Greens have no plans for NZ
I have often thought the Greens are more a protest movement than a serious political party. They seem to have confirmed this as every issue they are highlighting is a global one being climate change, availability of oil and international ecological disasters.
All worthy issues arguably, but not ones that you need MPs in Parliament for. One could just donate to Greenpeace.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
January 15th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Don’t worry, they’ll be gone at the next election. And the media won’t even see it coming.
January 15th, 2005 at 11:52 am
One could say that ACT will be gone.
The Green movement is about more than just environmental causes, they are do have a very socially liberal agenda and believe strongly in social justice.
Greenpeace is a very different kettle of fish (or kettle of no fish)
January 15th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Yeah – whenever Greenpeace come up to on Queen St or in Albert Park with their clipboards and ask if I want to joing I just say “No thanks, I have a moral objection to multinational corporations”. It confuses the hell out of them.
January 15th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
It would be good if they were gone – what’s that 18th century quote, last applied to Chamberlain: – you’ve done all that you can, for the good of the country, in the name of God, go?
Sadly (for the nationh) apparantly there is a hard core of about 5% on the left who will always vote for the most left party whatever that may be. Unfortunately the same doesn’t exist on the right, probably because those people have more open minds or parhaps because they have a mind.
Which is further evidence that lefties are stupid, whereas non-lefties are clever.
January 15th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Which is further proof that posters such as reid have a hard time formulating a simple conclusion. 5% of all lefties promotes a conclusion about all lefties?
Let’s pretend that I’m reid for a second. reid can’t form a simple conclusion, therefore all right-wingers are Nazis.
Hmm.
January 15th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Yes Mellie, I formulated my conclusion not only on that 5% but on other evidence as well. I hope one day to do a PhD thesis on it. It kind of goes like this.
No-one but stupid people would design policies the way that lefties do.
When lefties implement their policies, the bad things that clever people predicted beforehand, actually happen.
Lefties however don’t notice this and instead seem to live in some fairyland where their policies would work, if only people and societies actually worked in the way that lefties thought they did.
However, the rest of us who struggle along in realityland, under the yoke of the lefty illusion, know they don’t work, can see they don’t work, and try desperately hard to explain this to the lefties, who don’t notice because they don’t live here.
The Greens are a bit like this, as can be clearly demonstrated from reading any one of Keith’s speeches.
Therefore, lefties, apparantly, are indeed stupid, and no amount of weeping or wailing can change the logic of the argument.
But you’re absoultely right Mellie, drawing such a conclusion from only that 5% aspect, was indeed drawing a long bow. I hope you feel better now that I’ve clarified the position.
January 15th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
If the Greens were for Social Justice they would advocate for the victims of crime.Instead their sympathy is usually with the perpetrators. They have abandoned their strong stand on Genetic Engineering the one plank on which (with reservations) I supported them. They now rank with United Future as lacking the courage of their convictions.
January 15th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
No-one but stupid people would design policies the way that righties do.
When righties implement their policies, the bad things that clever people predicted beforehand, actually happen.
Righties however don’t notice this and instead seem to live in some fairyland where their policies would work, if only people and societies actually worked in the way that righties thought they did.
However, the rest of us who struggle along in realityland, under the yoke of the righty illusion, know they don’t work, can see they don’t work, and try desperately hard to explain this to the righties, who don’t notice because they don’t live here.
Therefore, righties, apparently, are indeed stupid, and no amount of weeping or wailing can change the logic of the argument.
January 15th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Well spotted hix, it was indeed a fallacious argument. I withdraw and apologise (snigger).
Baxter, re: the GE aspect of the greens policy, I am in 2 minds about it, but one thing that greatly concerns me is the potential loss of scientists if we don’t let them play with their matches. That would be a major hit on the long-term viability of our agriculture. Do you have an opinion on that aspect?
January 15th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
It is very difficult for right wingers to be NAZIs, as it requires them to be both German nationalists and German socialists, so if they’re not German or german sympathisers then they cannot be labelled NAZIs.
January 15th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Considering that the Nazi’s arose on the Left and their policies were anti-capitalist and pro enviromentalist this may be a topic our Socialist friends may want to leave alone.The facts of history may cause them much embarassment!
January 16th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Hitler was a non-smoking environmentalist, so I hear…
January 16th, 2005 at 4:11 am
You do joke. Nazism transcends being classified as right or left in my opinion, and should just be lumped as evil, but Nazism grew out of and continued with corparate governance in partnership with government. It was business running the country.
This is quite removed from the Capitalist impulses of today, but it was a right-wing opinion back in those days. The Nazis smashed the German Unions apart, and that was where the dichotomy rested, between business and Unions.
It is not a valid argument to say that because Nazis were pro-environment (something I have never heard before, didn’t Hitler establish the most comprehensive network of motorways in the world?) therefore we should be anti-environment. Hitler was also pro-defence and pro-breathing air. Should we divest ourselves of any defense forces and stop breathing on that basis?
January 16th, 2005 at 4:12 am
You do joke. Nazism transcends being classified as right or left in my opinion, and should just be lumped as evil, but Nazism grew out of and continued with corparate governance in partnership with government. It was business running the country.
This is quite removed from the Capitalist impulses of today, but it was a right-wing opinion back in those days. The Nazis smashed the German Unions apart, and that was where the dichotomy rested, between business and Unions.
It is not a valid argument to say that because Nazis were pro-environment (something I have never heard before, didn’t Hitler establish the most comprehensive network of motorways in the world?) therefore we should be anti-environment. Hitler was also pro-defence and pro-breathing air. Should we divest ourselves of any defense forces and stop breathing on that basis?
January 16th, 2005 at 9:21 am
It’s interesting when the issue comes up, that the greatness of Hitler is never one of the facets considered. Don’t get me wrong, he was if not the worst then one of the top 3 worst human beings in history. However, someone said recently, that neither Churchill, Stalin or Roosevelt would have been anywhere near the figures they were, without that guy. And after consideration, I think they might be right. (I think Churchill saved us all from the abyss, BTW, in case anyone thinks I’m belittling that great man.)
I have studied WWII a lot over the years, and one of my personal interests is understanding the dynamics of Hitler’s ability to persuade and convince all around him even in the face of tremendous contrary evidence. I have always remembered a comment on one of the docos, where a German said that if Hitler had died just after the fall of France, he would have gone down as the greatest leader Germany ever had.
Now just in case you didn’t hear me, please read that second sentence again and again until you get it. I don’t wish to be flamed for saying something I’m not guilty of. And if you think I admire Hitler in any way, read it again. And if you still don’t get it, read my other post above about those who are a few clowns short of a circus, because it might apply to you.
January 16th, 2005 at 11:04 am
The notion that ‘Hitler was left-wing’ is my favourite bit of historical revisionism to have come out of right-wing rhetoric in the last couple of years. Never mind that He WAS backed by Germanies most powerful industries, his first priority as Chancellor WAS to imprison every left-wing politician in the country, he DID view bolshevism as the greatest evil facing Germany; he had the word socialist in the name of his party and that’s good enough for many of the right wing idiots out there.
I’m also curious to hear WHY whig thinks that the Greens are going to disappear in the next election – their support has been pretty consistent for some years now, and, barring some public relations disaster, things will probably stay this way. Pity the same can’t be said for ACT, and good riddence to United Future.
January 16th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Reid, you are right. Hitler was one of the greatest and most successfull leaders of the 20th century. He was also one of the most evil and disastrous leaders. His disaster followed his apparent success. Like you, I have a fascination with WWII and pre WWII politics. An intersting revelation for me was a throw away line from Churchill in a recent film called “The Gathering Storm.” Churchill said, while watching a pig munch apples “Look at Mr Hitler, he leads his nation but what am I doing? I’m a failure compared with him.” …or words to that effect. Obviously there was a bit of professional jelousy and competitive spirit.
January 16th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Adolf, it would be interesting to swap notes sometime perhaps.
Dim, why do lefties imagine that Hitler was a right-winger? Is it because the def of facism is using business to do the work of the state, and because of that association with business you imagine that makes him a right-winger? What about Stalin, was he a leftie, or a right-winger? I’m not being disingenuous, just curious to know, that’s all.
January 16th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
An excellent question Reid – superficially, I think you’d have to categorise Hitler as right wing, if only because his social views were extremely conservative, and Stalin as a left-winger because of his (I think) sincere belief in Marxism, both economically and ideologically.
But the question also illustrates how meaningless the categories of left-wing/right-wing are when discussing historical figures. Was Mobutu right wing? Augustus? Pericles? Was Buddha a liberal? Was Robespierre? The questions are meaningless because they apply to political beliefs that didn’t exist at the time.
Technically, Fascism is the exultation of the state over the individual – which doesn’t really describe Nazi Germany, where the emphasis was on race, but Fascism is also characterised by a partnership between big business and government. In a sense almost every modern industrialist state could be described as Fascist (Japan and the US esp).
However, Orwell provides my favourite contemporary definition of fascism: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”
January 16th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Reid…My main objection to GE is it’s irreversabilty as evidenced by the Great Mexican Corn Disaster. I am concerned mainly in regard to horticulture and the prospect of world production being controlled by Monsanto.As for the loss of Agricultural scientists I suspect that the attraction to them of NZ is its isolation and hitherto lack of genetically modified organisms which allows an ideal experimental environment. Otherwise they will go where the money is.I think the long term winners in horticulture at least will be those nations that resist GE
January 16th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
The Greens are likely to survive but they have lost their insurance of a seat in Coromandel. They are not liberal except on sex and drugs and crime. They believe in laws banning this and that or forcing people to do this or that especially in the economic sphere. Many of their concerns rely on voo-doo science and that is where they are quite vulnerable to attack.
January 17th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Hitler was left wing. He was a socialist, just a different sort. Lets not forget, that NAZI means National Socialist. And for those who wish to argue that North Korea calls itself a democracy and therefore the name of something doesnt need to reflect the reality of what it is, I ask you, how many Right Wing parties or countries pretend to be overtly socialist? Here is a good article for those confused about Hitlers political leanings.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
It is long, but very informative.
January 17th, 2005 at 10:55 am
‘Lets not forget, that NAZI means National Socialist . . . I ask you, how many Right Wing parties or countries pretend to be overtly socialist?’
Nice bit of circular logic there. And thanks for proving my previous points ridiculing the ‘Hitler was a Socialist’ myth in such spectacular fashion.
January 17th, 2005 at 11:36 am
It may come as a shock to you all, but there are actually a fair few social liberals left in new Zealand. Given that most parties are engaged in mindless populist attempts to outflank each other on the right, it’s not surprising that many of us wind up voting for the only party with a left-wing stance on social issues.
Hence I’ll be voting Green in the hope of a Green/Labour coalition – not because I support deindustrialisation, but because there isn’t another liberal/left party that is likely (sorry Alliance) to get MPs.
January 17th, 2005 at 11:40 am
It may come as a shock to you all, but there are actually a fair few social liberals left in new Zealand. Given that most parties are engaged in mindless populist attempts to outflank each other on the right, it’s not surprising that many of us wind up voting for the only party with a left-wing stance on social issues.
Hence I’ll be voting Green in the hope of a Green/Labour coalition – not because I support deindustrialisation, but because there isn’t another liberal/left party that is likely (sorry Alliance) to get MPs.
January 17th, 2005 at 11:52 am
That was a minor point but still valid. Why is it that socialist countries try to appear democratic, but no truly democratic countries try to appear socialist? Could it be that there is something inherently and morally right about western democracy?
Hitlers social views were right wing? He was an environmentalist, animal rights believer and anti religious. Exactly where do you get conservative from this?
If Orwell were alive today he may have said, “The word Neo-con has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”
The point Orwell was making was not anything to do with Fascism, rather that people had forgotten the true meaning of the Word Fascism. He was lamenting the incorrect use of the word to describe things which were most definitley NOT fascist, ie the US constitution or common law. The same can be said for “Conservative”, “Republican”, “Libertarian” and “Christian”.