web analytics

‘The future will be green or not at all’

Written By: - Date published: 9:41 am, January 2nd, 2015 - 275 comments
Categories: business, child welfare, climate change, Economy, Environment, greens, john key, labour, Metiria Turei, Mining, national, sustainability - Tags:

Yesterday, on Outspoken at RNZ, Craig McCulloch interviewed Jeanette Fitzsimons, Gareth Morgan and Metiria Turei on the future of the Green Party.

Green Party Turei Norman Beehive

Craig McCulloch interview

McCulloch asked should the Greens move towards being able to go into an alliance with a National government.  This is largely Gareth Morgan’s desire.

McCulloch raised the issue of the Greens saying, just before last year’s election, that they could work with National.  Turei said this was nothing new. They would prefer to be in a government with Labour as they have more in common with them.  But if National led the government, they would continue to try to work with them on selected policies where there is common ground, such as with the home insulation scheme and the cycleway.

This was the second time that this had been the Greens’ approach and she thinks the public are coming to understand this.  She expected that over time Kiwis would gain a better understanding of their position on this. They prefer to support a progressive government that takes ecological sustainability and social justice more seriously.

Morgan says that he is very admiring of the Green Party’s environment policies.  He is frustrated that the current government has been moving further away from extremely important environmental measures. He talks to a lot of people with similar views, but who would never vote Green because “they’re the left of Labour”. He thinks that the Greens need to be equally prepared to go into coalition with National or Labour.

gareth morgan

Morgan thinks environmental issues are now very mainstream and they need a less left-leaning Green Party.

Jeanette Fitzsimons said that the current government is very pro fossil fuel industries, putting our environment increasingly in danger.  They will not compromise on their core economic policies that (allegedly) will bring faster economic growth, but that are destroying the planet. The Greens could not go into coalition with a government with such core economic policies.

Fitzsimons says says sustainability doesn’t fit well into the old left-right divide. Originally the Greens claimed not to be left or right.  Since the 80s, the centre of politics has moved to the right, and now the Greens are clearly to the left of this centre, “but that’s not what defines us”.

Jeanette Fitzsimons outside US embassy

Turei argues that Gareth’s frustration is with National so he should take it up with them.

Morgan counters by saying he is looking for an alternative to National, but he is scared by the Greens being “anti-growth”.

Turei responds that Morgan would have seen from the Greens’ work, like their polices on significant investment in R & D and a strong focus on sustainable business, that the Greens aren’t “anti-growth”:

… what we are is pro the development of a New Zealand economy that utilises our environment in the best possible way for the economic opportunities and development of our whole community. And thereby leading to improved social justice outcomes, for example. There’s a deep connection between these parts of our policy. And we simply will not, and cannot, unless we completely change to a different kind of party, give up on our value set that recognises ecological wisdom, social justice and the economy as an opportunity and a tool for improving on both.

Turei adds that politics goes in cycles, and she expects that over the current term, the pendulum will swing against Key’s government and their very radical policies : e.g. that Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics” revelations will gain more traction.  She says that the government is on shaky ground because its policies and values are out of step with those of most New Zealanders.

Fitzsimons adds that the National government would never be influenced by the Green Party policies as they have other options with other smaller conservative parties. She says that, in contrast, Labour is making some steps towards environmental policies aimed at countering climate change. She says she wouldn’t support a Green party that shifted from it’s principles to get the baubles of office. She further says we desperately need a party with principles that they stick to.

Fitzsimons goes on to point out that Green Parties are a world wide movement, that Green Parties internationally are increasing their support, and,

in the words of one of them, I can’t remember who it was, “the future will be green or not all“, given the seriousness of the threats facing us.

This is the main difference between the arguments of Gareth Morgan and those of Fitzsimons and Turei.  Other things are covered in the interview, such as Turei stating that she and Norman work very well together and “have each other’s backs”; and Turei, once again, stating her commitment to supporting those on low incomes and to not pull up the ladder after her.

Turei children

275 comments on “‘The future will be green or not at all’ ”

  1. Karen 1

    It was an enlightening programme that everyone interested in the environment and/or politics should listen to in full. Both women were great, while Morgan yet again exposed himself as a very shallow thinker with conservative, right wing economic beliefs, and an inability to consider any evidence that does support his own beliefs.

    As Metira told Morgan, he should be trying to educate the National Party MPs about environmental problems, rather than telling the Greens they need to drop their left wing economic policies in order to form a coalition with National.

    Businessman Philip Mills declared his support for environmental matters at the last election by making large public donations to both Labour and the Greens. Perhaps if some more of these rich listers who claim they care about the environment had done the same we would have a better government by now.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

      +1

      If Morgan wants to clean up the environment he can start by paying Hager’s legal bills, and perhaps funding a judicial review or two.

    • Gareth 1.2

      If he’s a shallow thinker with conservative right wing economic beliefs, why does he advocate a Universal Basic Income? http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz

      He also would like all capital gains taxed, including the family home.

      Aren’t those left wing radical redistributionist ideas?

      • weka 1.2.1

        Someone can be a shallow thinker in one area and deep in another. It’s quite possible to support a UBI from the right, but not get that environmental politics are left wing.

      • les 1.2.2

        Gareth, have you actually read the Big Kahuna? Morgan advocates a capital tax of 6% pa, not a just a capital gains tax, which would not raise enough for the UBI. This is even more redistributive! The UBI is absolutely a left wing policy and would reverse the current inequality

  2. Draco T Bastard 2

    Jeanette Fitzsimons said that the current government is very pro fossil fuel industries, putting our environment increasingly in danger. They will not compromise on their core economic policies that (allegedly) will bring faster economic growth, but that are destroying the planet.

    What needs to be pointed out is that the ‘economic’ policies of National and Act are uneconomic. Actual economic policies would be protecting and, especially in NZ, increasing the natural environment (That means undoing a lot of the damage done to create farms).

    Economising

    verb (used without object), economized, economizing.
    1.
    to practice economy; avoid waste or extravagance.
    verb (used with object), economized, economizing.
    2.
    to manage economically; use sparingly or frugally.

    Nowhere in there does it say use up as fast as possible to produce lots of short term profit for the few which is what National’s and Act’s ‘economic’ policies actually do. So do Labour’s to a large degree.

    Morgan counters by saying he is looking for an alternative to National, but he is scared by the Greens being “anti-growth”.

    Morgan obviously hasn’t learned yet that infinite growth is impossible.

    “the future will be green or not all“

    QFT

    Nature bats last, doesn’t negotiate and doesn’t take prisoners.

    • OncewasTim 2.1

      Exactery DtB.
      What the Natz haven’t yet learned (and I suspect Gareth too ….. is that there is a BIG difference between growth (as in ‘sustained growth’ – which is what they all try to achieve) and sustainABLE growth – which is what they’re incapable of.
      The whole foundation of their ideological thought process is that resources are unlimited/infinite – i.e. resources including those of the human kind, and its all just a matter of their costs.
      Nice enough bloke that Mr Morgan in many ways, but I hope he learns bloody soon that courting the Natzis (who don’t have 2 original ideas to rub together and can’t see beyond tomorrow – or when the next payout falls due), is a dangerous proposition and one that’ll see SFA of NZ before too long.

      Take a bus trip sometime from (say) Te Puke to Wellington, and witness for yourselves the damage being done (long term) to the NZ ‘economy’ (in its broadest sense), as well as the missed ‘tuneties’ (opportunities). As I just did, the felling of trees in favour of proposed dairy conversions; the huge investments in roading (where it seemed to me there’s going to be limited long term value and a need for Tex Pay-ya to provide continued subsidies for road-fucking logging trucks) – whilst a rail-based commuter service seems to me to be viable; that bloody Otaki round-a-about mugger’s buddle; ………….
      ……. all I saw for 9 plus hours were ticket-clippers and Joyce/Key-like disciples getting an undeserved earn, whilst minimum wage earners; international students and Joe and Janine Average pick up the tab (until it comes time for them to have to cash-up when it’ll all become a Jesus Christ moment.

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3

    The difference between the Greens and the Right can be easily demonstrated by a reality check: the Right regards reality as an inconvenience to be denied for personal gain.

  4. weka 4

    Morgan says that he is very admiring of the Green Party’s environment policies. He is frustrated that the current government has been moving further away from extremely important environmental measures. He talks to a lot of people with similar views, but who would never vote Green because “they’re the left of Labour”. He thinks that the Greens need to be equally prepared to go into coalition with National or Labour.

    Morgan thinks environmental issues are now very mainstream and they need a less left-leaning Green Party.

    Here’s the thing, if right wing voters need the Green Party to go into coalition with National this is a very clear sign that the right in general have no intention of doing anything meaningful to protect or stop exploiting the environment. Otherwise there would be a right wing green movement and they would be making progress already. But there isn’t, because right wing politics are inherently anti-environment.

    Sorry Gareth, but there is simply no way around that. Green politics are inherently left wing because they prioritise the common good.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1

      In Morgan’s “Time For A Bluegreen Party”, he mentions the “Dirty Politics distraction”. Says it all really.

      Oh, and you have to love the self-serving reality denial of: “An additional dollar of GDP can be generated in either an environmentally dirty and intellectually dumb way, or by clean and clever means – the choice is ours, it is still just one additional dollar of income.”

      I hate to break it to you Gareth, but Hodson & Busseri 2012: you can wish for better wingnuts as much as like.

      • greywarshark 4.1.1

        Well Morgan has to encourage the wealthy and self interested, not necessarily the one group, to think outside their tummies, their buying power, their elevated lifestyle, their self-indulgence, and their real estate and other assets. It’s a busy time keeping all your balls in the air and still making a real increase in your wealth after inflation and other taxing depreciation.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1

          Not to mention Piff et al 😀

          • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.1

            Thanx OAB I have just learned a new word. Got to keep up, but it’s hard work!

            By the way, straying slightly from Gareth’s line of thought, you might give me your opinion on a recent diagnosis I made with my serious doctor hat on, if you will. Feel free to castigate me if you don’t agree! (Is that the one that they had after Watergate?)

            Open mike 01/01/2015

            • The Al1en 4.1.1.1.1.1

              It was sh1t observation in open mic and now it’s a sh1t and totally off topic observation in this thread.
              Searching for validation for a dig is a bit lame at the best of times. You can do a lot better, my friend.

    • Maui 4.2

      Great point weka, where is the centre-right green movement? Thats what Morgan wants!

  5. weka 5

    Good to see the GP putting Turei and Fitzimons up front and not Norman. I’ll take that as possibly a sign that they’ve learnt from the mistake that Norman made in the week before the election (haven’t listened to the audio yet though, so not sure how well they are explaining the membership mandated policy on working with any party on individual policies).

  6. KenS 6

    Somehow, Morgan has got the idea that the Greens can change National’s spots. He believes they will compromise their economic agenda to remain in power as they have their social agenda, e.g. work with the Greens as they have the Maori Party. What he seems not to realise is that National’s core reason for being is to reinforce the capitalist economic paradigm above all else and to protect the priviledged position of the corporate elite. Given that the Green’s environmental policies directly challenge this core principle, working together in govt is just not an option. This is an absolute bottom line that the Nats would give up poewer for rather than compromise.

    • There is nothing National wouldn’t compromise to remain in power.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1

        Someone should hack the Exceltium website so that it quotes you saying that. Yeah, I know, I’m inciting criminal behaviour.

        • greywarshark 6.1.1.1

          Hooton, tootin’ the truth. That’s a graaand statement as the Scots might say it, a Robbie Burns New Year address to the haggis, or the haggard probably.

          • OncewasTim 6.1.1.1.1

            It was a doozy huh? I’m wondering whether Matt blue-hue Hooton is a weenie bit pissed. Such an admission confirms what we all think – Neshnool hev no prince pulls.
            Needless to say there’s an Oik Williams somewhere near spouting “I tend to agree with you Mathew” and a regular gal gearing things up for 2015 when she’s decided what her next affectation will be. (The last one was her attempting not to sound like a Kiwi as far as the ‘a’ vowel goes – give Lucy Hockings a call Rinrin).
            SO ………. @ Mathew: you can really feel fulfilled and fool yourself you’re the voice of reason and loguck (the X spirt commentariat will back ya up in 2015!
            (You’re still Oh So Relevant – there’s probably even a Pagani ready to fawn all over you – just as long as she learns to drive and doesn’t become one of those white crosses littering the Keptea Karse

            • greywarshark 6.1.1.1.1.1

              @ Oncewas Tim
              Rock it and mock it for 2015 eh? What are your wishes for pollies positive action of the kind helpful to our good for 2015? Not promising to wave my magic wand, but if you’ve been a good boy……..

      • tc 6.1.2

        So true…democracy, due process, honesty, integrity, environment, development, education, public transport etc the list of what’s up for grabs to keep power is endless.

      • While that’s a great soundbite I’m pretty sure it’s not the case that National would sacrifice ANYTHING. If they would, I can paint you two scenarios that might happen that I think you’ll agree simply will not happen.

        In both scenarios, National would need to not have the numbers to govern without a coalition with either Labour or the Greens.

        1) National offers an aggressive (ie. better than Labour) renewable energy and climate change policy to contend for the Green Party’s support in coalition negotiations, while still maintaining their other economic policies. I bet you’ll agree National would not do this, and if you don’t, I bet everyone else will agree you’re not a serious commentator.

        2) National offers to form a grand coalition with Labour to avoid a Labour-Greens government. I dare anyone to seriously predict that this will happen in the next three elections, not just Hoots.

        The reason National refuses to work with either of these parties is that the bottom lines for negotiating with them are concessions on parts of economic policy that National won’t move on because they are core parts of National policy, the same way that certain hacks in the Labour Party won’t move on the idea that an economy can grow forever with a weak refrain of “but that would mean less jobs”, despite it being pretty obvious from the laws of thermodynamics that infinite growth is not possible without an expanding frontier.

        • phillip ure 6.1.3.1

          @ whitehead..

          1)..you don’t seem to have yet grasped that this environmental thing is not just a passing phase/annoyance..

          ..being ‘green’ in that sense will soon be the norm..(international pressures will guarantee that..)

          ..so national having green policies isn’t a matter of ‘if?’..but ‘when?’..

          ..and re yr number 2..while studying for masters i investigated that question..

          ..and again concluded not ‘if’ but ‘when?’..not as guaranteed as number one..

          ..but a definite possibility..

          ..and the fact of the matter is that there are lots of labour mp’s..and some greens..who wd be very relaxed about a grand coalition with national..

          (.yoo-hoo..!..nash..!..shaw..!..)

          ..especially if it kept out of power a new progressive party/coalition..

          ..and you are also ignoring what was correct about what hooton said..

          ..namely that national wd do anything to gain/retain power..

  7. Anne 7

    Turei adds that politics goes in cycles, and she expects that over the current term, the pendulum will swing against Key’s government and their very radical policies : e.g. that Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics” revelations will gain more traction.

    I think she’s dead right there. DP is one of those stories that only slowly penetrates the average voters’ conscious. Their lack of knowledge of, or interest in, politics means they don’t understand the ins and outs of it so hence the “they all do it” meme gets plenty of early traction – as evidenced by the outcome of the election. But it isn’t going away any time soon, and the voters are going to start appreciating the reality of DP as more knowledge and information comes to light.

    I’m sure Turei, Norman, Little and Robertson are more than ready for it.

  8. greywarshark 8

    About Dirty Politics and Nicky Hager.
    https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/NickyHager
    The fund for his legal costs is now at $65,610 from 1274 donors. It closes in a few months but people who know say that his costs could be huge, even if he gets a sympathetic lawyer. So don’t hold back from giving him some more in this new year.

  9. Paul 9

    You cannot support growth and be Green.
    Finite planet. Finite resources.
    People may not want to hear that fact, but that’s because they’ve been indoctrinated in consumerism and capitalism.
    They won’t pay for it.
    Their grandchildren will.
    As are millions of other species as we speak.

    • Paul 9.1

      I suggest folk read Derrick Jensen’s Endgame.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2

      Organic resources are effectively infinite within a sustainable framework. So are many renewables. I suspect the change of trajectory required is actually quite small. Not that we’re making one yet.

      • weka 9.2.1

        “Organic resources are effectively infinite within a sustainable framework. So are many renewables”

        yes, but relative to demand and space though. This is why population is such a crucial issue, not just global, but within each watershed.

        • Within a sustainable framework being the key word. A sustainable framework probably requires changes like reduced global population and increased uptake in vegetarianism and veganism.

          • weka 9.2.1.1.1

            “Within a sustainable framework being the key word”

            True, although the word sustainable has been so co-opted now that I think it’s always good to be more specific.

            “requires changes like reduced global population and increased uptake in vegetarianism and veganism.”

            I think this will work better if it’s framed as ‘semi-vegetarian’. There is not good reason to stop eating meat entirely, and ‘vegetarian/vegan’ are often ethical practices around animal welfare rather than being about the environment as a whole. ie being vegetarian or vegan isn’t inherently more or less green than eating meat. It’s about how it’s done.

    • Possibly a better way of putting it is that to be Green, you must support only sustainable growth, and it’s pretty obvious that if you only support sustainable growth, you have to be hoping for some political trend or action that leads to a shrinkage in both the world population, and the overall use of resources. The best way for this to happen would be to shrink both simultaneously by large-scale movements to a sustainable lifestyle, (to maintain quality of life while reducing resource use) to encourage sustainable development in high-population and high birthrate areas, (as higher quality of life and financial security decreases the birthrate) while removing financial incentives to average parents to start families, and perhaps even OFFERING financial incentives to stay childless.

  10. philj 10

    Gareth’s a decent person but he is an economist, blinkered. His awakening can’t come soon enough. Clue, Gareth, its not as complicated as all that. The economy is dependent (ultimately) on the ecology. Didn’t they teach that in ECON 101.

    • tc 10.1

      He sounds like he’s rolling out a theme that others can run with to me.

      He’s never struck me as having alot of integrity just plays the odds having backed son Sam on a winner years ago and another compliant media rent a quote.

  11. I have a little sympathy for Morgan’s point that the Greens are wasted outside of government, but don’t think they have to cut their social conscience heart from the party to achieve great things.

    Perish the thought that the Greens be pigeon holed into a single issue party, no matter how important an issue saving the planet is.
    Let’s not forget the valuable contribution they as a party have made since 08, arguably taking the mantle of main opposition while labour have self destructed in piques of self interest and factionalism.

    • weka 11.1

      Yes. It doesn’t really matter what they do, there will always be righties (and some lefties) telling them they’re doing it wrong. In the past they were criticised for being a single issue party (even though they weren’t). Now they get criticised for all that social justices stuff, why can’t they just focus on the environment? Plus, they should really work with National, because.

      It’s all rhetoric from people who don’t want the GP to be effective (even Morgan, who wants the GP to work towards his own aims, which is a green tech, growth focussed, BAU economy)

    • marty mars 11.2

      “Perish the thought that the Greens be pigeon holed into a single issue party, no matter how important an issue saving the planet is.”

      does that make sense? saving the planet is important because that will save humans (as well as the planet and other flora and fauna) and Greens are a subset of that group – what actually is more important than that?

      • The Al1en 11.2.1

        In the political context it makes perfect sense to me mars.

        For example, the green party has good policy for the advancement of social justice and removing inequality, so obviously they are much more than an environmental lobby group, so it would be a travesty to class them by a single issue, no matter how important it is.
        Is that clear now?

        • marty mars 11.2.1.1

          lol – didn’t have such a great start to the year eh allen

          if the planet is fucked we are fucked so making sure the planet isn’t fucked is a higher priority than anything – tick tock…

          • The Al1en 11.2.1.1.1

            “didn’t have such a great start to the year eh allen”

            If that’s a question, then the answer is yerp, I’ve a great start to the year thanks.
            If it’s an observation, you need to examine your astuteness.

            “if the planet is fucked we are fucked so making sure the planet isn’t fucked is a higher priority than anything”

            That’s not been argued for or against. The point you contested was whether it is or isn’t a travesty the green be labelled a single issue party. I think that the good social policy and understanding of the issues facing the poor and put upon that they have, as outlined above, which you’ve ignored, is one reason why they should resist all attempts to frame them as just the climate change party, even though that is an important part of their make up.

            “tick tock…”

            😆

    • ghostwhowalksnz 11.3

      Really ?

      They are not an opposition in the normal sense of the word. If the voters thought so then they wouldnt be stuck at 11%.

      • Sacha 11.3.1

        The Greens are *part of* the parliamentary opposition.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 11.3.1.1

          Seems like the opposition part is a permanent feature now.

          The only legislative achievement is Sue Bradfords bill to stop whacking kids.

          The rest, nada, zilch.

          And even Bradford was pushed out, in a nice touchy feely way.

          • weka 11.3.1.1.1

            It’s fine that you don’t like the GP, but please don’t tell lies or try and undermine them with slurs.

            Here’s a partial list of achievement (from 2013), but the full list would be much longer, including the very real effects of influencing awareness around crucial issues like AGW.

            https://home.greens.org.nz/achievements

            • ghostwhowalksnz 11.3.1.1.1.1

              I said legislative achievments. Otherwise you are just doing all the leg work free for Campbell LIve.

              Even the marriage equality, you were just doing the light work on that one. I suppose you were otherwise busy on getting bread made with ancient grains more widely available

              • weka

                yes you did say legislative, but the clear implication was that that’s the only valid form of achievement for political parties (or is it just the GP?), and therefore the GP are useless. Which is both a lie and a slur as I mentioned.

                Always good to know who are the people on the left really interested in change (as opposed to those who will cut off their nose to spite their face).

              • greywarshark

                @Ghostwwwwnz
                Ooh snaky. Brains with ancient synapses could think better. There is nothing wrong with thinking about what you are eating and where it came from etc. Why don’t you?

                • ghostwhowalksnz

                  I see others are thinking about what they are eating too.

                  “Kennedy Graham succeeded in passing a motion …….

                  about New Zealand ratification of the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute”

                  keep up with the passing of motions.

            • phillip ure 11.3.1.1.1.2

              u left off norman saying he’d like to work with national..

              ..and that bill english is his favourite politician..

              ..and the wholesale betrayal (again!) of the constituency that got you into parliament the very first time..(btw..the aotearoa legalise cannabis party got 11,000 votes..

              ..a more bitter pill for harawira possibly to contemplate/swallow..(as to think there were not 800 pot-votes in a seat stretching from west ak to the far north…wd be just silly..and had he not thrown that reactionary-tantrum..and got the internet party pot-advertising campaign pulled..and in the process turned off every pot-smker/advocate from west ak to the north..

              ..he wd be again in parliament…along with others we wamted to be there..)

              ..but still votes the greens cd also have had/shared..

              ..i cd go on…

              • i mean i haven’t even gone near the major election achievement of the greens..

                ..gifting that toerag dunne his seat…again…

                • Sacha

                  The only way that could have worked is if the Greens and Labour *secretly* agreed to pool votes so the Nats could not advise their voters to counter it. Check the totals. It’s much like Epsom. How do you think the right choose these deals?

                  • i’ve already blown this self-justifying bullshit out of the water elsewhere..

                    ..is this the crap they are telling you..?

                    ..go and look at the election-result numbers..

                    ..and work it put for yrslf..

                    ..in a nutshell..100% of the national vote wd have to ‘take direction.’.a la epsom..

                    ..whereas in epsom..where the orders to national voters cd not have been clearer..there were many thousands of national party votes cast..

                    ..(and yes..some of that wd have been lab/grns voting strategically..(one wd hope..)..but not all..

                    ..and what my examination of the ohariu result if the greens had not split the vote..was it was too close to call..

                    ..whereas..dunne was celebrating his victory from the day the greens announced they wd stand there..

                    ..he knew he was home and hosed..

                    ..and you mentioned epsom..?

                    ..thought of doing i.q. tests on the over 3,000 green party voters there..?

                    ..who voted with their brains in neutral..

                    • karol

                      Ohariu results 2014:

                      Anderson (LAB) 12,859
                      Woodley (GP) 2,764
                      TOTAL = 15,623

                      Dunne (UFNZ) 13,569
                      Hudson (Nat) 6,120
                      TOTAL = 19,689

                    • yes karol..u prove my point..

                      ..you conclude that close to 100% of national party voters wd take direction..

                      ..and vote for dunne..

                      ..whereas epsom proves that conclusion false..

                      ..and the accurate-reading of what u posted..

                      ..is the difference between anderson and dunne..

                      ..with the green vote factored in..

                      ..as i said..had the greens not stood a candidate..

                      ..i think it wd have been too close to call..

                      ..by standing…they guaranteed dunne his victory..as they have done since day one…

                      ..i mean..as u show…dunne beat the labour candidate by only 710 votes..

                      ..the grn party candidate got 2,764 votes…

                    • karol

                      Really you think the 4,000 votes difference between Lab + Green & UF plus Nats are negligible?

                      You’re dreaming.

                      Epsom is not a similar scenario. The Nats have already called for strong support for the ACT candidate. Plus how many Goldsmith votes were from the left? And, no doubt some Nats will have factored in that the Epsom ACT candidate will win without their votes.

              • ghostwhowalksnz

                pot smoking may be a middle class pakeha pastime for you phil, but for maori of the far north it destroys lives and families and Hone knows that only too well.

                • what absolute fucken bullshit..

                  ..detail for us how ‘lives/families have been destroyed’..from people puffing on pot..

                  ..especially in comparison with the legal/advertised intoxicant alcohol..

                  ..families have been destroyed by people being busted/jailed for pot..

                  ..yes..!

                  ..but not from smoking it..

                  ..and hey..!..if a person is smart or dumb..

                  ..pot doesn’t make them smarter..or dumber..

                  ..but c’mon..!..detail how these lives/families ‘have been destroyed’..

                • Colonial Viper

                  it’s the lack of jobs, solid incomes and economic security up north which destroys lives. Don’t mistake symptoms for causes.

                • Murray Rawshark

                  How much of the damage you mention is due to the war on drugs? My guess would be quite a bit of it, with most of the rest due to neglect by central government and local governments that only care about pakeha enclaves on the East Coast. The district council moving their offices from Kaikohe to Kerikeri so the mayor could be close to his developer mates and get together with them for the odd braai is one of the latest symptoms.

          • Draco T Bastard 11.3.1.1.2

            I think you’ll find the insulation installed in many homes is also due to the Greens no matter how much National tries to claim that policy as their own.

      • The Al1en 11.3.2

        Yes, In my opinion, despite the election result and opinion polls, the green party have put more in to opposing the government and been much more effective in the role than the labour party.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 11.3.2.1

          Thats nice to know.

          But the voters thought otherwise, and thought that little was done by the Greens in last 3 years. The results speak for themselves.

          Surely you arent smug about getting slightly less than last time ?.

          But thats the Greens all over. Do nothing and call it a great achievement.

          • phillip ure 11.3.2.1.1

            whereas yr favourite key/nact..preached/promised economic-competence..

            ..and then put us in hock up to our eyeballs to international bankers..

            ..just to give tax-cuts to their douchebag-mates/backers..

            ..is that their/his ‘great achievement’..?

  12. Pete George 12

    She says that the government is on shaky ground because its policies and values are out of step with those of most New Zealanders.

    National 47.04%
    Greens 10.7%

    Greens have quite wide support for some of their environmental aims but have hit a Green ceiling due to their more extreme environmental policies (no drilling, no mining, no fracking, less cars, less cows, less people) and their ‘social equity’ policies.

    Many people are happy to see a bit of Green input but not too much. There was widespread respect for the Fitzsimons/Donald Greens.

    Turei is correct in her assumption that the pendulum will swing against National (who are criticised more for their moderate conservatism than for being ‘very radical’).

    But she is unrealistic to expect Labour to embrace many of their policies, especially their more left leaning ones. Helen Clark chose to cut Greens out of government. The next Labour coalition options may not allow for that but unless they want have a high risk of being a one term government Labour will talk tough in their negotiations with the Greens.

    When it comes to the crunch when the Greens finally get a shot at being in Government they will have to compromise. Or force a new election, and that would be unlikely to end well for them.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1

      The Green party wouldnt last 18 months as ministers in a government, there would be a split.
      It would be like labour in 98. Thats the real reason Clark kept them out, for their own sanity

    • But she is unrealistic to expect Labour to embrace many of their policies, especially their more left leaning ones.

      Why not? It’s been a consistent feature of NZ politics over the past 20 years: the Greens champion a policy, get called extremist nutjobs who don’t know how to run a country, and a few electoral cycles later Labour and/or National present their ideas as obvious common sense.

      • Pete George 12.2.1

        It’s not Green extremist nutjob policies that get picked up by Labour or National though.

        Do you suggest the Greens just wait a few electoral cycles and hope National or Labour pick up their AGW policies? The world could have changed quite a bit by then.

        • Sacha 12.2.1.1

          Extremist? You seem to have little idea what’s required to combat climate change – but again that’s not giving you any pause from shooting your mouth off about it. Silence is an option, you know.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.2

          Doing what needs to be done isn’t extremist but not doing it because a few people won’t get quite as rich is.

        • You have wilfully misinterpreted my comment to serve your own agenda. You deserve only 🙄

      • les 12.2.2

        so very true!

      • Lloyd 12.2.3

        +1

      • Tracey 12.2.4

        insulating all homes would have been captured at some stage by the extreme nutty policy catchall at some stage…

        nats and act and others RARELY identify what they are calling nutty or extremist.

        yesterday i was listening to something about sea shepherd and greenpeace work against illegal fishing. how different would our oceans be without them given no nations actively dissuade the illegal fishing… nutty and extreme…

        nutty and extreme is keeping the status quo despite decades of evidence it is not helping even 50% of your people and turning the planet into a toilet

  13. Sacha 13

    Let’s not feed the troll today.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1

      He finds having his deceitful methods exposed most unpalatable, I assure you. Today’s attempt to twist Turei’s words is merely the latest of a long stream of lies. He also slips in the fatuous conceit that he speaks for “many” and “most” people.

      I suggest we forcefeed his own gobshite back to him.

      • Sacha 13.1.1

        Let’s try starving it of oxygen instead.

      • Pete George 13.1.2

        “the fatuous conceit that he speaks for “many” and “most” people.”

        Did you mean like this? “She says that the government is on shaky ground because its policies and values are out of step with those of most New Zealanders.”

        Be careful saying things like “I suggest we forcefeed his own gobshite back to him.”

        You seem to make a good job of continually exposing your own deceitful methods. Maybe you should follow Sacha’s advice and not keeping feeding yourself.

        • weka 13.1.2.1

          🙄

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.2

          Yes, I mean exactly like that, where you assume similar status to Ms. Turei, who unlike you, has a constituency, and can back up her beliefs with opinion poll after opinion poll that says people think the government isn’t doing enough about AGW, or water quality, or transport issues, or inequality.

          That you attempt to twist that into a claim for support for the Green Party is a perfect illustration of your dirty dishonest methods.

          Yawns.

    • Sacha 13.2

      That worked well. For a while. 🙂

  14. um..!..cd i ask what has happened to my comment on morgan..?

    ..and his ex-hippie/ayn rand tendencies..?

    ..it was there..

    ..and now it seems to have gone walkabout..

  15. What a lunatic attitude by Fitzsimons. On the one hand, she says that the future existence of the human race is at stake:

    “in the words of one of them, I can’t remember who it was, ‘the future will be green or not all’, given the seriousness of the threats facing us.”

    Then:

    “She says she wouldn’t support a Green party that shifted from it’s principles to get the baubles of office. She further says we desperately need a party with principles that they stick to.”

    Yet again, this confirms my belief that Big Green leaders don’t really believe that the future of the world is at stake from the environmental issues they talk about, and that they just use those extremist scenarios as an excuse for what is fundamentally a communist economic agenda.

    For example, if people did believe that climate change represented an existential threat to the human race then they would have an entirely different policy framework than the ones the Green Party presents.

    • weka 15.1

      lolz, mate that’s just your ethical impairment talking.

      “For example, if people did believe that climate change represented an existential threat to the human race then they would have an entirely different policy framework than the ones the Green Party presents.”

      Nope, the GP is striking the best balance between what needs to be done and what can be done via the political process. Any party that got up and told the truth about AGW and what really needs to be done would (a) be piloried by the MSM and (b) be shunned by voters because most of them are in cognitive dissonance about CC.

      I know you are probably incapable of understanding this, but the GP want change not power. Having power doesn’t necessarily lead to change, and there are other ways of effecting change than being the most powerful.

      and that they just use those extremist scenarios as an excuse for what is fundamentally a communist economic agenda.

      Assuming you really believe that (doubtful), can we also assume that you will stop promoting the GP working with National?

      • greywarshark 15.1.1

        @Good answer weka – good questions. You are doing matthew h a favour. All this mental action we demand will tend to stop early alzheimers coming on.

      • Pete George 15.1.2

        “the GP is striking the best balance between what needs to be done and what can be done via the political process.”

        They can’t be striking the best balance, otherwise they would be getting the best proportion of votes and they would be in the best position to do what they think is essential to save the planet.

        “the GP want change not power”

        But to get the degree of change they want they need to be influential on power, and they don’t seem to be very satisfied with their current lack of influence.

        “Any party that got up and told the truth about AGW and what really needs to be done would (a) be piloried by the MSM and (b) be shunned by voters”

        Greens think they are telling ‘the truth’ about AGW and they are proposing what they think really needs to be done – and they are stalled at 10-11%, having said they were good for 15%.

        • Sacha 15.1.2.1

          What’s the best proportion of votes in an MMP coalition? And since when did we hold parties to what they projected before an election?

          Who knows what the Greens might reach next time if voters have been shown a coherent alliance beforehand? Smaller parties shares are affected by their larger partners, and the one on the left performed abysmally. The one on the right is not viable beyond smaller specific agreements like the home insulation one because its policies are not remotely congruent – and because the decision-making body about that is Green members, not some disconnected caucus.

          • Pete George 15.1.2.1.1

            There’s no ‘best proportion’ in a coalition, parties have to deal with what voters give them.

            Who knows what the Greens might reach next time. They had a good increase in their vote in 2011, probably largely benefiting from Labour slumping. Labour slid more this year but Greens didn’t benefit this time, which was a bit of a reality check.

            If Labour do a decent job of rebuilding and Andrew Little keeps doing a good job then it’s probable they will recover at least some of their vote share.

            That should be worrying the Greens. There’s probably a greater chance of them slipping back rather than growing their vote.

          • weka 15.1.2.1.2

            Sacha, what are you doing? 😯

        • The Al1en 15.1.2.2

          “Greens think they are telling ‘the truth’ about AGW ”

          Direct question that needs a similar response. Obfuscation being the great exposer.

          If the greens only think they’re telling the truth about agw, list precisely what they are getting wrong with as many examples as you can.

          Shouldn’t be too difficult seeing as you made the claim, you must know the errors before the fact.

      • Pete George 15.1.3

        “promoting the GP working with National”

        If National have the power to do something and Greens have all the truth on what needs to be done then why shouldn’t they work together to come up with a practical plan to address AGW?

        If AGW is so important to Greens they should be doing everything they can to work with the current Government to do something about it.

        Waiting three years and hoping they get to dictate to Labour in the next coalition is a big risk to take when urgency is supposedly required. Isn’t it?

        • mickysavage 15.1.3.1

          Do you think Pete that AGW is important?

          Do you think that doing nothing about AGW runs the risk of environmental devastation for large parts of the world?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.3.1.1

            Can pollution offer a valid opinion about itself?

          • Pete George 15.1.3.1.2

            Greg – yes, I think it’s important that we do more to address AGW. I think it’s important enough to involve all parties in working out how New Zealand is best to deal with it.

            I don’t know the answers. It’s up to our Parliament to find and implement the best answers.

            • mickysavage 15.1.3.1.2.1

              This is the problem Pete. This particular discussion has been going on for nearly 50 years. There is no political consensus on “the answers” even though the science is really well settled. We cut methane and CO2 production and start planting trees. But while this “debate” continues we lose precious time. The “middle way” is destroying the planet.

              Haven’t you read enough on the subject yet to form an opinion?

              • weka

                Pete has an opinion. He just won’t state it clearly here because that would show his true colours and then he wouldn’t be able to speak on behalf of muddle NZ.

              • Pete George

                It’s a fairly diverse topic but I’ve got some opinions on aspects of it. I’ve read about it.

                I’ve had quite a few debates in the past on KB about it but have mostly given up on that, it’s futile. But I still promote action on AGW there. There’s an entrenched views like ‘no problem’ and science conspiracies that are unlikely to change. And I’ve talked a bit about it with my son-in-law who’s an environmental economist and does research. But I’m not an expert by any means.

                I think that the NZ market is too small for carbon trading. Some sort of carbon tax would be more appropriate – I think that’s Green policy.

                They had an item on the news last night about research into lower methane cows. As cows produce (from memory) 30% of our carbon emissions that’s promising.

                Greens announced a solar subsidy policy earlier this year. I asked Metiria if they would include double glazing subsidies but she said no, it wasn’t their current focus. I think power conservation should be given more emphasis. I would have liked the proceeds of the power company asset sales to go towards funding power conservation measures but no chance of that.

                • mickysavage

                  Specifics Pete, specifics. The clock is ticking and the need to cut GHG production is urgent.

                  How would you halve NZ’s CO2 output within the next ten years?

                  • Pete George

                    That’s not my call.

                    How much would halving the CO2 emissions in New Zealand affect AGW?

                    And how would it affect employment and trade? We could cull all our cows and sheep and try to make sure their emissions aren’t replaced by possums but that would impact dramatically on our employment and trade.

                    How much would you suggest we cut livestock numbers? If we only cut them in half that means the rest of our emissions would have to be cut in half.

                    What would you propose? By the sound of things you’ve got it worked out.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      🙄

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Don’t be a dick.

                      If we create a society and an economy which can run on only half the fossil fuels it uses now, we will be far better placed to maintain our society once the fossil fuel energy depletion curve steepens downwards.

                      And in the mean time, we will reduce our trade deficit and our reliance on imported energy.

                      What is your problem, man. You’re going to be dead of old age in the next 20 years. At least work towards a better future for younger Kiwis instead of promoting the game of ‘pretend and extend.’

                    • Sacha

                      “We could cull all our cows and sheep and try to make sure their emissions aren’t replaced by possums but that would impact dramatically on our employment and trade.”

                      Strawman city. Getting more income from every cow does not mean we need to kill any of them – just not add more, probably. Mainly stop exporting raw milk powder or logs for others to add value to. That’s crucial.

                      Our trading partners will not tolerate this govt’s opportunistic laziness indefinitely. NZ will face exclusion from markets unless we are seen to be pulling our weight. Smiling and waving won’t cut it.

                    • mickysavage

                      How much would halving the CO2 emissions in New Zealand affect AGW?

                      Bugger all but if a wealthy country like NZ does not do it then the world is stuffed.

                      And how would it affect employment and trade? We could cull all our cows and sheep and try to make sure their emissions aren’t replaced by possums but that would impact dramatically on our employment and trade.

                      Could do. We certainly need to be creating green jobs where people can earn a fair day’s pay doing something that does not trash the environment. Think of all the opportunities. Education, counselling, windmill manufacturing, reengineering the power supply. The opportunities are endless as long as there is some leadership.

                      How much would you suggest we cut livestock numbers? If we only cut them in half that means the rest of our emissions would have to be cut in half.

                      Could be. But Pete you have to know how big the problem is to work out how radical the solution is. You and many other right wingers refuse to commit to agreeing on how big the problem is, and then say that inaction is justified because there is no agreement.

                      What would you propose? By the sound of things you’ve got it worked out.

                      Not at all but I would start with Auckland’s inner city rail loop.

                      And how about you answer the question Pete, what would you do?

                    • Pete George

                      Why are you insisting I produce a comprehensive plan when all you can come up with is “start with Auckland’s inner city rail loop”? How much of the 50% reduction will that give you?

                      It’s way out of my league. It’s up to Government and Parliament. I wasn’t elected. Greens were. They should be prepared to do whatever it takes to make more happen. If that means climbing off their high horse then perhaps they should. They should have learnt by now not to rely on Labour to get them more power.

                    • mickysavage []

                      I will give you a huge list if you like Pete. But if it is way out of your league then why not say that if there is a scientific consensus then it should determine the decisions. And the Green “high horse” is actually what needs to be done. So on the one hand you are saying that you should not contribute to the debate but on the other hand you are contributing to the debate by saying that the Green position is not tenable? See the problem?

                    • Pete George

                      Greg – I didn’t say I shouldn’t contribute to the debate, I said I don’t have all the solutions.

                      “if there is a scientific consensus then it should determine the decisions”

                      Scientists aren’t elected in a democracy. They can and should advise but they don’t make political or economic decisions.

                      So you support all of what the Greens want done as opposed to what Labour would do?

                    • Pete George

                      Sacha…

                      “Getting more income from every cow does not mean we need to kill any of them – just not add more, probably.”

                      Keeping the same number of cows means it is difficult to cut emissions by 50%.

                      “Mainly stop exporting raw milk powder or logs for others to add value to. That’s crucial.”

                      Milk powder is a processed/added value product that there is a substantial market for. Do you mean stop exporting milk that is currently processed into milk powder? Or process the powder into something else? If the latter then what? There would need to be a market for it.

                      What markets do you think there are for processed logs?

                    • McFlock

                      pete just argued that current markets for raw materials do not indicate markets for things that those raw materials are used to make

                      🙄

                    • Pete George

                      That’s not what I argued Mcflock. I asked.

                      If we processed logs into whatever the Chinese process our logs into and tried to sell the processed products to the Chinese there’s no guarantee they would be interested. Their processing costs are likely to be much cheaper than ours.

                      The Greens seem to think that there will automatically be a market for whatever we make from raw logs or from processed milk powder. At best that’s naive.

                      If Fonterra could add more value before selling why wouldn’t they be doing that now?

                      Why aren’t timber companies buying more logs and processing them before selling them? There’s nothing to stop that happening now – except no viable market.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      You have an unreasonably high regard for NZ corporate management and their market intelligence, Pete George.

                      Your concept that the way things are happening now is the only way things can possibly happen also calls into question your ability and willingness to lead meaningful change and to see new opportunities.

                      They’re simply pumping out low value volume because that is all they know how to do. The only thing we can conclude with certainty is that they are unwilling to take the risks and make the investments to do anything else.

                      Don’t give these people an easy pass mate. They are paid highly enough to be doing much better for this nation.

                    • McFlock

                      Great economic thinking there pete – if it’s not being done now, it’s not being done for a reason, therefore we shouldn’t do it.

                      The entire point is that we need to invest and produce wisely for the good of the planet and the country, not just a company focused on its core business.

                      Why would our processing costs be much more than say China’s, like for like? They have cheap labour and smart government policy development. We have a culture of innovation and working smarter, no matter how much people like you want to kill it and turn us all into docile wage slaves.

                      Just think what would happen if we could be innovative and have decent government economic policy.

                    • Poission

                      We could cull all our cows and sheep and try to make sure their emissions aren’t replaced by possums but that would impact dramatically on our employment and trade.

                      The problem is invertible,removing the possum population increases the efficiency of the forest sinks,by around 20-30k tonnes of vegetation per day.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Their processing costs are likely to be much cheaper than ours.

                      Actually, due to their present excessive use of fossil fuels their processing costs must be much higher. It’s only our delusional financial system that makes it appear cheaper.

                      In real terms, in the amount of resources actually used, the costs will be near enough to exactly the same. It is impossible to build a one tonne car using only 900kg of material.

                  • @ m.s..

                    ..u know he never answers any hard/direct questions..

                    ..(i mean..imagine being married to him..?..whoar..!

                    ..you’d run fucken screaming from the house..wouldn’t ya..?..

                    ..from just trying to get him to say what he wd like for dinner..)

        • karol 15.1.3.2

          You obviously haven’t read and fully digested the post, nor listened to the audio of the interview.

          eg this is the post:

          Jeanette Fitzsimons said that the current government is very pro fossil fuel industries, putting our environment increasingly in danger. They will not compromise on their core economic policies that (allegedly) will bring faster economic growth, but that are destroying the planet. The Greens could not go into coalition with a government with such core economic policies.

          And this:

          Fitzsimons adds that the National government would never be influenced by the Green Party policies as they have other options with other smaller conservative parties.

          And also in the audio, Turei says they have tried to work with National on specific policies, but the Nats won’t work with them.

          • Pete George 15.1.3.2.1

            Greens have worked with National:

            The Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme was initiated as a result of the Greens’ Memorandum of Understanding with the National Government. It has now reached its target of 188,500 homes insulated with sufficient remaining budget to bring the total to around 230,000.

            https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/home-insulation-scheme-green-success-story

            Since then there does seem to be greater difficulties between the two parties. I don’t think the problem with that is one sided.

            New Zealand has to be pro fossil fuels to an extent. Extreme Green policies could have a potentially severe impact on our economy.

            Fracking has the potential to move to cleaner energy but Greens are against fracking. That’s puzzling.

            Can you point to details of how much Greens want to reduce fossil fuel use? And what impact that would have on our economy and our way of life?

            • Sacha 15.1.3.2.1.1

              “Extreme Green policies” – like what? You have already misrepresented them here. ‘No new mines’ or ‘no mines on Conservation land’ does not mean ‘no mines’. Any coalition agreement with Labour would dilute that anyway.

              Do tell us what is really upsetting you?

            • Colonial Viper 15.1.3.2.1.2

              the world is currently transitioning to a low carbon zero growth economy, whether it likes it or not.

              You are someone who clearly doesn’t understand the linkage between “economy” and “energy” so you can start by studying that.

              Either we get onboard proactively and prepare the low carbon infrastructure and expectations we need ahead of time, or be go down your route of denial and strategy of pretend + extend, destroying our mores and environment enroute.

              By the way, any child of primary school age or younger, now faces a steep uphill, difficult life, thanks to my generation and your generation wasting the treasures of this Earth. That’s nothing to be pleased about eh.

            • Sacha 15.1.3.2.1.3

              “Since then there does seem to be greater difficulties between the two parties. I don’t think the problem with that is one sided.”

              National terminated the agreement. Doesn’t get more one-sided than that. Do stop lying and misrepresenting. It’s embarrassing.

              • Pete George

                Which agreement did National terminate? When?

                Less than two weeks before the election in September

                Greens signalled yesterday that they may be open to a memorandum of understanding with National similar to that struck in 2011.

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10492794/John-Key-nixes-deal-with-Greens

                That’s probably the worst possible time to suggest something like that. Labour had already turned down a suggestion of a joint approach with Greens. It’s not surprising Key said he wasn’t interested then.

                “In the course of having that MOU we had some considerable discussions with the Greens and I think what came out at the end of it was the Greens don’t want to be with National,” he said.

                Tracey Watkins on Possible coalition line-ups after election

                National and the Greens. The Greens and Key have all but ruled this out

                Until Green’s signalling in the middle of the election campaign from what I remember they had clearly signalled they would be very very unlikely to do a post-election deal with National.

                • karol

                  It wasn’t a new suggestion, just the Greens re-stating their basic position – that they will collaborate with any party on selected policies

                  And Turei explained it in the audio referred to in my post.

                  I thought Key and the Nats had turned the Greens down on collaborating on selected policies following the 2011 election.

                  Ah, the 2011 MOU was made before the election in 2011, and was an extension of their 2009 MOU.

                  After the 2011 election the Nats turned the GP down.

                  The National Government’s lurch to the right has scuppered prospects of a new policy deal between it and the Greens, the smaller party says, but National claims the Greens wanted policies that were unaffordable.

                  • Tracey

                    if it is new to pete, it is by definition, new.

                    • Sacha

                      Senility has its perks. #alwaysnew

                    • Tracey

                      it also helps if your world view is,

                      whoever has the most votes must be “right” and have struck the right “balance”; and

                      unfettered by reading articles or listening to audio you already intuitively know you know is wrong

                      excitedly influenced by hooton sharing your viewpoint

                      nothing much can really be done about bad stuff, sigh, so just keep doing pretty much what we do now until something beyond our control changes

            • tc 15.1.3.2.1.4

              It’s multi choice Petey, go with the beige vague one that allows no clear position and plenty of weasel room for a change.

            • Lloyd 15.1.3.2.1.5

              Why does New Zealand have to be pro-fossil fuel use?

              We have a clear ability to make more cheap zero-fossil generated electricity than all our present generation. Electric heating could meet all of Fronterra’s milk powder manufacturing needs, If road transport rapidly adopted electric propulsion or transport was diverted to electric rail where possible, we would rapidly need fossil fuel only for air travel and for making steel at Glenbrook, (and the Glenbrook plant could use tyres and wood-chips for at least some of its carbon needs). The economic benefits of using electricity generated by renewable sources wherever possible would have a great positive benefit to the economy.

              Be pro-fossil fuel? Bah. humbug! Sounds like crap government to me.

              Fracking has produced more fossil fuel. In the US the fuel produced is natural gas which has less effects than coal. Fortunately we have less need for vast amounts of propane, so much so that we have wasted huge amounts of natural gas on converting it into petrol and nitrogen fertilizer.

              WE DON’T NEED MORE FOSSIL FUEL – WE NEED TO BURN LESS.

            • Lloyd 15.1.3.2.1.6

              Why does New Zealand have to be pro-fossil fuel use?

              We have a clear ability to make more cheap zero-fossil generated electricity than all our present generation. Electric heating could meet all of Fronterra’s milk powder manufacturing needs, If road transport rapidly adopted electric propulsion or transport was diverted to electric rail where possible, we would rapidly need fossil fuel only for air travel and for making steel at Glenbrook, (and the Glenbrook plant could use tyres and wood-chips for at least some of its carbon needs). The economic benefits of using electricity generated by renewable sources wherever possible would have a great positive benefit to the economy.

              Be pro-fossil fuel? Bah. humbug! Sounds like crap government to me.

              Fracking has produced more fossil fuel. In the US the fuel produced is natural gas which has less effects than coal. Fortunately New Zealand has less need for vast amounts of propane, so much so that in the past we have wasted huge amounts of natural gas on converting it into petrol and nitrogen fertilizer.

              WE DON’T NEED MORE FOSSIL FUEL – WE NEED TO BURN LESS.

              • Tautoko Mangō Mata

                “Landfarming is the process of spreading oil drilling waste across marginal land. The soil breaks down the waste and new pasture is sown on top.

                The practice drew attention last year when Fonterra announced it would no longer pick up milk from landfarms, although it continues to collect milk from six landfarms in Taranaki.

                In one inspection of Remediation NZ’s landfarm, council officers found cattle grazing within the waste spreading area, which had recently been spread but not yet tilled or sown.”

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/9712030/Taranaki-council-cracking-down-hard-on-landfarms
                Would you be happy to eat meat from the cattle grazing on the landfarms? There is also concern at the accumulation of heavy metals after repeated applications of drilling waste on the same land. This would render the land unusable for producing food.

        • Lloyd 15.1.3.3

          Basically rational long-term survival policies are everything National isn’t doing. Irrational short-term gain for your rich mates which at the same time will guarantee New Zealand’s long term economy and the planet will be fucked policies are what John Key’s government has been introducing/promoting for the last six years. Why would a party which has the long-term good of the planet and the country as its central basis get involved with the disaster of the National Party?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.4

        Having power doesn’t necessarily lead to change, and there are other ways of effecting change than being the most powerful.

        +∞

    • @ hooton..

      u do realise everytime you accuse people of being ‘communist’..

      ..u sound like some unhinged mccarthy era throwback..?

      ..and thus clownish..?

      ..seeing as you are big on manipulating ‘perceptions’ in service to yr clients..

      ..(so..essentially..every word out of yr mouth is snakeoil-drenched..)

      ..i thought u shd know that is the perception u create..

      ..what next..?..urging searching under beds for them..?

      ..’look..!..a green..!’..

      ..sheesh..!..talk about parking yrslf up in a cul de sac..eh..?..

      ..(and heads-up..!..shouting ‘you’re just a fabian’..repeatedly..

      ..moves the whole thing up into high-farce..)

      ..i’ll invoice you for this advice..

      (tho’ i do agree..grading political parties by depth of green..

      ..would see our dairy-farmer-friendly model coming in a very pale shade..

      ..but..unfortunately..it’s all we’ve got..

      ..mind you..you have act..eh..?..tee-hee..!..aren’t/weren’t they funny..?..the dweeb and the philosopher..)

      ..(and seriously..!..you are still a climate-change-denier..?..really..?.

      ..i mean i know you are paid to be one..so will lie/spin for those dollars..

      ..but really..?..deep down..?..(if there is such a thing/place..)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.3

      if people did believe that climate change represented an existential threat to the human race then they would have an entirely different policy framework than the ones the Green Party presents.

      “People” do believe that. Especially the ones with the most information.

    • Tracey 15.4

      lunatic
      extremist
      communist

      try these two for size matthew,
      self awareness

  16. Tautoko Mangō Mata 16

    @Matthew
    Becoming a coalition partner does not necessarily give you power over the major party in government. Just look at how little change for the better for Māori was achieved by the Maori Party!

    • ghostwhowalksnz 16.1

      MP really was a vanity project for Dame Tariana. ( Sharples was in just for the baubles)
      Even I can see the Greens have a greater ambition than that.

      • les 16.1.1

        are you serious?..surprised she accepted a damehood,but always impressed me as a genuine,sincere person with plenty of courage and commonsense.

  17. Sacha 17

    Funny how both Hooten and Pete preach that the ends justify the means.

    Abandoning principle has a great history which is why human cultures have learned to use ethics and regulatory structures around people exercising power.

  18. Ad 18

    In 2017 the Greens could find themselves in the same place as NZFirst 2006: play Labour and National off each other for the optimum deal. That would require non-Green gaming ie squeeze both sets of balls in each hand and the winner is the first one to cry.

    I think this approach would reduce the developing risk of the German Realos v Fundies quandary of the 1990s.

    Both Labour and National need to shift toward the greening of the world. To teach the lesson, the Greens should learn Winston’s hard realpolitik lessons.

    • weka 18.1

      The membership wouldn’t stand for such tactics, and if the GP did go with National a huge chunk of the membership would walk over night. Electoral suicide, which I’m sure the GP are well aware of. If you look at the AGM remit (two years running now), it’s pretty clear that the membership only allowed the right wing of the party a small concession – that the GP would work with any party on a policy by policy basis. The GP will only support National as a govt if National and the GP share common core policy. What that means for the GP is that National has to change. Ain’t gonna happen.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1

        The National Party is capable of change when its owners say it is and not before. At that point, they will claim the credit.

        • weka 18.1.1.1

          and in terms of AGW, that will be at the point that people start voting against them, which of course will be far too late.

      • Ad 18.1.2

        Loathe as I am to tell the Green membership what to do, they should have no part in a coalition negotiation. Let the MPs do their job.

        Not saying it would be easy, but its play or be played. Greens need to be in power, and exercise it. IMHO, Garth represents progressive green capitalists of whom there are many.

        Business can take on board the Greens than with Labour because Labour threaten both capital and labour, whereas Greens only threaten land.

        • Colonial Viper 18.1.2.1

          We you talk about “business” you have to distinguish between small and medium NZ enterprises, and transnational corporations and banks. They are two completely different groups.

          Also, your promoting anti-democratic decision making in the Greens doesn’t really sound like a good idea for anyone else apart from powerbrokers and those earning over $150K pa.

          • Ad 18.1.2.1.1

            They are smart enough to make those distinctions themselves, don’t you think?

            Coalition Negotiations happen after nationsl elections, so no there’s nothing anti-democratic going on.

            They could use the next three years to thrash out coalition agreement options with both National and Labour -openly – so everyone sees the price to pay. They’ve got nothing else to do.

            • weka 18.1.2.1.1.1

              The GP already have a process for that Ad. That’s where the remit comes from that says they GP will work with any party on a policy by policy basis. There’s no point in going through a coalition development process re National, because the GP simply won’t go into a coalition deal with them until National change, and that’s not going to happen in the next 3 years. They’ve been pretty clear about working with Labour. Beyond that, how can you thrash out a one sided coalition deal? It’s Labour that’s refused to dance (although that may change this term).

        • Sacha 18.1.2.2

          You might find new Green MP James Shaw’s background interesting, moreso than Gareth’s.

          • Ad 18.1.2.2.1

            Shaw is going to take a couple of years to be useful. But would be a good back channel in time.

          • phillip ure 18.1.2.2.2

            gordon campbell on james shaw..

            “.. Excitedly, the likes of Matthew Hooton have been hailing Shaw in NBR as a Green MP with whom National can do business..”

            ..isn’t that sooo reassuring…?

            ..rightwing stalking-horse..?..anyone..?

        • weka 18.1.2.3

          “Loathe as I am to tell the Green membership what to do, they should have no part in a coalition negotiation. Let the MPs do their job.”

          I don’t think the wider membership does have a part in post-election negotiations, but am pretty sure the senior party members do. It’s not just about the MPs, and as CV points out, you are suggesting something that is anti-democratic. Look how that’s worked for Labour.

          Nevertheless, my point stands. If the GP tried to break the remit a big chunk of the membership would walk.

          • phillip ure 18.1.2.3.1

            a handpicked bunch of representitives consult with the actual negotiators..

            ..and the party then ratifies that at a special meeting of members..

            ..that’s how it used to happen..anyway..

        • Tracey 18.1.2.4

          to date The Green MPs have adhered to the core values/principles set down by their members. It is only when the membership dont trust MPs they want to make the big decisions for them. eg Labour Party.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.3

        The membership wouldn’t stand for such tactics, and if the GP did go with National a huge chunk of the membership would walk over night.

        Nah, walking away from your political party when your MPs are shit does only two things: gifts the shit MPs (and their hangers-on) control of your party without a fight, and leaves you stranded without a political vehicle.

        Better to make the shit MPs walk the plank, making it clear to them and all associated careerist types that their perspective and their services are no longer required.

        • Murray Rawshark 18.1.3.1

          Speaking from bitter experience, CV? More than a few should have walked the plank after 1984, but was there a way to ensure that?

        • weka 18.1.3.2

          It’s not about the MPs being shit, it’s about breaking the democracy of the party. You commented on the GP democracy above. There has been a process, a remit passed at the AGM, multiple years. The GP can’t support a National govt at this point in time. If the Exec overruled the membership on this it would be a breaking of core principles so bad that the party would be seriously damaged.

          I can’t find the recent one, but here’s the remit from 2011.

          1. Overall political positioning

          Agrees that, until such time as we are in a position to lead a government, the Green Party will campaign on the basis of the following political position:

          (i) The Green Party is an independent and distinct party, which in order to urgently advance Green Party policy goals, will attempt to work constructively with, and challenge, whichever party leads the government after an election;

          (ii) To enable any party or parties to form a government, we would need significant progress on Green Party environmental, economic and social policies and initiatives that would give effect to the Green Party Charter.

          2. 2011 election positioning

          Agrees that for the 2011 general election, the Green Party, as an independent party, will campaign on the following political position:

          (i) Based on current Labour and National Party policy positions, the Green Party has a preference to consider supporting a Labour-led government in the right circumstances, ahead of a National-led government;

          (ii) The Green Party could work with a National-led government to progress particular Green Party policies as we have over the last three years; but based on current National Party policy positions and track record it is highly unlikely that we could support a National-led government on confidence and supply.

          Full remit here, https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/independent-greens-could-support-labour-national-unlikely

          The negotiating process is also outlined in that, including as phil says above that the decision has to be endorsed at and SGM. There is an out for the Exec though.

    • the realos are already firmly in control of the nz green party..

      ..in public/policy..not a fundi to be seen..

      ..but fundis is what the world/environment needs..

      ..green party policies are better than national..sure..

      ..but they are still just deckchair-re-arranging on the titanic..

      (”yoo-hoo..!..polluting dairy-farmers..!..we still love you..!”..)

      ..and this abrogation of duties…

      ..as the environmental-iceberg hoves into view..

      ..(and u couldn’t get a clearer example of how realo/timid they are..

      ..when u have a poll showing 87% of nz’ers want cannabis prohibition to end..

      ..and yet norman was vocal/firm that this was not even on their ‘to-do’ list..

      ..is their timidity ‘cos they are hanging out/waiting for 100%..?

      ..if not that..what the fuck are they scared of..?..

      ..’angry’ of taumaranui ringing talkback..?

      ..and to boil it down to a schoolyard-insult..

      ..basically..the greens are scaredy-cats..

      ..but also scared of the wrong things..

      • Sacha 18.2.1

        You may be confusing the roles of political parties and activist movements. We need both of them.

        • phillip ure 18.2.1.1

          no..i am not ‘confusing’ them..

          ..and if political partys don’t get their shit together..we are totally fucked..

          ..some argue it is already too late..

          ..u tell me/us how the nz greens are (the needed) fundi..?

          ..in any way at all..

          ..or do you think realo is enough…?

          • tinfoilhat 18.2.1.1.1

            Go away phil – the greens are just fine thank you very much.

            Take your single issue whining to a party of stoners that cares.

            • phillip ure 18.2.1.1.1.1

              rightwing-green are ya..?

              yeah..!..we fucken need more of you..eh..?

              ..and my ‘issues’ are many..

              ..and care to give us yr definition of ‘just fine’..?

            • The Al1en 18.2.1.1.1.2

              Agree with the first, but wouldn’t wish pu on my worst enemy, least of all the befuddled legalise cannabis crowd.

          • Sacha 18.2.1.1.2

            NORML and ALCP complement one another. Some of what you seem to be expecting the Greens to do for you needs to come from elsewhere, because that’s how the system is. Not because it’s right.

            • phillip ure 18.2.1.1.2.1

              what are you saying..?

              ..’expecting the greens to do for you’..?

              ..do you know who first got the greens into parliament..?

              ..which constituency turned out in force for them…?

              ..and who they have pissed on/ignored since then..?

              ..and are you now saying cannabis as an issue should just continue to be ghettoised in alcp..?

              ..seriously..?

              ..whoar..!

              ..’fings r even worse than i thought..

              • Sacha

                Sorry to burst your bubble, Phil. The Values party was not composed mainly of pothead activists. Nor were the Greens that they evolved into. Nice try, though.

                • and you are just displaying yr ignorance of g.p history..

                  ..i am talking about the cannabis-activists who got out the vote for the greens..

                  ..that got them over the line..and into parliament for the first time..

                  (ask those who know/were there..they may blush and look away..as they fucken should..but they will be able to confirm that fact for you..)

                  ..i am not talking about the values party..

                  ..(tho’ i wd think cannabis law reform wd have been on their ‘to-do’ list..)

                  ..and values to greens was devolve..not evolve..

                  • Sacha

                    cling to that, dude

                    • cd u translate that meaningless-phrase/riposte..?

                    • The Al1en

                      So you can understand it in your faked pigeon English, sure.

                      ….You fucken..thicko….yr not worth it….

                      …….and …you a… quack… eh, fucken eh?….

                      …..cannabis…pot….weed…i’m..the….queen of smokers…..

                      …you eat dead animals….. you… fucken….butcher…..

                      …..I’m..better…. than.. you all…..

                      ….i’m the… only…lefty in…. the village……

                      ….power bills…… big…as ….. ur…. fucken… fundus….eh?

                      …bullshit…ur…fucken…shit…eh???…..

                      …ur..back on ….ignore…..

                      Does that help?

      • The Al1en 18.2.2

        “and yet norman was vocal/firm that this was not even on their ‘to-do’ list..”

        No he didn’t. He didn’t say that at all.

        “.when u have a poll showing 87% of nz’ers want cannabis prohibition to end..”

        Funny how you remember what RN didn’t say, yet can’t remember what you were told about spamming your single issue nonsense in unrelated topics.

        And do write in proper English ffs. Realo? Fundi? Get a grip on yourself man.

        • phillip ure 18.2.2.1

          “..No he didn’t. He didn’t say that at all..”

          ..yes he did..repeatedly..

          “.And do write in proper English ffs. Realo? Fundi? ..”

          ..and that just displays the width/depth of yr ignorance..

          ..(hint:..try googling them..eh..?..fucken learn something for once..eh..?

          ..instead of just braying absolute crap from yr position of utter fucken ignorance..

          ..u have the general i.q. of a fucken lump of wood..)

          • tinfoilhat 18.2.2.1.1

            I doubt there are better examples of why recreational drugs are to be avoided than you and Ozzy Osbourne.

            • phillip ure 18.2.2.1.1.1

              ‘i doubt there are better examples’ of the rightwing greens who have taken control of the green party…

              ..and who have dominion..’than you’..

              ..you wd be sweet with the greens coalescing with the ratbags in national..

              ..wouldn’t ya..?

              ..and somehow..i don’t think it was pot that got ozzie to where he is now..eh..?

              ..and..like a cold one’?..d’ya..?

              ..you steaming pile of fucken hypocrisy..

              • tinfoilhat

                That pot hasn’t really mellowed you at all has it Phil ?

                • i am very ‘mellow’..

                  ..u r mistaking strong language for not being ‘mellow’

                  ..and pissheads moralistically preaching against pot..

                  ..deserves the strongest language..

                  ..as do rightwing greens..

                  ..and you tick both of those boxes..

                  • Tinfoilhat

                    You really are mind numbingly foolish.

                    Firstly I am teatotal and have been for many a decade.

                    Just because someone disagrees with your stance on open slather of cannabis and the Green Party taking this up as a key platform does not a right winger make them.

                    • “..You really are mind numbingly foolish…”

                      well..yes..looking back @ the many screw-ups in my life..i’ll have to concede/give ya that one..

                      ..but i’m not ‘teatotal’..

                      ..and i do recommend ‘kenya bold’..

                      ..as a bracing-brew..

                    • Tracey

                      lucky boy is phil.

                      lprent is on hols.

                      last time he derailed this much with taking his “waa waah legalise cannabis show” on the road, he got a ban.

                    • McFlock

                      The derail, and his pwned comment.

                      When the big and grumpy cat’s away…

      • Tracey 18.2.3

        87% want to be able to use subjective interpretation of discipline so they can assault their children. you in favour of that to?

        • phillip ure 18.2.3.1

          wow..!

          ..a special false-equivalence award will be couriered to you..

        • greywarshark 18.2.3.2

          I think both The Allen and tinfoil hat (a well-known right trial) are winding phil u up.
          Using patronising superiority to other sincere bloggers is an interesting approach.

          • The Al1en 18.2.3.2.1

            “Using patronising superiority to other sincere bloggers ”

            😆 piss off, you’re having a bubble.

            Dry your eyes and get over it quick smart, otherwise it’s going to cost you loads in kleenex.

            Sincer blogger 😆

          • tinfoilhat 18.2.3.2.2

            “tinfoil hat (a well-known right trial)”

            Examples please or apologise and withdraw.

  19. Michael 19

    What this says to me is:

    “You know, I’m pretty scared of your party. People are liking your party and you’re doing pretty well with left-wing economic policies. And that’s a threat to the powerful, please move to the right to appease the rich… it’s scary for, well, us. Thanks.”

    This isn’t some “idea” – it’s fear. And that’s why the greens need to remain a force for the sustainable environment: the social environment, the economic environment, and the natural environment.

    I am unsure if I support Labour or the Greens, as there are things I like about both, but IMO the Greens are respectable for remaining a principled party that cements a position for the sustainable left. and they’re doing well, why would they change? With Little as Labour leader and the amazing job that Turei+Norman do, I think that a Lab-Green coalition will be an unstoppable force for progressive change.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      If the Greens were that principled they wouldn’t have backed down on the issuing of new money to help resolve our country’s poverty and infrastructure issues, nor would they have run a major election policy launch centred around $50K-$100K electric cars.

      • Lanthanide 19.1.1

        I must have missed their electric car policy, can you link that?

        That does make me regret voting Greens a little.

          • Lanthanide 19.1.1.1.1

            Bit of a silly policy, but $1,000 wouldn’t make much of a difference in anyone purchasing decisions I don’t think.

            • weka 19.1.1.1.1.1

              What’s wrong with the policy?

              “nor would they have run a major election policy launch centred around $50K-$100K electric cars.”

              “Govt subsidies for rich people buying electric cars…”

              And yet here is what your first link says CV,

              He took Norman for a spin around the Viaduct in a Nissan Leaf, which costs about $39,000. Imported second-hand from Japan, it would sell for about $25,000.

              • Lanthanide

                What’s wrong with the policy is, like I said, $1,000 is not likely to change anyone’s decision from buying a petrol car to an electric one, given the price of electric cars. It’s not clear whether the $1,000 applies to the $25k second hand car you mention here (it says “$1,000 for the first 10,000 new electric cars”).

                It very much is only targeted at individuals / businesses that can afford to buy new cars; this therefore excludes about 80% of the public.

                $1,000 isn’t enough to change behaviour – in other words the government is giving money to people to do things they would have done anyway. At around $4-5,000 you might see a change in behaviour, but again it only targets the top 20% and of course would then cost the government a lot more money.

                There are much better things for a government to be spending money on than this. Push that extra $10M into the insulation programme which targets the lower-end of society, or into the solar PV programme they outlined which genuinely would be changing consumer behaviour.

                • weka

                  Transport is a huge part of the AGW problem, so it makes sense for the GP to prioritise it. At a guess I would say targetting the upper middle classes makes sense because that’s where the motivated EV buyers are with the money to make the shift at this time. The point of the subsidy is to kick start the industry and get enough cars out there so that a shift in thinking occurs. Once that happens, the price will come down, and govt, the industry and the public will come up with additional solutions.

                  I think $1,000 would be enough to tip the people who want to buy and EV, can afford it but are dithering. At this stage you don’t have to get the people who can’t afford it or the people who aren’t already philosophically aligned.

                  This is what the GP tried to do with solar years ago, but were largely unsupported. They wanted to subsidised solar power as a way of supporting the industry so that eventually solar became normal and affordable.

                  The EV policy needs to be understood within the GP’s larger energy policy, including how they would regulate and support the production and sale of electricity.

                  Putting that $10M into solar or insulation is a redundancy (they’ve already budgeted for those), and doesn’t do anything to solve the extremely urgent problem of transport carbon. You have to start somewhere on the transport issue. If not here, how would you suggest they approach this?

                  • Lanthanide

                    “The point of the subsidy is to kick start the industry and get enough cars out there so that a shift in thinking occurs. Once that happens, the price will come down, and govt, the industry and the public will come up with additional solutions.”

                    10,000 cars sold in NZ aren’t going to make a toss of difference to whether the industry makes electric cars, sorry. That 10,000 number is using the Greens policy, but as I outlined already, this isn’t going to change buying habits to any real extent – easily 9,500 of those electric cars would have been sold to people wanting an electric car anyway, and the $1,000 is just a small bonus on top.

                    The country would do more for emissions to spend that $10M on better bus routes, or hell, converting buses into electric ones. Buses are more efficient than cars – assuming they’re actually patronised. Seeing several buses in a row go past which each have 2-3 passengers obviously isn’t doing that much for the environment as far as CO2 emissions go.

                    “Putting that $10M into solar or insulation is a redundancy (they’ve already budgeted for those),”

                    Wow, that’s a strange attitude to take. If you put that extra money into the insulation/PV schemes, then maybe those schemes can be rolled out to more people, or the amount subsidised can be increased, driving demand?

                    “You have to start somewhere on the transport issue. If not here, how would you suggest they approach this?”

                    Spend the $10M somewhere that will have a much bigger bang for buck than private EV ownership, where the subsidy is so small as to be meaningless. You know what’d have more bang for buck? Give free bicycles to primary school students somewhere. Give them a start towards a life of biking, while removing parental cars from the roads.

                    • Sacha

                      Better still, spend that money on separated cycle or bus lanes. #infrastructure

                    • weka

                      “Better still, spend that money on separated cycle or bus lanes. #infrastructure”

                      Does the GP not have this elsewhere in their policy? As always with GP policy, you need to look at individual projects within the context of the wider policy and overall kaupapa.

                    • weka

                      “10,000 cars sold in NZ aren’t going to make a toss of difference to whether the industry makes electric cars, sorry.”

                      It’s not about what gets made, it’s about what gets bought. 10,000 cars sold through car dealers and all of a sudden you have people trained to push the advantages of EVs and incentive to do so.

                      “That 10,000 number is using the Greens policy, but as I outlined already, this isn’t going to change buying habits to any real extent – easily 9,500 of those electric cars would have been sold to people wanting an electric car anyway, and the $1,000 is just a small bonus on top.”

                      [citation needed] or at least some rationale for your statement. We both have our opinions on this, but when it comes down to it I’m going to trust the research unit and policy development team in the GP, because they’re experts in this. This doesn’t mean they can’t get it wrong, but I don’t see anything in your argument to suggest they’ve got this wrong other than your belief.

                      The country would do more for emissions to spend that $10M on better bus routes, or hell, converting buses into electric ones.

                      Have you looked at the GP transport policy? What makes you think they’re not doing this already?

                      “Putting that $10M into solar or insulation is a redundancy (they’ve already budgeted for those),”

                      “Wow, that’s a strange attitude to take. If you put that extra money into the insulation/PV schemes, then maybe those schemes can be rolled out to more people, or the amount subsidised can be increased, driving demand?”

                      True. but you are still looking at the policies in isolation, and I’m looking at them as a whole and in context.

                      “You have to start somewhere on the transport issue. If not here, how would you suggest they approach this?”

                      “Spend the $10M somewhere that will have a much bigger bang for buck than private EV ownership, where the subsidy is so small as to be meaningless. You know what’d have more bang for buck? Give free bicycles to primary school students somewhere. Give them a start towards a life of biking, while removing parental cars from the roads.”

                      Even if we had enough time for that, it won’t be enough to overcome the car addiction that NZ has. How would you remove parental cars?

                      We need multiple strategies in order to change the culture. Yes, bikes in schools, good idea. But more bang for buck? You’re still looking at policies in isolation. Look at the overall plan and how the policies interact.

                      Plus, again, the GP are pretty experienced at this stuff, they’ve been thinking about it and working on it for decades.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      Plus, again, the GP are pretty experienced at this stuff, they’ve been thinking about it and working on it for decades.

                      I don’t think the leadership team of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons would have ever pushed a tax payer subsidy for the comfortable upper middle class for $50K to $100K electric cars.

                      As for NZ’s car addiction – that’s guaranteed to end, one way or another. Any kid in school today will see it in their lifetime.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Transport is a huge part of the AGW problem, so it makes sense for the GP to prioritise it.

                    Yep but it requires a societal transformation and not just a few at the top.

                    • weka

                      Yes. And I am sure that the GP are well aware of that. I haven’t had a look at the detailed policy but on the face of it it seems an ok place to start. Not least because no-one has a viable plan for societal transformation in ways that don’t require the political process.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      Not least because no-one has a viable plan for societal transformation in ways that don’t require the political process.

                      We do it for ourselves in our own local communities. I suspect this is what we will have to do, and Wellington will be more hindrance than help over the next 10 years. After that it will be too late anyway.

                    • weka

                      Yep. But I’d much rather go through the next twenty years with the GP still pushing the mainstream towards sanity, than having them lose ground at this point in time because they start telling people the truth.

                      I can see a time when I will think that govt is a completely lost cause and whoever is there may as well start shouting from the rooftops, but I’m not there yet and I still see the GP polices (taken as a whole) as being a force for good.

                      What we really need is a radical left wing green voice. Unfortunately with Mana and the IP getting knocked back we’ve lost crucial ground. Time to organise and here we all are still arguing on the internet.

                  • Colonial Rawshark

                    But how many people in NZ can afford a $25K second hand hybrid car, let alone a $60K new one? From that perspective DTB is right, society needs to change; simply finding less carbon intensive ways of keeping doing what we are used to is not going to work.

                    Manufacturing hybrid (and electric) cars require plenty of mining, resource extraction and coal burning.

                    I guess I am being critical because the Greens proposals go only 10%-20% of the way to what NZ really requires to become a successful low carbon economy. Also I admit that its probably political suicide for any political party to step up and declare the kinds of steps we really need to take right now, without watering it down or pandering to upper middle class delusions.

                    • weka

                      I don’t know, you tell me, given you are the one criticising the policy. Do you get that the point is to start the process, not convert the whole population to EV straight away? Why does it matter that they’ve targeted the policy at people who can afford the cars? The benefit isn’t for the people, it’s part of the transition for the environment.

                      From that perspective DTB is right, society needs to change; simply finding less carbon intensive ways of keeping doing what we are used to is not going to work.

                      Yes, of course. Got ideas about how the GP could do that effectively in today’s climate? How do you propose to get the population from petrol and consumption addiction to powerdown without such steps as EVs? Where does a minority political party fit into your ideas?

                      I guess I am being critical because the Greens proposals go only 10%-20% of the way to what NZ really requires to become a successful low carbon economy. Also I admit that its probably political suicide for any political party to step up and declare the kinds of steps we really need to take right now, without watering it down or pandering to upper middle class delusions.

                      And working class and underclass delusions as well. Everyone is in denial. I don’t see anyone really stepping up class wise to address AGW.

                      I don’t see GP policies as pandering to the upper middle classes so much as targeted interventions that have the most chance of success at changing mentality while building some infrastructure so we’re not all left hanging when the shit hits the fan.

                      Have been intrigued by the knock the GP line you’ve run over the past few days. Am curious what the strategy is?

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      the Greens get the “knocks” because they are the ones claiming to know better in the subject area of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. Also I am annoyed that they are targetting households with incomes over $100K with their nonsense EV policy, as well as continuing the pretense that even more private personal transport is the answer to anything, from reducing carbon emissions to over-roading of the entire country.

                      In the end, I think that Wellington will fail to help NZ transition to a low carbon economy, and will fail in implementing strategic measures to prepare for climate chaos.

                      Regardless, the political parties need some pressure put on them so they don’t fully contribute to total disaster.

                    • weka

                      the Greens get the “knocks” because they are the ones claiming to know better in the subject area of fossil fuel depletion and climate change.

                      Only in the mainstream, which is where they are working. Who do you think is doing better? I don’t think they are best, nor do I think they are above making mistakes.

                      Also I am annoyed that they are targetting households with incomes over $100K with their nonsense EV policy,

                      But they have to target that group because that’s the group that can afford EVs at this stage. You still seem to be missing the point that the policy isn’t for people it’s for the environment.

                      as well as continuing the pretense that even more private personal transport is the answer to anything, from reducing carbon emissions to over-roading of the entire country.

                      Not really true though. Look at the rest of their policies (which I’m sure you have). If you think it’s possible for a party in their position to tell people to powerdown now and be successful at that, please share how.

                      In the end, I think that Wellington will fail to help NZ transition to a low carbon economy, and will fail in implementing strategic measures to prepare for climate chaos.

                      Yes, but not really teh point. The point is to stop the right fucking things more than they already are, and to get as much mainstream prep done as possible. As we both know the real work will be done outside parliament, but having some good things done legislatively will help that.

                      I think we are going round in circles 🙂

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      I guess the idea that EVs can do a single thing for the environment – knowing how much mining, sweat shop labour and resource extraction/processing it will take to build 10,000 or 100,000 or 1M new EV cars – is what really grates on me.

                • greywarshark

                  @ Lanthanide
                  $1,000 isn’t enough to change behaviour – in other words the government is giving money to people to do things they would have done anyway.

                  You damn if the govt does and damn if the govt doesn’t. On one hand, you say, $1,000 is hardly enough to bother with and only a few people will be likely to receive the subsidy. It should be more like a $4,000 to $5,000 subsidy. They would have done good things anyway.

                  I question that. It is a conservative meme that no effort has to be made to introduce innovative, fairer and intelligent changes to behaviour. The attitude is that in good time everything comes to those who wait. One word, bollocks!

                  Then you say the money would be better spent elsewhere. But if it is only $1,000 per car, then it doesn’t amount to much anyway. The govt can afford that, plu spend elsewhere. And if govt can start a trend in the conformist, trendy wealthy good on it. It is disappointing to see people so ready to nitpack about details in new initiatives that should be encouraged as one step in the right direction. The climate change and energy-efficient drives have to have multiple targets.

  20. “..yes he did..repeatedly..”

    No, no he didn’t. He said cannabis wasn’t in the top 10 priorities. Similar wording, but not the same meaning at all. You were also told about this, on a few occasions by a few other contributors here when you first started making things up about what RN was supposed to have said. Check back in the archives if you can’t recall.

    “‘..and that just displays the width/depth of yr ignorance..”

    Because you can’t write proper words, or I’m not a code breaker it exposes my ignorance? Okay 🙄

    “..(hint:..try googling them..eh..?..fucken learn something for once..eh..?.instead of just braying absolute crap from yr position of utter fucken ignorance….u have the general iq of a fucken lump of wood..)”

    “..not a fundi to be seen..”

    fundi
    ˈfʊndiː/
    plural form of fundus.

    fundus
    ˈfʌndəs/Submit
    nounANATOMY
    the part of a hollow organ (such as the uterus or the gall bladder) that is furthest from the opening.
    the upper part of the stomach, which forms a bulge above the level of the opening of the oesophagus (furthest from the pylorus).
    the part of the eyeball opposite the pupil.

    I’ll give you a google of realo brings up

    realo
    ˈriːələʊ,reɪˈaləʊ/
    nouninformal
    noun: realo; plural noun: realos
    a member of the pragmatic, as opposed to the radical, wing of the Green movement

    But it’s origin is 1980s: from German, from Realist ‘realist’.
    So point stands, write in English, if you want debate, not that bullshit you peddle for kicks.

    • great to see u aren’t bashful about displaying that general ignorance of yrs..

      ..i think..

      • The Al1en 20.1.1

        Just write in a language that makes sense which we can all understand, there’s a good chap. 🙂

        By the way, I think your brain is stuck right up your fundus 😆
        “the part of a hollow organ that is furthest from the opening.”

    • “..if you want debate,..”

      fuck off..!..i wd rather u didn’t fucken exist in this forum…

      ..let alone fucken ‘debate’ with u..

      ..u r too fucken thick to debate with..

      ..u r like p.g..

      ..u r so thick/ignorant..i don’t know where to begin..

      ..so..best to ignore..(except to insult at will..)

      ..allen and p.g..sitting in a tree..

      ..a piece of wood/ignorant-prick joined them..and that made three..

      • marty mars 20.2.2

        Good call phil – allen is like a red whine stain on the carpet – just a fucken mess 🙂

        • The Al1en 20.2.2.1

          Still doing the michael laws thing and refusing to acknowledge the correct spelling of my user name? 😉

          • marty mars 20.2.2.1.2

            I got whiner right this time tho eh the – oh so sorry forgot the capital The – all better now?

            • The Al1en 20.2.2.1.2.1

              Of course I dispute whiner, but it’s not really worth getting in to it with you, cause you’re obviously just bum hurting for some reason.
              Highlighting your hypocrisy over the deliberate misspelling of my log in name, with the ‘Laws effect’ in plain view of all, well that’s just devilishly funny on my part as exposing those with double standards is a bit of a guilty pleasure.

              Thanks for the attention and all, but surprisingly it’s not about me. 😉
              Sure you’re not getting just a bit obsessive?

              • oh here comes the ‘bum’ innuendo – this year same as last year? Where’s the personal growth, the originality, the actual wit? yeah nah same old The 🙂

                • The Al1en

                  Yep, definitely looking a bit obsessed down there in marty mars town 😉

                • he is ‘wit’-less..

                  • that’s cruel The has half a wit for sure

                    • The Al1en

                      Can only be viewed as a compliment coming from the chuckle brothers 😆

                    • you’ve been owned..

                      ..in another world you’d be ordered to yr knees..

                    • The Al1en

                      Sorry, I meant knuckle brothers 😆

                      “you’ve been owned..”

                      By people who have to continue to alter log in names because they’ve painted themselves in to a corner, and have to carry on with it for ever more, even though it’s childish, bordering on the psychological disturbed? And just for being an effective rebuker? I doubt it.

                      “..in another world you’d be ordered to yr knees..”

                      In another world you might have half a chance of succeeding 😉

                    • was that meant to be funny..?

                      ..u cant do ‘funny’..

                      ..as already noted..you just ‘whine’..

                    • The Al1en

                      pu, I’m not taking a ban for you or mars for derailing a thread.
                      Just because you both have some deep issues, I can’t be held responsible for them, and as I’m not an enabler by rights, if you want to keep going you’ll have to do it on your own, which I suspect you’re both quite accomplished at.

                      Like I said, be better, not bitter.

  21. Murray Rawshark 21

    I say the future must be red/green or not at all. And this future is already starting. If the Greens go with NAct, or even Labour, with both party’s addictions to GDP growth as a measure of success, they lose their reason to exist.

    We urgently need to change our behaviour in the face of global warming. I’ve changed mine as much as I can at the moment, and will change it more. I can’t see capitalist mechanisms such as carbon taxes or carbon prices working. All they seem to do is make money for a few and shift the problem elsewhere.

    On watermelons – I’d love it if the Greens were communists, but sadly for Horton and the like, they’re far from it.

    • @ murray..

      “..We urgently need to change our behaviour in the face of global warming…”

      i use about $5 of petrol a week..

      ..my power bills are $25 a week..

      ..i eat no animals..

      ..i eat no animal bye-products..

      ..i haven’t mowed my lawns in five yrs..

      ..any suggestions of any more i cd do..?

      • phillip ure 21.1.1

        and i don’t use a dishwasher..

        ..or a clothes dryer..

      • Murray Rawshark 21.1.2

        Turn off your computer? 🙂

        You’re probably doing ok, actually. Plenty of people aren’t, and I am very inclusive with who I define as “we”. I use no petrol, I have no lawn, and I eat meat. I won’t be making more of a difference until I can get my own house and make it energy efficient. Or maybe I’ll die first and the cremation will be the last time I’ll use energy. Who knows?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 21.1.3

        $25 a week on power ??

        Do you have your own server farm ? Or every electronic gadget on standby.
        Mine is $16

  22. Tracey 22

    thanks karol
    .

    fitzsimons continues to make sense. the difference is nat and labour and nat sycophants see the economy as the starting and finishing point t but greens see the economy as a tool by which environmental sustainability and social justice can be achieved.

    gareth morgan ought to be able to grasp this distinction and help the greens to get more kiwis understanding it. it is not about ignoring the economy but seeing it as a tool for achieving people first. making the several economic theories and variations the starting point has failed the majority of people, one of the least painful “tinkerings” could be as simple as the shift to the greens’ prioritising . gareth has the money networks and media savvy to assist this instead of wanting the greens to become more palatable to national… speak to the 47% of voters supporting a party that is failing to leave the world a better place than they found it.

  23. Ecosse_Maidy 23

    GP form a Coalition/Alliance and or a confidence and supply arrangement with Nats/Banksters in order to pursue a policy that is above traditional Party Politics, as they and climate change can’t wait till the pendulum swings back to Labour, ok.
    Also it isn’t about power it’s about policy and definately not about Baubels of Office, ok.Yet it never happened.How could that be?

    Now, hold tight, all aboard the time machine to hopefully 2017, where The Abs are reigning world champions, John Keys gets caught in running a business brothel scandal in a Hawaiian golf complex & Pete George has another change of political heart and is elected co leader of The Greens before his committal to one of the few remaining public mental health institutions.
    So the pendulum has swung and Labour form a minority/majority Govt .
    By being in an accommodation with the Natcists, the GP is about as popular as the Lib Dems in UK as The Tories get off relatively scotfree. They are held (unfairly, and wholly) responsible for the wholesale sell off of all public services to the private sector. They are also held responsible for what is left of social housing and the crackdown by WINZs whom are insisting that children are capable of working up chimneys and don’t need an education. The GP opposed wholesale fraking/Cracking/Smacking and the turning of cycleways into open sewers. The GPs tried their best to put a brake on The Nats and get some policies in place..
    Yet it never happened,Oh Shock horror Why was that they cried? Because the Nats despite their earlier friendly overtures didn’t give a rats flax bottom about actually implementing any substantial GP policies. They just wanted the GP as political cover and to give a few of their polices a green tinge whitewash..a PR dream.
    In the meantime, by default ,the GP Mps, are given, by the Naughty Nats a few Baubel unleaded Limos, expense accounts,vegetarian and tofu meal accounts, free access to ministerial Twatter accounts ,and oddly, a membership to a golf club in Hawaii.The very things they said they didn’t need or want from the Flax Roots Up.
    So the electorate based on guilt by association, rightly or wrongly, condemn the GP(who are now holding their conference in the backseat of a taxi due to the low numbers of MPs squabbling about which bookshop they want to go to,to read about their parties history and who is going to pay for the coffee)relegating them back to the uber fringe interest group they once were and Labour reflecting the electorates views, decide to go no where near the GP even with a very long pointy stick. An Interesting Future.

    So the future isn’t green, with blue spots…its Labour red
    …I cant wait.

  24. Ron 24

    I wonder who first said ‘the future will be green or not at all.’ A quick internet search also shows a reference to Australia’s Bob Brown
    http://quotes.lifehack.org/quote/bob-brown/the-future-will-either-be-green-or

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Fast-tracked Northland water project will accelerate economic recovery
    The Government has welcomed the decision to approve a new water storage reservoir in Northland, the first of a number of infrastructure projects earmarked for a speedy consenting process that aims to accelerate New Zealand’s economic recovery from Covid-19.  The Matawii Water Storage Reservoir will provide drinking water for Kaikohe, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 hours ago
  • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
    Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago