Homework for Green candidates
April 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm by David FarrarTo help with the list ranking for the Green Party, all candidates are required to sit a test to see how good they are at spinning for the Greens. A helpful person has provided to me the “exercises” they were asked to do, and best of all the responses from all 42 candidates.
The exercises were commenting on the A1 vs A2 milk issue, and commenting on Auckland City Council’s draft annual plan. Interesting that they ask national politicians to interfere and comment on a local body’s plans.
So here are some of the responses:
Craig Carson:
One method to reduce the cost of water is to reduce consumption. There needs to be a system that ensures everyone has access to minimum requirements and charges rise as use rises.
Water Meters for everyone. An idea I support.
Kevin Hague though disagrees with water charges:
New Zealanders access to security of fresh , clean drinking water is a fundamental right, and it’s outrageous that ordinary kiwis are charged at all for this necessity of life. What’s next – a price for air?
And on the milk issue
Mikaere Curtis:
Scientists reviewing studies made have concluded that milk containing the A1 protein could be linked to type 1 diabetes and heart disease.
Wow that is dangerous territory to talk about scientists “have concluded” and to talk about a link (causative) rather than just possible correlation.
But that is mild compared to Virginia Horrocks:
It would be relatively easy to change the whole NZ herd to A2 within 10 years so why not go ahead now. Like the tobacco industry and the lead industry before them, the milk industry is risking NZs health for profits
Yes the “milk” industry is just like the tobacco industry.
Keith Locke joins the label them killers meme:
“We can’t have people die of heart attacks and diabetes just because the government won’t give a few million dollars to research A1 milk”.
Now I could carry on, but that is enough for today. Tomorrow we’ll do some more quotes. And once I get bored, I’ll post the pdf of all the 42 answers.
Related posts:
- Green candidates getting Green votes
- National candidates picking up Green voters
- Four more candidates
- Another Green ban
April 17th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Dirty old Greenies, eh? They’ll say anything that they think will further their cause.
I wonder if Our Hero Mr John Key spurs his crew on to ever greater and greater promotion of his party’s ideals? Wait, what exactly WERE those ideals again? I can’t for the life of me remember any… (Other than the tax cut)
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
How does this post square with your bleating about ‘email thieves’ last night?
[DPF: Perfectly. I even used the example of the Green Party leaks to me as the difference between a leak and a theft]
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
dpf said..
“..Yes the “milk” industry is just like the tobacco industry..”
um..!..yes..!
didn’t you see this news item from the other day..?
‘butter is poison”..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/you-know-that-butter-you-smear-on-toast-is-a-poisoneh/
most of us inhale the stuff..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The Green Party is never short of nutters, lunatics, and all sort of slightly deranged candidates.
I shudder at the thought of these people being kingmakers at the next election. But that’s democracy after all.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Common sense from a Green candidate – that’s his political career stuffed. Water is a precious resource – charging for excess use is a simple way of protecting it. I am all for charging for water over a certain allocation on a sliding scale.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I can’t wait to read all 42 answers.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
A helpful person has provided to me the “exercises” they were asked to do
Can you follow this up with another rant attacking Nicky Hagar? That’d be lovely.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
if it’s good enough for the goose as they say.
Vote:Clearly theft as a political act is a non crime now so why should David not publish internal green documents?
April 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Perhaps someone could explain how the herds are supposed to be changed from A1 to A2 within ten years? Genetic Engineering?
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Great the walls are coming down on the parasitic Utopian tree mugger greenly fools.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
lol “mugger”?
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Danyl
You may not have noticed but Heifers reproduce annually and most don’t live longer than 10 years – quite easy really.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Danyl
Second thought – whilst Labour may F**k everything in sight they produce practically nothing useful.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
these are TOO funny!
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
DPF – a bit hypocritical, no? But of course, since everyone from the left said the e-mails were OK, then criticising you now is hypocritical. That’s the fun thing about hypocrisy, calling someone hypocritical is often hypocritical. And when does it cease to be hypocritical? If you post that you now agree that Nicky Hager was entirely in the right, and since you have realigned your moral compass it is now fine for you to post “received” green party documents, would that be hypocritical? Conversely, if some of those on the left post saying “DPF was right, Nicky Hager was wrong”, then they would be entirely justified in criticising you for this?
Anyway, leaving the accusations aside, bloody funny. No real surprise – a party that has principles, and that stands FOR something, you would expect a reasonable amount of alignment. A party that is against wouldn’t need to be aligned – you can be AGAINST for lots of different reasons, and they all lead you to different legislative outcomes. This is what we see with the greens – they all hate capitalism, but for different reasons. Because they think it destroys the environment, because they are mad communists, because they are mad welfare beneficiaries, or just because they are mad. Sort of consistent, but when you start asking questions, it turns out it isn’t common at all.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Oh, PaulL, is it all right for people to be smeared as looney Christian fundamentalists, and anyone with “links” to them suffer electoral fallout, but the looniness of the Green mob needs to be kept carefully concealed from the voting public?
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I think the Greens have a point and maybe we should start charging for air. Hopefully most Greens won’t be able to afford it…
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
There seems to be this tendency in politics to make unfair comparisons to back up an illogical point. You highlight the tobacco and milk comparison – ridiculous yes. But what about Kevin Hague’s quip “what’s next, a price for air?”. Air and water are two completely different commodities, it costs to pump water to our households, but air is completely costless. Is it fair that those who use little water should pay for those who use a lot? A water meter ensures you pay for what you use – the beauty of user pays. That way we don’t have the poor subsidising the rich’s extensive water use. Just another example of the Labour governments great transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich (not that would change much with National).
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Kevin Hague though disagrees with water charges:
” New Zealanders access to security of fresh , clean drinking water is a fundamental right, and it’s outrageous that ordinary kiwis are charged at all for this necessity of life. What’s next – a price for air?”
There speaks a moron and a bludger.There is no such right as a “right to water”….not when other people must provide the means of delivery to you.Its certainly “right” for a person to seek to attain water….its required by us to live after all but not to be given it as of right….big difference. This parasite wants water provided to him without cost to himself….but at who’s expense?.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Right… they dont want to charge for the O2 we inhale just the CO2 we exhale. God , what a pathetic bunch.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I require food to live… should this be provided free of charge?
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
James asks:
Errrr ratepayers? At least that’s who I assume is still footing the bill in NZ. I agree it’s a ridiculous system – heavy users of water should pay more than those of us who use very little. But if water usage fees of some sort are to be introduced, I do hope I’ll hear those who support their introduction demanding the removal of the middle, completely superfluous, tier of “regional” government in NZ, which is already charging us for it,not to mention a host of other things which could be done by larger, merged local authorities without duplication of overheads.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
DAFT intends to test all its candidates before we make the list also. However this is for hygiene purposes only. Wouldn’t want to catch anything nasty now would we.
We will also be running a training camp in the Ureweras.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Personally I think it is a good thing that the Greens have a robust candidate selection process at least it means that their members are deciding on who gets placed where on the list not a favoured few horse trading in smoky back rooms.
DPF: Since you seem to have access to all the candidate selection materials would you care to share with us what your best pink for the greens list would be. It is actually quite fun trying to balance both issues awareness, experience, location, sex, age and ethnicity. I’m sure a POLs geek like you would relish in it…
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
freethinker:You may not have noticed but Heifers reproduce annually and most don’t live longer than 10 years – quite easy really.
Not that easy actually, unless you’re as ignorant as Woodford or the Greens. As one expert pointed out in the sunday star times changing over to A2 cows would actually be a lot of effort and should only be done if there is a real need. And there isn’t a need. Woodford’s book is nonsense and the A1 claim is scientific garbage. No great surprise that the greens have fallen for it therefore.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Of course everyone has a right to water, it’s an essential to life. What you don’t have a right to do is waste it when someone else pays to deliver it to your sink. We are lucky, here it falls from the sky, all you need is a bucket. Bring on water meters, and rainwater tanks.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
(or pollute it)
My local river is that ruined because the police keep finding young girl’s dead bodies in it.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
MikeE I hear PhilU is starting up a soup kitchen.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
D4, too sad for words.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
D4J – Put it away won’t you?
I agree that anyone who uses water above a designated “sustainable rate” should be charged for it (heavily).
Like Tuatara I don’t see anything wrong with the robust debate going on within the green party, and the healthy, democratic candidate selection process.
Certainly, when you look at this compared to the emails that show up in the hollow men the greens look like angels.
BTW David – why are you still going on about the “stolen” emails – aren’t you were one of the conspiracy theorists who say”Hager’s book is a work of fiction” – i.e. the sub-normals at “no minister.”
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Stupid greens, of course they want clean water and A2 milk, you know how they look after their health. Now where’s that bong got to?.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Would have to agree with roger nome and tuatara – the members get to vote, ‘s great!
I wish some people would mature-up about the decriminalisation issue, it’d be great too.
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Okay, let’s get real, rather than ridicule through rhetoric. The Greens run a democratic selection process for their list. Every member of 6 months standing gets the chance to vote on the list ranking. But less than 150 actually attend the campaign conference. So there has to be ways of giving ordinary Green members a chance to make an informed decision on the competence of prospective candidates to be MPs. This exercise was one of those ways of communicating to members at large how prospective candidates performed.
But, given that it was published on the member’s only section of the Green website, there was always going to be someone posing as a Green (it costs only $15 to join) who would leak it to try to embarrass the Greens. Actually, it embarrases only the other political parties, who do not subject their candidates to this sort of scrutiny and have undemocratic processes that result in their list ranking being controlled by their Party hierarchies, rather than the Party members, and lists that are ranked according to political patronage rather than competence.
Candidates were given 2 articles to read, plus a research report and a Press Release from Auckland City Council. They had 45 minutes to analyse these and complete the written exercises. They had to do this with no resources other than a pen and a piece of paper – no internet, no books, no library, no access to Green Party policy, no “phone a friend”, no “email a friend”. They were completely on their own – it wasn’t a test of ability to “spin”, but a test of ability to analyse and summarise, under pressure and without resources, key points in the context of Green Party policy that could be used in media or Parliamentary work.
Under that high level of pressure, of course there will be some silly answers. But I suspect if the likes of Bob Clarkson, Dave Hereora or Gordon Copeland had been required to complete a similar exercise, there would have been much sillier answers.
[DPF: Despite my having a bit of fun, I actually think the overall exercise is very commendable, and indeed it would be good for other parties to have a similiar exercise.]
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
d4j(erk-off) said..
“..My local river is that ruined because the police keep finding young girl’s dead bodies in it..”
probably the ‘sickest’ thing you’ve said..?
you mentally ill/sad/ fuck..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Rex Widerstrom said: …heavy users of water should pay more than those of us who use very little.
Funnily enough, progressive pricing for water is something that is supported by the Greens. Your rates pay for reasonable household usage – above that, pay through the nose!
As for the quote from Kevin Hague, the rest of his comment, that you chose not to publish DPF, said: “We in the Green Party recognise that fresh water is precious and agree that wasteful use needs to be eliminated but protecting resources has to be done with fairness, and there’s nothing fair about punishing the poor for drinking water.
Implication – charge heavily for wasteful usage, but fund reasonable usage through rates – Green Party policy. Kevin impressed me as a very competent candidate, and I am confident he will be a Green MP after the next election.
Vote:April 18th, 2008 at 12:25 am
toad: agree that is a good process. Agree that most parties would struggle if all their candidates were put to a similar test – particularly the two larger parties who have a few candidates who appear to be “making up the numbers”, or to have some skills that are invisible to the rest of us. National have a real risk this election with a lot of new MPs – some of them could be real duds.
On water charging, I disagree with setting a threshold and then paying through the nose above that. Different families have different needs, and charging tends to be per household. We have no children and no swimming pool, we use little water – we could water our lawn and still probably not hit that threshold. Others have 6 children. How do you balance that without creating a whole industry reviewing what is “reasonable” for a given household. Again, a classic for theory sounding good, policy less so.
I am much more in favour of charging the full price for all water – the price of treating and piping it, plus the externalities it creates (dams, less water flow, ugly pipes etc etc). If we are concerned that some households will find it difficult to afford water, then we should look at the subsidies we already give them – such as their benefit and/or low income tax rebates. These are already geared quite well to need – based on number of children and other factors. No point in recreating this bureaucracy. It also means that a poor family that didn’t need a lot of water can end up with extra cash in their pocket by having short showers, by not watering their lawn, or whatever else. In other words, the net cost ends up the same, but the discretion remains with the individual families rather than being held by some faceless bureaucrat.
This policy is also one most National supporters would agree with – and I always like to see areas of commonality between National and the Greens.
Vote:April 18th, 2008 at 8:44 am
freethinker, if you come back to this.
“You may not have noticed but Heifers reproduce annually and most don’t live longer than 10 years – quite easy really.”
Hehehe
Try having a look at Malthus and the theories behind elimination of the expression of dominant genes. A1 is from memory linked to a recessive so first you need high producing bulls carrying two resessives and they must be mated with cows carrying two recessives. Cull all others. Decimate the national herd, reduce productive capacity, potentially create other consequences as genes linked to the “desirable” ones start to express, research and reset all dairy production systems as compositional changes to the protein balance and type flow through, ….. and all in 10 years. Huh?
And why? no definitive link has been established as yet.
ignorant kneejerker!!!
Vote:April 18th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hey DPF, where’s today’s promised next installment of info on up and coming Green Party candidates? I want to read more!
Vote: