Turning Green

49 comments on “Turning Green ”

• Comments are now closed

1. toad 1

   31 August 2011 at 8:45 am

   Holly Walker isn’t Rod Donald’s daughter, Eddie.  Think you are confusing her with Green staffer Holly Donald.
   • insider 1.1

     31 August 2011 at 9:58 am

     Much as it’s a pretty name, you do have to wonder why the leader of the Greens named his daughter after a foreign invasive weed… 😉
2. alex 2

   31 August 2011 at 9:02 am

   It is a great result, I’d like to see the Greens and Labour with roughly equal clout in the next parliament, and presenting a united front against National. Labour is just too similar to National to many people, but the Greens are different enough to form an effective opposition.
3. Lanthanide 3

   31 August 2011 at 9:13 am

   You didn’t touch on the interesting number in the results: undecideds up to 16% from 11% previously.
   • Pete George 3.1

     31 August 2011 at 9:29 am

     I saw that and yes, very interesting. It looks like there’s a lot of uncertainty, and it’s anyone’s guess where that vote could end up going – if they bother to vote.
   • Puddleglum 3.2

     31 August 2011 at 10:05 am

     The other interesting ‘result’ is that there is a total of 10.8% of rises (including the undecideds) but only 6.9% of falls. Some category or method of calculating seems to be missing. 

     Also, there is 88.9% of the vote attributed to parties yet still 16.2% undecided.

     Am I missing something? 
     • Puddleglum 3.2.1

       31 August 2011 at 10:14 am

       Yes, I did miss something. The party attribution is close to 100% (my mental arithmetic is getting worse) which means the undecideds are being left out of the party support figures. The increase in undecideds could therefore mean any number of things in terms of how it affects the reported ‘party support’ figures. Seems a bit misleading to report a figure for ‘undecideds’ but not include it in the addition to make 100%.
       • ianmac 3.2.1.1

         31 August 2011 at 10:35 am

         Exactly Puddlegum. And yes the rise in undecided suggest not everyone is convinced of Key invincibility. Perhaps undecideds are starting to wonder just what National will unleash on us if re-elected with that dreaded MANDATE.
         Though it is good that they published the undecided figures.
         • Puddleglum 3.2.1.1.1

           31 August 2011 at 11:18 am

           It’s worth having a play around with the various ‘breakdowns‘ in the poll.

           Try the ‘Region’ breakdown. A full 65% of Aucklanders (minus undecideds, which aren’t figured into the party support breakdown but are in the Preferred Pm breakdown – go figure) intend voting National.
           • mickysavage 3.2.1.1.1.1

             31 August 2011 at 11:32 am

             This particular figure is way out.  I comment below how the Herald digipoll from two days ago said Auckland support was 38% which I think is closer to reality.  These two poll results are that far apart that there is something seriously wrong with at least one of them.
              
             What is really annoying is that these sorts of headlines become self fulfiling after a while.
              
              
              
             • Puddleglum …

               31 August 2011 at 11:39 am

               Yes, I had in mind that Herald Digi-Poll figure when I pointed to the regional breakdown.
             • tc …

               31 August 2011 at 4:56 pm

               That’s why the MSM keep making them MS….whose a good boy now, rollover for uncle john again….good boy.
               Nat fanboy armstrong in granny today on about Lab needing to talk policy…..why don’t you ask them about it instead of about polls/leadership/…the CT handbook says play man not ball.
4. queenstfarmer 4

   31 August 2011 at 9:17 am

   The parties of the Left have a responsibility to win.

