Comments on: Major parties take climate change seriously(ish)

By: Dr Dunny Brush

Dr Dunny Brush — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:12:23 +0000

Actually, I think it was the glow of a coal fire burning at the end of a disused railway tunnel…

Hey, convert the trains to run on West Coast coal - now THAT’S an idea!

By: Prim

Prim — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:43:28 +0000

A question for Dr Dunny Brush: was it from an energy efficient lightbulb? Or - as I suspect - a high wattage piece of cr*p?

By: bjchip

bjchip — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:49:31 +0000

I don’t see how we will ever be able to deal with the Nats, but you’re quite right that they have a natural advantage getting business to accept any reforms they actually drive. I just don’t see them being entirely in control of their own destiny. Of course if we have a few seats and can swing control so that they can’t live without us, then yeah, there’s a power play, but our presence in such a government would probably cancel the aforesaid advantage and then some.

Maybe we’ve been studying porcine aerodynamics too long

respectfully
BJ

By: alistair

alistair — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:46:25 +0000

Electoral arithmetic, Chip. Alliance with Labour was the right thing to do last time, it’s just that the numbers didn’t work out. It’s not the right position for next time. We need to be as ruthless as Labour. It’s quite likely that the other small parties will be out of parliament at the next election, which greatly increases our chances of holding the balance of power. We would naturally prefer to go with Labour in that case, but we need them to sweat about it. And not shrink from a bidding war!

However hopeless the Nats are, they will end up in government some time soon. Rather than sitting in opposition, criticisising their half-*rsed environmental measures, we need to be on the team driving change, and holding them to their fine words, if they are going to claim environmental wisdom.

It’s also probable that ecological fiscal reforms will be better accepted by business if they come from the Nats rather than Labour.

By: bjchip

bjchip — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:54:35 +0000

Alistair ! Even I would not have gone that far… I am shocked! but are you serious?

Overall I don’t think we need to compromise principles, but we DO need to optimize methods and communications.

respectfully
BJ

By: alistair

alistair — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:53:42 +0000

I would say that, in view of what happened last time, the Greens should make no deals before the next election, but make it clear that we’re for sale to the highest bidder. After all, everyone sees this as normal for the other small parties.

And frankly, a close association with Labour like last time would be disastrous. Plus, it’s hard to see any arrangement that would be less effective for environmental policy than the current one. Yes, put social policy on the back burner for three years, and collaborate with National, if that’s what it takes.

By: Dr Dunny Brush

Dr Dunny Brush — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:03:14 +0000

I have seen the light. The Exclusive Brethren showed it to me.

By: toad

toad — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:01:18 +0000

ekstatek - this is an excerpt from the National Party’s 2005 election policy on climate change:

National’s policy on Climate Change is about ensuring New Zealand jobs and growth are not sacrificed on the basis of equivocal science or commitments that have New Zealand carrying an unfair share of the burden arising from climate change. National wants a more balanced approach that ensures New Zealand contributes constructively to a global response to climate change but not at the expense of jobs and growth.

Now, do you trust them? Or has Don Brash has suddenly seen the light in the past year?

By: zANavAShi

zANavAShi — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:34:10 +0000

Genius Says: Go to the blue green national website - they have a survey/feedback section there but you will notice all the questions are framed in such a way that almost no one can disagree with them. It just reeks of insincerity. I echo that statement. That is one of the most poorly designed web sites I have ever seen, and it looks like they paid some high school kid to build it for them the other weekend at less cost than a single one of their billboards in the last election campaign. If National were truly sincere about this issue I think they would have reflected that by throwing some serious money at that site and hired a top notch professional web designer to do it for them. ekstatek Says: Its good to see the bluegreen web site as it gives me a option to vote for a party who doesn’t want to import all the aids babies of africa and burma’s child soldiers. That has to be one of the silliest things I have ever read on this blog.

By: benw

benw — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:27:43 +0000

Alicia wrote:

“The Greens don’t have to change a word of their social policy, but I think that going into the next election should make it clear that the environment is at their heart, and that those policies will not be backed down on in any negotiations with the major parties.”

That pretty much sums it up for me. And your points about positioning the Greens as the party to hold Labour and National to account on Climate Change (and related Energy issues such as Peak Oil) I think is also a good one. The challenge we have is to create the appropriate sense of urgency for these issues - something that is missing from mainstream debate right now.

And this isn’t about becoming a ’single issue party’ - it is about getting the most important and urgent aspects of the Greens policies enacted. We can’t afford to dilute this message anymore (as happened with those now infamous billboards that no one could understand) it has to be much more front and centre. After all, social justice is hard to achieve if the environment is going into a death spiral.