by Keith Locke
I received a good New Year present from the Dominion Post when they published my opinion piece on the Head of State Referenda Bill under the title “Hands up for a president of Aotearoa”. The same piece had earlier been published in the Christchurch Press.
This has kicked off the debate I had hoped around my Head of State private members bill, to be debated in Parliament this year, which enables Kiwis to choose between keeping the monarch or moving towards a democratically selected head of state.
The discussion on Kiwiblog has been particularly hot.
I am currently gathering a list of endorsers of the Bill. If you’d like to help, want to help, please email me or become a supporter on facebook.
If you are interested in getting the bill passed at its first reading, please contact your local MP or write to all MPs and tell them why.
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy | Media by Keith Locke on Wed, January 6th, 2010
Tags: Facebook, head of state, kiwiblog, member's bills, president, referenda, referendum, The Dominion Post
More posts by Keith Locke | more about Keith Locke
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
There are more important things to worry about.
Whilst not a huge fan of the monarchy, they are harmless, and they cost NZ very little. We gain a few connections and a status we otherwise wouldn’t have. Also, nice to have a bit of pomp and ceremony as a reminder of our colonial history which the socialists seem hell-bent on erasing.
Meanwhile, I suspect any head of state appointment in NZ would be heavily political. We have too many politicians as it is, thanks.
We’ve got bigger fish to fry. Good on National for not supporting it.
Like or Dislike:
18 
21 (-3)
His Chilliness has one point Keif….pull apart the fabric of our Royal Heritages and Alliances and the Chinese may send 100,000,000 of their spare ‘umans over in boats !
Hell penuins could sucessfully invade nz…
Besides which – how does te tiriti line up an independant state? – would not the Maori King (Queen) become King of Aotearoa(a priori)?
The Aussies knocked this one back ‘cos the Pommies hold their Constitution in London – and won’t give it back (heehee)!
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
sp: penguins = saintly slippery flippered friends from the fridge!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Does the party have a secret policy on remaining under the Crown throughout the term of the current Queen AND into the reign of her successor?
Surely legislation could be be framed to only come into effect when the current monarch died – if the National opposed that then there “secret” policy would become transparent. If they intend to allow King Charles 111 to reign over us this they mean for us to be denied a republic for another generation – decades to come.
If we have no plan to become a republic when the current Queen dies we will be left stuck with that fate – and all who oppose this bill are likely to become accomplices in that act.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
There are strong arguments for change, [which are/is?]
” we are now a confident, independent nation in the South Pacific. Having a head of state in Britain does not match who we are in the 21st century”
This looks like a cosmetic thing, however >>>>
“THE EFFECTS OF COLONIALISM
The Green party acknowledges:
That in the main Maori honoured the Treaty, whilst the Crown, and later the New Zealand Government, pursued many policies and enacted laws that were designed to individualise and promote the alienation of Maori land and other resources, and established basically monocultural political, economic, social, health and educational institutions which benefited Tauiwi to the detriment of Maori. ”
Kawanatanga and Tino Rangatiratanga
There is an as yet unresolved tension between the cedeing by Maori of “Kawanatanga” to the Crown in Article I, and the Crown’s affirmation of the Maori right to “Te Tino Rangatiratanga” in Article II. Whilst “partnership as envisaged by the Treaty” is a term much bandied about, there is no agreement between the Treaty Partners as yet, as to how that partnership is to be defined.
Constitutional Commission
The Green Party commits itself to the need for an **independent** Constitutional Commission of equal representation of Maori and non-Maori, which will be resourced and empowered to:
Encourage discussion of the relevant constitutional issues arising from the Treaty, through wide dissemination of different viewpoints and draft proposals, and:
Commence the detailed negotiations needed to reconcile the different interpretations of Te Tino Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga into new shapes and roles for our political institutions.
http://www.act.org.nz/news/the-green-party-treaty-and-maori-policy
Good Luck!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Good to see the Greens protesting:
The new colonialism
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21703
Is That Queenstown (or the North Is. where it’s warmer)?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
29 (-24)
King Charles the Third is fine for me, I like the way he gets up the architects noses and i don’t care that he bonked Camilla (he found his soul mate).
Whoever we get as president would be (likely) eventually been shown to have fondled a little girl or be a lesbian, picks nose or been involved in a dodgy property deal somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
big who?
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
7 
26 (-19)
Like or Dislike:
14 
6 (+8)
Personally, I don’t think this will have much of an impact either way on the practical politics of New Zealand, so it’s more of an aesthetic choice than a real one – whether the rich tradition of the monarchical rule brings more pride than the feeling of independence, but it’s really determining which coat of paint to put on an automobile.
But one thing I should really explain is that Single Transferable Vote really only works when there is more than one position open. Otherwise, it’s no different (and more accurate to call it) either “Instant Runoff Voting” or (as listed in the Royal Commission Report on the Electoral System) “Alternative Vote.”
STV has electoral implications (semi-proportionality) that IRV simply doesn’t have.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
There’s another aspect, and that is that I’m proud of my British ancestry. Not because the British were good or bad (sometimes they were and sometimes they weren’t) but because it is family and cultural history and so carries a certain fascination.
Michael King argues (successfully, in my opinion) that we do have an indigenous Pakeha culture:
“In the new edition of Being Pakeha, I go on to say that, as another indication of how far Pakeha culture has become indigenous, it is only right to see the macrocarpa and the wooden church as being as much emblematic of the New Zealand landscape and human occupation of it, as the meeting house and the cabbage tree.”
http://sof.wellington.net.nz/origins.htm
the Greens however (seem to), see NZ as a culturally deficient and needing filling and improving?
Like or Dislike:
7 
5 (+2)
Why the leap to a total constitutional revision to set up a Presidential form of government in NZ?
All we need to do is to have NZ appoint its own Head of State.
It would quite appropriate to have alternate Maori and Pakeha Heads of State.
This would require only a few changes to a few lines of statute.
The Crown would remain the Crown and all the law books would remain essentially unchanged.
We are a Parliamentary democracy which is a totally different form of Government to a Republic with a President as Head if State and Head of the Executive.
Who is asking for a Republic and indeed who is asking for a President?
If we are as mature as we claim to be we should have no difficulty in finding the appropriate candidates.
The last thing we need at this time is a total constitutional upheaval. The costs are enormous and introduce another round of uncertainties.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
19 (-15)
Greenfly:
Is it Act Party policy to screw our country?
Is it Green Party policy to stand in the way of the of big business*?
*Check out the Property Council : Our people
“Our policy is the opposite of Winston Peters’,” the Party’s Immigration Spokesperson Keith Locke says.
“We have no fear of migrants. The Green Party says ‘Welcome Home – this is your country now’. Our welcome extends to the families of new migrants. The Green Party policy is fundamentally humanitarian, not exclusionary like Mr Peters’.
http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-counter-peters-welcoming-immigration-policy
sprawl, crowds, people from a*hole to breakfast etc……….
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
President Keith. President Rodney. President Sue. President Catherine. President Tariana. President Gerry. President John enjoying Christmas at “Success Way” (turn left after Leverage Lane) Omaha
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Big Bro – they’re going about it in a very odd way then, with their idiotic coup attempts and perkalicious behaviour. Roy and Douglas played their crabbed hand and threw away any chance either of them will ever have to lead the party and Hide won, hands down, the Airhead of 2009 award, leaving only Mr Lamington to carry Act to oblivion. Why aren’t you pouring your obvious talents into making a decent party out of the tattered remnants of Act, Bro?
And yes, we are beavering away, day and night to change the name of our country. We’re tired of the old Dutch name and can’t bear the new one being proposed by the government, ‘John’s Place’.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
We could swap one Dutch name for another….New Amsterdam – bit of decriminalisation do the world of good to our sad little nation.
AND – think of the MONEY!!!
Scuds, bales, shiploads of do-re-mi – and as President, I plan to let it filter all the way down to the poor and back! (instead of the current squat mode)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Or BRussel’s, if our male coleader becomes President!
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
16 (-14)
Better than red neck.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
22 (-19)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
25 (-21)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
16 (-13)
I’ve got one Bro and you feed it every time you post here.
Valis – I thought ‘red face’ would have done the trick, given the embarassing performances from the Act crowd in recent months.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
14 (-12)
Not wasting my time finding it for you, given you wouldn’t accept it anyway, just like with Keith. How about some proof that you’re not a red neck?
I did have a laugh at your ‘thin skin’ comment, this from the site that uses the like or dislike button as a way of shutting down debate or the views of people who do not agree with you.
We’re actually supposed to believe you’re afraid to post here because people show they don’t like their views? Pathetic.
Actually, it must be really frustrating being a Green, the fact that 94% of the population do not agree with you and the realisation that the same 94% believe you are either nuts or liars must make life hard at times,
Very frustrating, but we do what we believe is right. Another sign of a red neck that you would have us do differently.
guess that is why so few of you guys have a sense of humour.
I have a great sense of humour, red bro, but where’s yours?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
16 (-14)
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
BJ
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
Goodness Gracious Me!
I agree with Blue Peter for once! Actually hit the “thumbs up” button on one of his posts!
I have no liking for monarchies of any flavour, but we have _much_ bigger fish to fry than fussing about ceremonial Heads of State.
The labour law, despite years of labour government is backwards and almost feudal. (Compare with current South African labour legislation).
The aggregate stats for Maori and Pacifica clearly indicate centuries old entrenched racism.
Farming has done a shore to shore “green wash” (the fields are “Green”, so NZ must be Green). For example, Dig a little bit into the green green fields of “planted pastures” and you’ll find massive ecosystem disruption, massive crash in species diversity, ….
Has the Queen ever stuck her oar into these matters in NZ? As far as I know, (I’m willing to be corrected), but I believe not. Let’s focus on Environmental and Social issues please!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
18 (-16)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
I agree with Owen McShane on the fact that a change to our head of state arrangements requires no great constitutional upheaval.
Constitutional change is and should be dealt with separately.
All we need to do as a sovereign nation is to acknowledge that our current arrangement is a colonial legacy. As we are not a colony having a foreigner as head of state is inappropriate – it is only appropriate for the head of the Commonwealth (given its imperial origins the Commonwealth HQ will be based in London).
In fact the whole language of royalty is inappropriate in a democratic age. But it is for the British to say why they are not subjects of the Crown but the Crown is merely symbolic of their own people’s sovereignty (the people of the land and the Crown should be one, and the person in office as defender of the peoples rights and liberties is merely their servant).
In New Zealand we need to make this clear by defining our new head of state as representative and defender of our people’s sovereignty (rights and liberties – which is where the formal constitutional arrangement debate has its place). We could choose to call our new head of state, Crown Governor, Crown Defender or President.
Simply defining the Crown in continuance means no legal arrangements would need to change – thus the title Crown Governor has some relevance.
Once this decision is made – to come into effect when the current monarch dies, all that is required is a process for selecting the person to replace the then Governor General. Initially all that need be done is give the person then in office continuance with a Crown Governor title rather than Governor General of the Crown.
The issue speaks to the heart of sustainable nation and sustainable society – underpinned by the very principle of national sovereignty – the complete democratic emancipation of a nation and its people.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
My proposal is that instead of a president or a king we adopt a system essentially two-tiered.
The second tier is the kaitiaki, elected by treaty signatory iwi in any manner they see fit. The number of seats funded by state would be dependent on the number of Maori.
The kaitiaki is recognised to own allodial title to all the lands of New Zealand. In the constitution the kaitiaki ceeds governorship of all lands to the state and grants the state the capacity to extract revenue from said lands. The constitution recognises the kaitiaki as protector of the lands and peoples and gives the kaitiaki the capacity to intervene should any policy or development be found to adversely affect the environment or to be discriminatory against any group of ethnically defined people.
The first tier is the house of representitives. This functions as is with the exception of the Maori seats; these are removed.
A constitutional court is introduced which acts as the third body and may veto any legislation which violates the constitution and acts to ensure that the kaitiaki and house of representatives are acting within their constitutional roles.
Very light in detail, but I think it is an option with some promise.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
17 (-15)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
I know that you have a very strong interest in historical activities of politicians Bro, as evidenced by your questions earlier about Russel Norman’s past, so you’ll have delved into Roger Douglas’ nasty past behaviours. What did you find? Can you, as a pro-animal rights campaigner, forgive him for what he was involved in? I struggle to.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
For me the change is very important as currently, the PM can fire the GG and the GG can fire the PM but no one has the deciding vote, waiting for a crisis in this situation is not an option..!
I also don’t think having a head of state that represents sexism, racism, religous supression and classes represents what I believe NZ to be…
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Sounds like NZ to me.
The sexism part should be removed from succession soon enough anyhow.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
An interesting thing happened on the way to the bottom of this thread. Valis has convinced me not to vote for the greens again. I have several times but no more. If this is the attitude of the rest of the greens then good luck. You’ll need every bit of it you have.
And back on topic, several people have already given plenty of reasons NOT to go down this path.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
Just as advice to concentrate on the environment and not social policy, or advice to focus on the environment and social policy and not advocate for a republic – is similarly to be ignored. Many of the same people don’t even support the Green Party on its environment policy anyway – they just oppose the party on other areas as well and cite them merely to attack the Green party credibility on its environment policy.
Most people of the party support this move away from the colonial era monarchy and so do many of its supporters. But this issue is one which will attract the attention of those here on this blog to be critical of what the Green Party stands for. It is also an issue related to peoples sense of proud national identity (an inherited sense of pride in being a colony of an empire as well as associated ancestry connections) and while it is very much of our past rather than our future, it has continuing resonance because of the fear about “British Pakeha” becoming assimilated into a multi-cultural land of immigrants hosted by tangata whenua and thus losing historic establishment status. Add to that those Christians who seek some continuing symbolism showing Christ (Church) throne dominance of government and the state and you have an agenda driven both by fear and ambition for continuing supremacy.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
What I’m opposed to is the cost. A cost that this country can ill afford. A lot like the cost of having so many in parliament. We just don’t need that many people there period. So a better bill to be getting through would be a bill that cuts ALL parties down by a minimum of 40%. Now that would be useful.
I have noticed how abusive Valis is SPC. This is not a good trait to have in any political party, why rise to the bait and fall into a pissing match?
I’ve been coming to this blog for a very long time now, would someone that doesn’t vote this way do that????
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
There is no more cost from calling a local person Crown Governor than having a local person called Governor General of the British Crown. The Irish Presidency is very low cost. So are some of the European royalties – because they both have no political power and are largely symbolic, as is and would be the situation here.
It’s just another red herring, and so is the way a person supporting a party chooses to debate with others on one blog topic on one day over many months has no impact on the parties policies and whether they are the right ones for a country or not. We all over-react to something at some time I suppose and each in our own way.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I do wonder though, if my relatively tame comments have chased you from the Greens, just where you will go now, given that we’re angels compared to some in other parties (and we’re no angels).
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
14 (-12)
This is the land of the tangata whenua and the present and future homeland of us all, “establishment” links to a foreign territory are not of our future but our past.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
SPC – quite right.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Well I don’t mind your two-tiered idea Sapient – bears some thought.
However – in respect of the collusive genocide of the Moriori here – I would say that there is no Local Culture of any colour that has much to crow about – quite the reverse – if you dont know Gaza took place here – then wait til you get to go to school!
Incidentally Keith – get used to being Published etc. You are one of the better spoken people I have seen in our Parliament. Better yet – you make sense in the language of directness.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Looking forward to you dumping the treaty of Waitangi, Maori traditional ways, and the Maori King because it’s all symbolic of “the past”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
This is, quite simply, my home.
I have as much right to be here as anyone else.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Piscine sizzle.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
… you have an agenda driven both by fear and ambition for continuing supremacy.
BP nicely proves SPC’s point by leaping to conclusions he didn’t imply.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I’m not allowed to say “my home” anymore?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
And I thought you had an agenda of environmental issues?
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
As far as I can see, this debate over who should be New Zealand’s head of state is a waste of time. Almost all the political power resides in the parliament, the Governor General has very little real power. Changing the head of state to a president is mainly cosmetic.
I do appreciate the Governor General does have the power to dismiss the prime minister and dissolve parliament in exceptional circumstances, but this has never happened in New Zealand (it has happened in Australia once). Perhaps removing these powers from the Governor General is all that is needed?
In the mean time, debate over issues such as who the head of state should be diverts people from much more pressing and urgent issues. Perhaps this is deliberate? Perhaps raising the issue is an attempt to cheaply gather votes from people who have an aversion to the monarchy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
And I thought you had an agenda of environmental issues?
My agenda has precisely nothing to do with this exchange.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Before I left New Zealand and went to live in England.
What struck me was the proliferation of markers, the sign-posts, back into history. Whilst not liking the Royal Family much, it occurred to me I had misunderstood their role. Their role is to provide yet another marker that connects people with history.
I think New Zealanders, particularly white New Zealanders, have little understanding of the value of history. Strangely, I came to see the Maori point of view with more clarity by living in England. I can understand why they cherish their history and create markers of all sorts to connect themselves back to it. It anchors people in time. It underpins culture.
The other thing that struck me about English history is that they don’t sugar coat it. It’s all there, warts and all. The torture, the wars, the unfairness, slavery, the triumphs. It’s all “celebrated”, if that’s the right word, because it’s all part of their identity. All the markers are important, irrespective of what is viewed as “correct” today.
There seems to be many people in New Zealand cut adrift from their history, and this is a bad thing. We’re both an indigenous South Pacfic Island AND a colonial settlement. We can’t erase the markers of one part of that historical identity.
It will not lead to a greater understanding of who we are.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
@samiuela:
Aboslutely not, removing those powers of dismissal from the Governor General gives supreme power to the PM with no check or balance…
The move to an parliamentary or directly elected President means that problem is removed…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“There seems to be many people in New Zealand cut adrift from their history, and this is a bad thing. We’re both an indigenous South Pacfic Island AND a colonial settlement. We can’t erase the markers of one part of that historical identity. ”
For me it’s the negotiation of the relationship of those two identities (tino Rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, more or less) that has to be central to our constitutional future.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
My forebears came out here from Ireland in 1839.
I find it remarkable that I first learned of James Bellich’s latest book “Replenishing the Earth – The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World” from the September 25 edition of the Times Literary Supplement, which describes this book as “one of the most important works on the broad processes of modern world history to have appeared in years.” The original is a long essay so I shall refer to the summary from “The Best of Brit Lit – A look at great reads from the editor of the Times Literary Supplement.”
This week: British imperialism reconsidered.
Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World. By James Belich. 528 Pages. Oxford University Press. $50.
British Imperialism as a Settler Movement
For most recent historians of the Anglo-Americanization of the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, the fashion has been to show the “imperialism” of the process. The startling novelty of James Belich’s “Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World” is that it scarcely mentions imperialism at all.
“With all due respect to the rich scholarship on European imperialism, in the very long view most European empires in Asia and Africa were a flash in the pan,” Belich writes. According to Bernard Porter in the TLS this week, this is one of the most important works on the broad processes of modern world history to have appeared in years—arguably since Sir Charles Dilke’s Greater Britain which introduced a similar concept in 1868.
The subject is the migration of the British people over the globe, with the aid of a certain state power afforded by the Royal Navy, occasional military expeditions to pull the migrants out of trouble, and by charters and treaties—but not in order to dominate anyone. Rather, the aim was to reproduce British-type “free” societies, usually freer than Britain’s own, in what were conveniently regarded as the “waste” places of the earth. Belich calls this “cloning.” It was an entirely different process from the more dominating sort of “imperialism,” representing a different philosophy, involving different social classes, and mainly affecting different regions of the world.
Belich believes that this was a far more important influence than what is generally understood as imperialism on the whole course of modern history. Others are likely to find this hard to accept.”
I must say Belich’s argument rings true with me for the most personal of reasons. One of my ancestors was an Irishman, Captain James Taylor, who had joined the Indian Army to escape the potato famine. Around 1840 he was asked to sail down to New Zealand to help “prepare the ground” for the 250 Fencibles who were soon to be settling Howick. In 1846 he sailed back to Ireland, where he married his childhood sweetheart. They both sailed back to New Zealand to settle in Howick in 1847. This Irish settler’s family soon moved to Karangahake and, over the years, intermarried with other Irish families including the McShanes and the Mackays. Given the relationship between the Irish and the English at the time I have always had difficulties accepting the view that my forebears were agents of the Imperial Empire. As I once explained to a Maori colleague “I am here because someone stole my ancestors’ land!”
Nothing I heard from my parents, grandparents and great uncles ever suggested they were here as colonisers implementing the Imperial will. They seemed to have come here seeking freedom, the chance to own their own land, and to build some kind of vague utopia.
They were vigrorous enterprising people, mainly working class, who were determined to better themselves and also hoped to create a better “something else” along the way.
It does seem to me that Belich is setting the record straight. But I would say that – wouldn’t I?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
But having sign-posts to that history is important.
The Queen is a sign-post to that history, and given New Zealand’s unresolved status in terms of nation-hood, a rather important one i.e. “the crown”, “claims against the crown”, etc. The waters run very deep on this one. It’s not simply a matter of appointing a different hand-shaker.
The change will come when the sign-posts are no longer valued or recognised. We do dismiss history when we rid ourselves of the physical and cultural reminders of history.
Maori know it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
That is not to say that the process leading to a decision to become a republic and, critically, addressing the unresolved matters you raise (and others) is a trivial matter. Quite the reverse and Kevin’s comments are relevant here. The reason I support this bill to select committee is to start that hugely important discussion that I think will take a generation to run its course. We seem afraid to even start.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Jezza,
Giving the GG the power to dismiss parliament is a double edged sword. On one hand, the power can be used as a check and balance. On the other hand it can be abused. Sometimes whether it is considered to be an abuse of power or not depends on which side of the political fence you sit on.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Send her Victorious
Happy and Glorious
At least she has given us Organic Prince Charlie, so the Monarchy Malarky is not a complete sham. As BluePeter points out (over the sizzling of sardines), Maori who hold the Treaty of Waitangi dear don’t want to cut the Royal apron-strings.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I cannot lay my hands on the reference now, but some time ago (pre-web) I read summary of the Treaty the Normans negotiated with the Saxon warlords after they conquered England.
It struck me as remarkably similar to the Treaty of Waitangi in that it said the War Lards ceded their rule to the new Crown but were aloud to retain control over their respective territories.
Kept the war lords quite but make no mistake the Normans ruled from then on.
There was no talk of partnership. But there wasn’t in the TReaty of Waitangi either and the court decision which referred to it here was a minority decision.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Owen, it’s surely problematic to assign any single set of motivations to all groups migrating here at that time (?)
Belich may well be right about the motivations of your forebears, but, for example, we know from church records that missionaries came here intending to bring Christianity and English civilisation to Maori and settler alike, the Wakefields and many others came intending to extract as much economic value as they could from the place, Hobson and other military types were acting to maintain British strategic advantage in the region (over the French)and so on.
These motivations, often enough, were matters of emphasis, rather than being independent. For example, presented with the opportunity to get land and other resources unfairly from Maori, many chose to (examine some of the church’s early dealings, for example). Actions probably count more than motivations. And the effect of actions even more so.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kevin Hague says:
“These motivations, often enough, were matters of emphasis, rather than being independent. For example, presented with the opportunity to get land and other resources unfairly from Maori, many chose to (examine some of the church’s early dealings, for example). Actions probably count more than motivations. And the effect of actions even more so.”
Sigh…………!
“everyone has their real estate agent story”!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kevin Hague says:
“For me it’s the negotiation of the relationship of those two identities (tino Rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, more or less) that has to be central to our constitutional future.”
I won’t hold my breath for the details.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Kevin Hague says:
“the Wakefields and many others came intending to extract as much economic value as they could from the place, ‘
have you seen the size of Hagley Park? They laid it out when there were around about 500 people living here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know from previous discussions jh that this is an area where you disagree with me and with the Green Party, and do so strongly. But what I’m unsure of is what you actually believe (as opposed simple gainsaying of our beliefs).
My point about the two identities that BP raises is that finding a way for the two to honourably co-exist requires that we be willing to approach the discussion with goodwill and an open mind. Not knowing the details is kind of the point. Appropriate decision-making requires listening to each other and exploring solutions that can work for both.
My point in response to Owen was that the effect of colonisation may well have been at odds with the motivations of some (or many) of those coming to the colony. This is most clear in the case of culture (defined broadly: common sense, values, ways of organising society etc). Culture is usually invisible to those who live in it. All those who came here brought their culture with them and set up institutions to reflect it. This had the effect of displacing Maori culture in many geographic areas, and aspects of life. In the case of the church and real estate transactions a brief glance at the history surely shows that dishonourable transactions were commonplace?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Belich does not say everyone shared a common view. However, he fairly makes the point that the majority of settlers in early New Zealand were settlers, and being mostly Celts (from Ireland, Scotland and Wales) they were not here on some mission on behalf of the Imperial England. I grew up among literally hundreds of my relatives and I can assure you that none of them expressed great affection for the English (at best they called them homies) or the Imperial Empire. These Celtic settlers had left the old world behind and indeed if I have a problem with their attitude it was that they refused to talk about our history because they would respond “That’s all behind us. Look to the future.” They tended to be Mickey Savage left wing or in my own family’s case Fabian Socialists or Communists. My older brother was thrown out of the NZ Communist party for being too left wing.
Hardly your typical Colonials.
The great English migration really began after the Second World War. The Albertlanders and other Christian settlers were rebels in their own right being Non conformists escaping persecution by the mainstream churches. They were mainly Congregationalists and some Unitarians.
The New Zealand described by Belich rings far more true to me than this current fad for painting my forebears as agents of the Imperial Empire.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
The Land of the Offshore Patriot remains the same Peter…..and Maori don’t know a large part of why we came home was simply to be with our brothers and sisters – nature Kevin, is always making One out of Two surely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Kevin,
While for you and the Greens
For 85% of other New Zealanders it is not in the least important.
People just dont care about the traumatisation of Maori by colonisation and the unending treaty “settlement” (a pure misnomer as treaty claims can never be settled – only renegotiated every generation or new technological advance).
If like me they came from a traumatised post war Europe or more recently from a warlord ravaged Somalia, us more recent immigrants have the same in common with Owens’ ancestors.
We want to improve our childrens future.
For Maori to be harping back continiuosly to being downtrodden through colonisation just does not resonate with the rest of New Zealand.
Looking forward to the constitution you and the Greens are proposing.
Any sign of concrete ideas to be placed in the constitution?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
haere mai tuaakana. oranga ngakau witi tangata whenua. kaiinga aue.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Whakaronga mai e hoa ma ki te arero tuturu o Tohu! Tumeke!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Gerrit
“For 85% of other New Zealanders it is not in the least important.”
85% of other New Zealanders cannot see how is in the least important.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Evolution is an inevitable adaptation Gerrit. Your Contribution is recieved with thanks.
me a muri, te waa ke heke mai nei, whakatangatanga, tuku kia haere.
our future holds freedom.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Sapient – do you know about this biz?
Terra-aqua-culture – 4 day workshop
with Haikai Tane
9-13 April 2010, Taranaki
Introducing the culture, craft, and science of farming water flowing through the
landscape.
Dao terraquaculture, the world’s most productive farming system, has thrived for
over 5000 years in the Asia-Pacific realm – achieving levels of sustained
productivity beyond the reach of agriculture.
This 4 day practical workshop will expand your skills and capabilities in productive
farming and forestry systems to enable sustainable rural livelihoods in Aotearoa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
This is doing my head in! There are real Green issues out there right now. The MacKenzie Basin, the Manawatu River, The ETS etc etc. They require all hands to the pump and instead you’re wasting your time on this!?!?! Maybe time to think about following Sue Bradford and finding another way to push your personal barrows, Mr Locke. Make way for someone who will contribute to the more pressing Green issues. For crying out loud, while you’ve been fluffing round with this Brendon Burns has been visiting E-Can and the MAcKenzie Basin and is starting to make hay for Labour out of something that this is a core Green issue!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
No harm in an innocent conversation then is there?
Brendon is a nice feller who will do the right thing….green and red are the primary confusion for colorblindness – besides, changing the place in a Big Hurry is what got us up this creek anyway.
I don’t think Frog will censor your efforts Skinman
Feel Free.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Greenfly,
I know not. I have never encountered that term.
I can only assume that it integrates a land based component; something hardly unheard of. Sounds like they are just trying to sound unique.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘NEW NAZI LAND’
It seems to me that that the season of the New Zealand Order of Merit that was ushered in by Helen Clark’s government is now out of fashion and we now have the old gallery of rogues for the new years honours list namerly the knighthood system that is back in vogue.
Peter Jackson one who really does deserve a knighthood for what he has contributed to the New Zealand film industry, that nobody can deny but rogues like Doug Myers????
What has he done for the Kiwi worker? A member of the the New Zealand Round Table he was instrumental in keeping the working wage down to the barest minimum and eliminating the basic minimum wage.
So what name of this country best suits the above regime? Aotearoa, New Zealand or New Nazi Land?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
It’s interesting to note how other “colonies” have developed their nationality in relation to the Crown. And how this reflects the emerging debate about identity (and regions incorporating nations) in the 21st Century.
The Americans after their revolutionary war of independence from the imperial Crown are now a melting pot able to assimilate people from all around the world. But they now baldly claim that Europe is unable to do this, particularly Britain, and that this failure makes Europe and particularly Britain a terrorist threat to the USA.
Meanwhile in Europe there are calls to keep Europe “Christian identity” (by Catholics and Crown establishment Anglicans) to see off some threat caused by “secularisation” and Moslem migration – which of course is just the sort of attitude and language to further alientates Moslem migrants and grow the number of new recruits to terrorist cells. Who would have thought that the new century would see an attampt to form the same alliance between church and the anti-”immigrant” racist right that once existed in pre war Italy, Spain and Germany. But this sort of politics is inevitable whenever some “traditional establishment” claims supremacy in a state or region and feels threatened.
In counterpoint to the USA is Canada, its nationalism began in being the Crown loyalist part of the Americas. This has been self-perpetuating, as its consequence Quebec nationlism is a minority cause which compels the majority to continue to adhere to their tradition. While the cause for complete Canadian independence from a foreign Crown is entireley rational – a psychological need for a nationalist difference from the USA and possibly some apron string semblance of security against Quebec secession has prevailed for now.
But what would happen if Australia became a republic? And that is just a matter of time. For there is a sense of community to Canada, Australia and New Zealand in having a foreign royal as head of state. And that sense of community will come to an end, when Australia becomes a republic. Australia will then be considerably better placed as a nation connecting with Asia and yet still in common cause with the melting pot that is the USA. This will enable it to grow its national identiy as it builds its future in the region, whereas we could be left behind.
Britain is not assimilating its own migrants, and we could be destined, in not modernising our own identity by becoming fully sovereign, to fail to develop a full place in our own region – unless our “ambition” is to be the deputy sheriff of the Crown in the Pacific (the sort of role we had in German Samoa in WW1) – knights and dames and all.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Kevin Hague says:
“This had the effect of displacing Maori culture in many geographic areas, and aspects of life”
My great grandparents didn’t think women should be trained for a career, but modern ideas caught up with them. Industrialisation, the motor car: these things change everyones culture.
“Appropriate decision-making requires listening to each other and exploring solutions that can work for both.”
You mean Catherine Delahunty and the white board? What happens if (say) there is a referenda and (say) 54% of voters actually cast a vote which translated into 47% voted No, 46% didn’t vote and only 7% voted Yes?
The Greens “appropriate decision making” model is somewhat lacking …no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
jh – I agree with you in your response to even’s threadjack (and on most issues discussed here on frogblog) but don’t understand what your perspective is on issues around the Treaty and Maori/Pakeha relationships (hence my earlier request for you to set out your views).
The “settlements” and Waitangi Tribunal process are essentially not relevant to the Treaty of Waitangi, because this process or something similar would be necessary Treaty or not. However the Treaty is relevant in the context of any discussion about constitutional arrangements, which it is why it has arisen in the context of Keith’s Bill. I don’t hear anyone arguing that the Treaty didn’t have constitutional implications. Logically, then, the possible positions are that these have been appropriately incorporated into our constitutional arrangements or that what the Treaty says (at least on these issues) doesn’t count, (essentially “a simple nullity”). Or instead that there is an outstanding (and probably ongoing) responsibility for Pakeha (and other settler populations) and Maori to engage in dialogue as to how best to reflect the Treaty’s implications in our constitution. You know which of these I hold.
This is about being proud of who we are, honourable in our intent to do the right thing, respectful in listening to the points of view of others, and ingenious in trying to find win-win solutions.
I don’t understand your referedum and whiteboard comments, so can’t really respond to those.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
For the record the National party vision on their website does state :
“Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State”
While individuals can comment on the compatability of these three ideologies it is important for people to realize that because this is part of their “Vision for New Zealand” they could not possibly allow their members to vote this Bill through.
I for one support retaining Her Majesty as Head of State until her Death (something that ‘SPC’ said in an earlier Comment Come to mind) but in turn do Support the idea of Ending our link with the British Crown in favour of Our own unique Democracy whatever that may end up being. The Problem with the idea of a Republic that Keith Locke MP, has put forward is that it leaves no room for public scrutiny in the form of a second chamber, leaves the Executive with sweeping powers which are only not used at present by constitutional convention (remember it is not illegal for the Governor – General to utilise those powers). This Bill can still pass through it’s first reading, It’s just a matter of whether you can get the rest of the House to support you, frankly in consideration of the whole House I would not be surprised if the Bill still failed at First Reading because of Labour and Maori Party Members opposing the Bill. I wish Good Luck for your endeavor though I may not support it and remember there is always next year and year after.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dracula writes:
“Peter Jackson one who really does deserve a knighthood for what he has contributed to the New Zealand film industry, that nobody can deny but rogues like Doug Myers????
What has he done for the Kiwi worker? A member of the the New Zealand Round Table he was instrumental in keeping the working wage down to the barest minimum and eliminating the basic minimum wage.”
Doug Myers has contributed to this Nations growth and maturity by taking a local company and turning it into a multinational company competing with international giants.
However, he may well have got his Knighhood for his work in charities. For decades he has run a trust dedicated to granting scholarships to Polynesian students who otherwise would not be able to achieve tertiary education. Like many philanthropists he prefers not to publicise these activities.
Furthermore, he happens to be a true gentleman.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ADOLF HITLER WAS A PHILANTHROPIST!!!!
Does Owen Mc Shane think that we are so naive to take as to his vindication of Mr. Myers at face value!!
He may very well run charities, so has most other tyrants in history if fact I have just consulted the tyrants handbook by Niccolo Machiavelli in his section on Generosity and Parsimony. when reading the following just replace the word prince with the word capitalist.
‘Either you are already a prince, or you are on the way of becoming one. In the first case your generosity will be at your cost; in the second, it is certainly necessary to have a reputation for generosoty.’ – - – - -
Rule 1 You need to have a reputation as being the good guy, even if you dont quite have the means right?
‘Again swomeone may retort: There have been many princes who have won great suusses with their armies, and who have had the reputation of being extremely generous. My reply is this:the prince gives away what is his own or his subjects’, or else what belongs to others.’
Now I don’t wish to get personal of Mr. Myers but capitalists of his ilk, booze barrons are not much more than legal drug pushers. And is it very clever to mass market booze that is in high demand sometimes at the expence of peoples health? I don’t think it is!
Then Owen goes on his usual mantra on growth economics when it has been pointed out to him time and time again that growth economics is definately not compatable in a FINITE world. In fact it’s downright dangerous!!!!!!
So How often are knighthoods awarded to people who contribute to our countrys’ real sustainable value in the fields of science, arts and literature?
No I will not change my position one iota, Helen Clark had a very good reason to stop the knighthood system as it was becoming a gallery of rogues. Peter Jackson who I think deserves it could take a leaf from Lohn Lennons’ book (returning the MBE)and refusing the knighthood. If he did that his prestege would become so much greater.
I hope that someone high in the Green Party like Keith Locke could make such a suggestion to the film director.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Nice try talking to a guy who starts a post with ‘NEW NAZI LAND’ Owen
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Drakula,
If I was willing to be dragged down into the cesspit with you, I could point out (but of course I won’t) that Hitler was also a Green, a Vegetarian and the first anti smoking campaigner. (Mind you he had no problem with other forms of toxic gases.)
And Machiavelli says that the Prince should gain a reputation for generosity. Do you know what reputation means?
Get back in your coffin. Shining light on you is bad for your mental health.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Zing.
Though I think Hitler was a green, not a Green
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bill Gates has a reputation for generosity.
Trust him with my life.
Cast alms to the rabble and see them scrabble.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greenfly
The point is that some philanthropists seek a reputation (good for their business) others, like Sir Doug Myers try to avoid the limelight. The comparison with Hitler is not only odious but ill founded.
Stephern R.
Quite right. Green with a small g not a Capital G. Apologies to the BIg G greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
HITLER WAS NOT VERY GREEN !
I think that the most likely reason that someone like Myers avoids publicity for their philanthropic ventures is to avoid a huge rush of claimants, cap in hand knocking on their front door!!
I am only pointing out that monsters like Hitler, Stalin etc. were also philanthropists, so it takes all sorts. But I got a reaction!!!
Back to the main thread: I am not very enthusiastic about monarchies and hope that Aotearoa (Owens favorate word in greenspeak)will elect it’s own independent head of state like a president.
I don’t see much reason for aristocracies either that support the privalidge of individuals because they were born into a class.
A democratic meritocracy seems to me to go hand in hand owing allegence to an environmental constitution that is deemed immutable and drafted in perpetuity.
Environmental issues need to be more than mere law to stick, and as it stands those cherished principles are subjected to whatever blows in the wind.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Dracula,
I am happy to use the word Aotearoa when speaking Maori just as I am happy to use the word Angleterre when speaking French, or Deutschland when speaking German.
I find it an affectation when used by an English speaking persons speaking or writing in English – but it doesn’t bother me until someone tries to tell me what words to use in my own language.
It certainly does not bother me as much as the ridiculous use of macrons which are simply in Maori English langauage dictionaries as a pronunciation guide. There are no macrons in the English alphabet, and there is no Maori language alphabet and who needs the macron anyhow. We do not need a macron to tell us to use the long a in father and the short a in batter.
IT is simply another obstacle put in the way of young people keen to learn to read and write the Maori language. Just as the use of le and la etc is an obstacle in the way of young people trying to learn to speak and write in French.
Why do it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is that one of the ten commandments in the Green Bible? Because I hear that fallacy repeated so much by Greens.
We have a higher standard of living today than in our great-grandparents time not because we have double the number of smokestack factories but because of new and different modes of production leading to new and different products. The fact that about 70% of the US economy is now services, most of which are less environmentally destructive (air travel notwithstanding) reinforces this point.
Environmentalists would be correct about growth if doubling our GDP led to doubling the amount of materials, energy and pollution associated with production and consumption. But this need not be the case. That is, infinite economic growth is possible, as long as:
- the amount of raw materials extracted and energy produced is at or below some base sustainable level;
- any additional negative externalities (ie. pollution) are kept below the “sink” capacity of nature; and
- we have a fiat money system.
Under those conditions, there is no reason why GDP could not double, triple or increase ten-fold.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ya2bov7
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually what we normally call natural resources (aluminium, oil, steel) are not natural at all. They are all human inventions (with the exception of alluvial gold, and meteoric iron) and because there is no limit to power of the human mind to invent such natural resources are infinite.
Indeed the amount of such resources available has consistently increased with human population and wealth.
Given that the world’s population will go into decline somewhere around 2045 – 50 while our productive efficiency will continue to increase it is hard to see what the problem is other than the widespread longing for catastrophe – as evidenced with our response to swine flu etc. I see the UK govt now has two billion dollars worth of swine flu vaccine for sale and is finding buyers hard to find.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BP, your conditions (the first two anyway) are the sort of perscription Greens have been arguing for. How do you propose we get there?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Merely pointing out that growth economics are compatible with a sustainable world.
Drakula doesn’t understand basic economics….
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Any reason to think Drak was not arguing from a Green perspective? We shouldn’t have to state every time that unlimited growth being impossible applies to the current economic paradigm which assumes it is.
Merely pointing out that growth economics are compatible with a sustainable world.
You haven’t proven this, of course. What happens when you hit the “base sustainable level”?
But regardless of whether it is possible or not, you’ve hit on possibly the most important thing you’ve even said on this blog with those first two points. Is it that you don’t have any ideas on how to implement them, or you don’t really believe what you’re saying?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Blue – this is your moment, don’t let it slip by!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suppose it depends on what one means by “natural” in “natural resource”.
Natural normally means “existing in the state of nature” or similar.
Well, prior to the industrial age you could have scoured the whole planet and never found a piece of aluminium, or titanium, or petroleum (pitch is another matter) and prior to the invention of smelting you could not have found copper or brass, or zinc, or silver and so on.
These resources don’t become a resource until someone invents a use for them (like pitch to “pay the devil”) or oil (as a cutting oil to replace whale oil) or invents a means of separating them and purifying them and moulding them etc.
That stuff you put in your car is only there because of a whole series of human inventions.
And a great example of increased efficiency of materials and energy is the transition from vinyl 78 records (that I grew up) to my wife’s ipod shuffle which is about as big as a small stack of postage stamps and plays the contents of 15 CDs (goodness knows how many vinyl 78′s) and the tiny battery powers it for at least ten hours because there are NO MOVING PARTS. The gramophones of my childhood had all those vacuum tubes and motors and just about warmed the room.
The ipod shuffle is magic. How does the software select which tune to play? It’s a long way from putting the needle down on the right track.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All very nice, but for goodness sake, the environmental issue isn’t about what you turn resources into, but how much you pull out of the ground. When we talk about “natural” resources, that is clearly what we mean, or so I would have thought.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
We have never run out of resource and never will.
As resources get more difficult to find and extract the price goes up and we find substitutes.
Have you considered how huge the earth is and how many minerals are in the sea alone.
All we need is the human mind and energy and they are all available.
And as long as the sun shines there is plenty of energy.
Once the population goes into a decline and while the world’s population gets better educated it’s a doddle.
We are going to see a whole raft of technology which is born in the developed world, but then put to work in the developing world and then re-exported back to us, thus bypassing our regulatory barriers.
The nano techology using silver ions to purify drinking water is a fine example. The nanotechnology was developed in the US labs. But an India company has turned it into a cheap compact device that purifies drinking water without smelly chlorine and bromine, which will be a godsend to the villagers of India etc.
And then I got a free sample to use in my spa pool. No more bromine or chlorine for me.
Isn’t free trade and globalisation wonderful? Otherwise the nano technology would still be langhishing in a US lab somewhere.
And buy the way the resources we pull out of the ground don’t disappear. Except for the few tonnes we send out into space they stay right here ready to be recycled when the price justifies it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
>>What happens when you hit the “base sustainable level”?
We’re nowhere near it. If we ever hit it you’ll know because population will decrease markedly, which also solves the issue.
Population is decreasing anyway, especially amongst educated nations, and we have virtually unlimited resources and, best of all, unlimited imagination.
I suspect many greens spend their lives focusing on worst case doomsday scenarios. A form of self-loathing, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
We have run out of huia feathers. They were a resource. Substitutes are not the resource in question. Huia feathers were a finite resource. All gone (bar those few that have been preserved, of course).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
99% of all creatures that have ever lived are extinct. Nature, eh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Let’s get stuck into the remaining 1% then, because our effect will be tiny by comparison, eh Blue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bluepeter wrote: “…We’re nowhere near it. If we ever hit it you’ll know because population will decrease markedly, which also solves the issue.”
Yes, in economic terms that would solve the issue just fine. But from the point of view of the people whose mass die-off would be required to bring about that marked decrease, it wouldn’t be a very appealing solution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
No doubt the lead up to such an event would happen gradually, sending clear signals, especially in terms of the price of food. Best not distort those signals with unsustainable welfare and aid, eh.
In the meantime, ensuring women are well educated appears to be key.
Probably the best welfare, aid and environmental strategy there is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Once the population goes into a decline and while the world’s population gets better educated it’s a doddle.
Yes, I’m sure all your assumptions are entirely reasonable. Piece of cake then.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Population is decreasing anyway, especially amongst educated nations, and we have virtually unlimited resources and, best of all, unlimited imagination.
Decreasing? Current projections say a peak will occur around 2075 and in 2300 will still be around 9b. These are just projections and nothing to be sure of. Particularly past 2050 reliability drops. There is no basis on which to safely assume a decline will occur, other than a great die off, which isn’t exactly a rosy projection either.
I suspect many greens spend their lives focusing on worst case doomsday scenarios. A form of self-loathing, perhaps?
Now why would you automatically leap to the worst case scenario?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Bluepeter said:
No doubt the lead up to such an event would happen gradually, sending clear signals
Ha ha ha ha ha ! You’ve shown yourself to be so good at reading the clear signals that lead up to major events, Blue (Co2? Who me?)Peter!
Oh dear, oh dear!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The biosphere is not normally included in discussions of natural resources of this kind.
“natural capital” is another term.
But of course species can go extinct and go extinct all the time. Its a natural part of the chaotic nature of life.
See “Deep Simplicity”. Actually our best guess is 95% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. And humans have had nothing to do with most of them, although we did play a large part in the megafaunal extinctions of pre-industrial times. Mind you we are the only species to be worried about such things. Other species regard extinctions of other species as a bonus. See Matt Ridley “The Origins of Virtue.”
RE population. The best contraceptive is wealth. The second best (and one which was under appreciated for some decades) is female literacy. There is a bias towards overestimation of future populations for a number of reasons. Consequently, if you look at the last twenty five years of UN population projections (which have a high, medium and low projection) the low one is always closest to what actually happens. Hence I assume that population will decline around mid century because that is the low projection of the last set.
This does not require any massive die off from swine flu or other panics. Present family formation rates in Europe mean that in countries like France, Spain and Italy, the population will halve over the next 25 years.
If you want to have serious fun do the calculation for Japan. In 400 years there is only one left. (improbable)
The population boom is a fizzer and has been for some time.
The “bomb”projections all assumed that only the Western nations could get rich and the rest were doomed to ongoing poverty.
The drop in family formation rates in India and Pakistan and such places has been dramatic and has taken place far more rapidly than in the Western nations because once they got things right they benefited from our knowledge and technology and got rich quicker than we did.
Once women are literate too they make their choices. Women will save the Earth from overcrowing provided they are free and not stuck in tyrannical regimes.
Three cheers for freedom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We have never run out of resource and never will.
As resources get more difficult to find and extract the price goes up and we find substitutes.
Economics 101 without any comprehension of what happens WHEN IT DOESN’T WORK. Why not? Because in every instance when a civilization has “hit the wall” and been unable to substitute for some essential (water being the most common example), that civilization has disappeared from the face of the earth. You are giving a perfect explanation of how things work as long as they work… but not of what happens when your model fails. You are not acknowledging any risk of it failing, yet we know that there are examples of such events scattered throughout all of human history.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The population boom is a fizzer and has been for some time.
So in the next 30 years we will drop to “sustainable” numbers for our planet? 3 billion people will die off naturally and not be replaced at all?
I think you are wrong about that and much of the rest as a result. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet about as badly as we possibly could. We’re not likely to be let off that hook gently.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘the biosphere is not normally included in discussions of natural resources of this kind.
“natural capital” is another term.’
does natural capital come on credit cards.. looks like the debt is piling up..
‘We have never run out of resource and never will.’
have you ever run out of water at your house in summer? or ran out of money one week…
have your ever ran out of petrol while going for a drive somewhere..
Bit of a strong statement Owen. Have you got evidence behind it???
BTW did you mean to say never run out of ‘resource’ or did you mean ‘resources’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Despite Owen’s and BP’s perception of Greens as doom-sayers only, we are actually pretty optimistic, just not blindly so.
Of course humans have imagination and creativity and I agree that education, especially of females, is an important component of population control, but if you don’t take account of the more destructive elements of contemporary society and consider how they might be mitigated without massive pain to large numbers of people, then you are counting on someone somewhere always coming up with a solution – and they might not, or not in time.
Of course we have been advocating recycling minerals for decades – how much is actually being done? More than there was, certainly, but mining for oil and minerals is still happening on a scale incompatible with sustainability.
Of course industry generally is cleverer and cleaner than it was a century or so ago – pretty haphazardly. And not everywhere. Greens would take that approach and make it more consistent – though look at the kicking and squealing when certain sectors are told to clean up their act. Best practice exists and we laud it; bad practice should be made unprofitable.
It looks like the difference between the haphazard and the organised – it seems we are not in disagreement about what needs to happen, just whether you can trust the distorted market to send the right signals at the right times or whether some forethought needs to take place. I’m all for forethought, even if it looks gloomy at times.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
We have the advantage of globalisation and free trade.
The container has been the great driver of global trade.
Water shortages are best solved by trade in virtual water.
TRibal cultures are vulnerable but as societies have become civilized they become more adaptable and resilient.
The end result of the LIA and the consequent great plagues that reduced the European populations by about 40% (and probably most others round the world – we just don’t have the records) was not total collapse but the rebirth known as the renaissance and the labour shortage led to the industrial revolution.
Look at how both Germany and Japan rebirthed after the devastation of the second world war.
I see no evidence that we are becoming less adaptable and less resilient. Only religions (of all kinds) can bring that about. Religions that try to end the enlightenment tradition and stamp out freedom and free trade in particular. See Dyson’s “The Sun, the Genome and the Internet”.
While I am an environmentalist I have no affiliation with that class of environmentalism that regards good news as bad news. It is sad to see Europe now talking itself into a nervous breakdown.
For more info on virtual water go to:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/issues/62-rma-agriculture-nz/204-virtual-water-trade-agriculture
We are NOT consuming “more than our fair share of water” as the PCE likes to tell us.
New Zealand’s net virtual water trade of 19.5 Gm3/year represents 19,500,000,000 tonnes of virtual-water per year.
No wonder the world is grateful, even if we don’t appreciate our own good works.
On the other side of the equation, Hong Kong, for example, is imports as much virtual water as we export.
Japan imports nearly 90,000,000,000 tonnes of virtual-water per year.
Although we rank 9th in the world for our total virtual water exports, the top 8 virtual-water exporting nations all have much larger populations.
For example, the USA, ranked number one, is net exporter of 9 times as much virtual-water as New Zealand, but the US has 75 times our population.
New Zealanders export 5000 tonnes of virtual water per head – easily the world record.
Furthermore, the tables do not include the virtual water attributable to our forest and paper exports.
We can hold our heads up high. We should export as much virtual water as we can because this contributes to world peace in those places were water shortages do promote conflict.
And Canterbury is not running out of water. The water is running out of Canterbury. (Up to 90% of it)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Janine,
I have run out of water in my tanks because I have used it for my gardens. Now I build irrigation ponds at a higher level and simply siphon water down into the garden.
But of course mines run out and wells run out. And Easter Island used up all its wood placating their gods.
But name me a natural resource (non living) that has gone – caput, non existent.
As a Saudi Sheik said. The Old Age will end. But not because the world runs out of oil, any more than the Stone Age ended because the world ran out of rocks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have not said that any natural resource ceases to exist (not sure who did actually) – but the vital ones like water are not always where they need to be.
We’ve built ponds too, though it took a few months of dry weather to fill them. Some places experience drought for years on end; in others flourishing gardens have given way to desert. Yes, you can reverse these and some visionaries are trying to do it. But if you live where rain has ceased to fall for years and the ground water has dried up, then being told that the water does exist somewhere is not a lot of help.
And, if some company has in some way captured the ‘rights’ to water and sells it – then your access to that resource can be very restricted.
Your arguments are too simplistic – you seem to be saying that it is the best of all possible worlds and that anyone who disagrees is a doom-sayer or a loser. WEll, I’ve read Candide too and I’m with Voltaire: you have to take some responsibility. I am neither a doom-dayer or a loser; I just think we can be more responsible as a society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The climate scientists did a great job predicting the lack of snow in the UK this winter, huh. Methinks the c02 signal may be a red herring, or very difficult to read, whereas food and the number of mouths to feed is rather straightforward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
@Owen MacShane –
Funny… I have observed the opposite…
1- How often people go to the supermarket these days verses 10, 20, or 50 years ago ?
2- How many days Inventory Cover do Supermarkets Hold verses 10, 20, or 50 years ago?
3- How many Day’s food inventory cover does the average household keep?
4- What would happen if one of those 4000TEU vessels for what ever reason did not arrive?
We have become conditioned to believe the supermarket shelves will always be full, because we have in our lives not experienced otherwise… Next Easter visit you Local supermarket every day…and observe the demand and Inventory patterns.
Personally I percieve a risk here… We have actually lost resilience, when we lost local supply… because we havn’t had the need to adapt.
Free trade and Globalisation, have made us complacent and vulnerable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you believe the people in Haiti would have suffered less and been able to cope better with their earthquake 10,20 or fifty years ago and that we should not send aid and assistance because it only keeps them less resilient?
If there is a famine in one part of the world the people can now be fed from another. Unless tyrants like Mugabe recycle all the money back to a bank in Switzerland.
But fifty years ago. They died and no one even knew about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If there is a famine in one part of the world the people can now be fed from another”
This is a good statement.
“We should not send aid and assistance because it only keeps them less resilient”
This is a stupid statement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Methinks the c02 signal may be a red herring …”
Thus spake BluePeter, respected climatologist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
I agree it is a stupid statement but it seems to be a consequence of Mouse’s argument.
However, I may be misinterpreting her by assuming that she is claiming our comfort is bad for us.
After all we are the wealthiest, healthiest, best fed and longest lived generation that has ever lived.
That must be bad for us because so many of us are crying into our beer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Idiot/Savant has a question for us.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/01/question-for-greens.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Owen – Nice little article on how Globalisation and Free Trade has helped decimilize the Haitian Rice Industry…>
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42011
Unfortunatley Haiti has been suffering the effects of Globalization and Free Trade long before the the earthquake struck… Gee thanks IMF.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouse (he’s a he) says,
“We have become conditioned to believe the supermarket shelves will always be full” and bases his argument around that, I believe.
I don’t see that he suggests abandoning communities that have suffered disaster. At all.
It’s not our ‘comfort’ that is emperilling us, it’s the distance that comfort has taken us from self-sufficiency, ordinary, every day self sufficiency and that which would save us during emergencies, like the one now exists in Haiti.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank you GF – exactly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re welcome Mouse (and I have to ask, have you read ‘Little Big’ ; Grandfather Trout, the Drinkwaters, Violet, George et al?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
GF – No…but I like to prepare for winter… whatever that might be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
GF – Have you ever read ‘The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable’ by Nassin Taleb… worth a read!.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouse – prepare for winter? Stuffing your cheeks with nuts and grains?
I’ll hunt down the Black Swan – thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, are you:
a) trying to be funny
b) just taking the piss
c) really misunderstanding that no climate scientist would make such a prediction
d) trying to set up yet another straw man to knock down
Just wondering.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Idiot/Savant has a question for us.
And it would be nice if his blog provided a way to respond. One might note that Labour also enabled mining and that the logic of not working with anyone who does something bad leads to working with no one.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Mouse
Globalisation and Free Tade have nothing to do with the the IMF and Haiti.
Have gander at this
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2002/12/goldsbro.htm
and see how how constant borrowing by corrupt Haiti leadership has created this situation and how New Zealand is heading down this track with borrowings currently at $45M per month.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouse,
- “Unfortunatley Haiti has been suffering the effects of Globalization and Free Trade long before the the earthquake struck… Gee thanks IMF. ”
So, if you’re right, those countries most exposed to free trade will be the poorest.
Yet we clearly see that the reverse is true: those countries most open to trade have a higher standard of living than those that don’t.
You link to a page which rants against free trade, with the following quotation:
- ‘”Cheap imported rice destroyed [nationally grown] rice,” he said. “Today, imported rice has become expensive and our national production is in ruins and there is even more misery.”‘
So, originally, the consumers of Haiti were forced to buy expensive home-grown rice. Even when, as we can see, they are all very poor. And you think that’s a good thing?
Then they became free to buy “cheap imported rice.” That will be the free trade working.
Later there was a price spike in many commodities, including rice. Such things happen. The price signal resulted in a lot more interest in agriculture; a lot more food will be grown and prices will fall. Great. That’s how the free market works.
Rice is a commodity. If consumers are paying below the commodity price then someone is be shafted: presumably the farmers. The result will be that less rice is grown.
Alternatively, if consumers are paying more than the commodity price, then they are being shafted (e.g. the EU’s CAP, which costs families hundreds of Euros each year.)
The answer is free trade.
greenfly,
- “It’s not our ‘comfort’ that is emperilling us, it’s the distance that comfort has taken us from self-sufficiency, ordinary, every day self sufficiency and that which would save us during emergencies, like the one now exists in Haiti.”
You’re saying the people of Haiti should have been forced to continue to pay high rice prices to subsidise local production, and to forego the enormous benefits of free trade.
What you are describing is a recipe for complete and continued poverty; and it is that poverty which has resulted in their substandard buildings collapsing likes packs of cards, and them digging in the rubble with their hands because there is no heavy machinery.
It was a big earthquake, but its impact would have been vastly less severe if Haiti had been a wealthy country.
Moreover, when it comes to the food supply, it is not self-sufficiency but diversity of supply which is key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat – “You’re saying…”
Nope.
“Moreover, when it comes to the food supply, it is not self-sufficiency but diversity of supply which is key.”
Nope.
A household benefits greatly from a garden full of food. That household has some independence of food supply.
A community that has households with gardens full of food plus market gardens also supplying that community with food has more independence of food supply.
A country that has both households producing food and commercial production on a community level, along with agricultural and horticultural production for export and local consumption has significant independence of food supply.
You say ‘self sufficiency is not key to food supply’?
Huh?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly,
You wrote:
Thus spake BluePeter, respected climatologist.
I believe Bluepeter is an ordinary mortal like me, and has never claimed to be one of your Sky Gods.
And Mouse, blaming the IMF for Haiti’s miserable conditions is like blaming the collapse of the Soviet debacle on Stalin’s mustache.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
- ‘”You say ’self sufficiency is not key to food supply’?’
That’s right.
A Haiti that enforced self-sufficiency for food would be at the mercy of drought and plant disease etc. The result – sooner or later – would be widespread starvation when crops inevitably fail.
Independance of food supply is not the same as security of supply: it can be quite the reverse. Diversity is the key.
Haitians suffered more than Kiwis from temporarily higher food prices because they are poor, not because there was insufficient supply of food. Big difference.
Had they been an active part of the global economy they would have been much richer (there’s no reason why they can’t be as wealthy as Kiwis) and have vastly greater security of supply.
Auckland, for example, is not self sufficient in food; and there’s absolutely no reason why it should be: it has diversity of supply. Free trade generates the wealth and the opportunity for Aucklanders to buy food from the four corners of the world. Meanwhile, Haitians suffer and die from the diverse effects of poverty every day, some of which is a direct result of the self-sufficiency fetish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From Spiked
Three weeks after the shallow talking shop of Copenhagen, the terrible events in Haiti should remind us that the key problem of our time is not man’s arrogant control of nature, but the fact that so many men (and women and children) still live at nature’s mercy. Earthquakes, even of that ferocity, do not need to be so destructive. In more developed, affluent parts of the world, with modern buildings and decent infrastructure, similar-sized earthquakes do not cause so much human devastation. Let us wrap up the luxuriant, chest-beating obsession with how destructive mankind is, and make 2010 the year of serious debate about how to liberate everyone from poverty, and from the whims of nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat – a self sufficient food supply can still include products that are imported, thus providing diversity. The ‘key’ to a community/country’s security of food is to have the basics/staples on site and under the control of householders/local/regional/national growers, not reliance on imported food as you seem to suggest.
Growing your own food is no fetish, it’s common sense.
Your tag, ‘enforced’ came from …where?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen – Bluepeter can see the future and therefore is God-like. He knows why the Northern hemisphere is so cold right now. He knew that Copenhagen would fail. He knows Transmission Gully will not fail to proceed! He’s our Great Father in the Sky alright!
(Though he says he doesn’t know if the sea levels will rise or not. This is puzzling to those of us who adore him).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
- “The ‘key’ to a community/country’s security of food is to have the basics/staples on site and under the control of householders/local/regional/national growers, not reliance on imported food as you seem to suggest.”
What exactly is the problem with sourcing food from the whole of the globe rather than just one tiny little part of it? Surely it is infinately more secure?
How would Haitians living in hunger and poverty benefit from being forced to pay out higher prices year after year for food which is grown locally? How would they benefit when those crops fail and they have no money to buy from abroad because your autarky has left them without the means to do so?
How would it benefit them today when their poverty has turned a disaster into a national catastrophe?
Please, spell out the scenarios you have in mind because you’re not making any sense at the moment.
The whole world is my food garden. Please explain why I should instead restrict myself to just one tiny little speck of land inside some invisible and entirely notional national boundary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I grow my own olive oil and some of my fruit and vegetables.
But gardening absorbs time and labour and money and space of course, so I make decisions as to what is worth growing.
Garlic and red onions yes. Regular onions no.
Spring new potatoes yes. Year round no.
Beetroot yes, Carrots no.
And so on.
I am certainly happy to buy my coffee and bananas from countries whose poor people benefit from selling their produce to me. Trade is much better than aid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat – you seem determined, in some kind of ‘communistic control’ sort of way, to prevent individuals from growing their own food. Forcing them to buy everything they need, steals their freedom to manage their own basic need – food.
Let people choose, I say. If people have knowledge of the value of nutritionally-dense, locally-hardy foods, that they can grow themselves or share in the growing-of locally, it seems criminal to support systems that undermine their ability to do that. McDonalds may well offer cheaper food, flown in from afar, but that does individuals a great disservice.
As to earthquakes, vegetable gardens survive those far better than supermarkets, airport and shipping terminals. Plants continue to grow, unchecked by shakes. If each Haitian had a vegetable garden, or if there were ‘community/market gardens’ throughout the country, their situation now would be less dire.
You might believe that the ‘whole world is your food garden’, wat, but that’s a tenuous connection you have to your food supply. I know where mine is grown, what is sprayed over it (water), how it is handled and whether it will continue to be a source of food for me. I don’t dismiss all ‘foods from afar’, but I like to have a base supply that I can rely upon. I’d like everyone to have the same advantage. If the availability of ‘food from around the world’ has extinguished the practice of individuals growing the basics of their diet themselves, something is seriously wrong and I see many instances of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen – yours then, is a far more balanced approach to that suggested by wat.
Bananas and coffe, yes, but if the people living in the banana/coffee growing areas are unable to grow their own staples (as you grow yours), because of the bananas or coffee, something, I’m sure you’ll agree, is amiss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen,
Wow a red onion man! And, cleverly I happen to also think, the selective vegie plantings.
Regarding Haiti, however, to what extent hath deforestation there been inevitable causation of devastation arising with and post the mag7 shake..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It would be wrong to blame the IMF for all of Haiti’s problems, but it is equally wrong to baldly state it has nothing to do with them. Just to take one example, the education of women that Owen is righly so concerned about, IMF structural adjustment programmes that force countries to privatise their education usually lead to increased cost, and it is the girls that get pulled from school first. This has happened in Haiti as in other countries.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
greenfly,
- “you seem determined, in some kind of ‘communistic control’ sort of way, to prevent individuals from growing their own food. Forcing them to buy everything they need, steals their freedom to manage their own basic need – food.”
I pointed out the substantial benefits of trade; both economic and in terms of security of supply.
Quite how you managed to divine “some kind of ‘communistic control’ to prevent individuals from growing their own food” is beyond me. The word “free” is in “free trade” for a reason.
- “If people have knowledge of the value of nutritionally-dense, locally-hardy foods, that they can grow themselves or share in the growing-of locally, it seems criminal to support systems that undermine their ability to do that.”
If, despite the very specific conditions you describe in your example, people still choose to buy food not grown locally, then presumably they have good reasons for doing so. There’s nothing criminal about it. Buying cheaper food is a perfectly valid choice when you have mouths to feed, children to educate and rent to pay etc. As you say, let people choose.
- “McDonalds may well offer cheaper food, flown in from afar, but that does individuals a great disservice.”
The millions of McDonalds customers presumably disagree with you.
- “As to earthquakes, vegetable gardens survive those far better than supermarkets, airport and shipping terminals. Plants continue to grow, unchecked by shakes. If each Haitian had a vegetable garden, or if there were ‘community/market gardens’ throughout the country, their situation now would be less dire.”
This is perhaps the weakest argument I’ve ever heard. Wellingtonians don’t maintain a vegetable patch for the inevitable earthquake: they build strong buildings, own expensive earth-moving equipment, keep a box of tinned goods and batteries under the bed and have extensive civil defence provision etc. A supply of rocket and other fancy lettuce is not even a consideration.
Besides which, presumably many Haitians do have a vegetable garden: not as a lifestyle choice but because they are so poor. I think they’d prefer the reinforced buildings and the Caterpillar equipment myself, which are the result of economic activity coupled with free trade.
- “You might believe that the ‘whole world is your food garden’, wat, but that’s a tenuous connection you have to your food supply. ”
Well, it isn’t. My food supply is secure, plentiful and diverse. I am one of the luckiest people in the whole of human history.
- “I know where mine is grown, what is sprayed over it (water), how it is handled and whether it will continue to be a source of food for me. I don’t dismiss all ‘foods from afar’, but I like to have a base supply that I can rely upon. I’d like everyone to have the same advantage.”
Let them eat cake!
Do you think the lady in the article, complaining about the price of rice, shares your priorities when it comes to virtually non-existent pesticide residues?
By all means indulge yourself, but don’t imagine for a second that your rich-world priorities are in any way superior to those at the other end of the scale.
- ” If the availability of ‘food from around the world’ has extinguished the practice of individuals growing the basics of their diet themselves, something is seriously wrong and I see many instances of that.”
Isn’t that a quotation from Pol Pot?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“” If the availability of ‘food from around the world’ has extinguished the practice of individuals growing the basics of their diet themselves, something is seriously wrong and I see many instances of that.”
Again. If an individual who would otherwise chose to grow some of his or her food where he/she lives, is blocked from doing so by the existance of a global trading system, something is wrong.
If all of the land in the environs of a town, for example is taken for growing cotton, leaving none for food growing by an individual, something is wrong.
The system you promote forces huge numbers of people to work to earn to buy food that they would otherwise prefer to grow themselves. It’s an oppresive system to millions. You support that oppression.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting takes – admittedly a stretch from blog entitled topic – to be found here..
Instance the Dao water (culture) model, whose strength and/or relevance we are told comes from “5000″ years utility elsewhere. Though, in future utility terms, no mention of its capacity to provide farming (read larger populations or markets as Minister Groser might term them) the necessary wherewithals.
On reading this I’d thought how relevant such a past record was to the blog topic—good model etc. But future; impossible to say. Though Owen has ventured to state the freedom arising from this impossibility is a good thing or words to that effect.
Sorry guys, but charlatan is the word that springs to mind.
That anyone could assert with certainty that their past model (free markets guys emanated in modern times from the Chicago School of Economics with the Friedman’s workouts of American Republican ideals for others, but make no mistake this was always to their own advantage. Not ours, as kiwis who endured a particular version of its implementation by the Lange government and other Party cohorts since discovered)
As for globalization(you may prefer an ‘s’ for ‘z’ in that one) the jury is still out, since clear dislocations still exist around the sphere. And that despite alignments of the like-minded, ordering of technology and operational administrative processes to this same end. Over decades.
Monetarist (a small fraction of economic disciplines) service industry did it for money and power elites. The Big Recession exploded capacity arising in and from it for corruption, crime and fraud. Wondrous freedom indeed! And yes, in case you are wondering, October1987 kiwi investors had their forestaste of this.
Back to the blog topic. For myself I look forward to the day when humanity is mature enough to realise and execute a Bhutan equivalent of imposing – terrible man that I am
– the very best we’ll ever do for ourselves. Each and every one.
ps: thus conflicted I advise the blogger above how and why my support of the proposal presently would be inadvisable.
pps: entirely missing from this debate so far is the extent of corporate rule, as opposed to national government’s, over our (NZ) affairs. Would a republic serve them better.. or not..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Dominion Post covers this with an opinion piece.
Their associated poll shows support for becoming a republic now at 37% – which does not surprise me.
What needs to be done is to propose a resolution such as planning to become a republic when the Quuen dies – then those who prefer a change later might come on board.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whew! Heading back to the topic (after the whirwind royal visit has swished through Welli), here’s quite a good go at the Republican discussion:
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/01/18/gordon-campbell-on-the-monarchy-and-replacing-it/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)