   Yet as Chris Trotter has eloquently written, the senior Labour caucus has abdicated that “responsibility” by allowing Goff to stay as leader, simply to keep their own aspirational powder dry until after the election.
   • Ari 4.1

     31 August 2011 at 11:53 am

     I don’t think a leadership change would really help Labour as much as some people seem to think it would, (sure, people aren’t keen on Goff right now, but there’s no suggestion that an alternative leader would provide a significant increase in polling) otherwise National would be shutting up about the possibility in case it actually happened.
     • Salsy 4.1.1

       31 August 2011 at 6:33 pm

       I disagree, switching out Goff shows three things.
       1) Labour are listening to the voters. Their own voting base is now turning soft, most of those 16% undecided were labour voters a few weeks ago on the turn to blue.
       2) Cunliffe to the front because the economy is in far worse shape than previously thought – 4 billion new and rising a currency trader and farmer can’t stand up to a Harvard Grad.
       3) Cunliffe to the front because Key will fold beneath him during debates, whereas Key will out manouver Goff. We now cannot rely on policy, the only thing left is the tv debates. Is there a single person here that would choose Goff over Cunliffe to head these? I very much doubt it.

       And think of all all the media attention Labour will get in doing this.
       • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1

         31 August 2011 at 11:24 pm

         “And think of all all the media attention Labour will get in doing this.”

         And all the framing of Labour “not being ready to lead”.
         • Salsy 4.1.1.1.1

           1 September 2011 at 1:21 pm

           But the media is already obsessed with Labours leadership…
5. KJT 5

   31 August 2011 at 9:26 am

   I would not be surprised to find that all these polls, including Ipredict are simply feeding off each other.

   They will probably turn out to be as accurate as the ones that said Banks would win Auckland!
6. Gareth 6

   31 August 2011 at 9:31 am

   I think you can put this down to the way Russell Norman comes across, When ever I have heard him speak on the radio or telly he comes across really well. He’s concise and his arguments well reasoned.
   Whilst I may not agree with some of them I can understand why he’s making them.
   He certainly (for whatever reason) comes across better than Phil Goff, Although that may be related to the fact that every time Phil pops up the first question asks about the leadership, Which sets him on the defensive from the get go.
   • Pete George 6.1

     31 August 2011 at 9:56 am

     Yes, Norman often does come across very well and has surprised me how well he has done with the Greens, I think their improvement is largely up to him

     I wouldn’t always agree on “his arguments well reasoned” – some Green policies he promotes seem to have a disconnect with the real world.
     • Ari 6.1.1

       31 August 2011 at 11:53 am

       Like what?
       • mik e 6.1.1.1

         1 September 2011 at 10:19 pm

         taxing irrigators in canterbury to fix pollution in other areas should be taxing polluters and not just one area its dumb
         • Ari 6.1.1.1.1

           1 September 2011 at 10:34 pm

           Actually taxing general waste and pollution is a long-standing Green policy, and you could probably find it from last election in some internet archive or something. 🙂

           The water standards stuff is in addition to that.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2

       31 August 2011 at 12:47 pm

       …some Green policies he promotes seem to have a disconnect with the real world.

       That’s probably more likely a disconnect from the delusion that is modern economics and society than a disconnect from the real world. Modern economics and society in general is disconnected from the real world after all.
7. tsmithfield 7

   31 August 2011 at 9:46 am

   Problem is a huge proportion of Green supporters don’t bother voting. If the Green converts from Labour catch the same disease, then it could be bad news for the left. 🙂
8. mickysavage 8

   31 August 2011 at 10:02 am

   Um the greens hit 11% during the last election campaign in a Roy Morgan poll from memory.  They start off quite well but do not necessarily carry it on.
   And dare I say it but Labour/Green trying to cannibalise the other’s vote ain’t going to win the election.  Both parties need to move into the undecided vote.
   Fairfax’s polls are always bad for Labour.
   Speaking to a couple of hardened politicos last night the closest we could compare this year to is with 1993 when Labour came within an ace of winning despite the polls.
   And 2002 also comes to mind where Labour plummeted from the mid 50s to 41% within weeks.
   I am with Bomber on this.  These polls are brain fart expressions of opinion that have little to do with reality but have this unhappy consequence of affecting it.
    
   • The Baron 8.1

     31 August 2011 at 10:45 am

     Cue the most useful idiot of them all.

     Brain farts when they disagree with your world view huh, Greg. So we are still running with the “rogue poll” line are we? Lets see how rogue these brain farts are come November. Out of interest, just when shall I expect Labour’s wheels to stop spinning?
     • mickysavage 8.1.1

       31 August 2011 at 10:52 am

       OK Baron explain this:
        
       Two days ago the Herald digipoll says Labour support is 31.5% and in Auckland 38%.
        
       Today Fairfax says it is 25.7% and Auckland support is 20%.
        
       That last figure convinced me that this is a brainfart poll.  I have a pretty keen sense of what is happening in Auckland and the feeling is better than it was in 2008 and support is returning.  Of course this will not stop you jumping up and down and proclaiming that this result is accurate.  Some use polls as weapons to be used to bash their opponents with even though they know or should know that the result is dodgy as hell.
9. The Baron 9

   31 August 2011 at 10:12 am

   This is getting just so funny. Another backwards poll called rogue by loyal idiot Eddie, who reads the tea leaves and predicts that it will all be within 5% on the day. I’m still waiting for CV to come in and blithely declare that Goof will be PM in November, without a doubt. Snort.

   I first said it months ago, and I stand by it now – this is 2002 redux. An almost natural decimation following nine years of incumbency. Happened to national, now to labour. Minor parties will benefit, just like NZF did in 2002; and just like Greens are now. That minor party will be decimated in the following election – just like NZF in 2005; just as the greens will be in 2014.

   All easy to predict trends based on historical precedent and actually backed up by the polling data from, um, EVERY SINGLE POLL (though, what are the Roy Morgans saying Eddie? I thought they were trending the other way – but then you stopped talking about them, oh what, two months ago?).

   All this is a long winded way of saying: I’d love to know what flavour kool aid you drink to back up these increasingly insane predictions of Labour success in November, Eddie, CV et al. Is it all just loyalty and love, with a fair whallop of hope thrown in? I guess the only thing at stake is the credibility of your pseudonyms, so who cares huh.

   Or is there some piece of evidence of any sort of success or traction that I am missing here that backs up this madness?
   • The Voice of Reason 9.1

     31 August 2011 at 10:41 am

     The last Roy Morgan had the gap between the left and the right the closest it had been in ages, just 10%. We’re overdue a new one (should have been last Thursday, I think). That 10% is still a hurdle to overcome, but if it was repeated on election day, a Labour led Government is still possible, depending on how badly ACT, UF and the Maori party do. If they only get 3 seats between them, and today’s poll suggests that’ll be the result, then National will have a wafer thin majority. If any one of the 3 parties fails to make it, then it looks like a tie. If they all fail, then Phil Goff is PM.
10. Brett Dale 10

    31 August 2011 at 10:14 am

    Ther problem I have the Green party is the cip on their shoulder they have the USA.

    It doesnt matter what the issue is, they always have to have an anti usa reference in their speeches.

    It shows they are just about political idealogy and nothing else.

    I for one cannot vote for a racist party.
    • billy fish 10.1

      31 August 2011 at 10:15 am

      It would be culturist, not racist at the very least, not that I agree with you, just giving you a more appropriate word
    • ianmac 10.2

      31 August 2011 at 10:39 am

      Trying to imagine a party of individuals with its/their shoulders with chips on it/them. Nonsensical!
    • MrSmith 10.3

      31 August 2011 at 11:22 am

      It’s not a chip Brett, it’s a great big sack of the US’s mistakes&rubbish that the rest of the world will have to carry around on our backs for years to come.
    • Ari 10.4

      31 August 2011 at 11:57 am

      The USA is not a race. 😛

      There are plenty of great people there, but the politics is screwed up, and no democracy should look to them for an example- unless of course you want to enrich the wealthy even further at the expense of every other part of society.
    • joe90 10.5

      31 August 2011 at 12:50 pm

      It doesnt matter what the issue is, they always have to have an anti usa reference in their speeches

      It’s not about hating the US Brett, it’s about being terrified by the US. The wikileaks cables showed us how dangerous they are to our sovereignty and our economic well being and a timeline of just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA US coupled with the US military expenditure gives us and the world very good reasons to be afraid them.

      And then there’s always the spectre of their culture of judicial killings and torture, they’re up there with the most despicable of middle eastern despots, that more than a few would like to introduce here.
11. Afewknowthetruth 11

    31 August 2011 at 10:40 am

    The problem with the Greens is that they are just as tainted as all the other parties. They sold out and got into bed with pro-globalisation, pro-capitalism, pro-business-as-usual Labour in the early 2000s instead of sticking to the principles of true environmentalism.

    Right now the Greens are offering faux ‘solutions’ to the predicament we are in, based on slight tweaking of business-as-usual and slight tweaking of capitalism.

    The faux ‘solutions’ offered by the Greens appeal to that portion of the electorate who understand we are in trouble but do not understand that what the Greens are offering will not make any significnat difference. Indeed, the Greens biofuels policy will make things worse for most people on this planet.

    This election amounts a decision as to which bunch of sociopaths and eco-vandals will do the least damage, as western societies and industrial civilisation slowly implode.

    I have seen nothing in policy statements from any party that would convince me to vote for any of them. I do not anticipate any change in that circumstance over the coming weeks.

    The ‘slave camp’ which is run by the international money-lenders will continue to function until it runs out of energy and/or the people start to starve in large numbers. The coming election in NZ is just a one of many ‘circuses’ in that huge ‘slave camp’, just as elections in Canada or the US or the UK or Australia are just ‘circuses’, all designed to provide the pretence of democracy while the elites introduce ever-greater restrictions on the masses via ‘security’ and control of the food and energy supplies, I’m afraid.

    As has been said many times, if voting made any difference the powers that be would ban it.
    • alex 11.1

      31 August 2011 at 1:58 pm

      Thats fundamentally untrue. Just because the Greens participate in elections, does not mean they have automatically sold out to big business interests. They don’t advocate economic ‘growth’ in the typical economist sense because it comes at the cost of raping the planet. They favour a society based on equality and conservation, two ideas which are anathema to liberal capitalism.

      And for the record, no they didn’t get into bed with labour. They have never been in a coalition with anybody. It is only now that people are talking about the likelihood of a Labour/Green government, and thats mostly because without the Greens, Labour is absolutely dead meat.
      • Afewknowthetruth 11.1.1

        31 August 2011 at 6:35 pm

        Straight off the Greens website:

        ‘A Green economy will improve the quality of life of all New Zealanders by growing our reputation as a producer of high value, clean green products which sustain our natural resources and environment.’

        Clean green is a myth and a fantasy. How does producing (and selling overseas presumably) sustain natural resources and the environment?

        More waffle below from the Greens website.

        ‘The Green Party will:

        •Encourage fair trade with developing countries that supports sustainable development.
        •Develop a Code of Corporate Responsibility for all corporations operating in New Zealand.’

        Well, there is no such thing as sustainable development. All development is, by definition, unsustanable. And trade is unsustanable (unless the Greens are talking about using wooden sailing boats).

        ‘Supporting sustainable business
        •Make sustainability a key goal of all business support programmes provided through government funded organizations
        •Support businesses to adopt sustainable certification programmes
        •Value our manufacturing base, continue to promote Buy Kiwi Made and support the initiatives of manufacturers to work collaboratively to improve the manufacturing sector in New Zealand.
        •Encourage business-to-business local procurement practices.
        •Improve funding and support delivered through the Ministry of Economic Development by focusing on clustering that increases energy efficiency and use of transport hubs
        •Raise the current cap on age and numbers of apprentices.
        •Introduce an 0800 and online ‘champion’ service for small businesses who are having problems dealing with the bureaucracy of government departments.’

        Greens = waffle waffle waffle waffle.
        • alex 11.1.1.1

          31 August 2011 at 7:00 pm

          Come on, you can’t seriously think they would impose some sort of environmental utopia in their first 100 days in office? It’s not waffle to want to make those changes first, because none of those ideas would make things any worse than they already are. After the damage caused by the way we live has been stemmed, then maybe things can fundamentally change, but in the meantime, I’d settle for damage minimisation, which is the greens.

          Now here’s where you start your “off the cliff on a bike/car/private jet” rubbish, but frankly, parliaments not going anywhere. I’d rather have someone who’s going to make steps in the right direction controlling it. You’d be an idiot to disagree.
          • Jenny 11.1.1.1.1

            31 August 2011 at 7:56 pm

            The Green’s biggest mistake was giving their support to setting up a Pollution Trading Market, a.k.a. an E.T.S.
            • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1.1.1

              31 August 2011 at 11:25 pm

              Yes. They should have just gone with a carbon tax and this all would have been nicely settled. Idiots.
        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.2

          31 August 2011 at 11:50 pm

          Well, there is no such thing as sustainable development.

          Actually, there is. Developing new ways of doing things that use less resources is sustainable as long as we recognise that the resources themselves are limited and need to be properly recycled (our society lives within it’s Renewable Resource Base). What isn’t sustainable is growth. We cannot grow our society beyond the bounds of those limits and that means limiting population and resource use – the complete opposite of the present socio-economic paradigm which seeks to maximise population and resource use so as to maintain profits.
12. aerobubble 12

    31 August 2011 at 1:58 pm

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-power-of-prevention-2346369.html
    What made us work so efficiently was collective common goals. And allowing
    the MSM media to peddle right wing extremism that the rich made it all possible
    is killing our economy. Sack Holmes before he does any more damage.
13. Afewknowthetruth 13

    31 August 2011 at 9:47 pm

    alex.

    ‘Now here’s where you start your “off the cliff on a bike/car/private jet” rubbish,’

    I really don’t know what you mean by that but it does sound kind of insulting.

    Let’s put it this way: the present economic system will not get through the remainder of this year intact. There will be a major jolt commecing late Septmber to early October which will ‘wipe out’ a lot of people.

    ‘You’d be an idiot to disagree.’

    So it will be:

    Off the cliff with National at 100 kph

    Off the cliff with Labour at 90 kph

    Off the cliff with the Greens at 80 kph.

    May I suggest to you that the crisis we are experiencing was cleary identified around 1972, and that 40 years of dithering, ‘incremental change’ and deliberate sabotage has meant we have run out of time.
    • Lanthanide 13.1

      31 August 2011 at 11:26 pm

      “Let’s put it this way: the present economic system will not get through the remainder of this year intact. There will be a major jolt commecing late Septmber to early October which will ‘wipe out’ a lot of people.”

      Let’s wait and see, shall we?
      • Nick C 13.1.1

        31 August 2011 at 11:50 pm

        Might put this comment on my calender for mid October, see where the global economy is at.
        • Afewknowthetruth 13.1.1.1

          1 September 2011 at 8:53 am

          Some refrence points for you.

          This time last year gold was around $1200 US.

          Today it’s around $1827 US

          The purchasing power of the US dollar versus gold has declined by approximately 1/3 in 12 months.

          I see that the Kiwi dollar 85.35c, is up 2 cents against the US since Monday.
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.2

        31 August 2011 at 11:51 pm

        Lets be more specific. My predictions of the situation by the end of Oct:

        1) Gold will be above US$2200 indicating further debasement of the USD.
        2) The US will declare it has officially re-entered recession (it actually hasn’t left but hey, its semantics).
        3) One of the eurozone countries will announce plans to leave the Euro.
        4) There will be enforced ‘bank holidays’ in more than one jurisdiction in the world.
        5) A rerun of 2008 where bankers hold governments hostage saying “if you don’t bail us out to the tune of many more hundreds of billions, we will blow up your economies through massive liquidity and solvency crises!”

        Unlike AFKTT I think that present economic arrangements will last out the year and probably most of next year, but by then it will be a shadow of its former self, and we will see all the rich smart bastards piling their wealth into PMs and useful hard assets. Happening already. Farms, power generators and fossil fuel deposits will all be on major shopping lists.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS