Assessing the old parties
Russel and Jeanette have just announced the criteria that they will be using to judge which of the ‘old parties’ the Greens would prefer to work with after the election.
Labour and National will be assessed against the Greens’ four charter principles – environmental sustainability, social justice, peace and democracy; and in accordance with these 12 criteria:
- Will they reduce NZ’s oil dependence and climate change emissions?
- How much will they improve public transport and the rail system?
- How will they clean up our waterways?
- How will they increase protection of threatened species and ecosystems, including marine?
- Will they improve local food security, keep NZ farming and environment GE free and support organic growing?
- How will they reduce child poverty and reduce violence against children?
- What will they do to form a genuine partnership with Maori under the Treaty?
- To what extent will they make education free and accessible?
- How will they protect our national sovereignty from overseas ownership of land and strategic assets; and, will they keep us out of foreign wars?
- Will they protect public healthcare, and invest in preventative health measures to keep us healthy and well?
- Will they protect workers’ rights and raise the minimum wage?
- How will they protect democracy and civil rights?
Unlike other parties they will be announcing the results of this assessment before the election, so that voters can make an informed choice.
Bookmark to:
October 9th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Good stuff, I like the openess.
That old chestnut - only 5 of the 12 could be counted as ‘environmental’. I assume they’re all given equal weightings, but conceivably the Greens could end up going with the party that matches the Greens on points 6 to 12, no?
October 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am
>>keep NZ farming and environment GE free
Hopefully no party would be that closed-minded and luddite.
>>form a genuine partnership with Maori under the Treaty
What does that mean in practice?
>>Will they reduce NZ’s oil dependence
What if that has nothing to do with trains?
October 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
There must be some rationale behind your ‘hit and run’ strategy on this blog BluePeter. Do you imagine you are shedding much-needed light on these issues with your flippant, empty barbs? Are you under the curious impression that readers are rolling about on the floor with mirth at you trite utterences? Are you simply trying to ‘make a name for yourself’ by popping up on every issue and inserting your spanner? It takes very little skill to do what you do,; repeating over and over your same talking points and making demands of those who have real opinions and the desire to progress the issues. Hmm?
October 9th, 2008 at 10:13 am
haha greenfly BP is entitled to have his say on the issue, I know you don’t agree with him but that doesn’t mean you should have a fit and throw all of your toys.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Of course he is Turnip and I recall the he said he enjoys ‘the game’ but I have been hopeful that he would progress beyond his gormless nitpicking into something more useful - like reasoned debate. btw - the above is not even approaching ‘fitting’ and ‘toy throwing’ I’m saving that for later.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
yes it is a basic human right for us to read BPs contstant stream of denigration. as it is greenfly’s to point out that BP is pretty much a troll.
like big bro, he seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time regurgitating his opinions on the comments of a blog from a party that is apparently anathema to his existence.
but they do provide a good example of the type of opinions rife in new zealand and both have a great deal of skill at pretending to debate while in fact offering nothing but right-wing talking points and not responding when challenged by facts.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Love how the questions aren’t really questions but answers. Like the assumption is that GE is bad, and organic is good.
That’s what I most dislike about the Greens: they pretend to be rational, when what they have more in common with religious fundamentalists.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Yawn nommopilot i’ve never seen you once post a single fact on this blog.
note all i’ve ever seen from you nommopilot is communist propaganda.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Perfect come-back BluePeter. There couldn’t be a better example of your work!
October 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am
And just for Greenfly, here’s what underlies my barbs on GE:
“But the programs of genetic research and development now underway in labs and field stations around the world is entirely about benefiting society and the environment. Its purpose is to improve nutrition, to reduce the use of synthetic chemicals, to increase the productivity of our farmlands and forests, and to improve human health. Those who have adopted a zero-tolerance attitude towards genetic modification threaten to deny these many benefits by playing on fear of the unknown and fear of change.
Many in the anti-biotech movement focus on the issue of corporate control. This is an entirely different subject than the science of genetic modification itself. Corporate control in the form of monopoly can occur in any sector. But, for example, just because Microsoft is alleged to have a monopoly over computer operating systems doesn’t mean we should all throw our computers in the garbage or demand that computers be banned. The technology itself must be analysed and judged separately from the institutional framework that is used to deliver that technology. And, unless we wish to dismantle all the laws relating to intellectual property there will continue to be proprietary rights in new developments, thus requiring an element of control. This is generally accepted as beneficial in that it encourages innovation and competition.”
October 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“During a recent visit to Southeast Asia I took part in a seminar on biotechnology in Jakarta, Indonesia. There I met five farmers from South Sulawesi who had just completed a trial of Bt cotton on their farms. They reported that yields had risen from the normal 600 kilos per hectare to an average of 2500 kilos per hectare, a four times increase in yield. At the same time they had reduced pesticide applications from eight sprayings to one spraying, and the single spraying was for a secondary insect pest, not the bollworm that the cotton was now protected against. And yet, environmental NGOs, supported by the Indonesian Minister of the Environment, are trying hard to thwart the efforts of these farmers. Indonesia imports over $1 billion in cotton each year, mainly from Australia. Bt cotton could help Indonesia to be more self-sufficient in cotton production. It could also improve the lot of farmers, reduce chemical use, and result in reduced clearance of natural forestland for agriculture.”
Patrick Moore.
Someone who is closed-minded on biotech/GE would take the more destructive option in the above example. Why?
Religion.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Then why fire barbs BluePeter. It’s a great deal more interesting for all concerned to see the argument that ‘lies beneath’ your cheap shots.
btw - are these your thoughts or a slab copy and paste?
October 9th, 2008 at 10:40 am
BP
Have you not yet worked out that we are not supposed to ask questions, time is running out you know, just this morning I heard Russ say that the sea level is going to rise by 15 meters.
Just accept what the Greens have to say, they and they alone have the answers, yes you might have to give up a few of your rights but the very sake of the planet depends on the Greens coming to power.
Only socialism/communism can save the world BP and he sooner you get on board the better.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Greenfly,
They are from Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, from his book “Environmentalism for the 21st Century”
His site here: http://www.greenspirit.com
October 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
BP
As far as New Zealand is concerned GE is a ONE-WAY street. We don’t know what is at the other end of the street and the benefits don’t outweigh the risks. They may never do so, but they certainly do not at this point. Right now we have plenty of foodstuffs for export.
Far more than our trading partners appear to have “real” money to pay us to ship to them.
GE doesn’t change that equation. It just risks the value of what we have to sell. Not smart. This one is still looking like a street we do not need to travel.
respectfully
BJ
October 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
How about addressing this issue, Greenfly?
I have demonstrated that “GeFree” is religious. It is also a stupid approach to take, and Patrick Moore has illustrated why.
If the Greens were truly rational as they claim, and not religious, they would amend that question to remove the religious slogan “GEFree”.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Why do I get the feeling that many Greens would love to see the NZ economy tank so they and their communist friends can use the resulting chaos to push through some left wing “Shock Doctrine” just like what Savage did in the 30’s.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
>>the benefits don’t outweigh the risks
New Zealand needs to develop IP exports. Biotech/GE could be a huge earner. The risks need to weighed, but I already know the answer from the Greens:
Any risk is unacceptable.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“Love how the questions aren’t really questions but answers. Like the assumption is that GE is bad, and organic is good.”
Like it should be any different? The Greens have almost singlehandedly keep NZ GE free, for the last 10 years, even to the point of choosing opposition to coalition in 2002. And yet suddenly in analysing others policies, we’re supposed to throw out our own positions and start over.
For the very dense, all 12 questions are the same - how close does party X come to current Green policy in area Y? What the hell else could they be?
BP, I don’t really think you’re that stupid, so you must lob this sort of sh*t around just for fun. Maybe greenfly is right.
“That’s what I most dislike about the Greens: they pretend to be rational, when what they have more in common with religious fundamentalists.”
Jeanette could pull out evidence overwhelmingly supporting the Green position on GE, and has. Accusing us of being fundies is just another unprincipled ruse.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
So Jeanette is right and Patrick Moore, and every scientist involved in GE is wrong, then?
Isn’t that the reverse of your GW argument? That the majority of scientists couldn’t be wrong?
October 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Newsflash
Russ has released the new Green party policy on opposition to the anti smacking legislation.
When faced with a comment from a caller on Radio live this morning reminding him that 83% of the population is against the legislation his reply was…..”I don’t believe that poll”
What an arrogant tosser the man is.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:07 am
big bro believes the 83% figure, Russel Norman doesn’t. What to think, what to think ???
Russel’s performance on Radio Live was a cracker. Handled those challenges from the listening public very well. Hard to know what to say about the effects of space junk on climate change though, I imagine
October 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
BluePeter, you really do love responsing to yourself, rather than what someone else has written.
Read criterion 5 - it says “Will they improve local food security, keep NZ farming and environment GE free and support organic growing?”
It doesn’t say anything about GE research and development, which the Greens support in controlled and contained conditions so the potential benefits and risks can actually be determined, rather than just be speculated on. As you say, BP, Biotech/GE could be a huge earner. It could also be a huge environmental disaster, from which there is no turning back. As yet there is no evidence of the massively increased yields from GE that were supposed to be the solution to feeding the world. Let’s do the research first, rather than release GE organisms into the environment on a hope and pray basis.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Why do I get the feeling that many Greens would love to see the NZ economy tank…”
because your thinking is muddled Turnip? Just a guess.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
one thing that i love about green party policy is that they never seem to spot the contradictions in almost every major, socialist, policy document.
“Workers Rights”, lol.
And yet then right next to it they say “raise the minimum wage”, lol.
Isint part of workers rights the right to work wherever they want, for however long they want, for whatever amount they want?
By having a minimum wage, particuarly a high one, you decrease the rights of the workers to work for the wage they choose and you also decrease the rights of workers to access work in the first place as you outprice new busness from entering hte market and creating jobs and you eliminate all job opportunities where te marginal benifit of an extra worker is bellow the minimum wage.
I am with Bj on the matter of GE; I would endorse the potential benifits of GE if implimented correctly but in NZ it offers a massive liability in decreasing the value of all our crops just through its presence.
But then again i would stick a triple (for redundancy) reactor on waiheke if that kind of generation was feasable for our country.
Also, education should not be free! it should be highly subsidiesed (though probally less so than t presently is) with a large volume of scholorships availible for high acheiving students, a interest free student loan scheme, and a bonded pay-off scheme for those working in NZ following the completion of their degree so that effectivly they do not have to pay for any of the course fees (though oviously living costs and possibly book costs would have to be excluded); that and accually chasing them around the globe when they are away and not paying towards it after a certain period.
BP is right in the respect that alot of policy coming from the party is based on the lines of ideology and emotion rather than practicality or even logical analysis.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
>>there is no evidence of the massively increased yields
There is no evidence of massive danger.
>>GE that were supposed to be the solution to feeding the world
It has many uses.
>>rather than what someone else has written.
You write “GEFree”, which I took to mean “GeFree”. You should stop using such slogans if you don’t really mean them.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
BB, that poll (and the figure was actually 86%) was based on the ridiculously biased wording of Larry Baldock’s referendum question.
When asked about the law that parliament actually passed “Exactly 50 per cent (263) still didn’t like it, 34 per cent (177) accepted it, and 16 per cent ( 86) said it was better or “okay in part” or gave other equivocal responses.”
So Russel was quite correct to say he didn’t believe it. The poll respose to the question that actually talked about the legislation would indicate that 50%, not 83%, opposed it, and that 50% supported it to some extent.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Anyway, it’s all a bit of a farce.
That list will be weighted heavily in favor of left social policy, which means Labour and Maori.
What happens if the Maori Party go with National?
October 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
sapient -
“I would endorse the potential benifits of GE if implimented correctly but in NZ it offers a massive liability in decreasing the value of all our crops just through its presence.”
BluePeter -
“There is no evidence of massive danger.”
Perhaps you two should talk.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
BluePeter said: What happens if the Maori Party go with National?
Electoral disaster for the Maori Party in 2011, I would say.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
>>Electoral disaster for the Maori Party in 2011, I would say.
I’m guessing they will spin it to their advantage. They may enable a National government, without being seen to actually join it.
MMP eh….
October 9th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
A Christmas stocking for the left.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
better than first-past-the-post any day
October 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Of the “Peace Movement”
By the “Peace Movement”
For the “Peace Movement”
And don’t let names fool you.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
In regards to GE, I am concerned that it potentially can shift the power away from farmers to geneticists and corporations. Being able to create a plant that may improve productivity and be pest resistant but does not have the ability to reproduce, create new seeds thus making the farmer pay for new seeds. There needs to be a lot more discussion on GE.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Red Tape And Taxes Strangling Economic Growth
Wednesday, 8 October 2008, 5:27 pm
Press Release: Property Council Of New Zealand
8 October 2008
“We have to take a reality check and be honest about where New Zealand is heading. We need to overhaul the compliance rules at all levels of government. These rules are currently undermining New Zealander’s ability to do well in business, create wealth, and employ other people. They also contribute significant costs to new homes and place unnecessary costs and time delays on construction.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0810/S00179.htm
October 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Meanwhile the National Party released its immigration policy. You may wonder what this means for the property market. It is clear from research that immigration is one of the key drivers of house price growth.
The logic is simple. If you import more people into the country, then you need more houses. Supply and demand means that prices are then pushed up, this is particularly so in Auckland.
While the latest immigration numbers show the number of people coming into New Zealand is starting to rise, the Nat’s policy looks like it wants to increase immigration levels even further.”
http://www.landlords.co.nz/blog/
October 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“BluePeter said: What happens if the Maori Party go with National?
Electoral disaster for the Maori Party in 2011, I would say.”
Despite the Labour party doing NOTHING for maori over the years.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Well either things have gotten worse, stayed the same, or gotten better. Which is it?
October 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Issues 1 thru 5 are green issues, 6 thru 12 are not. Are you guys seriously going to base your allegiances on 60% social and 40% environmental criteria?
Treaty, minimum wage, free education etc are just sooo irrelevant when stacked up against declining air, water, land, biodiversity etc.
It genuinely makes me angry that you could squander the environmental imperative on such trivialities.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It is just me or is does it look like this list has been compiled with ONLY the Labour party in mind?
Of course the Greens can then go to the voters and say “well we did make an offer to the Nat’s but they were not interested”
Duplicitous, deceitful, and downright dishonest.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
That would be a good piss-take…but it isn’t. Putting their policy priorities out in the public domain is “deceitful”? Might you want to look up the meaning of the word?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
A green party that has 60% non-green priorities why, why, why?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
>>allegiances on 60% social and 40% environmental criteria?
Indeed.
So any cries about the world is imminent danger from environmental concerns are clearly nonsense. It seems even the Greens don’t believe it.
Because the only logical response would surely be a list of AGW measures. Everything else can wait.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Because the only logical response would surely be a list of AGW measures. Everything else can wait.”
So you’re into AGW mitigation now, BP?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I’m in to the same thing I’ve always been into, which is digging through the spin to arrive at the truth.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Sam,
So violence against children is a trivial issue for you?
“Issues 1 thru 5 are green issues, 6 thru 12 are not. Are you guys seriously going to base your allegiances on 60% social and 40% environmental criteria? … It genuinely makes me angry that you could squander the environmental imperative on such trivialities.”
And why do you get the right to define what are “green issues”? The four Green Party principles stated in frog’s post are clear and include social justice, peace and democracy.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
>>the right to define what are “green issues”?
Well, we now know to take alarmist AGW predictions from the Green Party with a huge grain of salt.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
BP, so you’d advise a one-issue strategy then?
And how well would that fly with the broader population who are concerned about a range of issues?
Can’t you handle the concept of policy priorities - or did you miss that climate change and peak oil policies are number 1 on the above list?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I know full well what the policy priorities are. I can see them from the track record in parliament, and the list above.
Plain as day…..
October 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“It is just me or is does it look like this list has been compiled with ONLY the Labour party in mind?”
Only to the intellectually challenged or purposely deceitful. See, there’s this thing, cause and effect. One can say “Green policy priorities lead to Labour preference”. This is logically sound. To say “Labour pref leads to Green policy priorities” is ridiculous, particularly when it is known that the co-leaders do not set the agenda, but the Party does.
” Duplicitous, deceitful, and downright dishonest.
That would be a good piss-take…but it isn’t. Putting their policy priorities out in the public domain is “deceitful”? Might you want to look up the meaning of the word?”
A big bro specialty. Pol Pot anyone? He still hasn’t cleaned up his deceit on that topic, though we’ve been patient, so don’t expect much here.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
kiwinuke, I don’t actually see the word ‘priority’ (or variants) anywhere…
October 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Well yes it is trivial, in that all parties are concerned about reducing violence and therefore other criteria are more pressing in deciding who to co-operate with. It’s a matter of priority isn’t it. If the Green party could just stick to green issues they would attract many more votes and be in a position to negotiate real sustainability into government policy.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
StephenR
The deceitful part is the total BS line pushed by the likes of Dr Norman that the Greens COULD go with either party.
The Greens WILL go with Labour, they always do and they always will, of course the bad part about that as far as the Greens are concerned is that Helen Clark knows it as well.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Shh….Big Bro, they think they’re being “clever”.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
BluePester - just curious as to where you got your ‘huge grain of salt’ from. The Murray Darling perhaps?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’m just wondering why rail is more important than violence against children…..
October 9th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
BB, i’d rather they put their priorities (in no particular order by the looks) out than not. Perhaps now they enter into informal negotiations with the Nats to see how willing they are to compromise on these…but maybe not.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
StephenR
Care to tell me how a party polling 5% should be in a position to demand anything in a real democracy?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Shh….Big Bro, they think they’re being “clever”.”
No, its called process, which as I’ve explained before, the Party mandated in June. Despite how clear it now is that the Nats haven’t changed their tune on the environment, the co-leaders do not have the authority to publically pre-judge the outcome.
“The deceitful part is the total BS line pushed by the likes of Dr Norman that the Greens COULD go with either party.”
He wasn’t talking about coalition now was he. Still trying to avoid your lies about Pol Pot?
“The Greens WILL go with Labour, they always do and they always will, of course the bad part about that as far as the Greens are concerned is that Helen Clark knows it as well.”
