences which are more costly to society than the benefits suposedly had through alowing such exemption. because of this if a well functioning society is desired this approach ought not be taken.
Individuals in the green party not agreeing with this approach are only irrational given they seek the same end, if they seek a different end then their opinions may be rational. Though I would suggest that for the most part they are irrational as thier stated methods do not achieve their stated goals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excellent Solar Water heating scheme – friend with 4 mites just stuck it on the morgage, saved him $600 in the first month!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So there is this coincidence going on all the time, where people who disagree with “someone” more rational than them, do not conclude based on their own premises because their thinking is irrational.
If that “someone” never identified anyone else who was disagreeing with them (being rational enough to) come to a different conclusion based on their also logical premises, then would that make them right all the time and those who disagreed wrong all of the time (or sometimes right albeit by illogical thinking).
Sapient are you “someone”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow I think the most fun aspect of this whole thread has been reading the self-righteous comments of wat dabney: “I declare that this is the case, so therefore it is, end of story”.
Some examples:
Ummmmm… reference? Oh no that’s right, you’re a walking dictionary these days.
According to who? Oh that’s right, according to YOU again. Never mind ideas of Social Anarchism. Wat dabney has spoken!
Reference? Proof? Evidence? Oh no that’s right, we must just accept the word of wat dabney. To me, Fascism sounds awfully similar to “forced capitalism.
They can actually be either. As stated above the “left-right” axis of politics is quite independent of the “authoritarian-libertarian” axis. One is related to economic matters and the other to social matters. One can be right-wing and authoritarian (like Hitler, Mussolini & Thatcher), right-wing and libertarian (like the Libertarians and how Act used to be before they sold out to the Sensible Sentencing Trust), left-wing and libertarian (like the Green Party and myself) or left-wing and authoritarian (like Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)
There are four possibilities, not two.
Seriously, you need to actually back your statements up with something more than “it is this because I say it is”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
labels are generally unhelpful
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Logic can be formulated, my arguements follow those formula. Where my arguements differ from the formula I seek to establish why and I correct my conclusions accordingly. In this way I have moved from being a leftist prehaps almost as rabid as yourself to the position I now hold. If an opponents arguements fail to follow the rules of logic and their conclusions do not follow logically from their premises they are making an illogical arguement. Your arguements are more often than not a perfect example of this.
If you seek to ensure prosperity and equality through 100% taxation then you may acheive equality in an ideal world but you will destroy any prosperity, because of this, assuming you weight those two equally, your working is illogical as your means does not meet with your desired ends, esspecially considering that the equality also wouldint be met in a real world circumstance (example drawn from communism BTW, the opposite, though still illogical, example being a pure and unregulated free market).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient you are gifted in the pursuit of logic – untrammeled by impurity, as it were; yet that is one of your special gifts. You will always attract those who would tire, rather than take you. I can sympathize with you but know this is your talent – one thinks of Baxter’s ‘one unique, left-handed saint’; – a title you would run from at all available speed (violence on the horses what?)
Philosophies aside; there ought be such a thing as a New Zealander(not,maori,euro, etc etc.)
One or any of whom has the right to foot it, wherever those bourgeios cars can go!!! eh? eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury you accuse Wat of something you your self have just done in your post.
“left-wing and libertarian (like the Green Party and myself)”
That statement makes no sense unless you have redifined the meaning of the word Libertarian. I take it Jarbury that you are also a walking dictionary just like Wat.
The political system breaks down into Communist – Capitalist on one axis and Authoritarian – Anarchist on the other axis.
Libertarians believe in free market capitalism and limited government. Calling your self a communist libertarian requires you to change the meaning of the word libertarian, You are free to use the word Liberal or even better Neo-Liberal since the word Liberal has also had its meaning changed over the years by progressive socialists.
I find it strange that anarchists beleive they can form a communist economy without any state control In fact history has only shown the opposite to be true, communism requires state force. I would love for one of the socialist – anarchists to post explaining how a socialist – anarchist society could function. How would you stop a single person from producing goods and bartering them for other goods. Even in a communist country with all its state force their still exists a black market (capitalism) for goods.
My problem with the two axis political system is that it seems to throw up some combinations that aren’t possible in the real world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also I forgot to add congrats on choosing Metiria, a much better choice than that communist Bradford.
My only problem with Metiria was one speech I watched were she was mindlessly extolling the virtues of democracy. Democracy of course has no virtues and is in its simplest form rule of the majority, there is no difference between the rule of the majority and the rule of the one.
With out a constitution limting the force of the majority the minority can always be enslaved by the will and or whim of the majority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 talks of hearing the virtues of democracy being ‘mindlessly’ extolled, but it sounds as though the message was being mindlessly received. No virtues…at all? Really? Gosh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greens take lead on disclosing MP’s expenses
Headline in today’s paper.
Good opening play Metiria. Keep front-footing it! The crest of the wave is a good place to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With out a constitution limting the force of the majority the minority can always be enslaved by the will and or whim of the majority.
Agree turnip, and I believe Metiria does too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – the Khmer Rouge didn’t think so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I type in “Greens take lead on disclosing MP’s expenses” in Google and I get this blog! Wherezit greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it true that Comrade Bradford is sulking?, is it true that she is going to resign from the party because they have done a deal with the Nat’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly, I think you’ll find this was put in the motions last week before Metiria was leader. Might be a little early to attribute these things as leadership success :p
Wat dabney on centralisation. I’d like to point out that the UK is presently one of the most centralised system of power in the world, pretty much any political text will tell you that. It operates by implementing SOME devolution but only in a very limited nature. So if centralisation and communism are the same, the UK is communist!? Wtf! How did I miss it! Its so glaringly obvious…. *facepalm*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/05/27/grannys-peculiar-approach-to-pecuniary-interests/
Is the relevant blog article with links included. As you’ll see this is pre-new leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it true Comrade Bro is p*ssed that his heartfelt desire was dashed at the weekend? Seems so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR
Southland Times
natural hi! Never to early to give praise
Met delivered the news.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it true that Comrade Bradford is sulking?, is it true that she is going to resign from the party because they have done a deal with the Nat’s.
Old lie, ParataNui, -3 three points, now on -8. Sue is entirely supportive of the MoU with the Nats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Congratulations to Meyt, I know you will do us proud. And heaps of aroha to Sue. We’re so lucky to have you both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, Valis, and I can also report that our Sue is on deck today at Parliament and ready to get back to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ahem; there he blows Fly…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The criminalisation of parents bill sunk Bradford.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve just realised that my 9.20 am comment may have done Sue a disservice.
She was actually on deck working here at Parliament at 7am. Sue really does work the most incredibly long hours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
congratulations Metiria
I may not agree with all that you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it, as a citizen, a resident and a duly elected co-leader of the party.
gud on yer gurl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – indeed he did, ol’ puff’n'blow! It’s a very difficult time for him seeing the Greens move up another notch. We’ll be gentle.
Valis – I’m embarassed for BB, quite frankly. Everthing he touches (or predictson) turns to dust. Puff!
BluePeter continues with his transparent attempts to rename Sue’s most famous bill, but it’s a shallow, transparent effort.
Sue, on the other hand, doesn’t miss a beat. He wahine toa ia!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Sue, on the other hand, doesn’t miss a beat.
Indeed, even though she has been roundly rejected by her own party, after all her hard work, years of experience, and effective cross-party efforts.
So why is that?
>>it’s a shallow, transparent effort.
Your membership knew it, too. When it came down to the wire, their voting actions spoke volumes. Bradford was unacceptable to them, and that what is the reason for that? Public hostility to s59 might have something to do with it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe people going for young, fresh faces because they’re bored of the others isn’t exclusive to the public at large?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Amercicanization of New Zealand politics. Led by, of all people, the Greens.
Celebrity billboards, vacuous marketing electoral campaigns, personality before all else, etc…
Who’d have thunk.
