Green Party “I’m in – for the future”

109 comments on “Green Party “I’m in – for the future” ”

• Comments are now closed

1. CV - Real Labour 1

   27 January 2013 at 9:13 am

   The Ratanas loved it so much they ditched their male-only marae protocols to let her speak.

   That they did that really is a ‘wow’ and not to be underestimated. A measure of the significant mana that Metiria is held in. I agree karol the Greens have started this year off racing out of the gate, unafraid of being seen as a clearly left wing party. And she doesn’t seem to be afraid to mention “climate change” 🙂
   • Jenny 1.1

     27 January 2013 at 10:55 am

     And she doesn’t seem to be afraid to mention “climate change”

     CV – Real Labour

     Great. May this “mention” continue and expand into a full blown all-out campaign against climate change.

     Some solid policies needed to address Climate Change have to be announced. And some solid actions by the Green Party need to be taken now, to show that they take Climate Change seriously.
2. Bill 2

   27 January 2013 at 9:17 am

   And what are my impressions from the post and the links? Pretty obvious really. There may well be a *cough* ‘real Labour Party’…but then up jumps real party of labour.

   I read IB’s comments the other day about the Greens Party’s lack of social breadth and the concerns that a (generally speaking) white middle class support base presents a problem in terms of a parliamentary presence. But even if that demographic problem will present real parliamentary difficulties, that ‘State of the Planet’ speech goes a long way to addressing it by indicating a desire for more inclusive and widespread democratic structures.

   Anyway, seems to me that everything the Greens are doing is absolute streets ahead of the other parties in terms of the thinking it encapsulates and the hope or promise it offers. There was a lot in the ‘State of the Planet’ speech that made me genuinely sit up and take notice – and that’s not a little thing coming from someone who is not exactly endeared with the idea of parliamentary representation.

   And do the Greens harp on about a lack of meedia coverage or unfair media coverage and feel compelled to put forward people the ms media find acceptable? No. They just get on with doing what they are doing. And that’s what political parties should be about; not playing cry baby over access to the megaphones of orthodoxy.
   • Colonial Weka 2.1

     27 January 2013 at 10:37 am

     “And do the Greens harp on about a lack of meedia coverage or unfair media coverage and feel compelled to put forward people the ms media find acceptable? No. They just get on with doing what they are doing. And that’s what political parties should be about; not playing cry baby over access to the megaphones of orthodoxy.”

     Ae, that’s because the GP still operates predominantly from integrity. We (NZ) should make the most of that while we still have it.
     • fatty 2.1.1

       27 January 2013 at 11:41 am

       yeah…I am suspicious of the MSM are rightwing claims. Sure, they do suppress real left wing voice which is anticapitalist, but that is more to do with the hegemony of capitalism, rather than our media.
       As far as the right wing/left wing – Nats/Lab dichotomy…Labour have more than enough chances in front of cameras, its just they fail with stumble-face. The Green’s don’t have morons voicing their position.
       If your choice is down to Greens or Labour, and you want to invest some time and effort into your chosen party, then the choice is obvious:
       If you put time into Labour, the fruits of your hard work will move upwards to the powerful members in the party and dissipate.
       If you put time into the Greens, the fruits of your hard work will spread to others in the base and throughout our communities – as a result, energy and action grows as others are drawn into the social movement.
     • QoT 2.1.2

       27 January 2013 at 12:11 pm

       The Greens are also very smart operators in the social media space. It doesn’t hugely expand their target demographics in terms of race/class, but it does a lot to get The Yoof on board and isn’t mediated by the MSM.
   • Fortran 2.2

     27 January 2013 at 1:33 pm

     +1
3. hush minx 3

   27 January 2013 at 9:42 am

   To me there’s no doubt the greens are making themselves into a very credible repository for left voters, especially given Labour’s performance. They will either be a significant slice of a Labour green cabinet, or be headed for major opposition party status should shearer fail. And I suspect there still be an influx of activists from Labour to the greens off this!
4. muzza 4

   27 January 2013 at 9:44 am

   In order to ,*build up*, an existing structure, needs to be *torn down*, this is what can be seen in the, green momentum, against the self destruction of the Labour Party.

   Working together for NZ, is not seen as a viable option, and the political parties play their role in appealing to the divided individuals, who make up the voting population. Fears, insecurities all played on at any opportunity, while the suffering accelerates

   Until a holistic approach to nurturing, (healing) in the present time is realised as the most pressing issue, the future will be nothing more than a word used, as it has been, associated with failure.

   Until the manufactured scarcity (money), is addressed, (removed from influence)) which is used as a weapon, and the entities who propagate the illusion of scarcity, and fight for its survival (as illustrated by national questioning costs of housing,) accepted as irrelevant, humanity can only continue on the current track.

   Once the *competition* caused by manufactured scarcity is removed from the equation, people will begin to feel safe again, only when a feeling of safety permeates through our societies, touching people, will healing begin.

   The immediate focus, needs to be at the monetary systems, otherwise policy will be directed by scarcity, and people will continue to suffer, and feel insecure!

   Most on this site (and elsewhere), seem unable to grasp the simple concept, control it, or move on without it, by other means!
5. Sanctuary 5

   27 January 2013 at 9:47 am

   The Standard? Really? I think the name of this site ought to be changed to “The Ship of Fools”

   To paraphase wikipedia:

   “…The ship of fools is an allegory that has long been a fixture in Western literature and art. The allegory depicts a website managed by bloggers who are deranged, frivolous, or oblivious passengers aboard a ship without a pilot, and seemingly ignorant of their own direction. This concept makes up the framework of the 15th century book Ship of Fools (1494) by Sebastian Brant, which served as the inspiration for Bosch’s famous painting, Ship of Fools: a ship—an entire fleet at first—sets off from Basel to the paradise of fools, AKA the Green Party…”

   This site is called The Standard because, according to it’s own blurb (do the creators of this site even believe it anymore?) “…The Standard newspaper – from where our masthead comes – was founded by labour movement activists in the 1930s…”

   It has degenerated to little more than a knocking shop of the dissaffected, who find solace in the Greens because that party’s lack of any track record in government whatsoever allows them to project their own fantasies on to a largely blank political canvas.

   This site should either get back to it’s knitting or stop counterfeiting the name of the first Labour Party newspaper.
   • just saying 5.1

     27 January 2013 at 9:53 am

     I think the Standard would pass the Trade Descriptions Act.
     The “Labour” party on the other hand….
     • handle 5.1.1

       27 January 2013 at 12:02 pm

       Nice attempt by Sanctuary to derail a discussion of the Green party’s policies into Labour’s problem of knowing what it stands for. Always a place for you in the sanctum, maam. Mike Smith has the forms.
   • CV - Real Labour 5.2

     27 January 2013 at 9:55 am

     What on earth has changed with you, Sanctuary? It’s a bit rude of you to talk about the Standard as the “knocking shop of the disaffected” in quite this way. Especially when in Nov you wrote this rather disaffected sounding comment yourself:

     Shearer made a leftward leaning speech to save his skin at the conference, and did enough to convince enough members that his execution be stayed and he get a(nother) chance. The calling of this leadership vote shows however that the Mallard gang has learnt nothing from its drubbing at the weekend and are instead busily launching into revanchist revenge taking against the proxy messenger. All demoting Cunliffe will do is create the suspicion Shearer told the conference what he thought it wanted to hear, in the hope that he and his backers can simply dispatch the proxy messenger to the back benches and go back to pastel pink neo-liberalism once the dust settles.

     But until the Mallard clique is purged and the membership taken back on side, Shearer is dreaming if he thinks he can simply return to business as usual tomorrow.

     http://thestandard.org.nz/on-loyalty/#comment-551032

     edit – to be clearer, I don’t believe that The Standard has left Labour. More like Labour has decided to leave The Standard.
     • Sanctuary 5.2.1

       27 January 2013 at 10:16 am

       “… I don’t believe that The Standard has left Labour. More like Labour has decided to leave The Standard…”

       Poppycock hubris. And The Standard newspaper was aligned to the Labour PARTY, and you know it.

       I stand by what I said, but for me the turning point was the frankly mean spirited and more than slightly hysterical reaction to Labour’s new housing policy. It was then I had the realisation that a certain faction of people who write posts on this site had painted themselves into a rhetorical corner with no idea how to get out it; So they’ve doubled down instead. There will be nothing constructive said about the Labour here anymore, because to many of this sites writers have neither the wit to back down nor the grace to recognise they need to do so. Karol, the author of this post, is clearly anti-Labour, and uses a style we’ve all seen before.

       David Low created Colonel Blimp, and it is obvious to me why it took a New Zealander to do so – It seems to me The Standard has been hijacked by the Colonel Blimps who once populated and ruined the Alliance, and are seemingly everywhere in our society.

       Effectively, they’ve overplayed their hand and exiled themselves to being whining fringe merchants.
       • CV - Real Labour 5.2.1.1

         27 January 2013 at 10:23 am

         Effectively, they’ve overplayed their hand and exiled themselves to being whining fringe merchants.

         What’s changed Sanctuary? I can keep copying and pasting well-reasoned comments you made in Nov/Dec slamming the approach of Shearer, Mallard in holding Labour back. What’s going on?

         I stand by what I said, but for me the turning point was the frankly mean spirited and more than slightly hysterical reaction to Labour’s new housing policy.

         Hysterical? That housing policy is aimed at people earning over $60,000 per annum. It’s very dfficult to service a $300,000 mortage over 20 years on less income than that. The criticisms were valid – its not a social housing policy, its housing policy for the solid income earning middle class.
         • the Al1en 5.2.1.1.1

           27 January 2013 at 10:27 am

           New directive from the polit bureau?
           Codename – Get Viper 😆
           • CV - Real Labour 5.2.1.1.1.1

             27 January 2013 at 10:59 am

             lol yeah mate, Curran and co. already tried that. But what happened was that they uncovered an entire nest of vipers 🙂
             • the Al1en …

               27 January 2013 at 11:03 am

               All good, bruv. You keep biting and making them look down at their ankles, I’ll aim for the face. 😆
       • geoff 5.2.1.2

         27 January 2013 at 10:42 am

         Sounds more like you’ve doubled down on your own misguided realisation, Sanctuary. You’ve come up with these extensive metaphors to explain your own incorrect generalisations and are so pleased with yourself that you’ve fooled yourself into thinking they have some resemblance with reality. Perhaps becoming an author of children’s books would be more in line with your strengths.
       • RedLogix 5.2.1.3

         27 January 2013 at 12:03 pm

         I’m not the only one baffled Sanctuary. Perhaps for slightly different reasons.

         I’ve come to know you from many, many comments you’ve posted here over the years. You are perhaps the one poster whose comments I’ve always respected, but more than this … wish I had written myself. Consistently.

         Now of course I’m not foolish enough to think everyone will always think exactly the same about everything. And when people change their minds it’s not always at the same time.

         But our values are often more solid than this. And I suspect we both share a fair chunk of very similar values. Loyalty being one of them. For instance I’d bet that a little bit of you too was recoiled by Key’s recent sacking of two loyal and competent Ministers … just because he could and it suited him to do so.

         But looking back on my own life I can see several points at which I gave my undiluted commitment to people and organisations … who simply did not deserve it. My loyalty to them was simply used and nothing came back by way of return. When I finally (too late as it was) parted company, I’m sure I was labelled ‘disaffected’. That’s how it’s always painted by the power-brokers.

         But frankly when a relationship isn’t working for you anymore, what are the choices? Hang on and hope it will get better? Or pick another path? Never an easy choice.
         • Jackal 5.2.1.3.1

           27 January 2013 at 12:55 pm

           Kate Wilkinson a competent Minister… You can’t be serious RedLogix?
           • RedLogix 5.2.1.3.1.1

             27 January 2013 at 1:21 pm

             Well adequately so. Sure neither could be described as stellar, but considering some of the people Key kept on ahead of these two….

             Any real manager who wants to shuffle his line-up goes through a change management process, consults, gets feedback, tries to build as much buy-in as possible … and allows the people without a chair at the end of the process the opportunity to move on with their dignity intact.

             Key .. for all the spin he put on it … ruthlessly shafted these two. That’s my point.
             • CV - Real Labour …

               27 January 2013 at 1:31 pm

               This is how National gets things done, fast. And I wouldn’t feel to much sympathy RL. National is also excellent for handing out rewards to its people like board positions and consulting contracts. Wilkinson and Heatly will be looked after in the long term, I’m sure.
       • Olwyn 5.2.1.4

         27 January 2013 at 2:19 pm

         ianmac has used a nagging wife analogy to describe TS critics of Labour. I see it as analogous to a breakdown in trust between a couple: the pink bubbly and the gas station flowers do not make up for your failing to explain why you didn’t come home last night. Once trust goes, all actions come under suspicion until it is rebuilt. When the worst insults are reserved for party members rather than the opposition, and membership drives are looked upon with suspicion, then you must surely acknowledge that the trust problem cuts both ways.
   • Bill 5.3

     27 January 2013 at 10:01 am

     Labour Party and labour movement are not the same thing. A Labour Party that cleaved to labour principles could only ever be a part of a labour movement. The newspaper was formed by the labour movement. The Labour Party was formed by a part of the labour movement. And the Green’s politics align strongly with labour movement principles.

     But you carry on being wild and blind with that bluderbuss.
     • Sanctuary 5.3.1

       27 January 2013 at 10:04 am

       Right, thanks for the more granular explaination. I now look forward to your erudite description of the number of angels that can fit onto the head of a pin.
       • Bill 5.3.1.1

         27 January 2013 at 10:20 am

         None.

         You’d do well to dump the fictions from your head – pins, angels/Labour Party, labour movement…

         Meanwhile, the post is about the Green Party, Green Party policies and Green Party speeches. It’s not about ‘the standard’ or your opinions of ‘the standard’. And it’s not about the Labour Party.

         And I’m not going to contribute any more towards your attempts to derail the thread.
         • Colonial Weka 5.3.1.1.1

           27 January 2013 at 10:38 am

           +1
           • Jenny 5.3.1.1.1.1

             27 January 2013 at 11:02 am

             +2
   • the Al1en 5.4

     27 January 2013 at 10:06 am

     “It has degenerated to little more than a knocking shop of the dissaffected, who find solace in the Greens because that party’s lack of any track record in government whatsoever allows them to project their own fantasies on to a largely blank political canvas.”

     Are you sure? I think it’s because shearer’s labour is shit and the Green’s aren’t.
     Head over heart, mate. Always.

     “The Standard newspaper – from where our masthead comes – was founded by labour movement activists in the 1930s…””

     Shearer’s Labour is nothing like that. Almost a bit disingenuous, given the current Labour caucus, to even try and link it with historical activism.
     Reads like a mike smith post.

     “The Ship of Fools”

     With captain mf supposedly at labour’s helm, I reckon the smart money is on the ts waka to survive the cruise.
   • bad12 5.5

     27 January 2013 at 10:35 am

     Post hi-jack number one, an attack on the Standard, along with an atttack on authors and commenters all in one go,

     The Green Party doesn’t give a continental big fat f**k what you think, 10,11,12,13% in the polls is one hell of a lot of us painting upon that blank canvass…
   • ianmac 5.6

     27 January 2013 at 10:36 am

     Sanctuary. What happens on The Standard now is that every utterance by anyone seen to be supporting current Labour or Labour Leadership is heckled and denigrated. It has become sadly so predictable that if say Mike Smith writes anything at all, the response will be swift and nasty. Like a nagging wife who finds fault in everything that her husband says or does. No matter what the husband does, the miserable wife is of course the looser.
     Since there are so many miserable commentators here perhaps they should abandon TS and join the ranks of NAct blogs where their comments would fit in so well. Not sure how their commentary would go down on Green blogs as the negativity might be unwelcome.
     • geoff 5.6.1

       27 January 2013 at 11:01 am

       Like a nagging wife who finds fault in everything that her husband says or does.
       This isn’t the forum for you to air your personal problems, Ianmac.
       • ianmac 5.6.1.1

         27 January 2013 at 11:18 am

         geoff. Not my problem mate. (To the contrary. She is hugely supportive of even for my daftest ideas.)
         TS used to be my first read of the day when ideas were tossed around and the opinions of those who were clearly unsupporting of the so called Left were interesting and often valid.
         But now an unremitting litany of anti-Labour responses to any and all pro-Labour commentary.
         Just one person’s viewpoint.
         • handle 5.6.1.1.1

           27 January 2013 at 12:06 pm

           If you sneer at your wife, Ian, does she give you a slap? Starting a conversation with phrases like “the REAL Labour party” is not constructive. Saying it and then slinking away without further comment is just nasty. People are pretty good judges of character.
           • Jackal 5.6.1.1.1.1

             27 January 2013 at 1:42 pm

             Not commenting is nasty? Please continue to inform us of your delusions there handle?

             ianmac used the nasty wife example to highlight a real and pressing problem that I have also observed on The Standard… The fact that anybody who says anything positive about Labour and more specifically David Shearer is hounded into silence.

             It’s correct to say that such behaviour has more in common with the behaviour seen on far right blogs, whereby reality and truth have little relevance and debates are won not by reason, but by bullying and disinformation.

             These are things that have very little to do with traditional left wing values, which is perhaps why there’s now less truly leftwing commentary here.
         • KJT 5.6.1.1.2

           27 January 2013 at 12:08 pm

           Actually was all for Labour. Until they decided, in 1984, not to be Labour any more.

           Criticising the current direction and incompetence of a small clique at the top who seem to have hijacked the party yet again, 1984 deja vue all over again anyone, is not “anti-Labour”.

           Instead of responding to criticism with defensiveness and arrogance they would be better to figure out why National party propagandists, like Hooten and Armstrong, are so pleased with their current direction while formerly strong Labour supporters, are not!

           No one would like to see the regrowth of a strong and principled Labour party more than me.

           I would even be happy if they pinch Green policy. You know, the sort of policies that would once have been Labours.
           • Jackal 5.6.1.1.2.1

             27 January 2013 at 1:26 pm

             Not that I want to be drawn into derailing this thread concerning the Green’s most excellent housing policy anymore than it has been, but haven’t you heard of reverse psychology KJT. The right wing employ many tactics in their quest to reduce support for Labour, which is still their main competition. Tis merely another part of National’s psychological warfare against the left.

             Why would Labour pinch Green’s policy when it’s likely they’ll be able to implement that policy after a coalition agreement anyway? To preempt that would have three potential negative results… To alienate the middle class voter who doesn’t agree with Green’s policy, to anger some Green’s because it’s their policy, to divide the voters between two parties offering the same policy.

             I was also wondering when are you going to start blogging again?
     • the Al1en 5.6.2

       27 January 2013 at 11:13 am

       “perhaps they should abandon TS and join the ranks of NAct blogs where their comments would fit in so well.”

       And take their pesky votes and ideals with them, traitors. :sarc:

       “Not sure how their commentary would go down on Green blogs as the negativity might be unwelcome.”

       Labour is reaping what it’s sown.
       Four years of failing and it still doesn’t own it’s own future. (see what I did? 😉 )
       Not really the winning platform to be pushing up the polls.
     • locus 5.6.3

       27 January 2013 at 12:33 pm

       ianmac, I hope i’m not deemed a heckler or denigrator if i ask for a list of the exemplary things that our Party Leader has done over the last couple of years….

       Honestly I really do want to have something to hang my hat on – like lots of other Labour voters I’m sure – it’s incredibly easy to win me over to become an ardent supporter.

       So please can you help me to see anything in the words and actions of David and caucus other than a cool attempt to win over the floating centrist vote who are currently ticking the Nat box.
     • Rhinoviper 5.6.4

       27 January 2013 at 1:33 pm

       So you don’t have the most popular treehouse and instead want to have the coolest? Ask yourself where the votes are going. If they’re going to Green and Mana, that’s not bad, but last election, a lot of those votes didn’t go to NAct, they stayed at home.
   • karol 5.7

     27 January 2013 at 5:32 pm

     Sanctuary, it has always been stated that this blog is one for the broad labour movement, not just the NZ Labour Party. I think I am not the only Standard author who has never been a Labour Party member. Since before I was invited to be an author on this site, I stated here that I had party voted Green in the last few elections.

     I stopped party voting Labour Party (but continued to vote for my local electorate Labour candidate – Cunliffe) during the Clark government because I was disappointed in them back then. However, there are some things done and said by the LP that I continued to be positive about.

     The Green Party have always had a left wing perspective, as could be seen with MPs like Sue Bradford, and Metiria Turei’s long term campaign against poverty and for social justice, and Russel Norman’s background in the Socialist Workers’ Party.

     I have been critical over the last year in the way Russel Norman has become the public profile of the Greens, and of his slippage towards the right. I have always been more positive about Turei, and have been concerned about her being sidelined. So I have been very pleased to see Turei come to the fore lately. It is perfectly consistent with my long term perspective for me to post about her in this way, and for me to be more positive about the Green Party than the LP.
6. bad12 6

   27 January 2013 at 10:14 am

   I do not think that Metiria’s announcement of the Green Party housing policy ‘gazumped’ the previously announced Labour Party policy at all, more the announcement was a polite pointer to Labour that ‘hello, you seem to have forgotten these people, the cohort trapped at or just above the minimum wage who have NO job security and may at any time be in or out of the workforce’,

   Slippery the Prime Minister tho was definitely miffed at being upstaged at Ratana Pa by the Green Party Leader,(i have deliberately dropped the CO here as i find co-leader rather prissy and when addressing Russell Norman’s contribution which i have in no way forgotten will accord Him also the title of Leader),and didn’t the septic tank overflow when it was the Prime Minister’s time to address the Marae,

   In a speech that in Maori-dom will echo up and down the Motu Slippery harangued the gathered Maori Leaders on what He said was the benefits in housing that His Government had bestowed upon Ratana in terms which screamed that their,( Ratana Morehu),support of both Labour and the Green Party was unacceptable as National had already ‘bought’ and ‘paid for’ the Ratana electoral support through such schemes as the housing insulation scheme FAILING as usual to acknowledge that the policy was a Green Party initiative,

   Slippery of course knows that while Maori are unlikely to vote for National, Ratana Pa is smack in the middle of Tariana Turia’s electorate and Turia is Morehu and my belief is that He (the Prime Minister) gave such an ugly speech as He has some understanding of the political power Ratana wield in Maori-dom and realized that even here in the heart of Turia’s electorate His coalition partner and only hope of a third term National Government has no support,

   Turia Herself as Leader of the Maori Party insulted not only the gathered Leaders of the church but the Morehu itself along with the Prophet Ratana by later giving a television interview in which She directly told Ratana to stay out of politics and stick to social services,

   That little gem from Turia along with the direct insults from Slippery the Prime Minister to Ratana and it’s Morehu will be in coming months discussed at Hui the length and breadth of the country and my view is that if the Maori Party membership is now down to 600 from the giddy days of having 24,000 signed up members, the fall-out from the Ratana Hui of 2013 is likely to see that membership at 6 by the years end…
7. Salsy 7

   27 January 2013 at 10:17 am

   Progressive Ownership will allow families that are otherwise locked out of the housing market a path way to home ownership by leveraging the Government’s low cost of capital. Families will be able to live in a government-built home, making a basic weekly payment to cover the Crown’s investment cost and making flexible payments in addition to that amount that purchase equity in the property off the Crown until they own the property outright. No deposit would be required and if families moved out of the home before owning it the equity investment made to that point would be paid out.

   So whats in it for same sex marriages, widows, singles and low income couples, the elderly, injured, mental heath sufferes etc… this housing policy is only for people with children. Will this policy then encourage poorer couples/singles stuggling to get a deposit to just opt for having a baby instead to get a cheaper house? How is this green?
   • Bill 7.1

     27 January 2013 at 10:37 am

     My tuppence-worth would be that getting children into materially stable home environments is a good and necessary first step. And allied with the proposals for rental properties (and bearing in mind that the ‘home ownership’ model allows for de-facto lifetime rental)…I can’t see what your bugbear is.

     At between $200 and $300 per week, the Green’s policy will effectively introduce a downward pressure on the $ level of private rentals which is of course, good for all of us out here who rent and have no inclination to own a house.

     And for private landlords who don’t like the prospect of future diminished returns from their rental investments, then they can sell. And so, potentially we get a downwrd pressure on house prices to boot.

     What’s Green about it? The question makes no sense unless you are of the persuasion that the Green Party should focus solely on explicitly environmental issues. In which case you haven’t been paying attention.

     But what would there be to prevent environmental considerations being taken into account through ‘future proofing’ any new builds and/or reducing the amount of concrete/cement used in new builds? Well, as I understand it’s a discussion policy document that is open to input until March and not a finalised policy. So knock yourself out in submitting positive and green suggestions to them through their submission process.
     • fatty 7.1.1

       27 January 2013 at 11:54 am

       I can’t see what your bugbear is

       Its the ‘lazy baby-factory for money’ rhetoric that we love to throw at young Kiwi women. Its a sick game to play.
     • anthony bull 7.1.2

       28 January 2013 at 8:19 pm

       You’re mistaken if you think this going to impact rental or property prices. The demand for decent houses in THE locations (e.g. central Auckland) will still be there, and people that are on the breadline would never have rented there in the first place.
   • bad12 7.2

     27 January 2013 at 11:04 am

     How is that Green, it is GREEN because the Green Party have as a core tenet SOCIAL JUSTICE, at the heart of social justice is that those with the greatest NEED are at the FRONT of the queue when it comes to Government provision of social services,

     In particular HOUSING at the core of both economy and society, it is the cohort of the lowest paid wage workers with children who have been identified as among the most ‘hurt’ by the past 30 years of neo-liberal generated changes to our economy…
     • Nick K 7.2.1

       27 January 2013 at 11:30 am

       There isn’t enough CAPS in your C OMMENT. IF YOU HAD MORE it would be MORE EFFECTIVE and people would TAKE NOTICE.
       • bad12 7.2.1.1

         27 January 2013 at 11:40 am

         piss-off dickhead…
       • Colonial Weka 7.2.1.2

         27 January 2013 at 11:41 am

         NOW, NOW
         • bad12 7.2.1.2.1

           27 January 2013 at 12:13 pm

           LOLZ, your comment is just so full of caps i cannot read it…
     • Fortran 7.2.2

       27 January 2013 at 1:39 pm

       bad12

       The song goes “if you do not have a Dream then you cannot have a Dream come true.”
       The Greens have a Dream.
       Labour does not .
       The Greens have a Dream – so let them come true.
       • bad12 7.2.2.1

         27 January 2013 at 4:06 pm

         LOLZ, dream!!! what are you even on about??? to steal a brilliantly acted line off of that Girl on the TV ad,

         As the Green Party housing policy show’s, the Green’s have a carefully thought through set of social policies with the emphasis on social justice,

         Along with this and yet to be announced you will find that the Green’s also have a serious set of economic policies as well as enviroment policy which will require from the electorate the approval only garnered from ‘seeing is believing’,

         Hence there is no profit in dictating to the ‘farming lobby’ the enviromentally friendly use of land to farm and still generate expected levels of profitability,

         There is tho, once ‘in’ Government a compelling reason and enviromental profit to be gained by using one or more of the States farming units to SHOW that farming lobby that enviromentally friendly farming need not occur at the cost of loss of profit, once that proof is produced there is then no reason for farming practices that are detrimental to the enviroment to occur and every reason for the farming lobby to take up such practices,

         Pssst, just to let you know that it is the Slippery lead National Government that clings to dreams, especially the dream that the market provides solutions to everything…
   • bad12 7.3

     27 January 2013 at 11:07 am

     PS, the Green Party policy is to also build 3000 State owned rentals a year which will go toward many of the other areas your complaint addresses…
     • bad12 7.3.1

       27 January 2013 at 11:23 am

       PS again, i find your use of the words ‘what’s in it for blah blah blah’ to be abhorrent in terms of the Social Justice as espoused by the Green Party,

       That is simply the politics of gimmie gimmie gimmie of the National Party, WE as in members of Green Party are ‘not in it’ for any personal gain we perceive to be on offer,

       To personalize this, i am ‘in it’ so that when i am down the back tending my garden i continnue to hear the sound of the neighbourhood kids laughing like loons as they play the games that only they know the rules of,

       The continuation of such laughter(which sets me to laughing even tho i am physically removed from those that generate it) depends upon those kids having a stable affordable lifestyle with a decent roof over their heads,

       That’s a simple explanation of social justice and i will vote FOR the Party that i think will best provide that to ALL Kiwi kids, at the moment i see that as being the Green Party…
       • KJT 7.3.1.1

         27 January 2013 at 12:14 pm

         🙂
       • Jackal 7.3.1.2

         27 January 2013 at 12:41 pm

         There is personal gain in having vibrant and healthy communities. It’s been my experience to live next to dysfunctional families whereby financial hardship is causing stress and arguments. It’s not a nice situation, especially when children are involved.

         One positive factor will be less dysfunctional families that result in damaged children who often grow up to damage other people and society. There’s a financial benefit as well being that the cost for an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is far greater than policy designed to restore social equality.
8. Colonial Weka 8

   27 January 2013 at 10:39 am

   Interesting analysis from Robert Winter

   ” Ms Turei on form

   The Greens have been enjoying a good run of late. They’ve been addressing the key issues with some energy and to good effect. They are, currently, capitalising on the disarray in Labour brought about by Conference and its aftermath, and the almost pathological fear in parts of the LP about developing and promoting a clear Social Democratic message. We’re working on that!

   What interests me about the Greens is what I see as a strong Social Democratic dimension to Ms Turei’s commentaries, and the obvious respect and affection felt in the Greens for her, in contrast to a far more ambiguous sentiment surrounding Mr Norman. I’m told that my observation is echoed within the Greens’ caucus. I understand that in terms of both style and politics, Mr Norman has his internal critics, who are concerned about his potential capacity to “trim” his politics to gain power (a “power over principle” problem). Ms Turei is seen very differently, as a principled and radical presence. This suggestion of a degree of tension in the leadership of the Greens would not surprise many people. The Greens are emerging as a political force, in part because of Labour’s inconsistencies, and we might expect some edges to appear in their internal politics. The Greens remain a broad camp, strung out between traditionalists and modernisers (as one Green put it to me) and we cannot expect them to homogenise into a single, monolithic tradition.

   But the way the Greens develop will have two important effects on Labour. The first will be its impact on the creation of any post-election alliance in 2014. The second, and the more important, will be the impact on radical, disaffected members of the LP , who, were the Greens to consolidate firmly around a strong Social Democratic perspective, might jump ship. The LP ignores this at its peril, but it has also clear implications for the Greens and its leadership. ”

   http://robertwinter.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/ms-turei-on-form.html
9. the Al1en 9

   27 January 2013 at 10:50 am

   I’ve been a Labour voter all my life, up ’til now.
   In the UK I was too young to vote in 83, but would even had voted for Michael Foot’s (bless him) unelectable mess given the chance.
   Since I’ve been a resident here, I voted three times for Helen, the first in 03, and once, despite my misgivings, for Goff in 11.
   See my supermarket trolley and you’ll find I’m not brand loyal – I always get the best value for my buck. Same for my vote.
   Part of me is bothered that a) I’m not part of 2013 Labour’s target demographic. And b) The traditional party of the working man doesn’t appear to be so any more. But get over it, Al1. There’s always another way.

   Last year I made the decision to vote for the Green party, and to be totally fair, despite having to surrender near 30 years of history, found it fairly easy.
   Similar, and in many cases better policy, is just part of the bargain.
   No baggage, no dinosaurs and a competent, complimentary set of parliamentarians.

   As I tell our kid out shopping, you don’t need the label, just what’s inside.
   I just wish they’d stand the right candidate in Ham West so I could give two ticks and take the old guard out of the equation.

   Viva Green (R)evolution.
   • anthony bull 9.1

     28 January 2013 at 10:04 pm

     the problem with the Greens is that they have some ok ideas and some good people, but if they still commit to devaluing the currency they will get crucified at the next election and it will be sayonara.
10. Tiresias 10

    27 January 2013 at 11:17 am

    The Greens SHOULD be a single-issue party – admittedly a pretty broad single issue being the environment we live in plus anything affecting it, which takes in development and planning, industrial practices, some social issues such as birth control &tc. It SHOULD look to be strong enough merely to support a more general Left-wing government and demand cabinet seats reflecting its particular concerns.

    Ie. the Greens concern with housing should be limited to the protection and preservation of green spaces and good farm land, pressing for energy-efficient housing and stopping the unnecessary use of unhealthy chemicals and substances in buildings.

    Unfortunately the failure of the Labour Party to represent the Left and galvanise it, staggering along as it is with the support of a few die-hards who still hope for a return to the Socialist movement of the ’30s plus a wishy-washy lower-middle-class block who vote Labour because their parents did or who aren’t quite rich enough to benefit from National’s promises or secure enough to risk losing the safety-net beneath them, has forced the NZ Greens to fill the void.

    I don’t think it should have to, or can. It doesn’t have the numbers or the expertise to offer a complete governmental package, and I doubt many Greens would see it as the Green’s role. IMHO many people who would love to see a strong Green influence in Government would draw back from the possibility of a Green Government but at the moment see nowhere else worth voting, leaving the Left in limbo.
    • the Al1en 10.1

      27 January 2013 at 11:33 am

      Just a :lol @ Tiresias’ first three paragraphs.

      And a 😆 a 😀 a :smirk: and a :rolleyes: at the thought of a Labour party with the numbers and expertise to offer a complete government package… When they’ve not laid a finger on the nats in over four years of apparently trying.
    • CV - Real Labour 10.2

      27 January 2013 at 11:35 am

      The Greens see a clear opportunity to move to 15% or more in the polls. They can’t do that by being a limited single issue party.

      In terms of your question re: depth and breadth of the Greens, it is a valid one. It is worth noting that the Greens have been around as a political party for a long time. And they have an international coalition of Green parties globally to draw on. Finally, “expertise” in governmental issues comes from experienced people. And there are plenty of experienced people moving towards the Greens right now.
    • bad12 10.3

      27 January 2013 at 11:37 am

      The Green Party should be!!! what??? are you a Green Party Member, the Green Party should be what the majority of it’s members say it should be,

      Green Party policy should reflect the views of the majority of Green Party members which in my mind, being ‘a dark Green’ who sees red quite often it does…
      • handle 10.3.1

        27 January 2013 at 12:46 pm

        If Green supporters can comment on Labour party matters, the favour can be returned. The left is bigger than either party. This new move by the Greens recognises that.
      • Tiresias 10.3.2

        27 January 2013 at 1:49 pm

        “are you a Green Party Member,”

        No, I’m not presently a Green Party member. I did help set up and establish a local branch in 1991 and was a member until I left in 2005 in disgust at Sue Bradford’s squandering of a great deal of the Green’s political capital with her inane personal crusade over child smacking, which means I’ve demonstrated that I agree entirely that “the Green Party should be what the majority of it’s members say it should be,” (save for the punctuation) and over the child smacking nonsense where it seemed I was in a minority I parted company with it.

        I don’t believe the Greens should be a party of the Left – or of the Right. Ideally it should be able to impose Green thinking on a party of any colour, directly by sharing power or indirectly by forcing other parties to include green policies – or at least green shading – to compete for votes. My point, and my worry, is that the present vacuum on the Left is forcing the Greens that way by attracting the disenfranchised left voters, which will turn the Greens into a Left wing party and allow the Right to abandon any pretence to greenery.
        • bad12 10.3.2.1

          27 January 2013 at 4:16 pm

          But that’s all ‘the right’ has had and has shown little inclination of having into the future, the PRETENCE of greenery,

          Why would the Greens then go anywhere near ‘the right’ when as policy that Green Party has had from it’s outset the social policy of Social Justice for all,

          Both areas, actual enviromentally friendly policy and real social justice are anathema to both the National and ACT party’s…
    • karol 10.4

      27 January 2013 at 5:42 pm

      The Green Party has always been more than a single issue party, since it evolved from the old Values Party, They have an interlocking set of values. Related to those values and goals, they have a range of interlocking policies, covering diverse areas of life and society.

      The Greens have always had MPs with a strong left wing background: Bradford, Turei, Norman (ex Socialist Workers’ Party), Rod Donald (ex Alliance) etc.
11. irascible 11

    27 January 2013 at 12:59 pm

    The Green’s housing policy is an add on conservatory to the important and most necessary housing policy, that proposed by Shearer as the basis of the Labour Party’s platform which has substantial public support and credibility.
    All the Greens are doing is to supply another layer to the substantive policy in order to gain traction off it.
    Let’s get real and stop the bickering about leaders and PR image, which much of the anti-Shearer and anti- Cunliffe memes are, and get on with the task of knocking out the NACT asset sales party.
    I reckon the SST’s Cunliffe has got it right in the Final Word today:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/8228464/Cunliffe-NZ-the-land-of-the-long-grey-cloud
    • CV - Real Labour 11.1

      27 January 2013 at 1:09 pm

      The Green’s housing policy is an add on conservatory to the important and most necessary housing policy, that proposed by Shearer as the basis of the Labour Party’s platform which has substantial public support and credibility.

      Or more simply, the Greens policy looks after those on less than $60,000 income p.a., the Labour policy looks after those on more than $60,000 income p.a.
      • QoT 11.1.1

        27 January 2013 at 1:29 pm

        Hilariously, I think this means the smaller party is interested in helping the greater number of people …
      • bad12 11.1.2

        27 January 2013 at 4:26 pm

        Got that right, my view is that the Labour Party is firmly of, for, and by the middle class in it’s make up and policy,

        The Greens being an amalgam of fundamental enviromentalists and social justice advocates where the two are in no way mutually exclusive and as evidenced by the current Green Parliamentary team this has produced a plethora of well reasoned debate in and out of the Parliament without creating any of the difficulties faced by other party’s and in effect cementing in the currently growing % of support for the Green Party…
12. Jenny 12

    27 January 2013 at 2:56 pm

    I fully support a decent housing policy coming from central government. And the Green Party in coming up with a housing package to the left of the Labour Party one, are trying to, out Labour the Labour Party.

    But you have to ask yourself why haven’t Labour come up with such a package themselves?

    At a time when the financial system and the natural world are both in serious danger of collapse. The chance to tinker with the system to deliver even minor reforms is seriously constrained.

    Instead of delivering on their promises of reform and social justice. Left social democratic parties on gaining office are finding themselves having to agree to imposing austerity. There can be little doubt this is the path mapped out by Shearer and crew for the Labour Party in Government. And the Greens in tying themselves to this chariot will be dragged along behind. (Much to the dismay of their Left support).

    There is only room for one Left social democratic party in the political spectrum. The Green Party may, or may not succeed in their bid to hollow out Labour’s support base to usurp this roll for themselves. (Though personally I will think they will fail just as the Alliance did). But succeed, or fail, it will make little difference when the resource and climate crisis hits.

    So what should the Green Party do?

    They need to take heed of Naomi Kleine:

    ….Climate change has the ability to undo your historic victories and crush your present struggles. So it’s time to come together, for real, and fight to preserve and extend what you care most about — which means engaging in the climate fight, really engaging, as if your life and your life’s work, even life itself, depended on it. Because they do.

    Naomi Kleine “I’d Rather Fight Like Hell”

    For the Green Party, what would “really”, “engaging in the climate fight” mean?

    First of all it would mean the Green Party instead of regarding the danger of Climate Change as an equal or even subservient priority to all their other issues. A position supported by QoT Karol and others. The Green Party need to make the fight against climate change a stated priority.

    What would this mean in practice?

    First, Using the good will built up in the joint Labour, Green, Mana Partys’ inquiry into the Crisis in Manufacturing, call a similiar whole party into crisis in the Climate. The aim of such an inquiry to get an across the board consensus on the serious necessary steps that will need to be taken against Climate Change on the achievement of a Labour Green Mana NZ First Government. To enter into government arrangement with Labour without holding such an inquiry would be disastrous for the climate and for the Green Party.

    Second, Start putting up private members bills that target needless CO2 polluters and vigorously lobby Labour (and National) and all other MPs to back them.

    The putting up of private members bills is one of ways that opposition parties gain attention and give notice of the policies that are important to them. (This was most famously done over nuclear ship visits when the Labour opposition put a private members bill against nuclear ship visits and then furiously lobbied wavering National MPs to back it. Which undermined the National Government majority and led to the snap election. Ostensibly fought over that issue.)

    It is a glaring omission that since the departure of Jeanette Fitzsimons from their caucus, the Green Party have not put up one single private members bill relating to climate change.

    Third, On their official website, instead of dumping climate change in some third ranked page, equal with 59 “other issues“, bring Climate Change onto the front page.

    Fourth, The Green Party leaders (Meteira Turei included), need to start making speeches where Climate Change is not just “mentioned” but is the subject of the speech.

    There are many other things, that I orothers might suggest that the Green Party could do if they were serious about combating climate change. But they are intelligent people and I am sure that if they heeded Naomi Kleine’s call to take up this fight as if their lives depended on it, they would come up with some ideas of their own. All that prevents them from doing so, is a grievous lack of a political will, and the necessary courage and vision and determination to seriously take up this fight.
    • handle 12.1

      27 January 2013 at 3:01 pm

      “There is only room for one Left social democratic party in the political spectrum”

      Sad that you believe this. It is not what MMP is about.
      • Jenny 12.1.1

        27 January 2013 at 3:51 pm

        FPP or MMP it doesn’t matter.

        Similiar to the familiar concept popularised by Charles Darwin that only one creature can inhabit a certain ecological niche.

        While in both nature and politic,s it is not an absolute. Eventually one drives the other out.

        The Green Party are dreaming if they think that can supplant the Labour Party in this political niche.
        • handle 12.1.1.1

          27 January 2013 at 4:18 pm

          How naive. And why would a Darwinist be worried by climate change anyway?
          • Jenny 12.1.1.1.1

            27 January 2013 at 6:01 pm

            Because Darwin popularised the concept of extinction.
            Before Darwin it wasn’t even suspected that whole species could become extinct. People living in Europe in the middle ages never suspected it. Surrounded as they were by sheep and goats and cows and other livestock and wild animals described in the bible. And a comfortable creation story that told them, that these creatures had been around since the beginning. But then naturalists like Darwin and others started going out into the world and bringing back startling and disturbing evidence that things were not always as they appear now.

            Nowadays of course we do know about extinction. And as the saying goes; Fore warned is fore armed. Or, for rational creatures like us, at least it should be.
            • RedLogix 12.1.1.1.1.1

              27 January 2013 at 6:30 pm

              Possibly Jenny. The ‘left’ is not a single niche, it has both economic, social and environmental dimensions.

              Fact is that the ‘working class’ lives with far thinner margins of safety in life and for this reason tend to be somewhat socially conservative and be the traditional voter base for Labour; while the middle class for complementary reasons has been more willing to engage with the more socially liberal Greens.

              As long as we have a distinct working and middle class in this country I suspect we’ll have two distinct (although allied) left-wing parties as well.
              • Jenny …

                27 January 2013 at 7:08 pm

                The ‘left’ is not a single niche, it has both economic, social and environmental dimensions.

                RedLogix

                I would agree. My point is that the Green Party are trying to climb into the Labour Party niche.

                What will this mean?

                One will consume or destroy the other. Or they will become so similiar they will merge into one.

                You can see this effect already in the post by EDDY. If you didn’t have their names and party branding attached to their speeches it would be hard to tell them apart. Even the the two photos of the leaders at the top of the post, which EDDIE has placed side by side could be seamlessly joined into one split image.
                • karol …

                  27 January 2013 at 7:23 pm

                  The Greens have always had a social democratic perspective. Rod Donald was ex-Alliance, Sue Bradford (well known eco-socialist), Russel Norman (ex Socialist Workers’ Party), Metiria Turei, life long commitment to eliminating poverty, etc, etc. It’s not something they’ve just decided to “climb into”.

                  It’s in the Green Party values, goals and history, as they developed out of the Values Party:

                  In 1979 Values was also torn by internal debate about its political orientation with an Auckland-led environmentalist faction and a Christchurch-led socialist/unionist faction. Those strands are still there in the contemporary Green Party but they are in concert rather than opposition.

                  In their long term goals, there are these:

                  People are secure that their essential needs will be met, and they have the time, resources and ability to participate in their communities and develop their potential. …

                  Power imbalances are reduced and resources are shared more equally.

                  Those who have plenty learn to say “enough” so that all may have enough.

                  Science and technology serve human needs and the biosphere within an ethical framework.

                  We nurture creativity, wisdom and life-long learning.

                  The main focus of New Zealand’s international work is environmental integrity, peace, justice and human rights.
                  • Jenny …

                    27 January 2013 at 11:26 pm

                    The main focus of New Zealand’s international work is environmental integrity, peace, justice and human rights.

                    karol

                    No mention of climate change there karol. Or for that matter, anywhere else in your above explanation of where the Green Party are at.

                    I can now more easily understand Naomi Klein’s and 350.org founder Richard McKibben’s frustration and criticism of the traditional left and the environmental movement for failing to come to grips with climate change in a serious and urgent way.

                    Each has a tough-love message for their own constituency — McKibben for an insular environmental movement that’s been woefully ineffective on climate; Klein for a left, including many in the Occupy movement, that has failed to grapple with the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis.

                    I’d Rather Fight Like Hell
    • karol 12.2

      27 January 2013 at 5:48 pm

      Klein.

      Jenny, the Green Party has a holistic perspective on the environment, and the way we live within it. Sometimes circumstances indicate one issue or another needs to be the sole focus. But they are always part of the whole.

      Strange that you support social democracy, but want the Greens to focus mostly on climate change. They go together.

      If the planet is saved through reversing warming and resource depletion without tackling the social and economic inequalities, the elite will aim to harness the natural and human resources still available for their own ends – slave labour? Shortened lives for the servant/peasant classes? If the fights against such inequalities doesn’t continue strongly, the elite will continue to strengthen their power and this will be harder to reverse. Alternatively, they’ll keep using their power to resist power-down and sustainable practices. Either way, the fight against climate change and resource depletion needs to go hand-in-hand with the struggle for socially and economically just form of democratic society.
      • Jenny 12.2.1

        27 January 2013 at 6:39 pm

        Strange that you support social democracy, but want the Greens to focus mostly on climate change. They go together.

        karol

        That the two go together, who can doubt it.

        I don’t want the Green Party to focus mostly on climate change.

        I want them to do something about it.

        Mostly, that will mean giving a lead rather than dodging the issue.

        Not being afraid to fully address the issue at any and every occasion that reasonably presents itself.

        Not putting off publicly raising polices that if taken up would represent serious steps to reverse or lessen the danger. Instead actively promote such policies right now while in opposition. To be able to raise them later in government.

        If this is not done now, the Green Party will have no moral right, or mandate to raise such policies in government. As the Green Party well know.

        Which will mean at least another electoral term with no concrete measures taken against climate change.

        Instead of ameliorating opposition to climate change policies to suit the Labour or National Parties and public opinion. Challenging and informing these parties and the public at every opportunity of the need to do something now.

        What we should all expect and demand from the Green Party is leadership on this issue.

        Of course it is easier to go for soft policies that everyone will understand*. But this is not leadership.

        “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus,”

        Martin Luther King

        *(Though these things should be done as well).
        • karol 12.2.1.1

          27 January 2013 at 6:58 pm

          On an individual level, going by the view of the Green Party picnic on TV News tonight, GP members do their bit – riding bicycles, etc.

          To “do” anything significant, a political party needs some leverage and to communicate in a way that gets people’s attention in a positive way. Just raising the issue at every opportunity could be counter productive – kind of equivalent to “more haste, less speed.” I think the Greens are on the right track with their “I’m in” movement initiative – building a movement (and showing some leadership on it and the issues they have related to it) that would have some momentum. It would give them a better platform for their policies.

          They already have tried to do stuff where they can: e.g. the home insulation scheme – small scale, but they are a small party outside government.

          However, with you comments about social democracy not being a Green Party thing, and your stronger emotional commitment to the NZLP, I suspect nothing the Greens do or say would ever be good enough for you.

          I think a strong Green Party presence in government, along with an increase in the number of Mana MPs would be building momentum in a direction where good things can get done – and may encourage more LP MPs to get back to their core values too.
          • Jenny 12.2.1.1.1

            27 January 2013 at 8:46 pm

            Karol, I have never said “that social democracy is not a Green Party thing”. What I said is that with the Green Party playing down climate change, the Green Party are changing into just another social democratic party.

            I have no problem with social democratic policies being promoted by the Greens any more than I have against green policies being promoted by the National Party or Labour.

            What I do object to, and object strongly to, is the Green Party selling out over Climate Change.

            In the final call of history it will be this, that they will be judged on.

            I might mention here, that the home insulation scheme that you mentioned, plus the other climate change bills put up by the Green Party were spearheaded by Jeanette Fitzsimons. Since she left the Green caucus, the Green Party have not put up even one private members bill that challengs their fellow parliamentarians on Climate Change.

            And you are wrong in saying that anything the Greens did or said would be not good enough for me.

            If the Greens called an all party parliamentary inquiry to address the climate crisis as they did for the crisis in manufacturing I would be amazed and overjoyed.

            Go to Hansard and see the fiery debates in parliament generated by Fitzsimons private members bills related to climate change.

            If the Greens again started putting up private members bills in parliament that challenged the rest of parliament especially the Labour Party to put their cards on the table that would please me immensely as well.

            If the Greens would make addressing climate change one of their electoral “Priorities” that would also make me feel much better about them.

            Not as at present anxious and worried for them and us.
            • Bill 12.2.1.1.1.1

              27 January 2013 at 9:06 pm

              I just checked out the website and…yup, the Greens are playing down orsidelining AGW to quite an extent. The internal site links I found don’t appear to have been updated at all and aren’t exactly prominent. (three clicks away from their ‘priorities’ under ‘other’ and ‘climate change’ appears in an alphabetical list)

              The prominence (or lack of ) I could overlook if the information was up to date and pulled no punches. But, their ‘plan’ to cut emmissions by 40% by 2020 is woefully inadequate and tied in part to buying credits…ie, exporting emmissions. They also appear to miss the difference between cumulative emmissions (the real problem) and meaningless percentage reductions against a 1990 base year of measurements.
              • Jenny …

                27 January 2013 at 11:30 pm

                Thank you Bill
                • CV - Real Labour …

                  28 January 2013 at 8:43 am

                  Political parties will not provide any answers to this. Even if they want to, they can’t find a credible way to reduce energy use in our civilisation by 50% or more.
                  • Bill …

                    28 January 2013 at 9:21 am

                    Oh, there are plenty of credible ways to reduce and eliminate carbon emissions. The fly in the ointment is that there is no credible way to do it and preserve the market economy. So we can eliminate carbon and the market economy to preserve our civilisation or we can hang on to the market economy and lose everything. Pretty basic and straightforward.
                    • CV - Real Labour …

                      28 January 2013 at 9:43 am

                      Good point. To prepare for an intervention like this political leaders would need to actively engage the electorate in a media strategy and education programmes. Unfortunately all I can see them doing is reinforcing middle class expectations of economic growth, resource extraction, owning houses and debt management as the most important indicators of political success.
                    • Bill …

                      28 January 2013 at 10:03 am

                      A political leader – and no candidates spring to mind – could ride off the back of the World Bank climate report, the International Energy Agency report, Pricewaterhouse Coopers report, Stern’s reassessment of his 2006 report and other climate assessments from very conservative sources that are kind of floating down from on high a bit like confetti these days and run with it.

                      But, I agree that’s probably not going to happen and that the illusory line claiming we can have our cake and eat it will continue to be the order of the day.

                      At pains of repeating myself, change has only ever come from pressure being applied from below. And if that happens I can see it having to assume the characteristics of a wartime movement of concientious objection that embodies and begins to put into practice a number of ways to live that our present authorities won’t be exactly keen on. But them’s the breaks.
                    • CV - Real Labour …

                      29 January 2013 at 12:49 pm

                      Those reports could be used as backing by a NZ Government however you will need at least some industry, business, transport, finance and ag leaders onboard. That’s the way it is in a democracy if you want to last long enough to get real changes through. A capital strike or another round of truckies down Queen St and the best of intentions disappear down the tubes real quick. A mass electoral movement is also handy but it would have to be a lot of people and they would have to be willing to put up with some pressure and hardship.
            • karol 12.2.1.1.1.2

              28 January 2013 at 8:27 am

              Jenny: What I said is that…..the Green Party are changing into just another social democratic party.

              Actually I’m not aware that you ever said that – just had a go at The Greens getting into the social democracy area. You have in several places criticised the Greens for down playing climate change.

              There are several ways that the Greens can up their game, including, as Bill points out below, updating their website on Climate Change.

              I also was not happy with the focus on Russel Norman as economic spokesperson, while the rest of the Greens’ agenda and MPs were not given so much focus. I’m hoping that Turei’s latest activities and speeches signal a change there.

              I should point you back to my comments about the Greens policies being an interlocking whole. And about the importance to environmental, resource and climate change policies in challenging the power and practices of the elites. Also my comments on the importance of building support and momentum, and communicating in a way that leads and carries people with them. The latter is important because constantly haranguing people about climate change at every opportunity can be counter-productive and just turn people off.

              Understanding of the issues, and how they relate to people’s daily lives, and practical measures need to be built over time. People already strongly associated the Greens with the environment and climate issues. As shown in this discussion, some people see that as their only issues.

              You said above:
              It is a glaring omission that since the departure of Jeanette Fitzsimons from their caucus, the Green Party have not put up one single private members bill relating to climate change.

              That is untrue. Most obviously, Russel Norman put up one that was debated in the House towards the end of last year: The Climate Change (NZ Superannuation Fund Bill.

              The Greens interlocking policies mean Climate Change is incorporated in a range of their policies, including the way we live and do business, the energy agriculture and forestry sectors, revenue issues, etc. (They should include their transport policies on that page, too).

              Last year the Greens put a lot of effort into the anti-asset sales (especially that of the power companies). Having control over this, and not giving the corporate world more control of these assets is essential to any approach to tackling climate change. The biggest roadblock on climate change is the powerful and well-funded campaign of the energy corporates and other wealthy people.

              I think it is an excellent approach to interweave approaches to tackling climate change in everything we do. Also, it’s necessary for the Greens to actively show the full scope of their policies.

              Yes there are ways they can improve, including pulling together, updating and explaining their policies on Climate in one easily accessible place – and clearly explaining how they are incorporated in all areas of their policies, values, democratic processes, and challenges to existing power structures. I see Kennedy Graham focused a lot lately on Kyoto and the emissions trading scheme. I understand that Kyoto was on the international agenda last year and in need of responses. I’m not greatly in favour of the ETS – it’s just of sop by capitalists to climate issues. He could focus more attention on other more useful policies.

              However, given the variety of pressures in working to put their interlocking and comprehensive approach into practice, I think the Greens are, at the moment, well ahead of any other left wing party.
              • Jenny …

                28 January 2013 at 10:05 am

                You said above:
                It is a glaring omission that since the departure of Jeanette Fitzsimons from their caucus, the Green Party have not put up one single private members bill relating to climate change.

                That is untrue. Most obviously, Russel Norman put up one that was debated in the House towards the end of last year: The Climate Change (NZ Superannuation Fund Bill.

                karol

                I am embarrassed. My apologies. I was accessing Hansard and missed this. Well done Russel Norman. I hope for many more initiatives like this for the new parliamentary term.

                However I do take issue with your claim that the Green Party are “interweaving” climate change with all their other policies. It is much more than this. In fact it is burying it behind everything else. For the New Zealand Green Party Climate Change is not one of their election “priorities”. Climate Change is not even, one of the Green Party’s “Other priorities that we are focussing on…” As Bill confirms, climate change is included in an alphabetical list indistinguishable from 59 “Other issues”.

                This so called “interweaving” allows Green MPs to dodge any specific discussion, or promotion of “climate change” policies during the elections. If climate change policies are not promoted during the elections, they cannot be raised in government in any meaningful way.

                This and other things, signal to me that a huge sell out by the Green Party caucus is in the wings over Climate Change, equal to and exceeding the Maori Party caucus sell out over the Seabed and Foreshore and the Alliance caucus sell out over the war in Afghanistan, with the same dire consequences for their party.

                No doubt the Green leaders will ritually cite the “pressures of government” and the “realities of coalition” just as all their predecessors who have gone down this track have done.

                But we cannot afford to risk such a stupid and childish repeat of history. The stakes are just too high.

                This is why the Green Party must nail their policies on climate change to the mast where everyone can see them and they cannot be pulled down.

                This is why I continue to repeat Naomi Klein’s “tough-love message” for the Left, which in her words, “has failed to grapple with the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis”.

                Yes, I will get it wrong some times and Yes, I will offend some people, for this I make no apologies.
                • karol …

                  29 January 2013 at 8:11 am

                  Apology accepted.

                  We are not going to agree on a matter of approach and strategy. It’s all very well standing on a soap box and doing a “tough love” thing. But it will achieve little if no-one of significance, or too few of the non-powerful take any notice. Sometimes the most direct route is not necessarily the best one to get where you are planning to go.

                  As I’ve said. As part of an approach to tackle climate change/warming, it’s necessary to counter the power of the elites. That is the KEY part of any strategy. I’m with Bill on thinking that it needs a significant amount of pressure from below.

                  The Greens can up their game, but already they are dismissed by many as too preachy, especially on environmental issues. Gordon Campbell on Turei’s speech.

                  Perennially, the Greens present themselves as a bunch of precocious fifth formers – bright, articulate, preachy and mildly annoying even at the best of times – and this year’s State of the Nation” speech by Greens Co-Leader Metiria Turei was no exception.

                  They have been busy trying to extend their platform and engage more with the wider public. This initiative to encourage people to join a “movement” is a step in the right direction, IMO. Of course, it all depends on how it is done as to how successful it will be.

                  Measures are needed to engage people in building understanding and momentum for change, to challenge and replace existing power structures and inequalities.
13. Andre 13

    27 January 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Greens will exceed 20% They are the’ android ‘ O/S of modern politics ….?
    • Andre 13.1

      27 January 2013 at 3:12 pm

      Climate change has it own momentum ,the greens do not need to campaign on this . Proving they are able to deal with governance . Thats the campaign ..
      • Jenny 13.1.1

        27 January 2013 at 3:53 pm

        Whoo hoo! Get ready for the long ride down.
        • bad12 13.1.1.1

          27 January 2013 at 4:36 pm

          If you cannot stomach the Green Party in the way ‘it’ has decided to advocate for the enviroment then all i can suggest is that you spend your energy creating an alternative Green Party,(i am sure you might be able to tempt a few fundamentalists to join),

          The Green Party gains little traction by attempting to ram the enviromental message down the throat of the electorate while in opposition and would face a ‘backlash’ from trying to do the same in Government,

          What the electorate need are the Government programs which are enviromentally friendly to show them that they, (the electorate) can move with the economy to a more sustainable lifestyle and footing which have been proved to be sustainable to that enviroment, that economy, and, the comfortable lifestyle of the middle class need not be radically changed by adopting such policy…
          • Jenny 13.1.1.1.1

            27 January 2013 at 8:55 pm

            ….all i can suggest is that you spend your energy creating an alternative Green Party,(i am sure you might be able to tempt a few fundamentalists to join)

            bad12

            You wish.

            My vision is much bigger than that.
            • Colonial Weka 13.1.1.1.1.1

              27 January 2013 at 10:46 pm

              Whoo hoo! Get ready for the long ride down.
              • Jenny …

                28 January 2013 at 10:21 am

                ‘

                Yee haa!

                Where Green Party back peddling on climate change will lead them…..
            • bad12 13.1.1.1.1.2

              28 January 2013 at 8:44 am

              i await this grand vision with anticipation…
        • Andre 13.1.1.2

          27 January 2013 at 4:36 pm

          They also have the green conservatism and eco-capitalism vote too..
          • Andre 13.1.1.2.1

            27 January 2013 at 4:56 pm

            This is an intresting link to the Gort cloud http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gort_cloud&oldid=527526176
14. GeoffC 14

    27 January 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Look like the green have repackages recapsulates some of the element of the Just Third Way for there housing program.
    Something different from blairist or gideons third way interpretations of the next way.
    http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/paradigmpapers/jtw-greengrowth.pdf

    Basically involves a rethink on ownership and how everyone should be able to own capital and provide labour.
    Green putting into valid policy.
    • Andre 14.1

      29 January 2013 at 12:00 pm

      A+

Links to post

1. Opposition speeches & ‘Roads of Madness’ « The Standard: posted on 30 January 2013 at 12:28 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS