Nandor slates Greens positioning
January 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am by David FarrarJust been sent a link to this column by a reader (who says they saw it on Whoar). It is by former Green MP Nandor Tanczos:
But then National is not an environmental party. It is the Green Party’s job to influence governments on the issues that count and why would National listen to them? The Greens made it very clear in the election campaign that they were not interested in talking to National.
I thought at the time that it was an extraordinarily stupid thing to do, to fasten your lifeboat to a sinking ship. Greens do best when there is an outgoing Labour Government, but this election the results were disappointing. The Green Party might well have won their biggest caucus yet, if they had been prepared to stop licking Labour’s hand.
There is a question of whether National would have paid any attention to them anyway. Senior National MPs were privately hinting so early last year and Mr Key’s approach to the Maori Party indicates a new openness. There was never a better time for the Greens to see if they could forge a new political space, genuinely independent of Labour and National. Unfortunately for us all, they lacked the courage to try.
Nandor is quite correct here. The Greens did throw away an opportunity to have any influence for the next term or two.
No-one (including me) thinks the Greens would ever choose to support a National-led Government over a Labour-led Government. Well, I suppose even that is not impossible – in Hamburg last year the Greens supported the CDU over SDP and are in coalition with them. But back to NZ.
The Greens could have said “Our preference is a coalition with a Labour-led Government but we would consider an abstention on supply and confidence agreement with a National-led Government if a Labour-led Government is not viable”.
If they had done that, then the Greens may have been able to negotiate a number of significant policy concessions. National had been quite careful not to rule out doing a deal with the Greens.
John Key showed with the Maori Party agreement, that he can think outside the square. I think he would have tried to negotiate a deal with the Greens in good faith, if they had not put all their eggs with Helen Clark and Labour.
Now the Greens face a bleak future. Their high polls turned into less then 7% on the day. Over four elections now they seem trapped in a zone of 5% to 7% and twice have been just over 5.0%. They only have to fall under that threshold once and they are all gone.
Related posts:
- Greens get hard
- Whoar says Nandor to resign
- Nandor retiring, but when?
- Green voters say Greens should accept a coalition with National
January 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people!!
Really, what we need is a green party that is actually green. The countries where the greens do best is where they stick to the brand – worrying mostly about environmental issues, and generally deferring to the larger coalition partner on social and economic issues. As soon as you include the hard left social policies you alienate any environmentally concerned voter base whom happen to lean to the right socially or economically.
My view is that a spell below the 5% threshold would refocus the minds of the senior members of the party about what they stand for and how they get elected. Ideally they’d do it without leaving parliament entirely, but that may be what is necessary in order to clean the dross off their list.
Even once they’ve done this, you still wouldn’t find me voting for them. But I know folks who would.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 11:48 am
DPF
The reader is a liar, nobody and I do mean NOBODY reads Whoar.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Cant happen soon enough for me. They might come back as the Values Party.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
“They only have to fall under that threshold once and they are all gone”
Be still my beating heart!
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
Blue and yellow make enough green for me
roll on Fitzsimmons retirement – yehaaa
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Their relationship with National is only a part of a larger problem.
The Greens in the Green Party have actually been rolled by the extreme left by a hostile takeover taking advantage of a naive constitution.
Had the Greens remained a true party for the Environmentalists I suspect they would have got about 15% of the vote.
There are plenty of greens among the National caucus but very few communists.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if after Resigning from the Greens Jeanette formed a new party called “Living Earth” or something. (trademark issues aside)
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Hardly a “bleak” future, but they could do much better. Maybe something will come of the new co-leader when Fitz goes? Meteira Turei should get her thinking cap on…
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’d say Rob Fewick would strongly object to that Owen
“Jeanette formed a new party” …….and both get under 5%
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Key was mad enough to give pigs a tour of his ship. But it seems he’s not crazy enough to let rats on as well.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The greens are NOT an “environmental” party, they are a socialist party who scaremonger about environmental issue and like to tell other people what to do. They always were and always will be bolted to their fellow socialists. I direct your attention to the propotion of their MP’s who are former communist party members: 100%
And who the hell told Nandor that the greens own the rights on environmental issues anyway?
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Nandor was one of the most astute MPs the Greens have had. It is a pity that the dreads stopped so many people of a certain generation from appreciating this!
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I would have voted for the Greens if they hadn’t tied themselves to Labour so much, but getting Labour out was too important to me…
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“one of the most astute MPs the Greens have had” As in one of the top 3 or 4? I think the Greens have had around 8 MPs in total, so Nandor is in the top 3 or 4 out of 8, and with some of them not putting up much competition. Talk about damning with faint praise!!
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Murray,
“I direct your attention to the propotion of their MP’s who are former communist party members: 100%”
Umm … Kevin Hague and Kennedy Graham were members of the communist party? Really??
[DPF: Only Locke, Bradford and Norman were or are communists, as far as I know]
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
It certainly is a predicament, and not entirely surprising.
Even I thought at the time at how ridiculous it was for them to go about pompously ruling out an agreement with the National Party, but then again – most of the Greens membership hate the Nats and I think it was more of a “keeping the electorate happy” than any political strategy.
This is interesting coming from Nandor though, for two reasons: first, it shows how honest he can be (post-Parliament); and two, how utterly limited his influence within the Greens actually is.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The issue can be summed up in two words: Russell Norman.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
His brand of Red-Green is what scares a lot of people away from them. But when it comes to environmental parties I would have preferred the Hunting and Fishing Party.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The people of a certain generation provided our nation with the most astute politicians of our time. It is a pity that some dread-locked people cannot apprieciate this.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Murray / AG
I don’t think Fitsimmons was part of the communist party either.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
she is now.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Co leaders: Russel Norman and Sue Bradford
The self-inflicted end can’t be far away….
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
And Metiria Turei was a member of some weird outfits in her time, but I can’t see her fitting into the Communist Party. It tends not to welcome folks with an interest in “anarcho-feminist performance” (whatever that is!)
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I was actually referring to the new co-leader that replaces Fitzsimons (will be a woman, sounds like Turei, but who knows), but I can see how you might’ve thought I was talking about Norman.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I bow to your more intimate knowledge of the greens, two of them are not former members of the communist party. The rest are.
Well they’ve got my vote.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Well observed, Ratbiter. While many Greens would have voted for a black US president if they could have, they refused to support a dreadlocked leader at home. Funny how biases work.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Murray,
“I bow to your more intimate knowledge of the greens, two of them are not former members of the communist party. The rest are.”
Well, when you make comments like “I direct your attention to the propotion of their MP’s who are former communist party members: 100%”, it might be useful to, you know, actually be correct. It gives your postings a certain air of credibility that otherwise is missing.
Maybe it would be appropriate for you to actually list all those Green MPs who’ve been members of the Communist Party, just in case readers suspect you are making shit up as you go along?
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
the greens are hijacked by the stickibeak socialists.
That, is why greens will never support national. They are not about green, they are about leftist anti-establishment policies.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Zippy – was Ratbiter talking about Green support for Nandor as co-leader? I didn’t immediately interpret that from his comment, but I was assuming that when he said “a certain generation” he was meaning those who were on the more elderly side of middle age. I don’t think that describes most Green supporters – so if we’re saying the problem was that Green supporters didn’t want a dread-locked leader…..surely that is a problem with generations X and Y, not with the aging baby boomers?
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Although I thought Nandor was an alright guy and even did some good while an MP, I could never quite get over the fact that as an MP he openly flouted the law of the land. Now he’s on a parliamentary pension, it looks like he’s changed his brand. Can anyone tell me what brand of cannibus doubles up as a truth drug?
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
If the Communists left the greens, who would the Communists vote for?
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“If the Communists left the greens, who would the Communists vote for?”
Err … the communists? (aka The Workers Party and the Residents Action Movement)
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
The communists have a bright future then. 5-7%
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Actually AG you walked right into it, you couldn;t help but confirm the very high proportion of communists in the green party.
I could have said it but its better coming from you.
Thanks for assist.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Those of you who think that Locke and Bradford are mad are in for a shock, Delehunty is so crazy that she makes them both look normal.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Ask any ex-MP – they aren’t in a party any more, no more collective responsibility to adhere to, no votes needed…maybe he’ll even write a book, who knows?
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Sure, Murray. Whatever. If you think readers will believe you are that clever, then feel free to playact all you want.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Murray, there is no parliamentary pension, or perks of any kind, for ex MPs first elected after 1996. Good job too – it was a rort IMO.
As for truth drugs, I don’t know what you mean. I think I was pretty straight up as an MP. In fact I was public about my views about the Greens relationship with Labour during the co leadership contest , as DPF will recall. I think he posted about it.
You may not have agreed with me much, but that is not the same thing . Some posters here seem to think that anyone with a different opinion is therefor evil or venal or lacks integrity. Sometimes people just think different from you – this doesn’t make them bad. Neither Fascists or Communists seem to understand this usually.
As for Communists in the Greens – sure there are a few. There is at least one ex National MP who has been an important activist as well. I personally have always been very hostile to communism – unlike most people on this board I lived for a time under a communist regime, and my father only narrowly escaped being killed by them.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
goodgod (936) Vote: 2 4 said January 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
“Key was mad enough to give pigs a tour of his ship. But it seems he’s not crazy enough to let rats on as well.
Real ‘intelligent’ comment that. Carl Chapman would be pleased.
Sad
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Nandor – big ups for your post and the original article. I think the points you are making are very valid for discussion. I have a number of friends/colleagues who are interested in improving the environment but have a more national leaning in there economics. By ruling out any willingness to talk to national (and it was obvious to the punter Greens had prechosen Labour), these people felt they had an option removed from them, making it easier for them to vote national. This is not to say they would not have voted national anyway in the final calculation, but it certainly stopeed and shifts at the margin.
Good luck for the future – people and the environment do matter.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
boo fuckin’ hoo.
Racists are pigs. Stick that on your “intelligent” list.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
nandor
Welcome, Can you enlighten us as to how on earth the Greens let the hard left hijack the party?.
I would love to have the option of voting Green, I care passionately about our rivers and lakes, I also care deeply about animal welfare but these things seem to have been placed on the back burner by the Green party in the rush to try and scare the world into Socialism/Communism as the only saviour of the climate change con.
People like Norman, Locke, Bradford and Delehunty do not seem to have a “real” Green bone in their body and make voting for the party impossible.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
If the Melons had said they could have worked with National and National had pulled back the bed sheets for them Act would have 3 or 4 more MP’s for parliament. It would be two ticks for Act for me and I suspect many others also would have jumped off the National ship. I have no time for the Melons, their polices are weak and were implemented without any thought of the consequences and if we were to bow to their every wish we would be living on our knees. One only has to look at David’s list of things the Melons wanted to ban. If the Melons want power they must stop telling everyone how to live their lives, the world is full of these tossers.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
For the Greens to go would certainly be of great benefit to our country.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Thanks WWHS, and Big Bruv for your welcome
I think you are being a little unkind though BB. Russel’s main issue since coming to Parliament has been water quality and trying to hold to account the biggest source of deteriorating water quality: pastoral farming. Keith has been mostly campaigning for peace and human rights – hardly a communist plot I would have thought.And I don’t think Catherine has even done her maiden speech yet has she? I suspect some of the objection is not to what they say so much as who they are. or in other terms, where they have been rather than where they are now.
Having said that, I think that the bulk of Green members preferred a more independent stance in the run up to the election, along the lines articulated by DPF above. That was also my preferred stance. I wouldn’t hold everyone on your list accountable for what actually happened.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Thanks WWHS, and Big Bruv for your welcome
I think you are being a little unkind though BB. Russel’s main issue since coming to Parliament has been water quality and trying to hold to account the biggest source of deteriorating water quality: pastoral farming. Keith has been mostly campaigning for peace and human rights – hardly a communist plot I would have thought.And I don’t think Catherine has even done her maiden speech yet has she? I suspect some of the objection is not to what they say so much as who they are. or in other terms, where they have been rather than where they are now.
Having said that, I think that the bulk of Green members, including some you consider ‘hard left’, preferred a more independent stance in the run up to the election, along the lines articulated by DPF above. That was also my preferred stance.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“Keith has been mostly campaigning for peace and human rights” pull the other one Nandor. Locke is campaigning against democratically elected western governments who may be involved in any conflict. I don’t see Locke organising protests against the Muslim suicide bombers in Pakistan that have killed over 2,000 innocent civilians in the past 8 months. I don’t hear Locke protesting at the Islamic states that sponsor them either. – not a peep. Funny that
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Nandor.
I was interested to read your post, and I thank you for clearing up some of the issues , I will not argue with you about Dr Normans determination to clean up our rivers and lakes, indeed it is probably the one area in which he and I agree.
You are right in some ways that many object to Locke, Bradford and Delehunty for what they have been in the past however to be fair you can hardly say they are leopards who have changed their spots can you.
You did allude to my main question in your last paragraph, I wonder if you would be good enough to elaborate on that a bit, I would love to know how the party has been hijacked and why they were so adamant that they would not leave the door ajar to see if they could work with the incoming govt.
From what I have read it seems that in many other countries the Green party can and has worked well with right of centre parties (Germany being a good example), I wonder why the NZ Greens seem so determined to be a party seemingly more interested in “social justice” than environmental issues.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Simple answer to Green woes. Sue Bradford, not to be approached without long tongs; Locke, who would import all our Muslim brothers tomorrow, and the sad/cute little Co-Leader chap who turned up in Parliament wearing his daddy’s sunday best suit. This plane was never going to fly with all this social crap and naivety onboard. And so it proved.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Nandor, like Big Bruv I too applaud anyone who has attempted to clean up our rivers and lakes.