Still, hats off to ‘em. They’re doing everything they need to do to get out from under Labours shadow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was using the words defined on http://www.politicalcompass.org
Personally I think “Liberal” should be at the other end to authoritarian. Libertarian is quite clearly an extreme right-wing liberal, while extreme left-wing liberal is something else (perhaps something like social anarchism).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Agreed, violence is necassary, indeed it is coercion that allows society to exist in the first place. Something anarchists fail to recognise even when their own ‘anachist’ structures utilise it.”
Obviously anarchists “fail to recognise” the need for violence and coercion, since the whole point of the anarchist project is to reject such things as a mode for social organisation. Anarchists have huge debates about the use of violence, which usually come down to debating the nature of self-defence, though some, the pacifists, would reject violence even in those circumstances. What I don’t get is how those who claim to be opposed to violence while building social structures that depend on it.
“I would love for one of the socialist – anarchists to post explaining how a socialist – anarchist society could function. How would you stop a single person from producing goods and bartering them for other goods.”
Quite simple – you don’t. If people want to opt out of collective arrangements and pursue individualism you let them go for it and sink or swim as it happens. The great experiment with rural anarchism in Aragon in the ’30s did just that, unfortunately it was, as usual, crushed by violence (led by the Communist Party in this case) before we could see how things would pan out. What you don’t do is let people pursue individual profit, then demand the benefits of the collective, as happens at present with the so-called ‘free-market’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, yeah – arguments about whether something is ‘left’ or ‘right’ is a bit like arguing whether something is blue or orange, never admitting that it could possibly be turquoise or maroon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And a very Merry Christmas to Metiria!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – your efforts to stir up discontent make you sound like a malcontent. Has the recent show of nous by the Greens given you the willies? You are firing off as though a spark has fallen into your box of fireworks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like what? All i can think of that a hypothetical individualist would want from the collective – off the top of my head – is defence, justice and policing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly on ignore until he is capable of addressing the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Point! I’m addressing you!
It has unsettled you Blue, the success of the ‘celebrity endorsements’, Russel’s sparky campaign in Mt Albert, the selection of an energetic and capable co-leader and the enormous success the Greens have enjoyed through the budget, and why wouldn’t it? You’ve been preaching doom and gloom for so long, it hurts your eyes to see the light.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You haven’t been paying attention, Greenfly.
Bradford had more parliamentary experience. More leadership experience. Has been praised by the Green Party endlessly. Has been a very effective MP, winning Backbencher Of The Year, and has got more bills passed than most other MPs. By all substantive measures that *should* have counted, Bradford should have been leader.
But who did the Green Party choose?
The young Maori person (right on!), who doesn’t have baggage, and looks good on the telly. Style won over substance, in other words. I’m sure she has substance also, but besides Bradford, her track record is minimal.
You know it’s true. I’m just curious as to why you’re trying to gloss-over the patently obvious?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter now says: Style won over substance
whereas earlier he claimed Sue’s ‘protection of children’ bill was the significant factor in the election of co-leader.
It’s sometimes difficult to know if you are suffering from poor or just selective memory Blue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And I’m terribly, terribly sorry Blue, that we didn’t chose the candidate that you feel should have won. Why the Greens insist on going against your sage advice, I’ll never know!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>he claimed Sue’s ‘protection of children’ bill
Hasn’t protected any children. They’re still being beaten to death each month in South Auckland.
>>was the significant factor in the election of co-leader.
Consider by point about baggage, Greenfly.
>>And I’m terribly, terribly sorry Blue, that we didn’t chose the candidate that you feel should have won.
Oh, I think the Greens made a very sensible choice. Braford is electoral poison, because she isn’t suitable for personality-driven marketing, which is, after all, what power in these times is all about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The criminalisation of parents bill sunk Bradford.
The Party very largely supports the repeal of s59 for the purposes of correction, so it’s just ignorant to claim this was the defining issue. Not that I’d expect someone from outside to be able to comment in an informed manner, but it would be great if people didn’t pretend otherwise.
In fact, I believe there is no single issue that made the difference. Both MPs are hugely valued by the Party which is shown by the fact that they are ranked 3rd and 4th on the current list behind only Jeanette and Russel. Sue and Meyt presented members with a very different set of attributes. But one had to be chosen and from my discussions with members, the decision was made very much for positive reasons, not negative ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the decision was made very much for positive reasons
Which were?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can kinda understand why Sue feels so angry, given that she worked hard to get Red Russ elected on the promise that the favour would be returned when it came time for a new female leader.
I bet this whole thing has put a smile on Nandoor’s face.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can’t believe it didn’t occur to me to ask a Green what the reasons were FOR Turei! *forehead slap*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
c’mon fly..much as it pains me to agree with blue peter..
..it was a choice of style/’image’..over substance..
..by any measure..how could it not be..?
..but esp.in the area of legislative success..
..sue got three ‘difficult’ bills through to legislation..
..metiria had one ‘difficult’ bill..her medical marijuana bill..
..on which she did..diddly-squat..achieved absolutely nothing..
(she didn’t want to get her hands ‘dirty’.. eh..?..)
..and ..by her inaction..showed she lacked/lacks that political courage that sue has in buckets….
..and the arguments for metiria in the party were largely on that image/style axis..
..i mean..i wish her well in the job..and what’s done is done..
..but let’s not be too hasty to rewrite what is the history/facts..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Comrade Bro’s been reading PhilU ! Whoooooooooooooooooooooo!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ahhhh Phil..fresh from being ‘read’ by Big Bro eh..
..Oh.. I think the Greens made a very sensible choice…blue peter ..
..hats off to them..blue peter..
..I’ve not said I don’t agree with his opinions..
..just challenging his harping-on about..
.. something he describes as..
..patently obvious..
..ne ra?..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
c’mon fly..don’t lurch into kiwiblog-response territory..
..refute what i say..
point by point..
(tho’..ahem..!..i am obviously blushing over big bros’ admission he is a whoarite..)
..i guess in summary..my concerns are that metiria saw/sees the green party/movement as a vehicle for personal advancement..
..(cf..her inaction on medical cannabis/’no dirty hands’..)
..wheras sue is there cos’ of the fire in her belly..that has been there forever..
..and which saw her go out and fight for those most ‘difficult’ of issues..
..whereas metiria..?..)
..and y’know..
..law student pranks as an ‘anarchist’..and getting yr puppies out on k’rd..
..are really just that..eh..?
..and are hardly ‘revolutionary’ in any way..
..the green party has chosen a candidate who has yet to ‘prove’ herself..
..over one who had that in spades..
….and what grinds my gears..somewhat..
..is that the green party has turned their back on a political operator par excellence..
..who has already proven her ability to work with parties of all legislative stripes..
..once again..where is that substance from metiria..?
..as a political party leader..
..sue would have had the platform to argue/articulate the causes with the passion she has..
.(.to date i have seen no such passion/committment from metiria..)
..it would have been the classy thing to do..
..for metiria to withdraw from the race in sues’ favour..
..and to spend some years learning at her feet..
..i fear the green party has been the vehicle for her personal ambitions..
..and that has been her game-plan all along..
..and there is nothing wrong with ambition..
..but i think in this case..
..those 200 people in dunedin were dazzled by that style..
..cos’ they weren’t voting on substance..
..eh..?
..and this is their loss..
..really..
(and i’m picking more that a few greens will..upon reflection..
..be wondering if they have done a doh!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow, BluePeter you are making absolute sense, I don’t think I’ll utter that ever again. I too feel it is awful for the Party to leave an MP out to dry over a Bill that in 2001 it was stated by the Green party that they were in full support of the vision of repeal. Sue put herself out there to an extreme degree, receiving death threats amongst others. And then when it comes to public perception we cringe and back away. Or is she just the one the Green Party send out when they have some unsavoury work to do?
The Americanisation of politics is another factor. The amount of people who said lets face it Met just looks better during the meetings was embarrassing. I expect this speak from Nats and Labourites, the same people who for years attacked Helen Clark over her appearance. But I didn’t expect it from a Party which should be above such chauvinistic attitudes. Sue is a wonderful woman and she has immense aroha for the Party and for New Zealand.
Though again, its a shame that some of these factors overshadowed the election, and I continue to wish Met all the best, and I trust the Green charter will be present in her mind through all her decision making.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – Sue’s work as a Green MP (not as a co-leader) is extraordinary and she is all of the things you describe – powerful, a political operator par excellence..has it in spades etc. Will she be any the less powerful now? Do you see her as a shrinking violet? Will she dissapear into Metiria’s shadow? Not likely! Would the spotlight of co-leadership hinder her abilities? Will Metiria bloom into being a formidable orator, manager of diverse groups etc. now that she is in the position? There were a lot of things to consider before the election of co-leader and I’m betting those and many other aspects were painstakingly addressed. Your and Blue’s dissection of why the result was what it was shows your own bias clearly, but misses the ‘elephant in the room’ – the result. Those 200 people in dunedin, dazzled? You don’t have much faith Phil, in your fellow Greens. If they did find Metiria ‘dazzling’, that’s something she could use to great advantage on the wider political stage. I’ve no objection to Metiria ‘dazzling’ the whole country.
As to Blue, he’s attempting to foment mischief, and it’s fun to foment back!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Political compass hey?
havint done that for years, used to be more left and substantially more libertarian than Ganhdi, now im as libertarian as friedman and almost as right as labour, lol. So apparently Ive become substantially more right-wing as I have learnt more and reflected on the effects of policy and the practicality of that policy. There is a substantial decrease in my libertarian rating also, which is interesting.
I bet I know Naturals rating:
lol
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Go on sapient, do us all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Clearly Sapient. Thanks. Naivety isn’t what drives my beliefs believe me. But if its easier for you to personally attack me than it is to actually make some sense…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Met is on Radio live right now telling lies about her stance on legalising dope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
PhilU
BB and BP
Valis
BJ
Keven and Kjuv,
JH
StephenR,
Wat
Turnip
SPC
Mark
Katie
Toad
I think ive now managed to insult pretty much everyone
. Its not easy putting heuristics into words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think i just committed blog suicide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is anyone else totally sick of ellipsis?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well! I’m going to my room! Stamp, stamp, stamp!
Nah! Brilliant assessments Sapient. Have no fear, your place here is assured.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I often fail to differentiate the two.
I’m the handsome one….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient -
I was playing elsewhere;
somewhere, the Sociology professor who isn’t supervising my MA is laughing, while the two Gender & Women’s Studies supervisors are completely wetting themselves, as I am vociferously not in agreement with most of the big names in Po-Mo, including the feminists.
So close, but yet so far.
I may go down in history as a researcher who pushed the boundaries of historical thesis, if my eventual output gets published. Meanwhile, I’m baiting the right, defending the women & children, and radically altering the landscape whenever I get an opportunity.
Thank you for playing. Normal transmission will now resume.
Don’t give up the day job, but equally, put down that noose
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey, it’s not Sapient’s fault that you practically need to write an essay to accurately typify someone even tangentially involved in feminist pursuits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
We disolved ours, merged it with anthropology. I took a paper that I thought was about ‘the cultural construction of gender and sexuality’, the title even said as much, turned out to be just ‘men are evil’, a awful lot of Solanas readings too. Atleast that feminist lecturer wasint like the ones we have in psychology though, weighed things based on the arguement, even gave me top marks for arguing that the feminist opposition to female circumcison is nothing more than ethnocentric imperialism that actually causes detriment to its supposed aims. Like much of the feminist movement.
lol, fair enough.
Though almost all of your arguements do display viewpoints that seem strongly informed by feminist theory.
Sociology is only one step up from anthropology though; better but not by much. Our school of psychology would seem to be easily divided between the positivists/post-positivists like myself and the feminist/activist social scientists. I find it amusing. There is one paper that is marked by every feminist lecturer we have in the department; the scores are normally the inverse of a persons marks in all other papers. It doesint matter how much you back your statements up, their unfounded statements are always correct. Suffice to say i have a healthy disrespect for such theorists. Ironic prehaps that most of my social analysis is informed from my study of sociology under decidedly feminist and other activist/critical social ‘sciences’.
Isint it general practice to only have one supervisor on a masters thesis? Gender and womens studies is interesting but it hardly justifies its own department or even its own paper.
I do love ranting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Met is on Radio live right now telling lies about her stance on legalising dope.
Details ParataNui, or just more blow?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hooray for Turei! TV3 News, calling for transparency in MP’s spending. That’s the way to do it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Curiously, I now know where you are, Sapient, as I hunted for a supervisor on your campus & discovered that Anthropology and English Litt had split & hoovered up the G & W dept there … I spoke to someone from Pol Sci instead, may I recommend her papers in political feminism to you instead of anthropology?!
I have two co-supervisors because our G & W School has had staff & resources cut, so that only one teacher handles the 4 papers we have left on the curriculum, and the other handles the post-grad’s, with a small gap between them where admin tasks fall into a black hole; co-supervision allows for a slightly higher likelihood of actually tracking one of them down at any time.
Oh, and our accom was shifted to Karori campus, while all classes are still taught at Kelburn campus. Misogyny from the faculty, much?
Currently a large chunk of PhD’s going thru, and my MA.
We punch above our weight for social science research, but we’re fighting amalgamation with Ed Fac (no good reason why, they just want us unidentifiable) It’s been a stand-alone school for nearly a decade, and was Phillida Bunkle’s home before she went to Parliament with the Alliance.
And Ari – you’ll keep!
Those who know me will smirk as you get cornered for a discussion on the ethics of feminism some wintry evening at the Sthn Cross…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whether I am sick of ellipsis or not, they are usually more meaningful than the words most people would put in their place.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro…
If I were put in charge dope would be legalized already. I am not sure but that wouldn’t be the very first thing on my agenda. The eduction of “oxygen-supply” to sustain the gangs, the resulting drop in crime and with a little extra work, the de-glamourization of the criminal lifestyle, would all benefit the society more even than the tax alterations around housing investments.
A difficult choice (which to be first ), given that I expect that I’d be assassinated before I reached even the 5th item on my little list. (Number 2 alters the currency – I might not get to 3 ).
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
What is the paper number?
Prehaps not so much mysogyny as beurocracy.
Thats a rather small staffing, though i spose that unlike psychology G&W studies would be like all the other humanities and generate no profit at all. So in a way it would be justified. I quite like PhD comics, the humanities trial is amusing; http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1171 . Of the anthropology, sociology, G&W papers ive read you find something that actually contributes something less often than you find a natural pearl in a clam. Those rare ones do provide significant utility though. Prehaps the only role of those studies in anyway related to science is to provide interesting tidbits for psychologists to study. Positivisits that is; cause if you dont follow the scientific meathod your not a science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is not unheard of to see inanimate objects “speaking” the ellipsis.
I’ve seen that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting discussion between katie and sapient.
After you both qualify, what will you be doing in regards employment?
Are you both going back as proffesors/teachers or is there an opportunity after your studies in private enterprise?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit,
Well I hope to take up a research posistion after my PhD and to slowly study for a graduate diploma in Applied Economics with what time I have left. It would then be possible for me to do a Postgraduate diploma and masters by thesis only in Economics if I so desire. That would open up many many employment opportunities for work if I so desred, though I think I would much prefer work as an academic. With my PhD if I needed employment outside of academia it would only take me one year of internship before I was a fully qualified clinical psychologist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All the little people in my head agree that nobody really understands them…
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, I suspect whether students, fellow academics or patients, you will be left identifying some lack in their line of rational thought …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
Would prefer to see you work in the employment where you were a tax payer not a tax recipient.
We need all the tax payers we can find.
Well done with your studies, even though a engineer like me understands very little of what you are studying.
Bit like BJ I guess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘fly is a bit Kiwiblog-ish, but ‘thar she blows’ etc is pretty damn funny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly is tame compared to those on Kiwiblog. Its bigbro that is Kiwiblog-ish; greenfly is just reacting to such a beast being in our midst, as have I. Bloggers with a reasonable approach and healthy level of respect for others do not generally get such treatment on FrogBlog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tame! You should see me when my dander’s up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, I said “ish” for a reason. Meh.
“dander”?
Must be an old fly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nah. Just a fly with dander worth noting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well I don’t hang out over there, but people who engage the way bb and d4j do should expect some blow back and what they get from the likes of us is pretty reasonable by most standards I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree Valis. Sapient doesn’t find it funny, but it’s great theatre. I’m winding it back though and focusing on being brainy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit said:
“Would prefer to see you work in the employment where you were a tax payer not a tax recipient.
We need all the tax payers we can find.”
I couldn’t agree more. But the likes of BluePeter think that they don’t need to pay their share of anything, or take responsibility for anything, because their share doesn’t really add up to much and doesn’t make a “blind” bit of difference in the long run.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually my very first degree was Psychology (minor Philosophy)… which was absolutely wonderful non-preparation for the job I went directly into (Naval Officer) – but I had aced Navigation and Naval Engineering in the meantime
So little we know of ourselves when we first go to school that it is a wonder that any of the education we get then is used at all.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
Yeah, people frustrate me, thus one more reason why I chose research over clinical.
Engineering is actually my largest preference for further, while in work, study after my doctorate. Though applied economics would be more useful and easier to step into from my present degree. I could do a grad diploma in engineering in just over a year part time after my present degree but I feel its a degree one would really have to study full time and over the full four year period. Any comment Gerrit and BJ?
Its true about finding yourself though, I was still considering clinical this year, and my present degree started out as a politics major. Though im sure most here would not be terribly happy if i ever did enter politics
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trev’s run her thru the sieve but hasn’t come up with much.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Congratulations, the Greens have made all the right moves and the feedback we are getting locally is very positive…keep up the great work guys !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
I wouldn’t advise trying to “get” Engineering in less than 2 years of study and you’d have to be pretty confident of your maths to do that. I think most people would take 2.5 to 3. I did Mechanical Engineering in 2 years and my Computer Science Masters in 1 a full decade after the Psych degree. It hurt. I LIKED it but it hurt anyway
OTOH, it is damned good to be able to write and the Psych background gave me a decent command of the language and understanding of the need to tailor words to get the desired effect rather than just shouting louder and being more violently misunderstood.
Most people don’t write or argue well.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ-
I now understand where your elegance of phrase has come from.
Puts that conundrum to rest!
Sapient -
I’ll have to rustle through a pile of old papers to find the prospectus from last year to quote you Jennifer Curtains’s papers – or you could look it up yourself, I’m not sure if she’s teaching the same set this year. I seem to recall it was Hons (400) level that piqued my interest, not an undergrad paper.
Might have been something about feminism in law; she adjudicated a debsoc debate on the prostitution law while I was there, which was entertaining.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Katie,
. Thats not ment to be offensive BTW .
I had a look through all the anthropology, politics and socio papers and couldint find one that matched the criteria before I posted the reply. Assuming you have the name right there appears to be noone of that name on my campus, atleast going by a quick search of the site. What uni was it you thought I was at?
Im sure Ive given enough information on this site that anyone reading even two peices of it could of worked it out without needing to know such detailed information as the departments. Infact ive probally provided enough information that my identity can be traced by atleast five different routes
BJ,
yeah, my pursuit of engineering would mostly be out of interest and most likely while working, so in all likelyhood it would take me about 5 years
I have many friends that are engineers but they all ahve done only engineering; is the degree worth doing as a interest degree? does it provide new insight compared to that gained through the others? new skills?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)