Green Party election priorities launch

Written By: - Date published: 1:56 pm, July 12th, 2014 - 107 comments
Categories: election 2014, Environment, equality, greens, internet mana party, labour, Mining, sustainability, water - Tags:

Tomorrow Today the Green Party is launching launched the first of it’s election priorities in Hamilton at 11. 00 am.  The focus is on building a

cleaner, fairer, smarter New Zealand.

green-new-deal-thumb

Green Party Facebook pages have this notice:

With 10 weeks until the election on September 20th, we’re excited to be launching the first of our election priorities to build a cleaner, fairer, smarter New Zealand, at 11am this Sunday in Hamilton.

Green Party Election 2014 Priorities Launch

Follow @NZGreens on Twitter for live updates, and of course we’ll share the full details with you on Facebook too.

Tracy Watkins reckons tomorrow’s launch will focus on water quality.

The announcement is in Hamilton, which makes it a sure bet that they will be unveiling a policy on water quality, a key issue for the party, which has developed a strategy for the election under which environmental policy is one of three crucial legs.

Watkins has buried this within an article that general uses wedge politics to undermine left wing parties generally.  The focus of the article is on painting Laila Harre’s past in terms of faction politics of competition, fragmentation and divisions within the left.

She continues this approach by referring to the Internet Party’s release of their environment policy as being in direct competition with the Greens. [IP press release from Laila Harre]

Actually, the big story with the policies of both The Greens and IP, is that they highlight the importance of environmental policies for this election.  The Greens already have a strong track record, and focus on the environment.  The more of the parties and voters on the left that are on board with positive and workable environment policies, the better for NZ and it’s people.

Green Party clean rivers

It’ good to see that the IP has a detailed policy on the environment online.  There is a strong focus on the use of clean, green technologies.  It’s also good to see that aim to promote public transport, cycling and walking.

The Green Party policies on energy

and various aspects of the environment are here:

Climate change

Conservation

Environment

Toxics

Waste

Natural resources

Forestry

Sea and Oceans

Water

A point of difference between left parties, for voters to consider, is in policies on mining, especially oil and gas exploration. Labour, as stated by Shearer on the Nation this morning, is more for restricted approach, strong checks on safety and protection of the environment from spillages and other damage, while working towards phasing out of fossil fuel extraction and use.

The Greens oppose such exploration.  The IP wants

an immediate moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, land-farming, deep-sea exploration, undersea mining and deep-well injection until the recommendations of the Commissioner for the Environment about these environmentally risky extraction industry processes are debated publicly and acted on by Parliament. The objective is to achieve a social mandate for processes that are safe, properly consented and monitored, and to ensure modern and environment-friendly methods – if they are available – are given greater priority as emphasis on fossil fuels is phased down.

I will be interested to see the form that the Green Party launch takes tomorrow.  Water,  if that turns out to be tomorrow’s focus,  is a key resource and very important to our future.  It is also important for the country that the Greens show leadership and promote positive and workable policies in making the environment a key election priority.

It is also notable that the Green Party has highlighted 3 prongs to their election campaign, with aims to lessen inequalities and to get rid of poverty being an on-going and central concern:

a cleaner,

fairer,

smarter New Zealand

green party logo

 

[Update]

Today the Green Party Launched their Clean Rivers Priority.

Green Party launches key election priority, rivers clean enough for swimming

The Green Party has announced today that its number one environmental priority for this election is making our rivers clean enough to swim in again and keeping our beaches safe from oil spills.

The Green Party will make a series of announcements over the course of the election campaign in which it will outline the specifics of how it will clean up our rivers and protect our beaches. In the first of these announcements, made today, the party launched its plan for clean rivers.

The key policy points in the Green Party’s plan for clean rivers are:

1. Establish a protected rivers network

[…]

2. Set robust standards that ensure rivers are clean enough for swimming

[…]

3. Keep our wild rivers wild by not building any new dams on them

Stuff article on it

I like that it’s an important environmental policy, targeting a key resource for living, business and public sector activities, by promoting it in terms that will have meaning for most Kiwis.

107 comments on “Green Party election priorities launch ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. George 1
    12 July 2014 at 1:59 pm

    It is extremely disappointing that Labour are endorsing climate change, at this crucial moment in history.

    It’s what I would expect from a party of the 1990s.

    • karol 1.1
      12 July 2014 at 2:04 pm

      What makes you think they are “endorsing” climate change? And by that do you mean they are doing nothing to counter it?

      If you don’t think Labour are doing enough, there are other left parties you can vote for that put it strongly on the agenda.

      • George 1.1.1
        12 July 2014 at 2:07 pm

        Endorsing oil drilling is endorsing climate change.

        It’s 2014. Labour are well aware of climate change, and they are choosing to take an action which will make it worse, and make it harder for New Zealand to transition into a cleaner and more modern economy.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1
          12 July 2014 at 2:17 pm

          “and make it harder for New Zealand to transition into a cleaner and more modern economy.”

          Yeah, ’cause stopping the use of oil for transportation won’t kill our economy, and will in fact make it easier to transition to an economy that doesn’t use oil. I guess that’s true: if there is no economy at all, then it can’t be using oil.

          • Todd Ross 1.1.1.1.1
            12 July 2014 at 2:49 pm

            No. Allowing oil etc to continue as the basis of our economy, is irresponsible.

            Yeah, ’cause transition=stopping. I guess thats true: because you said it….

            Try another false equivalency….that one makes you sound a little scared.

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1.1
              12 July 2014 at 5:42 pm

              George claims that drilling oil in NZ is going to “make it harder for New Zealand to transition into a cleaner and more modern economy”. That seems likely an unlikely claim to make, given the vast amounts of oil used worldwide every single day, anything drilled in NZ is a tiny drop in the bucket. If that oil is burned, it will make an infinitesimally tiny impact on CO2 emissions in the world.

              So, given how nonsensical his argument is, I presumed he’s using the same sort of (stupid) attack that is often levelled against environmentalists – “if you love the environment so much, you’re a big hypocrit if you use a car and therefore I don’t have to listen to your argument”. Because George’s original argument is so obviously weak that I don’t think anyone would attempt to make it and have it stand by itself, it seems to me he is really saying “NZ needs to stop using all oil ASAP”, which of course, won’t actually produce the outcome he’s wanting either.

              To have any hope of a transition away from oil/coal while maintaining our lifestyles at a level that more closely resembles the 1950’s than it does the 1750’s, a controlled transition that includes the continued use of coal and oil in the short to medium term (next 20-30 years) is going to be required.

              It should be noted I treat the whole situation as being more about Peak Oil than I do about climate change.

              • Todd Ross …
                12 July 2014 at 6:43 pm

                Increasing supply will delay the transition. Who benefits from the increased delay?

                • Lanthanide …
                  12 July 2014 at 8:03 pm

                  “Increasing supply will delay the transition.”

                  Again, the supply increase we’re talking about here is so negligible in the global context that that argument doesn’t really hold any water.

                  Also, while the oil we’re talking about is tiny in the global scheme, it is fairly significant to NZ, especially if we brought in a more fair royalty and tax regime so that the government got more of the revenue. The government could choose to put that revenue – that they otherwise wouldn’t have – into subsidising green/transition technologies.

                  • George …
                    12 July 2014 at 9:24 pm

                    I suppose you could use nuclear power to subsidise non-nuclear fuel sources, or weapons sales to fund peace, or slavery to fund freedom.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      12 July 2014 at 9:52 pm

                      Pretty flippant response you have there, rather than actually addressing any of my points.

                      I’ll summarise it in another way: what’s the point in dying in a ditch over a tiny issue that in the grand scheme of things doesn’t matter? Be much better to take the issue in your stride, see what silver linings it may bring, and focus your energy on making a difference, instead of just making noise.

                  • Todd Ross …
                    12 July 2014 at 11:05 pm

                    So my argument doesn’t ‘really’ hold water, but to reach that conclusion, you conflate an argument for our economy to include all others? You got me, I should have said …delay ‘our’ transition.” Surely in that context, it would appeal to your ‘peak oil’ preference? or do we now have to argue where that ‘peak’ lies & what level of subsidy would be required to make it “20-30 years” away?

                    The argument you seem to be making, isn’t for us to develop the resource for our own benefit. Is it fair to say your happy for us to ‘clip the ticket’ on global operators developing our resources, for a global market which we ourselves are dependant on?

                    This entire debate has moved far beyond wether the royalties are fair or not. ‘fair’ would not only be valuing those resources as exclusive to New Zealand’s interests, but would also account for the cost & responsibility of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.

                    I don’t buy the argument that selling resources for money, will supposedly help us cope with resource scarcity.

                    I’m not that interested in the supposition that transition technologies require subsidies ether, its a bit arse backwards in the current context.

                    “Pretty flippant response you have there, rather than actually addressing any of my points.” Just quietly, I think you missed the point George made….

                    BTW – Screw proportional effects, collective responsibility starts with us.

                    Again: Who benefits from the increased delay in ‘OUR’ transition?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 July 2014 at 12:01 pm

                      “The argument you seem to be making, isn’t for us to develop the resource for our own benefit. Is it fair to say your happy for us to ‘clip the ticket’ on global operators developing our resources, for a global market which we ourselves are dependant on?”

                      Because NZ is in no position to develop these resources, likely ever. Especially because we’re talking about deep-water extraction. We don’t have the capital or expertise to develop these resources.

                      “I don’t buy the argument that selling resources for money, will supposedly help us cope with resource scarcity.”

                      So you think producing more resources (and consequently selling them), doesn’t help against resource scarcity? Strange position to take.

                      “Again: Who benefits from the increased delay in ‘OUR’ transition?”

                      Given the transition is likely going to result in more expensive resources, therefore a general lessening on quality of life (I think we’d be lucky to end up with 1950’s energy levels), everyone benefits from the increased delay, given that we’re talking about NZ producing a few minutes worth of global oil consumption.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 July 2014 at 2:31 pm

                      Because NZ is in no position to develop these resources, likely ever. Especially because we’re talking about deep-water extraction. We don’t have the capital or expertise to develop these resources.

                      If the business case to develop those resources was sound, why would NZ not have the financial capital to do so? If we didn’t have the expertise in NZ to do the drilling ourselves, why not simply hire contractors like Transocean to do it?

                      None of these things you mention are showstoppers to us owning the oil ourselves Lanth.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 July 2014 at 2:53 pm

                      Re: CV
                      I never said “financial” capital, for the record.

                      The equipment required to extract deep-water oil is very expensive. The expertise is very expensive. The volume of oil we’re talking about here, it is not cost-effective if you have to build all of that infrastructure from the ground up. It may be cost-effective if you already have all of the equipment and expertise you need, and you can divert those resources from other opportunities towards the NZ one.

                      Boils down to economies of scale. You don’t invest $50B starting up an oil company for potential returns of (say) $5B in oil. But if you already have the $50B oil company, you may want to spend $1B as opportunity cost for potential returns of $5B in oil.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    13 July 2014 at 1:19 am

                    Talking about what we do being negligible in the global context is an absolute diversion. No country can solve the problems in a global context – but the more countries which act, the closer we get to that goal. Lanthanide’s argument reminds me a bit too much of ACT policy.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 July 2014 at 12:02 pm

                      And dying in a ditch over an inconsequential quantity of oil is a waste of time.

                    • Todd Ross …
                      13 July 2014 at 1:52 pm

                      For Lanthanide:
                      1) Avoiding the dependancy issue doesn’t help to qualify your suppositions.
                      2) Yes. That is the point of transitioning the economy ‘away’ from dependancy.
                      3) A delay in transition ‘costs’ every one. Insisting otherwise, discredits the peak oil approach/position clarified by you above.

                    • mikesh …
                      13 July 2014 at 2:26 pm

                      “And dying in a ditch over an inconsequential quantity of oil is a waste of time.”

                      Failing to exploit these resources may not have much effect on global warming, but I doubt we will “die in a ditch” if we fail to exploit them. In fact our subsequent impoverishment would probably be insignificant.

                      And nor would it significantly slow the onset of peak oil.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 July 2014 at 2:59 pm

                      @mikesh:
                      “Dying in a ditch over x” is a metaphorical term where someone makes a big massive deal about something that ultimately isn’t important, and end up costing themselves in the long-run.

                      This entire thread started by George saying:
                      “It is extremely disappointing that Labour are endorsing climate change, at this crucial moment in history.

                      It’s what I would expect from a party of the 1990s.”

                      He goes on to say that “endorsing drilling is endorsing climate change”. Politics is ultimately the art of the possible. There’s no point taking a stand on such a minor part of global climate change (drilling oil in NZ) if in turn it would prevent you from getting the government benches, where you would have real power to make other changes, such as green-energy subsidies and carbon taxes.

                      Eventually as public opinion shifts, it may be tenable to halt drilling in NZ. But at the moment, it’s inconsequential whether oil drilling continues in NZ, it has numerous benefits for the economy and continuing to drill doesn’t mean we can’t also start transitioning to a system where we a less dependant on oil.

                      This really boils down to the same petty argument that TightyRighty is making farther down the in the comments, where the Green Party can’t really be Green because they spend so much time flying around in planes producing CO2. Here we’re saying NZ can’t be credible on climate change until it stops drilling for oil. Sometimes it is necessary to continue doing “bad things” if ultimately it helps you to achieve the “good things” that you want.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 July 2014 at 3:41 pm

                      “…doesn’t matter…ultimately isn’t important…”

                      I was surprised to hear Prof David Archer of ‘Climate 101’ and Realclimate fame state that ‘the science’ is based on the premise that we will burn all the available oil, whereas if we burn all the coal we’re done for.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 July 2014 at 3:50 pm

                      Those energy resources must be held back as a strategic reserve for internal NZ use only.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 July 2014 at 3:55 pm

                      I was surprised to hear Prof David Archer of ‘Climate 101′ and Realclimate fame state that ‘the science’ is based on the premise that we will burn all the available oil

                      The term ” all available oil” is a really tricky one. At the end of the day, for various reasons, billions of barrels of technically accessible oil reserves (“available oil”?) are going to be permanently left under the ground.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 July 2014 at 6:52 pm

                      @ CV: Yes, I think holding the oil back for strategic NZ interests is probably a good idea.

                      However, once again, NZ doesn’t have the capacity to find the resources, which takes drilling test wells.

                      There’s no point saying “keep all the reserves for NZ strategic interests” if NZ is never in a position to actually find the oil themselves.

                      So we could try and pull a bait and switch – let outside companies find the oil, but then put onerous conditions on them so they choose not to produce.

                      Probably the best bet is to save the oil fields for future use, as a trading chip with another country, rather than selling it on the open market now.

        • marty mars 1.1.1.2
          12 July 2014 at 3:14 pm

          Plus 1 George – the pathetic justifications for it are embarrassing too – putting the profits of the exploiters above the public good – business as usual.

          • George 1.1.1.2.1
            12 July 2014 at 4:26 pm

            Defensive rubbish.

            Electric cars don’t create jobs? Wind turbines don’t create jobs? More fuel efficient cars don’t create jobs? Insulation of houses? Reducing methane emissions from agriculture?

            The fact is that we get to have a better New Zealand, embrace technology that will make our lives better, create new jobs, and in many cases grow the economy.

            GDP per capita is much higher in Taranaki. But household incomes are almost the same. It isn’t workers who benefit from this industry.

            • srylands 1.1.1.2.1.1
              12 July 2014 at 5:23 pm

              “Electric cars don’t create jobs? Wind turbines don’t create jobs? ”

              No they don’t.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                12 July 2014 at 5:27 pm

                No, but making them does. And then there would be the maintenance on them – that would be jobs. And the power from the wind turbines would be used to power factories which would be more jobs.

                Wait, what?

                Oh, SSLands was wrong – again.

                • George …
                  12 July 2014 at 6:00 pm

                  Yeah, about that:

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy

                  Tackling climate change – shutting down the oil wells – will grow the economy.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    12 July 2014 at 9:55 pm

                    “Tackling climate change – shutting down the oil wells – will grow the economy.”

                    If by “grow the economy”, you mean “utterly destroy it”. I guess it’s easier to ‘grow’ something after you’ve just wiped everything out, like growing new seedlings in clear-felled forest.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 July 2014 at 4:01 pm

                      Oil is almost completely going away in 25-30 years time anyhows. We do a controlled ditching now, or we do a nosedive from 35,000 feet in just a little while. What would you prefer?

                      If by “grow the economy”, you mean “utterly destroy it”. I guess it’s easier to ‘grow’ something after you’ve just wiped everything out

                      What’s the fixation with ongoing “economic growth”? Do we want to pretend that the deity of year on year exponential economic growth is still working fo rus? It’s an impossibility within a finite ecosystem with limited resources and energy.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 July 2014 at 6:53 pm

                      Ending economic growth is not the same thing as destroying the economy.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 July 2014 at 3:56 pm

                “Electric cars don’t create jobs? Wind turbines don’t create jobs? ”

                No they don’t.

                You must somehow feel that you have some tatters of credibility left to waste, Shitlands.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.2.2
            12 July 2014 at 4:53 pm

            fitzsimon pointed out that 80% of current known reserves can’t be used without screwing over the planet..

            ..so as she said..

            ..why are we subsidising these dirty-industries..to do just that..?

            ..to find more unusables ..?

            ..why aren’t we using that money to finance the transition..?

            • phillip ure 1.1.1.2.2.1
              12 July 2014 at 4:57 pm

              as john oliver said in that vid posted yesterday:..

              ..we asked ourselves the collective-question:..’do we want to leave a clean planet for our grandchildren..?

              ..and we all said ‘nah..!..fuck them!’…

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2.2.2
              12 July 2014 at 5:29 pm

              We don’t have to burn the oil/coal. It can be used for better purposes.

    • George 1.2
      12 July 2014 at 2:04 pm

      The oil industry has welcomed Labour’s stance.

      Greens Co-leader Russel Norman has said the policy will make any post-election coalition negotiations between the parties difficult.

      The level of distrust of Labour in the Greens is still extremely high, despite some personal connection and recognition of shared policy. Could the Greens trust Labour not to force them into a position where they are required to either support oil drilling, or withdraw from Government? At this stage, it’s impossible to say.

      http://www.3news.co.nz/Labour-details-oil-exploration-policy/tabid/1607/articleID/352418/Default.aspx#ixzz37DQiyiPL

      • karol 1.2.1
        12 July 2014 at 2:06 pm

        Well, the thing to do is to vote green or Green. Ensure there is a strong voice in parliament to counter climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

        People pressure is really important to bring about significant changes in society.

      • JK 1.2.2
        12 July 2014 at 4:49 pm

        I don’t know where Shearer is getting his information from, but the silly idiot could do no worse than actually read up on Labour’s Policy Platform which sets out the guidelines for Labour’s actual policy-making. Labour hasn’t yet announced its climate change/oil-gas-mining drilling policies but the Policy Platform says the following :

        Climate change—Labour wants New Zealand to honour its international commitment to reduce our gross greenhouse gas emissions through good science and responsible behaviour by companies and individuals. We will encourage the development of mitigation technologies and industries, such as forestry. We will make sure our Emissions Trading Scheme has environmental credibility as an ‘all gases all sectors’ scheme, ultimately free from subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters.

        Labour recognises the need for New Zealand to prepare for, and mitigate, the likely environmental, economic, and social impacts of climate change, and will take action to plan for this based on scientific advice.

        Energy—Labour will prioritise the development of renewable and low-carbon energy technologies for a smooth transition away from our dependence on fossil fuels. With a strong base of existing renewable energy including hydro, geothermal, and wind, we believe all New Zealanders should benefit from our use of sustainable natural resources.

        • karol 1.2.2.1
          12 July 2014 at 5:39 pm

          That’s pretty much what Shearer said, though between his stumbles, he put the main focus on the oil and gas exploration bits – that may have influenced how the policy is perceived.

          • Wayne 1.2.2.1.1
            13 July 2014 at 2:39 pm

            Karol,

            You are a bit harsh on David Shearer. His recent interviews have been very fluent and coherent. If he had done them as Leader, he probably still would be Leader.

            He probably sought the top job too soon. But of course people have to take their chances as they find them and trust themselves to be able to step up to the next level.

            Think of Bill English. In hindsight it was too soon for him to take on the National leadership. But in his current role he is (in my opinion) hugely capable and is very much the intellect of the current government. And that is one of Labour’s main problems (although I appreciate you are Green, not Labour).

            In my view the top three in National (Key, English and Joyce) are clearly more capable than the alternate of Cunliffe, Parker (actually he is pretty good) and Robertson.

            The voters get to decide in two months.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.1.1
              13 July 2014 at 3:28 pm

              In my view the top three in National (Key, English and Joyce) are clearly more capable than the alternate of Cunliffe, Parker (actually he is pretty good) and Robertson.

              Only more capable of lying, they haven’t got any skills in actually running a country.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.1.1.2
              13 July 2014 at 3:47 pm

              “Intellect”?

              He’s a true believer, and well schooled in the dogma, witness his recent pronouncements attack on the most vulnerable children in the country.

            • bad12 1.2.2.1.1.3
              13 July 2014 at 4:12 pm

              Bill English as ‘leader’ of the National Party, its good to see Wayne, that on a Sunday you can loosen the screws enough to tell us all a little ‘funny’,

              i, (Heh,heh,heh), totally agree with you, the Dullard from Dipton for leader is what i say, bring on the knives Wayne, make it so…

  2. TightyRighty 2
    12 July 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Greens are endorsing climate change and privatisation of state assets and copywrite infringement by the blatant rip off of airnz’s font, image and banner presentation. Too many hours at the pointy end of a plane and in Koru suggesting disengagement from their core constituency

  3. Macro 3
    12 July 2014 at 2:21 pm

    The Green’s are not a one trick pony as Ms Watkins would have her readers believe. Nor will this policy announcement be restricted solely to water quality, but if anyone thinks that the recent Regulations detailed by MP Adams will cut the mustard – they are sadly mistaken.
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/100-pure-with-5-chance-of-infection.html
    If Labour really want to gain the hearts of the people who are descendents of those who were instrumental in the birth of the Labour movement around 100 years ago – then they should drive through Waihi sometime. Their silly flirtation with the mining industry would cease forthwith. People who are directly affected by it DON”T WANT IT.
    It’s great to see Mana- Internet coming out with strongish environmental and good social justice policies as well.

  4. TightyRighty 4
    12 July 2014 at 2:42 pm

    @karol I’m not a Coldplay fan, doesn’t meant I agree with people using their song to promote their own political cause without attribution or permission.

    • karol 4.1
      12 July 2014 at 2:52 pm

      I still have no idea what you are on about. Which image are you referring to? How is it an airnz rip-off. And if it is, why haven’t airnz complained?

      • bad12 4.1.1
        12 July 2014 at 3:22 pm

        Tighty,(i assume that refers to its ablution habits),Righty is doing the usual ‘wing-nuts’ dance, distract, and, divert, hoping to spark a flame,

        i think i will wait until the policy release befor commenting on it,(no disrespect intended)…

      • srylands 4.1.2
        12 July 2014 at 5:25 pm

        It is a complete Air NZ rip off. Also I resent a ginger haired Australian and a fat person with an enormous carbon foot print lecturing everyone about being “smart and green”. I feel like vomiting every time that idiot says “smart green economy”.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.3
        12 July 2014 at 6:29 pm

        I think the latest rightwing meme is trying to compare the typeface used in Green Party infographics to Air NZ ads, like the two below:
        Air NZ
        Greens

        It totally works as a conspiracy theory if you ignore the fact that both are simply good examples of a particular friendly-corporate style which many organisations are using these days.

        • Paul 4.1.3.1
          12 July 2014 at 6:34 pm

          Anything to avoid discussing the actual issues….

        • karol 4.1.3.2
          12 July 2014 at 6:49 pm

          Thanks. Well, the right wing failed conspiracy is pretty lame – a real stretch that amounts to “nothing to see there”.

          Agree with Paul that some rightees want to talk about anything but the dire consequences of climate change – especially if the Nats continue with their do-nothing approach.

          • Lloyd 4.1.3.2.1
            12 July 2014 at 8:35 pm

            Karol the gnats approach isn’t do nothing. They still want to build roads, and are stalling on buildling the CRL in Auckland. Building roads will encourage more fuel burning. Building the CRL will immediately take drivers off Auckland roads and reduce greenhouse emissions.

            The gnats are a greenhouse party.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.2.1.1
              12 July 2014 at 9:11 pm

              Building the CRL will immediately take drivers off Auckland roads and reduce greenhouse emissions.

              And thus reduce profits for the oil companies while also allowing Auckland transport to reduce fares on public transport.

              The Nats are working to protect those profits and nothing else.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 July 2014 at 5:00 pm

                Reducing our dependence on imported oil is an important step forward in the economic sovereignty of our nation. Verboten, obviously.

        • Lanthanide 4.1.3.3
          12 July 2014 at 8:06 pm

          Which is pretty stupid really, because inspection of the fonts shows they are different. The Green font has more slender and pronounced serifs on the letters than the Air NZ font does, which are squatter and curvier.

          Unless Air NZ have somehow gotten a trademark for “text using several fonts on an ad”, this isn’t the least bit infringing.

        • srylands 4.1.3.4
          12 July 2014 at 8:53 pm

          It is not “right wing”. There is no right wing in New Zealand. And it is not a conspiracy. It is amusing.

          [karol: any more comments on the Green Party and logos will get moved to open mike. This thread is about policies and election priorities. It is not here for your diversionary, and lame amusement.]

          • dimebag russell 4.1.3.4.1
            12 July 2014 at 8:56 pm

            @slylands
            what are you talking about?
            are you drunk?

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.3.4.1.1
              12 July 2014 at 9:17 pm

              Shitlands says there is no right wing in NZ; of course he does regard Margaret Thatcher as too centrist for his political tastes.

              • dimebag russell …
                12 July 2014 at 9:21 pm

                @CV
                slylands is just playing a typical right wing trick of talking nonsense that doesn’t make any sense and just confuses people.
                a piece of work.

              • Lanthanide …
                12 July 2014 at 9:57 pm

                srylands thinks that the US political system is balanced between the left and the right, when really it is the US that doesn’t have a left wing.

                • phillip ure …
                  13 July 2014 at 12:05 pm

                  on any ideological-spectrum..

                  ..the national party in nz is more ‘left’..

                  ..than is the ‘left’/democrat party in america..

                  ..as usual..misery-lands is talking absolute shite…

                  • phillip ure …
                    13 July 2014 at 5:47 pm

                    the climate-change denier clowns in act..

                    ..and the moon-landing deniers in colon craigs’ little clusterfuck…

                    ..are our far-right..

                    ..they should join up..

                    ..and call themselves deniers-r-us..

                    ..and misery-lands will be with one of those bunches of fuckwits…

        • TightyRighty 4.1.3.5
          13 July 2014 at 10:24 am

          it’s not a conspiracy. just an amusing observation, when one observes so many senior green mps flying up and down then country at the pointy end of the plane that they copy the copy of airnz. i have even thought of advertising in koru mag.

          i would have thought serious greens would get serious about carbon producing travel and figure out alternative ways to spread their carbon reducing message. they are trying to get us to switch to alternative methods of economic production?

          • Todd Ross 4.1.3.5.1
            13 July 2014 at 11:05 am

            If it places your competition at a distinct disadvantage, I’m sure you’re for it.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.5.2
            13 July 2014 at 4:54 pm
            1. It’s not the same font you idiot
            2. It’s pretty much impossible to get around the country in the time required without using aircraft
            • srylands 4.1.3.5.2.1
              13 July 2014 at 5:04 pm

              No it is not the same font. It is simply similar. And there is no need to be rude.

              Yes you are right, so they should simply set an example and not travel around the country.

              Alternatively they could set other small examples, like not sitting with the rich pricks in the Koru lounge, instead of making beeline for the free breakfast. (and you know who I am talking about)

              Or they could get the Airport Flyer bus from the airport to Parliament. But they don’t. They are straight into a Wellington Combined Taxi paid for by taxpayers.

              As for their policies well who knows where to start? I suggest you look at the idiocy of German energy policy since they abandoned nuclear and the impact that has had on the less well off in Germany.

              • karol …
                13 July 2014 at 5:24 pm

                Actually, I have seen tweets and comments from Green MPs using public transport and cycling. It probably depends on where they are, how far they need to travel, and how much time they’ve got.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                13 July 2014 at 5:25 pm

                And there is no need to be rude.

                With you RWNJs? Yeah there is.

                Yes you are right, so they should simply set an example and not travel around the country.

                That is not a viable option and you know it.

                Alternatively they could set other small examples, like not sitting with the rich pricks in the Koru lounge, instead of making beeline for the free breakfast.

                Couldn’t care less about that.

                Or they could get the Airport Flyer bus from the airport to Parliament.

                Again, probably not practical due to time constraints and I’m pretty sure that they do use public transport and cycling and walking as they can (i.e, read it somewhere).

                As for their policies well who knows where to start?

                You wouldn’t know because you’re too stupid to understand that using fossil fuels and nuclear costs more.

                I suggest you look at the idiocy of German energy policy since they abandoned nuclear and the impact that has had on the less well off in Germany.

                I doubt if it’s had that much of an impact and the wind and solar generation will be coming online nicely making electricity even cheaper.

              • felix …
                14 July 2014 at 4:24 am

                Why does Srylands hate rich people so much?

              • dimebag russell …
                14 July 2014 at 1:58 pm

                @slylands
                there is every need to be rude.
                its the only way to get through to people like you.
                you contribute anything except mumbo jumbo dressed up to look like a proper proposition and trivial questions.
                I could become really rude if you like.

          • Steve Reeves 4.1.3.5.3
            14 July 2014 at 5:12 am

            Yeah well if there was still a decent passenger rail system I’m sure it would be different!

            It’s mad that such a small country relies on flights to get people around. Either that or coaches.

            I guess things will change soon….

        • Daveosaurus 4.1.3.6
          13 July 2014 at 4:50 pm

          Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about fonts can demostrate that neither the bold italic font, nor the normal upright font, are even the same font – compare the letters ‘w’ in the former and the letters ‘a’ in the latter and it is obvious that both sets of fonts are distinctly different.

          So it’s not even a good conspiracy theory – it’s transparent and easily debunked.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2
      12 July 2014 at 5:08 pm

      Courts have never endorsed ‘ownership’ in regard to patents or trademarks. They are merely a means to license use for others. Since the Green party arent an airline they can use colours and fonts as they wish.

      #teamkey seem to be identified with a rival organisation #vomitbags

      • Lanthanide 4.2.1
        12 July 2014 at 8:07 pm

        “Since the Green party arent an airline they can use colours and fonts as they wish.”

        Er, no, that’s not how trademarks or patents work. At all.

  5. Grant Clark 5
    12 July 2014 at 10:27 pm

    Presume the announcement will be at Lake Karapiro our rowing headquarters. What a pack of clowns! If you speak often enough about anything it has a good chance of becoming the accepted truth.

  6. karol 6
    13 July 2014 at 9:52 am

    I can’t get access to the post to edit. Could someone please change the front page and beginning of post from “tomorrow” to “today”?

    Thanks.

  7. phillip ure 7
    13 July 2014 at 12:06 pm

    what was it..?

    ..what was the killer-policy..?

    • karol 7.1
      13 July 2014 at 12:49 pm

      Clean rivers. See http://www.greens.org.nz/cleanrivers

      and protect beaches, especially from oil spills.

      both to be good enough for swimming

      • phillip ure 7.1.1
        13 July 2014 at 1:06 pm

        i like the designated ‘protected-rivers’ idea…

        ..that provides a good base to start from..

        ..and does their ‘protect beaches from oil-spills’ mean they now will go head to head with labour…over deep-sea drilling..?

        • karol 7.1.1.1
          13 July 2014 at 5:54 pm

          As I understand it, The Greens and IP want an immediate moratorium on deep sea oil (and maybe other) mining, until a fully researched and evidence-based way forward can be developed – The IP want to devise an approach that the majority of Kiwis agree with.

          IP:

          Moratorium on risky extraction and waste disposal: There will be an immediate moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, land-farming, deep-sea exploration, undersea mining and deep-well injection until the recommendations of the Commissioner for the Environment about these environmentally risky extraction industry processes are debated publicly and acted on by Parliament. The objective is to achieve a social mandate for processes that are safe, properly consented and monitored, and to ensure modern and environment-friendly methods – if they are available – are given greater priority as emphasis on fossil fuels is phased down.

          The Green Party policies on this are in different places, but generally they are opposed to deep sea oil drilling.

          There’s this:

          Conservation of the Sea: Protected Areas
          Pass Marine Reserves Bill and create network of reserves

          No seabed mining in significant habitats, eg Maui dolphin

          Step up marine biosecurity efforts

          Require impact assessment of seabed exploitation in EEZ

          Labour wants to continue BAU, while they develop a more environmentally sustainable approach.

          • phillip ure 7.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2014 at 6:19 pm

            that’s good..

            ..so now all we need is internet/mana and greens together..to have more mp’s than labour…

            ..to make all this..and more..to come about…

  8. #Dumpkey 8
    13 July 2014 at 8:05 pm

    Fact is, the Greens will still go with Labour despite Labour’s drilling position.

    What else are they going to do? Let Key have another 3 years because they are unwilling to bend over this, thus allowing a more radical drilling/mining program to occur?

    As for Mana, IF they are there, it will be in small numbers and they will fold faster than Superman on washing day. All this posturing is simply for show to calm the fruit cake far left radicals in their parties. Both the Greens and Mana know, they will go with Labour, and drilling will continue to happen.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      13 July 2014 at 8:50 pm

      Both the Greens and Mana know, they will go with Labour, and drilling will continue to happen.

      Hmmm how is it you know what the coalition negotiation positions for the different parties are?

  9. lurgee 9
    14 July 2014 at 9:12 am

    Watkins has buried this within an article that general uses wedge politics to undermine left wing parties generally. The focus of the article is on painting Laila Harre’s past in terms of faction politics of competition, fragmentation and divisions within the left.

    Good grief, the incessant wailing bout media bias continues.

    The ‘article’ (actualy an opinion piece, not reportage) is actually a fairly complimentary piece about Harre’s achievements and experience, and an accurate historical commentary on the history of the Alliance.

    If Watkins hadn’t written this piece, people would be whining about how the left were being ‘shut out.’ If she had written a puff piece about how wonderful and ace Harre and everything lefti was, then she would have been lying and doing a disservice to her readers.

    The more articles like this, the better. It makes IMP look more serious and interesting, and reduces the perception that the party is just a bad joke by Dotcom.

    Stop being such a bunch of sad, paranoid complainers, the left!

    • karol 9.1
      14 July 2014 at 9:16 am

      There have been much better articles in both the NZ Herald and on Stuff, on the Green policy since it’s been announced.

      The article was pretty skewed to talking up a fragmented left.

      And your winging about the left is….?!

      • lurgee 9.1.1
        14 July 2014 at 1:41 pm

        For Gods’ sake! This isn’t media bias. This is repsonsible rporting. Real media bias is the Daily Mail smearing Ralph Miliband to hurt his son’s election chances; or the Telegraph’s grotesquely skewed coverage of the expenses scandal a few years back; or the attempts to hurt Harriet Harman or Jack Dromney by trying to connect them to the Paedophile Information Exchange. If you think a judicious profile of Laile Harre is ‘bias’ you don’t even know the meaning of the word.

        The left is fragmented. That’s a fact. It will probably become more fragmented and will finally evolve into several strands, of which Labour will be the largest, but nowhere near as dominant as it has been or even is now. Anyone who pretends the left isn’t fragmented is deluded. It is one of the fundamental problems we have to address. Contrast with the right, which is able to command a solid 40%+ of the vote.

        Floating voters and potential switchers are disinclined to vote Labour because they no longer look like a party of government. The sooner Labour acknowledges this and sets out a common agenda with the Greens, IMP and others, the better. Unfortunately, it probably won’t happen for a couple of elections.

    • dimebag russell 9.2
      14 July 2014 at 9:22 am

      @lugee
      the only paranoids around here are the nutbars from the right who are shit scared that the hammer is going to come down on their corrupt government on sep 20.
      they are getting more and more frantic as the event draws near and whining and whinging like despos.
      bye bye national.

      • lurgee 9.2.1
        14 July 2014 at 1:50 pm

        I wish that was true but I don’t see much evidence of it. I suspect Key, English et al must be lookin at the polls and muttering, “45%? After all this? What more could we have done to make people hate us? What more can we get away with?”

        • dimebag russell 9.2.1.1
          14 July 2014 at 2:00 pm

          The worm is turning for keys and his gang of looters and carpetbaggers.
          its time for them to move out.
          they have had their turn and been found wanting.
          good riddance.

  10. Sable 10
    14 July 2014 at 1:05 pm

    The NZ MSM are, in my opinion, all a bunch of old Tories. I simply don’t take any notice of them anymore. I suspect subscriptions would seem to be down too given the numerous house calls I have had on the phone and once in person by reps for one of the main MSM papers.

    If the public are made aware of their antics and enough people decide to boycott them they will simply cease to matter. Its a matter of making people aware of their antics so good to see critiques on sites like this one…

  11. SJ 11
    20 July 2014 at 4:16 pm

    I think the Greens need to change their game a bit. Start by not peddling a labour electorate vote and ask for two ticks instead of one, aim for a 20% vote