You’re stupid if you think what Helen knows is an issue. The chance of us being the potential king maker for BOTH parties is terribly small. The ONLY thing that matters is how the numbers fall, not what the parties know or think about each other.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
>>No, its called process,
It’s positioning.
Look, I don’t know why party members can’t see through this, so I can only assume most haven’t been involved in business.
If you want staff to agree to something, but at the same time make them feel as if they are in control of the process, you structure the options in such a way as they can only agree to the path you’ve already decided upon.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Valis
Do you not get sick of being embarrassed about the Pol Pot comment.
Keith said it, Keith believed it and as far as I know he is still of the same opinion.
Get over it.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
7. “What will they do to form a genuine partnership with Maori under the Treaty?”
We’re not talking about democracy as in a show of hands but a heavier weight given to people with Maori ancestry (or with a cultural identification as Maori).
Presumably this also means support for indigenous title to sea land (Foreshore and Seabed) under the treaty (Tino Rangitiratanga). Perhaps you could bring out an FAQ? Tariana Turia has said her tribes settlements only amount to 1.5% of what was taken and the Government shouldn’t expect this to be considered “full and final”.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
6.How will they reduce child poverty and reduce violence against children?
………………………
The Otago Interdiscplinary Health and Development Study (as well as showing that mild smacking produced results that were equal or better than those who weren’t smacked) has shown that children raised by single teenage mothers were more likely to become single mothers themselves and that children born into these families have a greater risk of abuse and neglect.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“It’s positioning.
Look, I don’t know why party members can’t see through this, so I can only assume most haven’t been involved in business.
If you want staff to agree to something, but at the same time make them feel as if they are in control of the process, you structure the options in such a way as they can only agree to the path you’ve already decided upon.”
You postulate that the management of the Green Party, which would include things like the Leadership group and Executive reps from across the country, is actively subverting the will of the membership. That’s a big call. Have you got a shread of evidence to support it, or were you just having bad dreams last night?
October 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
12. How will they protect democracy and civil rights?
By clamping down on crime so the streets are safe.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“Do you not get sick of being embarrassed about the Pol Pot comment.”
I’ve nothing to be embarrassed about since I have shown the comment to be a lie.
“Keith said it, Keith believed it and as far as I know he is still of the same opinion.”
Do you not get sick of being embarrassed about telling the Pol Pot lie?
“Get over it.”
Nah, I think you deserve to be shown for what you are a bit longer.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
9.How will they protect our national sovereignty from overseas ownership of land and strategic assets; and, will they keep us out of foreign wars?
………………
That isn’t the same question as “Do they intend to encourage immigration as National appears to want to do” (bums in houses). I don’t see any concern about the possibility of wall to wall sprawl or a vertical extension to the city scape. That isn’t on the red (sorry) Green radar … it’s bourgeois stuff .
October 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Seems like the Greens left out the balanced budget bit.
You know the one that enables all those nice to have policies.
With deficits forecast for the next ten years, a lot of those policies will be wishful thinking.
Meaning the Greens can only go with Labour as the National party is intent on getting the budgets under control (hint cut state servants from tax recipient status to tax payer status).
The list published by the Greens is totally focussed on unachievable objectives that National will not be able to meet.
Sad part is that Labour will not be able to meet those objectives either (they will promise but deliver - as the last nine years have shown - nothing).
Meaning the Greens will be in bed with Labour. Where a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour. Actual Green policy deliveries, as outlined, will be zero.
Labours lapdog once again.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I think the thing about Keith and Pol Pot is not that he supported Pol Pot (as he became known as the infamous Pol Pot) but that he is of a type that goes there just as some people are destined to stand on street corners preaching.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Valis, I’m suggesting if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
That would be my personal view.
BTW: Is this true: “It will also be illegal to change any shower head to increase flow rates after 1 February”
October 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Where’s *there*?
What is true about Keith is that he’s among the first to decry human rights abuse, regardless of what sort of regime it comes from.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I had a water saving shower head but I replaced it as it was taking me too long to shower. In the morning’s I have to go like hell and so I need a fast shower head.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“Valis, I’m suggesting if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
That would be my personal view.”
Define “duck”. If duck = supports left leaning govt, fine. If duck = supports left leaning govt against the wishes of its own party members, which is what you said, then give us a reason to believe you.
“BTW: Is this true: “It will also be illegal to change any shower head to increase flow rates after 1 February”
Not sure. Where did you see this?
October 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Valis Says:
October 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Where’s *there*? *There* is a genetic predisposition to end up in an organisation such as Peace Justice Aotearoa (which is barely distinguishable from the Green Party BTW).
October 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Right, so supporting Green Party policies leads one to other organisations that support similar policies. Imagine that.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Stephen,
I agree there is no mention of a priority order - and I don’t think most of these are in any sort of priority order - except that it’s pretty clear from stated priorities elsewhere that climate change and peak oil issues are the top priorities for the Green Party.
Whether they’ve got any chance of getting any satisfaction out of either Coke or Pepsi on this is another matter. Maybe it will come down to who is offering the best policy on public transport and water quality?
And to the others fretting that it’s a stitch up - why should the Nats have a problem with putting forward good policies on either of these two issues?
October 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
and we need the greens there in government to ‘assist’ them to have good environmental practice whether they have good policies or not.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Never fails to raise a smile when the left talks about protecting workers’ rights.
As in everything else they do, what they’re really talking about the freedom to do as they tell us.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
No mention of the treatment of animal in the criteria. Considering the GP is the only one to actually have an animal welfare spokesperson I was expecting another crtierion along the lines of
Will they take steps to abolish battery cages, sow crates, farrowing crates, fast growing broilers, mulesing, live sheep exports and other inhumane farming practices?
October 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
60% social criteria and 40% environmental
The Greens had their origins in the Peace and Human Rights movements. You want us to abandon our roots? Environmentalism was added because we recognised it as the elephant in the corner.
As for going with Labour or National, I really don’t want a bar of either faction of the NZ Rich List Party. Unfortunately the Rich List Party is the only game in town so we have no real option but to deal with them as we’ve been doing since we left the Alliance. Whether we negotiate through a Labour or a National filter the voters will determine that. Personally I’d settle for the current weregild arrangement but with eiher faction.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“60% social criteria and 40% environmental”
I don’t see it quite that way. You could say 40/60 env vs non-env, but putting the criteria against the Charter I get:
1-5 environment
8,10,11 - social
6 - social, non violence
12- social, appropriate decision making
9 - non violence, appropriate decision making (could argue this)
7 - Te Tiriti preamble
This is very rough, but gives 42% env, 33% social, 8% non violence, 8% appropriate decision making, 8% Te Tiriti.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:57 am
“The Greens had their origins in the Peace and Human Rights movements. You want us to abandon our roots? Environmentalism was added because we recognised it as the elephant in the corner.”
Exactly, red was out of fashion with the fall of the Berlin wall etc and so you created a product that is red on the inside and green on the outside (watermelon).
Infact doesn’t these look very similar to Green Party Issues:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/
and when you follow the links………
October 10th, 2008 at 4:03 am
“Labour and National will be assessed against the Greens’ four charter principles – environmental sustainability, social justice, peace and democracy”
So who say’s what is just or a best solution in a system with “many moving parts”…. a know all?
October 10th, 2008 at 6:58 am
So who say’s what is just or a best solution in a system with “many moving parts”…. a know all?
Currently the Labour/National coalition decides within a business framework. The Greens will decide for themselves within a Green framework and offer that to the voters.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:55 am
They can demand anything they like, but if you’ve only got 5%, you are going to receive a proportionate amount of influence.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:23 am
>>The Greens will decide for themselves within a Green framework
Which couldn’t exist without a business framework, unless, of course, the end goal is communism.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:48 am
MMP = LPP simple equation
October 10th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Farrar agrees about the Greens “conditions of engagement” too, although that’s no surprise:
“Again, not a single one focused on how to generate the income to pay for the Government’s spending. It’s a sham, with the outcome pre-ordained.”
I’m not sure who you think you’re fooling, but that group would be pretty small by now.
And please outline how you’re going to pay for these things? Why do you always avoid the issue?
As I long suspected, all I see is a marketing front, and some useful idiots who just can’t see it.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:57 am
useful idiots
October 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I’m testing out the filter…….
marketing front
October 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am
sham
October 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
It’s a sham
October 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Weird. What word blocked my post?
October 10th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“Exactly, red was out of fashion with the fall of the Berlin wall etc and so you created a product that is red on the inside and green on the outside (watermelon).”
How old are you? The green movement predates ‘red’ going out of fashion by a few decades.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:16 am
BluePester - ’supportive’..’helpful’..interesting’..’worthwhile’..’exciting’..’outs tanding’..??
October 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am
“The Greens had their origins in the Peace and Human Rights movements. You want us to abandon our roots? Environmentalism was added because we recognised it as the elephant in the corner.”
This is ultra frustrating to read, that environmentalism is just an addon for the Green party. Someone needs to start an environment-prioritised party so that I can vote for that instead - a party that can do what the Maori party do, work MMP properly, and focus focus focus.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Blowfly,
I’m just testing the filter…..it seems to be criticism dependent….
October 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am
>>Someone needs to start an environment-prioritised party
I might even vote for it….
October 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
BP - no surprise there
The blowfly is a champion of an insect. Without it’s selfless work, reducing the carcasses of dead animals back to useable nutrient, we’d be up to our necks in mammoths through to domestic cats. What an truely unsung hero, the blowfly
October 10th, 2008 at 9:39 am
A little thought here.
It would seem that this agenda requires some significant money to be spent. Particularly with regard to numbers 2,3,5,6,8,9,10 & 11.
Is there policy from the party on how this expenditure will be off-set by revenue, and if so, does this policy take into account the parlous state on the country’s finances revealed on Monday and the global borrowing challenge arising out of the current credit crisis?
October 10th, 2008 at 9:49 am
>>The blowfly is a champion
I suspect, given your need to explain it, you’re feeling defensive….
BluePeter, not BluePester
October 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
>>on Monday and the global borrowing challenge arising out of the current credit crisis?
Yes. We remember Russel calling for Key to be responsible and to change his stance.
We look forward to the Greens doing likewise, but I’m not holding my breath.
Shouty activists, not credible, balanced leaders.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am
A little thought WOULD be a novel thing.
We are discussing the basis on which we will consider the OTHER party’s policies in assessing our willingness to work with them.
Obviously the means of paying for their own policies are also the business of those other parties.
You can read about our own on our website.
. http://www.greens.org.nz/policy
They include tax policies.
The patronizing tone is insulting and given the obvious failure to actually pay attention, reflects rather poorly on the patronizer.
BJ
October 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
BP
What stance do you think HE has to change?
You have to be a little more specific (though at this point I don’t doubt that I can guess). The problem is that the discussion is about finance and your bete-noir is NOT part of the discussion thread and any newcomer would have absolutely no clue what you mean.
respectfully
BJ
October 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
>>> The green movement predates ‘red’ going out of fashion by a few decades.
Yes indeed. In fact, arguably the most influential works that helped formed the modern environmental movement are:
Aldo Leopold: ‘The Land Ethic’ (1949)
Rachal Carson: ‘Silent Spring’ (1962)
Lynn White: ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’ (1967)
Garett Hardin: ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968)
Club of Rome: ‘Limits to Growth’ (1972)
The (NZ) Values Party - one of the first pro-environmental parties in the world, by the way - didn’t have many specific social policies. It did however argue for ‘polluter pays’ and (interestingly) population limits.
I guess with the failure of voluntary curtailment of wasteful growth the Green movement now tends towards supporting more restrictive (such as leglislative) measures to achieve its ends.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
The environment was never “just an add-on”, it was a major broadening of our frame of reference.
Having peace and human rights/justice for all requires an equitable sharing of limited resources. This means protecting the biosphere which needs justice and peace. The Green charter reflects this and is an integrated whole with all principles having equal weight.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
# Valis Says:
October 10th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“Exactly, red was out of fashion with the fall of the Berlin wall etc and so you created a product that is red on the inside and green on the outside (watermelon).”
How old are you? The green movement predates ‘red’ going out of fashion by a few decades.
……………..
Yes your right that was written in haste. I was referring to Keith Locke Sue Bradford and entourage realizing their political careers weren’t going anywhere and so doing the equivalent of putting brush on their heads (a favorite trick of the red army).
October 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
>>jh Says: I was referring to Keith Locke Sue Bradford and entourage realizing their political careers weren’t going anywhere and so doing the equivalent of putting brush on their heads (a favorite trick of the red army).
Yes, I too would be interested to know the green credentials of these two.
jh - am I correct in thinking that you are a NZ First supporter? It looks like dear old Winston could do a ‘Lazarus’
October 10th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
“Having peace and human rights/justice for all requires an equitable sharing of limited resources. This means protecting the biosphere which needs justice and peace. The Green charter reflects this and is an integrated whole with all principles having equal weight.”
That shows that the Green party, in it’s current form at least, sees the biosphere as anthropocentric. I’d like to see it the other way around, campaigning for humans to fit the environment rather than the environment fitting humans.
Environment first, humans second.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I’m not a fan of NZ First or Winston Peters except that they are the only party that are prepared to enforce a rule that the citizens of nations are allowed to control how many outsiders they let in. In todays Press there is a story (and pictures ) of a Knife fight between some (looks like) Asian immigrants on Brighton Pier over a fishing spot. Beside it there is a story on how much the make up of Christchurch is changing and the story says (early on) that numbers increased “since changes were made to immigration requirements. Every decision is made for a reason and I wonder who changes were made to immigration requirements, was meant to benefit. Was there lobbying and if so by whom? We now have needed a new city plan and we have all the problems associated with NIMBYism and now the NZ Property Council are calling for a cut back of red tape and easing on restrictions while National are hinting to property investors that they will grease the skids on immigration.
The immigration debate has become framed in terms of Pro immigration: good bloke and man of the world, good for the economy “needed skills” (yeah right) and anti immigration : xenophobic, racist, stick in the mud. Those who have benefited most from an influx of people are those with no worries about NIMBY issues.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“Yes, I too would be interested to know the green credentials of these two.”
I could be wrong on some specifics, but as far as I know, Keith helped form New Labour, which then ended up part of the Alliance. When the Greens left the Alliance, Keith decided to go with them. Sue was never in the Alliance and joined the Greens in 1999.
Remember, the Alliance came into power in 1999 and everyone knew this would happen. The Greens, on their own for the first time, were a dark horse by comparison. That both went Green instead I think says a lot about how their philosophies had changed to embrace the reality of a world with limited resources. We so often talk of how environmental sustainability is incompatible with right wing economics, but the same is true of the old left. Both were predicated on an ever growing pie, the argument being mainly about how it was divided up. Green thinking challenged the old left as well as the right to factor in the Earth.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Except that Keith and Sue and their team push controversial policies that alienate voters who would otherwise vote green: civil liberties for example. Where I live there is glass all along the roads and other vandalism (a concrete rubbish container tipped over yesterday morning. People know they can get away with it and the public don’t feel secure). It looks suspiciously like these unpopular left-wing policies are firmly entrenched and that as long as the Greens get over 5% it’s o.k as they can keep pushing their personal barrow. There are a lot of people concerned about the environment and how to get to a sustainable economy but the green- left have a ready made radical agenda.
October 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am
What do you mean by “their team”? The full membership of the party are the ones who’ve put Keith and Sue in Parliament. Sue is 3rd on the list, right after the co-leaders. You keep talking like some cabal has infiltrated an otherwise pure environmental party.
To state for the millionth time, the great majority of the Green Party believes environmental sustainability is *incompatible* with the right wing agenda on the economy, social justice and the environment itself. We think that those of you who believe you can take a few steps here and there and call it sustainability without changing your underlying assumptions are at best deceived and at worst practicing political greenwash.
I’m not complaining that you don’t agree. Its just frustrating that you somehow seem to think that if you just point out what you see as an obvious flaw in our logic, you’ll suddenly wake up the whole membership to some new reality. Is going over this ground every week is going to change anything? We’ve been discussing this for decades and have developed our principles accordingly. We are unlikely to rip them up and start over now. If you want a supposedly pure environmental party, you’ll have to go start one. Good luck.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Author: Valis
The full membership of the party are the ones who’ve put Keith and Sue in Parliament. Sue is 3rd on the list, right after the co-leaders. You keep talking like some cabal has infiltrated an otherwise pure environmental party.
…………………………
So when Nandor proposed that “The Greens are not a Left -Wing Party” he was wrong?
“To state for the millionth time, the great majority of the Green Party believes environmental sustainability is *incompatible* with the right wing agenda on the economy, social justice and the environment itself.”
Yet you do nothing about Nationals plans to increase immigration and in line with the wishes of the Property Council and you are encouraging of teenage pregnancy and (therefore) DPB dependancy and deprive us of our civil rights to feel safe in our own communities by constantly trying to knobble the police force. In addition you side with militant Moari taking the position that the treaty contained agreement over the relationship between tino rangitiratanga and kawangatanga rather than the (more perceptive) view that this was not a sincere agreement but an expediency (by agents on behalf of) in a difficult situation. Nevertheless you are keen to play the devils advocate… out of goodness and love and revolution.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
What percentage of the vote did Keith and Sue get?
October 11th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
jh - trying to read between your lines - you like the Green’s environment policies, but would like the party’s other policies to be popular. Do you mean those policies should be forged to satisfy the demands of the general public, rather than issuing from the Greens philosophical base? Populist policy making? Seems a curious ask, jh.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
greenfly,
the less votes we get as a party the less strength is behind that which the party holds dear, that includes both environmental and social concerns. This is Politics, one must make sacrifices; if we can just put the more controversal social policy on the back-burner then we can get a much higher vote and be more able to push environmental concerns and social concerns.
“We are each guilty of that which we do not do.” - that, or something along those lines was on an amnesty poster afew years back, I think it applies strongly to this party, by pushing the strongly non-populist policies we hurt the environmentalist cause. we could do so if there were a second party, but there isisnt.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“Do you mean those policies should be forged to satisfy the demands of the general public, rather than issuing from the Greens philosophical base? Populist policy making? Seems a curious ask, jh.”
No I mean Green policies are left -wing policies disguised as unintelligible waffle.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“So when Nandor proposed that “The Greens are not a Left -Wing Party” he was wrong?”
In your eyes, obviously so, jh. We don’t think he was wrong because we have a different definition of left-wing than you do.
“Yet you do nothing about Nationals plans to increase immigration and….”
Now you’ve change the topic. I don’t accept anything you’ve said there, but I’m well aware that you don’t agree with our politics and I can live with that. We’re not going to change our philosophy to suit you, so please would you move on as well. Winston is happy to have your vote and we won’t try to talk you out of it.
“What percentage of the vote did Keith and Sue get?”
Don’t know. Its STV, so not so easy to just talk of percentages anyway.
“the less votes we get as a party the less strength is behind that which the party holds dear, that includes both environmental and social concerns. This is Politics, one must make sacrifices; if we can just put the more controversal social policy on the back-burner then we can get a much higher vote and be more able to push environmental concerns and social concerns.”
Sapient, you’re still missing the point. There is no way to put aside our controversial policies, as just about all are controversial. Our environmental policies are deeply so in themselves and we believe lead naturally into the other areas of policy you so dislike. What you’re saying amounts to pretending we don’t have radical ideas so as to gain more votes. Not a likely strategy for us to follow.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
sapient - “if we can just put the more controversal… policy on the back-burner then we can get a much higher vote and be more able to push ….”
sounds like something from the National Party election manual. Are you suggesting the Greens ought to hide policy and foist it upon the public later? The fact that they don’t tells you a great deal about the integrity of the party.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Greenfly,
Not at all, my suggestion is that we dont push it hard, our consituency is primarily left leaning individuals whom recognize the concerns associated with environmental degridation, but we also have anarchists and libetarians quite strongly represented, and even the occasional righty. I think that we should focus primarily on green issues and on what we can do for the environment both when campeigning and when not in an election year, if a policy is not crucial and would cost us more than the benifit it would help us gain then we should hold off on campeigning on the matter. By all means, push the workers rights to an extent, the animal rights, opportunities for children and rehabilitations policy as these are not likley to hurt our vote; but issues like the s59 can obviously be spun massivly by the opposistion and can hurt us immensly because of that whilst there is negliable social benifit to be made. do a cost benifit analysis, dont get all self rightious all the time, this is politics, your not playing go fish anymore, your in with the big games and the big cash.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
sapient - well, yes, although I’d be concerned for the children who might get battered in the meantime, waiting for someone to do something about a loophole in the law that ought to be protecting them? How long can you hold off acting on something that you hold to be critical? Until you get x number of votes? Should we say nothing (big bro) about sow crates and battery farms because the voting public finds it distasteful to talk about those things and it’s not seen as ‘environmental’? Puzzle, puzzle.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
In the cases of things like sow crates you should facilitate discusion over the matter, and at any rate you could easily talk about sow crates and not loose votes as just because people find it distateful it isint extremlty controversal.
For s59 it was easy to manipulate it into a anti-smacking debate, which is extremly controversal and stood to loose alot of votes. Although we all know it was her aim to get rid of smacking that was not her stated goal, her stated goal could of easily been accheived, and much more productivly and less controversally so, by ensuring a better informed jury as the abuse was already leagal and although there was a flaw in the law due to loose wording the fault ultimatly lay at the feet of the judiciary. common law systems suck anyway.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
sapient - isn’t it usually the case that the Greens are flagging issues well before any other parties and that eventually
those issues become accepted practice for everyone? To tuck them away until they are popular doesn’t seem to be the way an innovative party like the Greens ought to work. They’ll always cause sparks but looking back, people will see the light of reason and forget the white heat of controversy. (apologies for the lyrical wax)
October 12th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
>>Yet you do nothing about Nationals plans to increase immigration and….”
Now you’ve change the topic. I don’t accept anything you’ve said there, but I’m well aware that you don’t agree with our politics and I can live with that. We’re not going to change our philosophy to suit you, so please would you move on as well. Winston is happy to have your vote and we won’t try to talk you out of it.
Ah! That reminds me: What exactly is the Party’s policy on immigration and population (growth/size you name it)? I can’t seem to find anything under policies….
October 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ooops, sorry… didn’t mean to include your comments, Valis. Just jh’s.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Greenfly,
If you have a cause that you think deserves to be considered the facilitate conversation around the matter and get people thinking about it, ge tthem educated rather than working just on the words of spin doctors and then it wont be so controversal and the party wont suffer, but to try and pass a bill that enfoces it before a large part of the population accually understands the matter is not only undemocratic but potentially very harmful for the vote.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
sapient - “undemocratic but potentially very harmful for the vote.”
agree with the latter (with emphasis on ‘potentially’, but not the former.)
October 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I think it was a specialist point of law and couldn’t be popularised any better than it was. The harpies that circle ceaselessly and unseen would pick it up no matter how it was framed (and I don’t mean the general public) just as they will with other issues from other parties.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
And I don’t know that s59 has meant a net loss of votes either. It is hard to say, but the upside is that a huge coalition formed around passage of the repeal with 60 organisations supporting it. Many of these hadn’t worked with the Greens before and appreciated the lengths to which we stood up for child victims of violence. So I reckon we gained votes too, particularly as most of those opposing the repeal would be unlikely to vote for us anyway I would think.
“Ah! That reminds me: What exactly is the Party’s policy on immigration and population (growth/size you name it)? I can’t seem to find anything under policies….”
kjuv, both of these policies are intended for release before the election.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:52 am
kjuv Says:
Ah! That reminds me: What exactly is the Party’s policy on immigration and population (growth/size you name it)? I can’t seem to find anything under policies….
………………………..
This is from policy net:
Rodney Hide
Welcome more good quality immigrants
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
Keith Locke
Provide all new immigrants with a copy of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in their preferred language
Create fairer and more transparent short-stay visa processes
Support freer movement of people between Samoa and New Zealand in consultation with Samoa
Progressively increase our refugee quota from 750 per year to 1000 per year
Ensure migrants are provided with assistance to obtain adequate housing and health services
Rt Hon Winston Peters
Drastically reduce the inflow of migrants
Review ‘family reunification’ policies across both the immigrant and refugee categories
Ensure that those with a serious criminal conviction from an overseas jurisdiction cannot be considered for refugee status
Ensure that any suspected terrorist held under the Immigration Act is unable to receive bail
All new immigrants will need to keep an unblemished record for five years before becoming eligible for citizenship
http://www.policy.net.nz/im.shtml
October 13th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Notice the Green Party focus is international (social justice implies we should use our land to alleviate problems overseas) whereas NZ First focus is on whether or no the locals benefit from more immigration (not just businessmen).
October 13th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Author: Valis
Comment:
And I don’t know that s59 has meant a net loss of votes either. It is hard to say, but the upside is that a huge coalition formed around passage of the repeal with 60 organisations supporting it. Many of these hadn’t worked with the Greens before and appreciated the lengths to which we stood up for child victims of violence. So I reckon we gained votes too, particularly as most of those opposing the repeal would be unlikely to vote for us anyway I would think.”
……………….
Have you got a reference to the 60 Organizations and do you still ignore the findings of the Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (rather inconvenient that, no?)
October 13th, 2008 at 7:05 am
I note Banardos funding is down.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:17 am
I notice you are still toting out “the Hollow Men” movie, but you haven’t noticed Don Brash’s endorsement of the “land supply restrictions” helped cause the housing price bubble argument, Nationals plans to increase immigration and the Property Councils Blueprint for the economy connection.
If a camel sneezed in Afghanistan you’d notice it.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Smacking study hits at claims of harm
By Simon Collins
Groundbreaking New Zealand research has refuted thousands of international studies which claim that smacking children makes them more likely to become aggressive and antisocial.
Thousands of international studies???
October 13th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Mr Newman said the property industry is struggling in the current economic climate because of the “perfect storm” created by credit crunch, recession and stockmarket crash. “There is just not enough cash around at the moment and that is putting pressure on everything especially the property sector. It is one of those industries that is a big employer and a lot of jobs are at stake. We need to be able to protect those jobs.”
As part of the push the property council have released a manifesto, A Roadmap for Reform, to help with lobbying support from the government. [ not available on line?]
The report highlights the significance of the property industry as a contributor to Hamilton City, the Waikato District, and the New Zealand economy.
Mr Newman said the council will approach Parliament with its concerns after failing to get local government bodies to make changes to legislation [eg height restrictions= shade] . “We have been talking with local governments for four years and what we have seen is that local governments are unwilling to make the changes.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/4722643a6415.html
October 13th, 2008 at 7:49 am
# greenfly Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Smacking study hits at claims of harm
By Simon Collins
Groundbreaking New Zealand research has refuted thousands of international studies which claim that smacking children makes them more likely to become aggressive and antisocial.
Thousands of international studies???
…………….
which didn’t look at mild smacking and weren’t nearly as extensive
I note you didn’t provide the link so we could read the whole article:
“Numerous overseas studies have shown that children who are physically punished are more likely to be aggressive and antisocial, have poor parent-child relationships and develop mental illnesses.
But the lead author of the physical punishment part of the Dunedin study, psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand.
Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
“Study members in the ’smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” she said.
“I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.
This story was found at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Otago Study Still World Leader 30 Years On
For the past three decades, every aspect of their health and development has been tracked — their physical growth, their psychological growth, how they negotiated the hurdles life throws up, why they sometimes failed to negotiate them, and what health problems they had. And those are just some of the measurements made.
http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/news/childhd.html
October 13th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Touche!
October 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Note the Childrens Commisioner claimed to have had a researcher do a meta analysis which she says concluded : “it is never ok to smack”….. You can fool some of the people some of the time,… etc… etc.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:51 am
jh - I’m not casting aspertions on the study - I just found the lead-in interesting. Thousands of international studies. If you’d like to read the article, copy and paste the intro into Google
October 13th, 2008 at 9:15 am
>>>immigration and population
Thanks for the info/link jh.
Sadly, it seems that NZF is the only party to be concerned about immigration numbers per se. I guess other parties (including the Greens) don’t want to ‘upset the apple cart’ by very likely having to ’stare down the barrel’ of an xenophobic label.
I would have hoped that for consistency the Green Party would have at least made a policy statement to the effect that it recognises a need to determine a population limit in view of its environmental and sustainabilty platform.
I am aware of the current wisdom that proclaims wealth will ensure a levelling out of the population. But I am also aware that mass immigration - say by way of enviromental refugees - could invalidate that rather dubious demographic theory.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:08 am
“Have you got a reference to the 60 Organizations”
For: http://barnardos.org.nz/AboutUs/Section59_SupportBill.asp
Against: http://barnardos.org.nz/AboutUs/Section59_OpposeBill.asp
” and do you still ignore the findings of the Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (rather inconvenient that, no?)”
Oh, did it say something supporting retention of the loophole that allowed people arrested for serious violence against children to get off?
October 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
That wasn’t the point of the legislation which was to ban smacking and essentially make people afraid to smack (send a message)…. I realise that goal is disputed but that is on the face of it Sue Brdafords goal.
I would add to the last list (on numbers and overwhelmingly) The People of New Zealand.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“That wasn’t the point of the legislation which was to ban smacking and essentially make people afraid to smack (send a message)…. I realise that goal is disputed but that is on the face of it Sue Brdafords goal.”
Clearly Sue doesn’t think smacking is a good thing and she is not alone. The bill hasn’t resulted in making criminals of parents as was hysterically predicted. The Crimes act talks about assault, not smacking, and the police have the same discretion they have always had in determining if an assult has occurred. Can’t see a problem that would justify the risk of giving back the loophole to violent offenders against children.
“I would add to the last list (on numbers and overwhelmingly) The People of New Zealand.”
Most of whom have been lied to about what the real issues in this matter are.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
It seems that today is the day that the Greens tell NZ that they are going to go with Labour.
Is this the most pointless news conference of the 2008 Election campaign?
The “criteria” was designed to ensure a Labour/Green alliance.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“The “criteria” was designed to ensure a Labour/Green alliance.”
Or if you actually think for a second or two, you’ll realise that the criteria are ones that the Greens have liked for a long time now. Not their fault National doesn’t fit with them now, is it.