by frog
Saying bye-bye to the by-election. What’s next? What do the results tell us?
The All Blacks are soundly defeated by the French in Dunedin.
Pandemic will stay in the news for at least 24 months – Ryall.
Published in THE GAME by frog on Sun, June 14th, 2009
Tags: general debate
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The Water Wars are well advanced. The greens are in the perfect place to lead. Russel and Metiria have both done the ground-work and can speak confidently on the issue. I think this is the issue of greatest import and that the Greens should pull out the stops. The ODT editorial is a good one.
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/60796/rationing-water
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
LONDON, UK — Energy efficiency and other green issues have moved to last place among the concerns of U.K. firms seeking rental office space in Central London amid challenging economic times, according to a study commissioned by property consultancy Knight Frank.
I contend that environmental concerns are considered a luxury item by all but the faithful, and can only flourish in prosperous economic times.
Greens should think twice before attempting to undermine New Zealands economic performance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
given the high profile/media attention..
it was a bloody disappointing result..
..why..?..i dunno..!
..norman performed the best of all the candidates..
..and by a country mile..
..and there is no escaping the fact it is quite depressing to note ..
..that so many low-income people..
..who labour shafted/did s.f.a. for for nine years..
..still line up like sheep…
..and vote for more of the same..
irredeemably dumb..?..or is politics just tribal..?
..but hey..!..spare a thought/schadenfreude for dunnys’ lot..united future/whatever..eh..?
..they were beaten 85-82 by the aotearoa legalise cannabis party…
..dunnes’ party got 82 votes..
..and he sits in cabinet..
..whoar..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the sage advice Peter, though you’re late to the party. The Greens have indeed thunk twice, as you know, from reading the Green New Deal. You may contend that ‘environmental concerns are considered a luxury item … and can only flourish in prosperous economic times’ but that in no way lessens the need to address the issues that give rise to those concerns. The fact that ‘all but the faithful’ dismiss them during difficult economic times should be reason for you to be concerned, not jubilant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>..they were beaten 85-82 by the aotearoa legalise cannabis party…
Certainly an election high point
>>..norman performed the best of all the candidates..
Meh. Came across as pretty grey, just like all the rest, except Lee, who came across as “not waving, but drowning”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought John Boscawen was representative of his party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He wore it well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So do you contend BP, that the environment is somehow separate from the economy? That the economy does not from a subset of the larger environment? What have you been smoking? Toxic waste?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The global temperature doesn’t give two hoots if we tax our emissions.
But people do…
And people do the voting….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hmm, and the Petrol Boondogle doesn’t effect the economy/environment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – to clarify – are your concerns with the future of the Green party or with the future of the planet? You seem to be suggesting that a political party should do those things that will keep them in power and damn the torpedoes. The Greens, it seems to me, have a more valid approach than the one you are suggesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stronger economies typically have higher environmental standards. Poor economies have poor environment standards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
typically, the countries with the worst environmental standards are those that put economic growth ahead of everything else, eg. China, Mexico, Greece, and many of the Eastern European states during the Communist era.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The fact that ‘all but the faithful’ dismiss them during difficult economic times should be reason for you to be concerned, not jubilant.”
The fact that the “green” party did not take advantage of the most boyant economic times in a generation is more concerning.
Rather than win the trust of the nation with sold policy on sustainability and appealing to common sense, you go on a progressive socialist crusade and start banning everything from light bulbs to pies.
If the future of our environment is of primary importance, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU DOING!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter,
Stronger economies still have higher emissions than poorer economies – despite higher environmental standards, absolute and on a per capita basis.
What – in your opinion – went wrong in the US? As the strongest economy in the world by far for decades, it should be an environmental wonderland. Based on numerous visits to the US, I can wholeheartedly proclaim: it isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I really hope the Greens take on board lessons from the Labour election machine. A thorough review of all the things that were done well, done badly, and could have been done differently needs to occur, and lessons taken from it for the 2011 election. I don’t ever want to see the Greens hovering between 5.3 and 6.7 again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The way to raise your results is to base your policies/campaigning around environmental and sustainability issues. Just put the social/socialist stuff away on the back burner for a while, better still dump it.
Also when I hear Metiria saying…. if Russel gets in we will get another Maori into parliament… I want to scream!
Who gives a f**k what race the next candidate is?
Racists do, that’s who.
Was she espousing the environmental credentials of the next candidate? No she was pushing her racial agenda. Why?
While I’m on a roll.. What’s with the anti-National goading and the pro-labour BS?
I thought you wanted to work WITH the government.
Me, I’m not pro National, Labour or The Greens. I’m pro environment and sustainability, I don’t care who does it as long as it’s done (well).
Are you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch – while taking on board lessons from the Labour Election Machine sounds a good idea, knocking on every door in the electorate, three times over, might prove difficult for even a well-oiled Green Machine! I think the coverage Russel received nationally, from the by-election was well worth the investment. You weren’t expecting him to take the seat, were you? The bottom line for a candidate in a by-election, according to the commentators I’ve listened to, is zero-bumble. Russel passed with flying colours (and those colours were green!)
Samiam – if there were no Maori at all in Parliament, would you feel in any way that there ought to be, and wonder whether there might be something in the system that works against them? Hypothetical I know, but, would you (or would you put the responsibility on Maori themselves)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Based on numerous visits to the US, I can wholeheartedly proclaim: it isn’t.
A lot better than Russia and China.
Tell me – do you think the US environment will be better or worse if they have the same financial problems Russia did?
>>if Russel gets in we will get another Maori into parliament
More racist crap. We don’t need one more Maori in parliament, we need people of ANY skin colour who can DO THE JOB, be they Maori or otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – and if DO THE JOB entails understanding and representing faithfully a particular group of people, then who would be best qualified to represent them – a politically astute outsider, or one of their own, raised and trained in the subtleties of that particular culture? Hmmm..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Was she espousing the environmental credentials of the next candidate? No she was pushing her racial agenda. Why?
I suspose that it would be acceptable for Phil Goff to get excited about getting another white, middle class male into parliament?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Prehaps not the best example.
A sageous individual would be able to serve all of those whom voted for them far better than a niche candidate such as the insider you promote, even if in a maori seat. If the individual was really astute then not only would they be a wise choice as a member but they would be able to do what was best for both the nation and any minority. The subtilties could easily be overcome by a cultural advisor, a submissions option, or lobby groups and chances are it would be done far better. Parliment should be a meritocracy looking to benefit all of NZ not a group of lobbiests fighting to benefit their own little niches at the cost of the whole, an effort which ultimatly disadvantages not only the whole but thevery niche they seek to benefit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – your ‘sageous individual’ might seem the best option to you, but the group he/she ‘represents’ might not believe so. Having a cultural advisor at his/her shoulder sounds fine, but could be regarded as a loss of mana by many cultural groups, who might overtly support the arrangement, but covertly hold reservations.
Any reason why you didn’t portray your ‘niche candidate’ as a sagaceous individual?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Sapient – your ’sageous individual’ might seem the best option to you, but the group he/she ‘represents’ might not believe so. Having a cultural advisor at his/her shoulder sounds fine, but could be regarded as a loss of mana by many cultural groups,”
So the left are promoting a culture of racism. I’m glad the Maori party had the wisdom to see through this charade and tell you all to p@ss off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
The reason I do not present the insider as sageous is due to how you presented the selections;
This suggests that the second is not astute as if the second were then the entire question would be a moot point. I say sageous as I presume that is the meaning to which you are drawing, but even if you mean the other meaning the point still stands that the individual would be far more effective in the role.
Any cultural group that would think like that is discriminating based on group membership. I acknowledge that in this case there would be advantages to having a in-group member, but on (you) must also consider that in this, considering that this cultrual group is defined by lineage, you are actually arguing that racism is justifiyable, lol.
My arguement here is that while the in-group member would have more mana with the group and may have more understanding this does not necacarily mean that thr group is in any way benefited, infact if one considers the costs of the next best option forgone then the choice is strongly detrimental to both society and the group itself. Though ultimatly it is up to the group to decide if they want a feel-good factor or actual progress. From a utilitarian point of view it is absolutly stupid from the cultural groups side and it only good from the governing side because it keeps the minority at bay. Promoting inferior candidates due to ethnic concerns costs us except where there are large benefits to social order because of it, whhich are absent in this instance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – how you drew that ‘one of their own, raised and trained in the subtleties..’ precludes them being astute, I cannot see! I ought to have declared that they two hypothetical figures were equally astute, I suppose, then, as you say, the point would be moot, although the advantage would then be with the ‘one of their own’ as astuteness can be trumped by degrees of knowledge.
It’s not the ‘feel good factor’ I’m promoting here. Enormous gains can be made where a group feels that justice has been served. I wonder too, by what do you measure ‘actual progress’. Whose ‘ruler’ are you using?
I’m not calling for ‘inferior candidates’ here. I’m still following up on ‘heuristics’ and believe that such an approach relies of sound information and experience in, before good judgement goes out. A breast-feeding mother has something over a dry-dugged brain-box, however astute he might be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP is, once again, right and wrong at the same time.
Short term, chosing to prioritise things over the environment can often be seen to make sense on paper.
Over the longer term though, ask a GM shareholder how good an idea it was to prioritise getting the environmental targets changed over making more fuel efficient cars.
You could be forgiven for thinking that there is some karma mechnism at work…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But Greenfly isn’t the Green party’s job to promote green issues? Promoting brown issues is for the brown party.
That’s not to say that brown issues aren’t important to Greenz or that green issues aren’t important to the Maori party, but when Met promotes the race of the next candidate as a/the reason to vote for Russ, then I seriously question her commitment to green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Looking from the point of a objective observer looking at whom would be best for the job the cone with the cultural knowledge and connections would ovbiously be desirable if all other things we equal, i dont think anyone here would debate that. But if they were less astute then they would provide a net cost if those cultural connections did not exceed the costs fo them being less astute. If you can see where I am coming from.
The feeling that justice is done is exactly what I mean by the “feel good factor”. In the majority of cases I would say the if a cultural candidate is selected primarily on that basis then justic is actually perverted as the population and the cultural group are likely harmed.
Saying “there will be another maori” would also suggest that that is their primary quality. Otherwise it would be better to say “a vastly talented and knowledgable candidate with decades of experiance in X and, as a involved member of the maori community, a strong connection with maori culture and customs”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No cone-heads allowed, I’m sorry!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiam – of course. I shouldn’t have broached this topic – truth to tell, I didn’t hear/see Metiria’s outrageous race promotion. Can you point me to where this disgrace took place? (It surely wasn’t an aside or inconsequential comment was it? I’d be dissapointed to find that this is a beat-up over some off-hand comment). You do seem pretty reactive here – ‘seriously questioning’ Metiria’s committment to ‘green’ because she said she’d like to see another Maori in Parliament. I’d like to see another Maori in Parliament, yet I’m pretty green, I reckon! Have I lost my standing now, in your eyes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam said: But Greenfly isn’t the Green party’s job to promote green issues?
Samiam, the Green Party’s job (ie that of its MPs and paid staff) is to promote the policies developed (uniquely, among political parties) by its members.
Sure, MPs can decide what policies are best to actively promote in the context of the current political environment, but the MPs don’t make the policy. It is made by the members and the MPs are bound to support it.
That’s democracy. It may cost the Greens votes, but at least they are the only party that has an democratic internal policy-making process.
The other parties just make it up on the basis of what may be politically expedient at the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – your “ vastly talented and knowledgable candidate with decades of experiance in X and, as a involved member of the maori community, a strong connection with maori culture and customs”
sounds like a Maori to me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Going by my description it pretty much has to be maori. lol. But excluding the maori culture part the candidate could equally be from any ethnicity.
My point with that description is that it seems like the ethnicity is being treated as the greatist asset which would seem to imply a relative absence of any notable skills.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Te Karere and I didn’t just hear it once either.
She didn’t say that she’d like to see another maori in parliament. She stated that the best thing about Russ getting in would be that the next candidate is a Maori.
Even on a maori news show I’d like to see her promoting the next candidates greenness not their brownness.
Believe me this rant is not an issue of my being pro or anti anyone’s race. I am concerned that by promoting someone’s race Met does the Green party a disservice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Samiam, the Green Party’s job (ie that of its MPs and paid staff) is to promote the policies developed (uniquely, among political parties) by its members.”
Then change the name of the party to the progressive socialist party, cause clearly those are the issues most pressing for your membership.
Then maybe a true “green” party can take the rightful title and pursue a trully sustainable future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s it, in a nutshell, Shunda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiam – I heard John Key speaking to the Association of Woodwork Teachers of Aotearoa and he said that his greatest satisfaction as Leader of the National Government comes from having Gerry Brownlee in his caucus. I lost all respect for him there and then!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is it you hate about big Gerry so much greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, you been buzzing around the ceiling too much again and smacked into the light?
WTF has Key/Brownlee got to do with any of this?
Stop mentioning Brownlee, I think I’m feeling nauseous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“WTF has Key/Brownlee got to do with any of this?”
samiam, greenfly is avoiding the “redness” of our questions.
I rekon greenfly is probably a true greenie with some very good ideas on sustainability, he is also fiercely loyal to his party and can’t bring himself to criticise it in any way or form.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Sam, my analogy was too obscure it would seem. I was equating Te Karere and the WWAOA (and it was ficticious)
Shunda – that ‘redness’ of yours .. there are good creams you could try, but I suggest you stop rubbing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tell me greenfly, who should some one like myself who is in effect a “greenie” but is no fan of progessive socialism, vote for?
Do I need a batch of this special salve you speak of?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Green Party.
Yes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Is a doctor a better person to evaluate a person “possesed by a demon” or is her own family, who “specialize” in drowning people with water torture?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The implication is that I cannot be represented by a gay Asian woman in her 50′s.
Of course I can. It depends what she says, and depends what she does.
Identity politics is pure garbage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter. If the doctor was a family member, you’d be on to something.
Reading your posts, I’m convinced that a gay Asian woman in her 50′s would represent you perfectly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yea, I’ve never understood why people ever thought a Parliament full of only rich white guys was a bad thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
See, you just can’t face the issues you bring up. You evade with a “joke”.
The reality is that you don’t need to be a member of a group to act for that group. Think lawyers. In fact, as can be seen on this blog, being a member of the Greens seems to blind people to reality. 10% in the election. Russel winning Mt Albert. Labour won’t treat us badly this time. etc, etc.
I don’t need to be represented by a white, self-made male, ex-working class, in his 40s. I voted for a younger woman in her 30s. She does a great job representing me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Parliament full of only rich white guys was a bad thing.
No, that’s identity politics nonsense again.
If they are the best people to represent NZ, so be it. If it happens to be 100% Maori women, and they put us back at the top of the OECD, I’d vote for them, over the rich white guys, everytime.
It’s not about who you are or what you say. The only thing that matters is what you do.
You clearly don’t believe this, as you didn’t elect Bradford as co-leader.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – your question begged a flippancy.
Here you say
The reality is that you don’t need to be a member of a group to act for that group.
That’s true. Why state that? My contention was that it’s likely that a person with the closest experience to those wishing to represented could well be the best representitive. A breast-feeding Mum will know something more than a male lawyer with little experience of breast-feeding.
btw – Valis’ rich white guys aren’t the best people to represent NZ.
Your belief that they are is misguided and quite sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, I though my flippancy would be obvious enough, greenfly.
You clearly don’t believe this, as you didn’t elect Bradford as co-leader.
I don’t understand what this means, BP. However, I would say, as with so many other situations, that this is not a black and white question. Of course, it is possible for people of one background to represent people of another. And of course it is often easier for someone of the same background to represent people similar to them. Peoples sentiments and votes will go with whom ever they see can do the best job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Green Party.
Yes.”
There’s a new green party! how exciting!
Where do I purchase the salve from and what is it called.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
As to whom should be in the job; the person that should get the job is the person whom will best benefit NZ, representiveness has bu^&er all to do with it. Unfortunatly we are in a democracy, and the sad thing about that is that people vote not for whom will best benefit NZ but for whom they think will most benefit themselves. Even more unfortunate is when people vote not even on that but on the person most like themselves. Atleast with voting for whom yu think will most benefit you there is some sort of meritocratic selection, even if it is poor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient politics in NZ is like a see saw, its not very complicated, left goes up… right goes down.
People are fundamentally stupid like you say, the only way to really vote properly is to try and balance the two extreme’s. The problem is those on the hard left or right seem to think the answer is to exterminate the opposing wing. Sadly, history tells us what happens when they manage to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>My contention was that it’s likely that a person with the closest experience to those wishing to represented could well be the best representitive.
They could, or they could not. They might be hopelessly ineffective, self-interested, or “demon flushers”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>You clearly don’t believe this, as you didn’t elect Bradford as co-leader.
I don’t understand what this means, BP
Sue is more experienced and has achieved more.
Remind me why Turei was chosen, relative to Sue, again? Experience? List of achievements?
Something to do with who you are, rather than what you do, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It will be different for different people. Trying to make it out to be a single black/white reason will help you understand nothing. Since both choices could be said to represent, in the sense of identity, a very small slice of the membership, there were obviously other factors involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Remind me why Turei was chosen, relative to Sue, again? Experience? List of achievements?
To hazard a guess I would assume the perceived stigmatism caused by the anti-smacking legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I came, I argued and divided, and conquered! heehee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient said: Unfortunatly we are in a democracy
Peter askes to be reminded why Metiria was chosen…
I sense a commonality…
Valis – I didn’t miss your flippancy and I like your argument
Shunda – It is indeed new and exciting!
The relief you seek is called, ‘Salve-A-shon’, very difficult to actually get hold of, but there are rumours of it’s existance everywhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>we are in a democracy
That explains the mechanism, but it still avoids addressing the question, which is “what are the **reasons** Turei was chosen over Sue”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – you don’t like the way leaders are chosen in a democracy? How odd! Do you challenge Key’s selection also? Certainly his spineless behaviour and no-show over the by-election points to serious flaws in his judgement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Evasion, once again.
You won’t disappear in a puff of smoke if you dare to suggest the Green Party might have put image (marketing) over principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Metiria is an experienced MP who toured around the country with Sue and convinced people she would be the best leader for the party (unfortunately I missed out, so can’t relate the arguments each made for themselves). Even if people think she has a stronger image, which could be argued is obvious, that’s no reason to think any principles were sacrificed in choosing her.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – You won’t disappear in a puff of smoke if you dare to suggest the Green Party might have put image (marketing) over principles.
That’s funny! Is that what you want me to say?
Your charge of ‘evasion’ makes me laugh! Seems you only want to hear what you already believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Style over substance. Not saying one candidate is without substance, but if the CVs were put side by side, it would be farcical.
In identity politics, it is not what you do, but what you look like, that counts.
That’s a curious reflection on members actual values, as opposed to those they believe they have?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was at one of the presentations by Sue and Metiria. Both spoke powerfully. Both presented as strong, open and genuine. Following their deliveries and discussion and departure, our dissection was in-depth and it was decidedly difficult to choose, but choose we did. Afterwards, I checked the hall and didn’t see any sign at all of abandoned principles, not a trace!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s because they weren’t abandoned. The true principals, as opposed to the stated principles, shone through.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>our dissection was in-depth
What were the reasons for choosing Metiria?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah..i’d be keen to hear that too..fly…
..what were the reasons..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s because they weren’t abandoned. The true principals, as opposed to the stated principles, shone through.
Which stated principles? Its fine for someone with no real clue to speculate. As usual, its not that what you say is outside the realm of possibility, but that there’s just no reason to buy into the worst case scenario of someone who would like to see the Green Party fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What were the reasons?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – my previous answer got moderated for some reason.
BP – Phil
There are as many reasons as there are Greens. You are asking an impossible question and you know it. I could give MY answer but nobody can tell you one answer that will serve. So desist from this futility.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There would have been over-riding collective reasons, else the vote would have gone the other way.
I can tell you exactly why Key was elected to lead the National Party. He looks good on television, he’s got youth on his side, he has a warmth of character many people find appealing, he has proven leadership skills in cut-throat, high pressure environments. Bill English is a lot more experienced, but the difference is essentially marketing.
Why can’t you just admit your membership thought in the exact same way?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The reality is that you don’t need to be a member of a group to act for that group. Think lawyers.”
Good counter example . In my experience, lawyers are apt to dictate whats best for their client according to their own mores. Until you’ve done a lot of education, they tend to assume the client is stupid and to shut up and let them run everything. Particularly true if the client is young, brown or lacks formal education.
I don’t think Met’s comments about getting another Maori in parliament demonstrate racism – just an unfortunate tendency in New Zealand to mix up terminology around race, culture, ethnicity and sometimes linguistic groupings. I reckon Met would have been just as keen if the next candidate had been a Pakeha with knowledge of Te Reo who had spent a lot of time immersed in Maori communities and understood their outlook.
“In identity politics, it is not what you do, but what you look like, that counts.”
Actually no – identity politics is about who you identify with, which is pretty much a cultural issue. BP might feel its fine to sacrifice everything else for economic gain, but most of us wouldn’t want to subjugate our cultural and environmental heritages for the sake of the economy.
Dunno why the Greens chose Met – but maybe because she was more ‘green’ than Sue? A better balance of the environmental and social interests of the party?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I never said this. It’s not what I believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Put it this way. If a rich old white Tory in a pinstripe suit came up with a plan to put us back on the top of the OECD AND improve our environment at the same time, what would your chances be of hearing that message?
I’d say zero. Based on appearances.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – pushy little fella, aint ya! Are you used to making demands of people and having them jump to it? Your insistance to be told the details of what was discussed at a Green party meeting, weeks ago is ..endearing.. I suppose, presumptuous more likely, arrogant even! You are determined to prise your own words out of a Green supporters mouth. Bjchip’s advice to ‘desist from this futility’ resonates well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why can’t you just admit your membership thought in the exact same way?
LOL, so grassroots Greens across the country think exactly like the 40 some politicians in the National caucus. I think we’ve spotted your problem.
I’d say zero. Based on appearances.
Like I say, people with no clue can speculate to their heart’s content, but you’d be wrong on this too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ad hominem. Rather defensive.
Heaven forbid you might actually agree with me. Well, in private maybe, but never in public.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What were the reasons for choosing Metiria?
That’s private. We can’t say.
How truly odd…..especially from the transparency party…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rationalise however you must to believe you’re right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your upset at being ‘outside the tent’ is understandable Peter, but easily remedied.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Being inside the political tent – of any party – blinds people to the obvious. So no thanks….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yet you are drawn to ours with the passion of a miner for gold. You’ve got Green-fever, Peter!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, I think the Greens are the most interesting party in parliament. They’re on the verge of something, but it’s hard to tell if it’s oblivion or replacing Labour.
Time will tell, eh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My god! Does that almost pass as a compliment BP?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Salv-a-shun.
That’s very good, high wit indeed from the one who vomits on cow pats and sucks up the juices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fly..there must have been themes/reasons..
..and why aren’t you proud enough/confident enough to articulate your reasons/beliefs..
cos..y’see..i have this dread..
..that it was done for the most wrong/supercillious reasons..
..three of them..
..one being the traditional green insecurities .. in not wanting to offend anyone..
..to desire to be everything to everyone..
..and this leading to them over-reacting to the diatribes on the likes of kiwiblog..and here..
..from a small group of loud rightwingers..
..and that this was one of the arguments against sue..
..’bad publicity’ from sec 59..
..and if that was the case..for shame..!
..where’s the standing tall/proud in what you believe/fight for/succeed in..?
..instead of being cowed by the rantings of the raving loonies..
..you should be back in their faces..
..the other reasons are too shallow to believe..
..that ..being younger..she ‘looks better’..?
..and..ethnicity..?
what you have done..
..is moved from the experience of fitzsimons to the inexperience of turei..
..whereas you could have had the experience/nous/track-record of bradford..
meh..!..silly you..!
..btw..cd someone tell met..
..that a party leader does not position herself behind the host of a tv show..
..wielding a placard..
..and mugging to camera..
..it wasn’t a good look..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If a rich old white Tory in a pinstripe suit came up with a plan to put us back on the top of the OECD AND improve our environment at the same time, what would your chances be of hearing that message?
I’d say zero.”
Dunno about that – I’d say the environmental movement has been pretty good at picking up allies here there and everywhere – it tends to delight in finding allies in unexpected places. I think you are looking at this through old school lenses.
I guess I’m not clear what you mean when you made that comment about “If it happens to be 100% Maori women, and they put us back at the top of the OECD, I’d vote for them”. Do you mean “I’ll vote for Maori women, so long as they don’t have the world view and subsequent biases of Maori women, and can create a strong economy” or “I’ll accept certain biases as long as the economy is sorted”. Again, it’s a question of whether we are talking about culture or ethnicity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yah, this unwillingness to cough up any reasons for Turei getting in is strange. What about what reasons OTHER people gave, if not your own? Hypothetical other people even
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>My god! Does that almost pass as a compliment BP?
You need to listen to BJChip.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, hypothetically, what about Met being seen as more balanced – Sue being seen as focused on economic and social issues, rather than environmental ones?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder when we are going to hear the screaming from Comrade Bradford about the wording of the anti smacking referendum?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, you can hear some screaming from me right now bro:
Okay, enough screaming for one day – and only because you encouraged me bro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see nothing wrong with it Toad, it is honest and straight forward, unlike the way Comrade Bradford acted during and after the passing of the anti smacking legislation.
Remember the old saying about he who laughs last?
I am really going to enjoy the overturning of this bill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No way Key will buy into that shitfight when his stated barometer, the police, are repeatedly saying everything is fine. The law will not change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter says: You need to listen to BbChip
Here’s BjChip on the question of the reasons for choosing Metiria:
Bp – Phil There are as many reasons as there are Greens. You are asking an impossible question and you know it. I could give MY answer but nobody can tell you one answer that will serve. So desist from this futility.
BJ
It seems it’s you Peter, who needs to listen to BjChip!
What a merry, if pointless game this is!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not sure it is about the police, the police are public servants; it is about the underlying message and the credibility (authority) of those behind the law change in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you stopped trying to score points and engaged in the argument, we both might learn something from each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, you are going to be thoroughly disappointed bro. Paula Bennett stated last week:
So (at least for this once) the Government seems to be taking an evidence-based approach rather than pandering to prejudice and misrepresentation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro – I’m looking foward to hearing you squeal like Roger ‘pig-torturer’ Douglas’s 5,000 tormented hogs, when, as Valis says, the law does not change.
(Isn’t it a curious coincidence that the word used by hog farmers to summons the swine from the field is also Big Bro’s favourite word!
Suuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A strong campaign is underway from both sides as seen by quick responses (via e mail) on radionz citing “a campaign of misinformation, including the idea that 85% were against the legislation. Apparently the Childrens Commisioner (Nanny State) did poll which showed support to be much less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bro, you should front the pro-spankers’ campaign:
“Big bro brings back the bash” has got a nice alliterative ring to it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – yesterday you were asked why America, a land of enormous economic activity, doesn’t have an environment to match.
You answered tersly, that it’s, ‘ A lot better than Russia and China.’
Your constant accusation of ‘you’re avoiding the question’ sprang instantly to my mind. Am I wrong? Did you address the question satisfactorily, do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s a list of smacking polls
http://www.equipbiz.co.nz/politik/htm/polls_old.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Re co-leader selection, I can state unequivocally that I never heard s59 even mentioned as a reason to support Meyt over Sue. Members are just not so hung up on it as blog posters are.
Remember Meyt is fourth on the current list, right up there with Sue. She is seen to have performed very well as an MP by the Party, who know more of her than the average punter would learn through the media. I think the reasons certainly also do include that she is well spoken and looks good. She has also stated a greater openness to working across the political divide than Sue has and I think that will have played a part for some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam – as a greenfly, I turn up my (hypothetical) nose at cow sh*t. I’m a sap-sucker. Cool, green, sweet plant juice..mmmmmmmmmmmmmm….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
If you stopped trying to score points and engaged in the argument, we both might learn something from each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe if you turned over a new leaf as well, BP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
C u over at the new ‘general debate’ thread then Peter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Burrows ammendment will be introduced Toad, once the people have spoken it will be clear that they do not want any part of Comrade Bradford’s social engineering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The ‘Burrows’ ammendment… still digging holes for yourself Bro?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
>Peter – yesterday you were asked why America, a land of enormous economic activity, doesn’t have an environment to match.
> You answered tersly, that it’s, ‘ A lot better than Russia and China.’
thirty years ago, China had a cleaner environment than the US. Since then, they have had massive economic growth, so by Bluepeter’s reasoning they should now be even better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
..where’s the standing tall/proud in what you believe/fight for/succeed in..?
..instead of being cowed by the rantings of the raving loonies..
..you should be back in their faces..
—————-
Ahhh at last the voice of reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Regarding Metiria v Sue, I hadn’t heard either speak personally before attending “Drinking Liberally” in Auckland a few weeks back. I heard them both speak about what they thought the future of the Green movement was, and I have to say I was definitely more impressed by Metiria than Sue. Not to say that Sue didn’t have some good points, but I definitely felt that Metiria was less polarising and would be more inclusive in trying to make the Green Party increase its vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would like to see the Greens stay with the left and promote social programs as well as environmental ones. The environment however should be first priority but I feel that the environmental and the social are inextricably linked.
This is environmental democratic socialism not communism! Some of the above bloggers have used the two terms in the same sentance, in the same context when they are two different movements.
When corporations are obsessed by the bottom line not only are wages cut but short cuts are taken when it comes to dumping toxic wasts for example, wholesale slaughter of fish and the collateral damage done by mining.
There needs to be a constitutional authority to enforce these higher priorities otherwise we are going to go right down the girgler.
ACT would have the country sell off all the commons to the highest bidder. Imagine having the water supply owned by a corporation or heaven forbid an individual? A bit scary!!!!
The Greens should never sell out those principles (even if they don’t win elections) or do any deals that may compromise their position as the Greens have done in Southern Ireland.
Check out Socialist Aotearoa site I think that there is a valuable lesson to be learnt there.
Yours Respectfully
Drakula
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drakula
There is something to be said for maintaining the social agenda, and I don’t disagree completely, but I DO have to point out a couple of things.
First: There is no justice if we don’t survive. It is the principle that has to underly all the others. I can tolerate a lot of injustice if it means that my children have a planet that is not hostile to human life. They can sort out injustice as well as I can. The planet however, isn’t something that we get a second chance at.
Second: The usage of the party as a platform for the social agenda sometimes damages the ability of the party to act on the survival of the planet. It impacts our representation in parliament and the attitude that many people have towards it. This level of social agenda promotion has to be curtailed because
IF WE DON’T WIN ELECTIONS THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE LOST FOREVER.
This is your practical reality check. If we don’t get more than 5% of the vote the party is finished as a political power. We don’t have any electorate in which we have a “winning” candidate. Where is NZ-Last now?
There is an inextricable linkage between the two, but one is definitely the senior partner. Two choices are available.
The planet can survive (as a hospitable place for humans) and then succeeding generations can deal with injustices that may have survived as well.
The planet becomes hostile to life to a large degree. This is injustice for those who die and not real good for any survivors, if there are any survivors. Those that live will not ever be free of what we did to them.
So if compromise is required to keep the party in power and capable of exerting its influence to keep us all alive, then compromise is what we must do. Including those precious social agendas. Because humans haven’t ever managed to resolve those perfectly and the planet will NOT wait for us to get our act together. We’re up against a time constraint that is not negotiable. Not amendable by the blatherings of politicians.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ, point taken, but I don’t see “Sustainability through Austerity” as being a vote winning slogan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
I dunno, if a party actually provided readily accessable reasoning and rational arguement along with their policy then they could be a major vote winner. That is; if they stop treating people like idiots they might gain alot of respect and the rationally argued policy could pursuede a large portion of the vote.
Before you say the green party does that; it doesint. The green party does it to a very minor extent but it is still mostly illogical and ideologically driven.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, I would deny that it is mostly illogical. The Green Party’s policy development process is largely evidence-based as well as democratic. As for ideological, well ultimately everything is based on axioms rather than provable facts (including this statement, which therefore makes it a paradox).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad – as ‘logic personified’, Sapient is the ‘go-to-guy’ on issues of …logic.
Sapient – as a thinker who ‘cuts to the chase’ on every issue, how do you reconcile your oft expressesd opinion that ‘people are stupid’, with the statement above, where you say, ‘if they stop treating people like idiots they might gain alot of respect’ ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What Toad overlooks is that the policy makers are a biased sample containing a majority of Bradford and Locke cohorts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ, you’re assuming that the Green Party’s social policies lose more votes than they gain though… and I’m not sure whether that is true (or whether it has to be true).
I think one of the Green Party’s most untapped demographics are lower income voters in areas like South Auckland. The Green Party’s social policies may actually align with the needs of these people even more so than the policies of the Labour Party, and yet electorates like Mangere, Manukau East and Manurewa consistently come up as the areas of lowest support in the entire country for the Green Party. Even if you compare how the Greens did at various polling booths across the Mt Albert electorate, they did pretty poorly in the poorer parts of Avondale and Owairaka compared to their best results in Kingsland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Im ment to be studying for an exam i have this aftonoon, so i wont go into detail as to why the policy is illogical for now past stating that the policy fails to acheive its stated goals. I do agree with you on the axiom point, that point being one of my favorate to debate.
Greenfly,
. One has to be able to turn it off and take pleasure from stupidity.
Oh, i have no desire to be logic personified; vastly excesive logic leads to emotional numbness. Excessive logic but still having emotions leads to alot of misery
I do consider people to be idiots, but for the most pert they dont consider themselves to be idiots. If you make people feel like your treating them with respect and as if they are intelligent enough to decide for themselves then it gives them a feel good factor. Same as our discussion about representation on another thread. By providing rational argued arguements you present as if you want to give them all the information and le tthem make the choice for themselves, as if you trust them to arive at the correct conclusion, when infact you a guiding them by the way you structure your arguement. Though the more rational the arguement the more persuesive it is.
Besides, im vastly more optimistic than I should be re: human intellect, im constantly over-estimating everyone. But I would like to think people are sufficently intelligent to listen to reason, even if they are ultimatly stupid, emotion driven, and fickle.
Jarbury,
I beleive BJ is not saying that they neccacarily do loose us more votes but rather that what we should act rationally toward what policies we promote. An extension of that being that if a policy costs the our ultimate survival more than it benefits it then it should not be pursued.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That does indeed make perfect sense. After all, the Greens can achieve a hell of a lot less if they’re not even in parliament.
I suppose this is the tricky side of being more of an idealistic party than most, that it’s tricky to find the right balance of pragmatism versus idealism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – yes of course, but … treating idiots as sensible is a little dishonest, isn’t it?
However, we differ here. I don’t think that ‘most people are idiots’. It is pretty clear that logic isn’t a tool that is widely or rigorously employed by the bulk of the population, in the way that a someone who does employ it well would like, but idiots?
I’m not expecting a response as you are ‘head down’ (remember, ‘head up’ helps with recall of text).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
.
*procrastination*
Dishonest yes, but beneficial. It stands to benefit the party through greater vote, the people through greater policy, and the population through greater application of critical thinking skills. It has the potential to reduce the idiocracy
To be clear, I hold absolute rationality and logic to be a mark and anything less than that is idiotic by nature. The greater the deivance the greater the ideocracy. At the point where a persons ideology and emotion lead to foiling ones own goals, and pursuits which fail to acheive or activly work against their aim, i call them an idiot. I include myself in that category as my emotions and presupitions constantly interfare with my pursuits and my emotions constantly interfare with my logic which interfares with my emotions and leads to large blunders
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – it could be argued that the Idiocracy is vital to the success of a Government. It certain helped the election of the one we have now
I hold absolute rationality and logic to be a mark and anything less than that is idiotic by nature
As an idiot, I’d be stupid to challenge that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Idiocracy can be useful but I dont think it desirable. I like the philosopher king concept but I recognise it full of problems in implimentation. A well educated populas interested in politics and rational in manner, in a democratic system, is the next best option. Sadly that is almost as implausable as the philosopher king
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(you’ll make an interesting ‘Dr Sapient’ i’m sure) remember that language is not necessarily grounded in anything better than approximations.
It is not necessarily authentic.
Stunned scientists discovering whales call in 3-d pictures…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stunned whales discovering that scientists now know they call in 3-d pictures (pictures to follow)…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)