Comments on: More debates

By: wizban

wizban — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:37:29 +0000

I agree with stuie (sorrie the wai on mai keiboard was pulled off bie a mischeivious toddler. Sorrie if this makes me sound like PQ lol ).
if I am losing out financiallie for being “green”, then wai would I do it? It puts me at a disadvantage with mai competitors. Others will happillie let the environment carrie the cost of their operations, so reallie what alot of green policies are about (as far as I understand them) is gentlie encouraging people to start to pae closer to the true cost of their actions.
on a slight tangent, - what gets me annoied is how, living in a verie cold, old house. It costs alot to get warm, but - becuase we are renting - is is not worth improving energie efficiancie because that would onlie be improving mai landlords propertie. It is of no use to him to improve things either because he doesn’t pae the power bill.

By: stuey

stuey — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:38:54 +0000

you know I couldn’t agree more that everyone needs to take personal responsibility and act more green if we are to save the planet,

but surely you must agree that we can’t rely on everyone to do this and that we need to help and encourage people to do so and that a financial carrot and stick are the way to go.

hence the Greens tax policy, to reduce personal income tax in favour of pollution taxes.

By: ZenTiger

ZenTiger — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:56:00 +0000

Certainly reduced a lot of hot air coming from politicians.

And if I had more money in my pocket (as per ACT’s tax policy), I’m actaully sensible enough to invest in better insulation and I have been very keenly factoring in a solar panelled roof system, hooked into a battery system in the basement, which will take care of my hot water and some of my lighting. Saw them in Australia, and where I live, I get a lot of sunshine.

My next car will be purchased on the basis that fuel efficiency will be one of the top criteria, and it would help not to be paying 51 cents in the dollar on the extra bit of income I make after mortgage, food and other basic expenses.

By: stuey

stuey — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:09:36 +0000

so, er what positive things have ACT achieved for the environment in their 9 years in Parliament?

By: ntddevsys

ntddevsys — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:32:29 +0000

Exactly my point stuey - ACT has done more positive to the country, it’s economy and the environment.

ACT are not a second rate party - they launch the policies which later become other parties policies. Now is time to ACT…

By: stuey

stuey — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:18:58 +0000

PQ: Yes I can agree that being green is like a religion, and that there is no other way to be, but it is not true that there is no other way to being green than parliamentary representation. The Green MPs were effective activists, campaigners and opinion-formers before they were elected and if the unthinkable happened and we failed to pass the threshold, then they would form an effective movement outside parliament as well.

As to your ridiculous suggestion that we have not achieved anything in Parliament. How about…
Clean Slate Bill. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill. Land Transport Management Bill. Road Traffic Reduction Bill.
Significant ammendments to Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, Supreme Court Bill, Local Government Rating Bill, Waitaki Bill.
Ending of native forest logging on the West Coast.
Budget funding for Environmental Education, Complementary Health, Environment centres, the EECA, cleaning up and recording highly contaminated sites, biosecurity awareness programmes.

Take a look at the achievements page on our website.
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/achievements.htm

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:14:01 +0000

Fastbike, you riding backwards, the whole point of Green failure is that it
preach VALUES NOT GREEN, read the articles here by fwwog, i cant, dont read social prescriptions, yous right
GREEN IS ROOTED IN THE 1970′S,
like jeez fast, who wants 70’s redrod radical now, you will get 5% ok , but not next time,
agree with you on name, ACT dead name, we change our name all right, we change everything bhottom up, that the point, yous can’t change,
you already know everything, why read why you know everything,
another thing fast, you don’t know what PROGRESSIVE actually means, it a snake oil merchant word, i think you means REGRESSIVE, you said it fast, ROOTED IN THE SEVENTIES, poor old rods, nearly dead,
petra kelly dead fastbike, yous all die, make way for new tadpoles,
do yous pay tax fastbike, i want you to pay tax fastbike, specially for me,
and i learns to read what yo preacher say instead of this nonsense with Proust,

By: fringe nutter

fringe nutter — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:52:26 +0000

IMHO the TV debates distort things more than they help voters make a decision. Candidates get a soundbyte each on a particular area and it all becomes about who can put in the most credible performance rather than about making it clear what you can expect from them if they have influence in government. Craig’s idea about replacing the debates with series of in-depth interviews sounds a lot better, but I suppose the stations are intent on the spectacle thing.

Either way, thresholds seem a bit arbitrary under MMP. Jim Anderton would arguably have more influence in a Labour-led government than both Peter Dunne and Rodney Hide, but having a cut-off point would mean that either the Progressives get left out of debates or that a whole lot of minor parties are involved.

By: fastbike

fastbike — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:05:04 +0000

I would suggest that PQ has problems reading as well as writing.

The GP is more than an environmental party - and always has been. For those too young to remember, their roots lie with the Values party in the 1970’s that stood up to the maniac policies of RD Muldoon and Co.

ACT has more influence - Is this supposed to be a joke? ACT are a second rate party in the wilderness of opposition. It’s hardly the place to introduce progressive legislation from!
And then there’s the party’s name. Association of CONSUMERS and TAXPAYERS. To bad if you don’t do much of either. Why not Citizens instead of Consumers - I suppose Roger Douglas would have the obvious answer to that.

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:54:53 +0000

Well, how about damn the “spectacle* clear eight days of Campbell Live - and actually have an in-depth series of discussions (with the same questions being asked) rather than the campaign equivalent of a topless jelly wrestling.

And I think Zen Tiger has a fair point: No matter how ACT or United Future are polling, they’re still legitimate and lawful Parliamentary representatives.