Wednesday May 31st, 2006. 12:27 pm by frog
A couple of weeks ago it was Nick Smith making speeches to the National Party about how to win over Green voters; now it appears that the British Conservative Party has decided to make climate change a major focus. Tory Leader David Cameron has pledged to replace his car with a hybrid and “put Britain on a Green highway“.
This Blue/Green trend is certainly an interesting one to watch.
Posted in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament | Society & Culture | by frog | Wed, May 31st, 2006 |
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 at 12:27 pm and is filed under Environment & Resource Management, Parliament, Society & Culture.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
May 31st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Well, Al Gore is doing his bit for the other sider:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1786437,00.html
I think the opportnuity of for the Greens to win over National voters.
May 31st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I have though for a long time that the national party has the opportunity to develop a set of policies with a strong environmental foundation and make very good economic sense. This would be in stark contrast to the Greens policies which usually have no sensible economic basis. Such a set of environmental policies would have the strong potential to take away from the greens those limited numbers of voters who support the Greens as their main issue is environmental, but they do not like the Greens socialist “tax it / Ban it” attitude to all else.
With hope that small % of voters who would support a blue green policy base would be enough to ensure the Greens fall under the critical 5% margin at the next election evicting them out of parliament for ever.
To be honest some of you MPs have not made any worthwhile contribution - for instance Keith Locke whose regular and stupid statements only serve to ridicule himself and those he is associated with.
May 31st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
And Hilary’s trying to play catch-up
http://tinyurl.com/qg8lf
May 31st, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Jeeves you’re right. Intelligent people will look at what the National ploy is and they don’t like being taken for suckers.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:19 pm
It’s a win for Green issues. Although I think that National is doing it to exploit the threshold. It won’t work, I can’t imagine there’s a huge swing vote between National and the Green party. Indeed, it could work against them, alienating the conservative base.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:40 pm
pm, where do you get the impression that greens want to tax everything they don’t like.
Our tax policies are revenue neutral - we are in favour of tax cuts on personal income to make up for the increased energy taxes. What’s wrong with that?
Also, there are other things where we advocate a levy (not a tax). The levy is not an attempt to change people’s behaviour by making a product more expensive, rather it is a way to raise money to spend on education campaigns to try and reduce the usage of the product. This means, 1. there is still free choice, people can still buy the product, there is no ban, and 2. taxpayers don’t have to pay for the education campaign. What’s wrong with that?
Please look past your prejudices petermc
May 31st, 2006 at 5:41 pm
p.s. National Party = good economic sense. Yeah right!
June 1st, 2006 at 1:27 am
It’s hard to see the National party as a credible choice for voters who perceive environmental issues as important. Aren’t they still calling for NZ to abandon Kyoto? How realistic is it to call for the abandonment for the only possible hope for an international agreement on carbon and still court the environmental vote - it simply isn’t.
Peter, I wouldn’t so swiftly dismiss Green policy as having no economic basis - I simply reject that when looking at the policy package they presented to fill the void of the scuppered carbon tax. It was sensible, it was realistic, it was enforcable, and importantly it was a move in the right direction. Would it have been as effective and tidy as a carbon tax - no, mores the pity.
Simply put, perhaps the only way to ensure that the environment is protected is to associate economic costs with environmental costs. This certainly isn’t rocket science, and it certainly isn’t right-wing unfriendly. However I just can’t see a National party ever agreeing to anything that will impose an extra cost on their constituants - business and agriculture: as they produce the bulk of the free pollution, there’s no way they’ll vote National for the priveledge of paying for it.
Not under this electoral paradigm will National ever become blue/green. More’s the pity.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:42 am
stuey -the “yeah right” is so worn out - I would stack the economic intellect of Brash and Key against anyone else in parliament anyday - the Nats have a long term economic vision for all NZ. Labour instead tend to pander to special interest groups. National want to grow the pie and give everyone the opportunity to increase their wealth, labour (supported by socialist Greens) envy the rich on the basis they must be doing something dishonest to be rich.
Socialism has always failed. Capitalism generally has been a success (exception is where legislation interfers to protect monopolies) but in it’s simplest form capitalism has solved the world’s problems for the past 3000 years.
for example food supply has continued to increase to meet international demand because farmers have always strived to improve the methods of production. Food is now an affordable commodity for the vast majority of the international population - whereas say 200 years ago supply of food totally dominated the existance of most people.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:43 am
Environment rates mention in Don Brash’s proud to be kiwi speech:
“I think forward to my vision of what New Zealand could be like after two terms of a National Government in 2014, about the time my youngest child will be leaving university:
… [list] …
- A country where the water is clean, the air is clean and we’re protecting our environment for future generations.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0605/S00666.htm
June 1st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Great stuff, I am so pleased that National wants to protect our environment. So does that mean that they will no longer be opposing the RMA?
Also, I look forward to their no more roads policy, since that’s the only I can see that they will get clean air.
I must write to Don again, to see what he has planned to acheive clean water and clean air.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:59 am
its hard to be understood when your tongue’s in your cheek:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48972
aaah, the onion…
June 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
If you want honest, down-to-earth information about the environment you can surely rely on Greenpeace?…
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14691089.htm
‘Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.
“This volatile and dangerous source of energy” is no answer to the country’s energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the “threat” posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.
But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE].”
Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?
The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.
“Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don’t even think it’s funny,” Smith said.
The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.’
June 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Nats typically want to preserve scarce resources so they can continue to exploit them, especially those who are most entitled to exploit them by dint of ownership, shareholding, ‘rights’ or other privilege.
Greens typically want to preserve scarce resources so there is always plenty to go round for everyone, especially those least entitled by dint of poverty, disability, or other prejudice.
Regardless of motivation, if our resources are genuinely preserved, and used sustainably, then our actions are well rewarded. Whether the Nats/Tories really would deliver a sustainable economic policy is open to question, but my vote is with fastbike and stuey.
The reason is that ‘economic sense’ as discussed here hides a similar difference of opinion:
Nats see increased profit and opportunities for access to increased profits as ‘economic sense’.
Greens see increased fairness, and increased sustainability as economic sense.
Either can provide technological benefits that support either of these motivations. Unfortunately, petermck makes the mistake of assuming that they are the same. If he thinks that it is a good thing that food has become a commodity, or that food production methods have improved, then he has revealled his true motivations and missed the point of good economic sense.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Blue-green policies would not reflect the watermelon policies of the Green Party - (Green on outside - pink / red in the middle - little substance)
the blue green philosphy is to developa policy agenda focused on growing the economy and preserving and creating jobs while protecting the environment. The goal of sustainable economic development is best promoted by concentrating on good jobs and a clean environment.
To educate about environmental and economic issues, and promote our shared goals of fair trade, corporate accountability, human health and safety, workers’ rights, and environmental protection.
However the key difference is that the blue green movement will vigorously challenge the “environment vs. jobs” argument that has been used as a wedge to separate working people and environmentalists-conservationists in the political arena.
It is a false idea that protection of our environment and job creation and economic growth stand in opposition to each other. In fact, we fundamental strategy for job growth in the 21st Century will require sound environmental public policies.
The greens (you lot) are essentially anti-development / anti-progress/ anti-america / anti-capitalism /anti-free trade / anti- corporations /anti- GE / anti-oil / anti- cars / anti-sports tours / anti-cellphones / anti National and anti-advertising. (sue kedgly was once anti-water )
There is a niche for a blue green movement - which essentially deals with the realities of life in the 21st century and doesn’t want people to go back to living in caves and riding around on bicycles.
All we need to do is take about 10% of your vote and on current polling its back to being a lobby group as you would be out of parliament. It goes to prove that the Greens do not have the monopoly on green issues there is an alternate as much as you hate the idea - The nats need to sell the blue-green concept and you may feel the pinch a little bit more.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
To be really honest - you should probably have linked to Nick Smith’s speech - it is very good - makes a lot of sense - and issues a big warning to the greens (and Labour) - after reading the speech I am more convinced than ever that the Blue-green movement is good for the country and good for the environment - because the blue-green concept does not try to ban things - or tax the hell (okay add levies) - it takes a more pragmatic approach - But while you have the likes of Locke bradford kedgley (actually all your MPs) - you are stuck with a socialist agenda - and have opened up the niche for the Nats
here is the link - well worth reading if only to be fully informed of the alternate. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0605/S00312.htm
June 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Actually when I said that the nats were not economically sensible, I was entirely refering to their tax policy. I consider it economically sensible to be prudent with a country’s money and to not get into debt, and to put some money away for a rainy day. I consider it economically irresponsible to lower the amount of money that the country makes, leaving nothing in reserve for when economic conditions are bad.
P.S. Sorry for using a cliche. Not.
P.P.S. Your main problem Mr mck, is that you equate the Greens with Labour. We are different, and if you would only look past your prejudices you would realise that. For example on tax, we believe in personal tax cuts, just like the nats. It’s just that our tax policy is revenue neutral so that the total amount earned by the govt doesn’t decrease, and lower income taxes are replaced by energy taxes.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Stuey - I am always surprised by people who don’t think a $9b surplus is not a surplus just because Culen says it is not. I do not mix the greens up with Labour - the greens policies are way to the left and will have negative unintended consequences - youth rates being a current example - that bill will lead to a higher unemployment rate for youth as employers opt to employ 18yr olds instead of 16 yr olds.
On tax and the economy, I am no expert - but i would still back Brash / key and Treasury with their economic and fiscal intellect over 99.9% of the population who have no knowledge in this area and whose motivations are usually self centred.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
and I suggest people read nick smiths speech - at least so they can comment intelligently on it.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0605/S00312.htm
June 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
“I would stack the economic intellect of Brash and Key against anyone else in parliament”
Hmmm. Does this mean you have to combine the two intellects together to get enough to compare to someone else?
June 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
better than a socialist who is a failed history teacher, a unionist bully boy (plenty of those) a smarmy socialist university lecturer, a corrupt lawyer.
Brash and Key have the respect of the wider business community and a large % of the NZ population (except those who blindly follow labour and believe thir spin and lies)
June 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
“I would stack the economic intellect of Brash and Key against anyone else in parliament anyday ”
You are quite right, there’s the most well financially funded, driven, represented in media and REWARDED going, off course going where the money is makes business sense….so does war for that matter
June 1st, 2006 at 9:58 pm
I agree with pretty much everything that Nick Smith says in his speech, the gopvernment do deserve a black mark for their useless ill-conceived contradictory and badly managed environmental policies, however I would say that part of the reason for the govt’s abject record is that they have been swayed by ignorant public opinion which has been whipped up by UF, NZF, ACT and the Nats with populist politics. e.g. canning the fart tax and carbon tax, ditching the warrant of fitness testing on emissions, building more roads, etc.
I also question whether National can be trusted to do better, given that caring for the environment goes completely against the normal run of business for their stakeholders. (For example Nick Smith berates the govt for increasing emissions because of congestion. So what’s National’s solution - build even more roads so that the traffic will flow smoothly. Aaaaaah! That will increase emissions.)
Having said that, if National can encourage its key stakeholders, i.e. farmers and businesses, to take sustainability and energy efficiency more serious and actually change their ways, then that can only be a good thing. For instance Nick Smith talks about the state of our lowland waterways - but it is National voters who are responsible for that with their fertiliser run-off.
Personally I think the greens should not rule out working with/supporting national, if they do change their tune on saving the planet (and back it up with real policies of course).
June 1st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
petermck- that is an interesting speech by Nick Smith, he raises some very good points IMHO. However it is mostly sniping, with not much of an alternative vision apart from promises of reviews and reforms.
However I welcome it- maybe National can outline a decent actual policy programme for the next election other than the bollocks about “tax cutz will solve everything!”
June 1st, 2006 at 11:29 pm
From the land of the free and the home of the brave:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004514.html
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:57 am
petermck - the original post I wrote when Nick Smith gave the speech, to which this post is a follow up, did link to the speech on the National Party website.
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am
The work of David McKnight, author of Beyond Left and Right: New Politics and the Culture Wars is very pertinent to this debate. Incidentally, he’s speaking at the Green Party Conference tonight. These issues are certainly central to the Green movement at the moment.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:04 pm
“I consider it economically sensible to be prudent with a country’s money and to not get into debt, and to put some money away for a rainy day. I consider it economically irresponsible to lower the amount of money that the country makes, leaving nothing in reserve for when economic conditions are bad.”
I think that’s an almost generational position. For most of recorded time, people seem to’ve been of the view that a moral imperative was to bequeath a better world to their decendants than the one they inherited. Somewhere recently (but squarely I think within the baby-boomers) that got turned on it’s head and the mantra became ‘they can pay for themselves’ via inherited debt. Seems to me that’s an outrageously selfish and ultimately destructive position at the root of many economic positions on the Right which has yet to run it’s full course.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I just realised the simplest distinction between the two types of society - the former one that exists to Build, the latter one that exists to Consume.
It’s no coincidence that favoured conventional economic metrics such as GDP are unable to distinguish between the two.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
…”Seems to me that’s an outrageously selfish and ultimately destructive position at the root of many economic positions on the Right”
It’s not exactly a new attitude:
Jesus said, “There was a rich person who had a great deal of money. He said, ‘I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing.’ These were the things he was thinking in his heart, but that very night he died. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!”
June 4th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Folks might also want to check out
http://prayingmantis.blogtown.co.nz/
June 4th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Jeanette directly responded to Nick Smith’s speech in her coleader address to the AGM which you can read here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech9865.html
or listen to here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/audio/060604-jfagm.mp3
June 6th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
we stealing ‘Green’ off of you fwog
June 6th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
well, well….
So the Nat’s want to green their policies? And will this lead to an acknowledgement that polluters should pay the price for their polluting behaviour?
Remember to breathe while you wait…..;-)