Unlike Big Bruv I see daily the detrimental effects a small sector of NZ industry has on some waterways and the damage to my industry (NZ’s second earner) this does.
Unfortunately Nandor, experience has shown me that the only people actually doing something about this are liable to vote right of centre while people like Dr. Norman and his cohorts content themselves with telling other people what to do about it, notably also at the expense of those other people.
The New Zealand Green Party was formed just after the collapse of worldwide communism and became just another vehicle for those ex-communist party people (Locke, Bradford etc.) who had no real allegiance but just want to tell others what to do and how to live.
Locke of course is a proven liar.
Nandor the NZ Green Party cannot work with the right simply because it is the NZ Red Party in disguise.
A pity, most of us on the right would welcome a genuine green movement and party to assist us in our endeavours to save the planet by actions instead of instructions.
Vote:January 21st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire — whoops, I mean Nandos Puffin Stuff.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 am
I can’t help but feel Nandor was also slightly to blame for the green party’s lack of main-stream appeal. It is true that the communists in the greens made many of us uneasy, but so to did his insistance on pushing marajuana legalisation. Here lies the central problem to the greens: the vast majority of there high profile policy is “social reform” and “*ethical* foreign policy” rather than green policy. Moreover there was never much of a hint of business and economic understanding amongs the greens. The most obvious example of this was their policy list last election, which was nothing more than a list of spending promises with no explanation as to where the money would come from (and this at a time of economic stagnation no less). It seems to me the greens lack an understanding of one of the most basic concepts of green initiatives: that being green is a luxury that requires a degree of prosperity to indulge in. If a parent is given a choice between feeding there children and cleaning up the rivers, they will, without exception, choose to feed their children. This is evidenced throughout the world by the fact that enviromentalism is only really practiced in developed countries. Yet in the promotion of so-called green initiatives, the green party would seem to be stripping us of the capacity to be green.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 am
I think the Greens have marginalised themselves. It’s a good thing that they play no further part in the Government of New Zealand.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
Yeh dead right, paradigm. If the Greens drew a line between where we are now and how to get to where they tell us they want to go, in a way that dealt with reality, instead of merely voicing idealistic propositions, they might start getting more support.
As it is, their support mostly comes from (a) the young and (b) the segment that is both politically naive and fearful. That’s not a reliable political base.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 9:04 am Vote:
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Brian while I agree that the Green/Red lot have adopted the McGillicuddy policy of a great leap backwards I doubt the demise of the McGillicuddy Party and the rise of the Green/Red jokesters are connected.
The McGillicuddy Party crew were considerably more electable and had a reputation for integrity.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Paradigm, you are correct in the sense that people have to do what they have to do to get by. I remember watching a doco about some Haitian charcoal burners who were denuding the island of trees. One man was weeping,saying he knew that he was destroying his children’s future, but he had to feed them today.
The reality is that the economy is a subset of the environment.Increasingly the environment is not a luxury. Environmental degradation is becoming a significant cause of poverty, and with climate change that will become even more apparent. In China the degradation of waterways is beginning to impact on its use for agricultural irrigation and industrial purposes. That’s why NGOs concerned with poverty, like Oxfam, are increasingly campaigning on environmental issues.
It’s not a question, IMO, of choosing between economic activity and environment quality. Its more a question of having the right economic framework. For example, if farmers pay nothing for the use of water (not talking about costs of their infrastructure here, but the use of the resource), and if the social / environmental cost of their run-off is not a personal cost, then why would they ever look for ways of farming that reduce their impacts on water. Similarly, if they are exempt from a carbon charge, few will address their GHG emissions. Basic economics.
If we can’t meet human needs without destroying the planet, especially given a growing human population, we really are on a dead end street.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Paradigm,
“I can’t help but feel Nandor was also slightly to blame for the green party’s lack of main-stream appeal. It is true that the communists in the greens made many of us uneasy, but so to did his insistance on pushing marajuana legalisation.”
I assume the libertarians reading this will be leaping in to Nandor’s defence? After all, you can’t criticize the Green Party both for (a) trying to tell everyone what to do and (b) advocating the decriminalisation of marijuana. Or, rather, you can do so, just not honestly.
Nandor is also right in pointing out that many Green policies are actually all about promoting efficiency, in the sense of forcing business to actually absorb the true cost of their operations. Unless folks here are in favour of corporate welfare – you know, the taxpayer/public having to pay for the actions of others.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“you know, the taxpayer/public having to pay for the actions of others”
You mean the DPB?
It does make me laugh when you moan about corporate welfare AG, there are many of us who believe that almost all welfare is a recipe for disaster yet you seem to think that giving out our money to people for the purpose of breeding or to piss up against a wall is fine.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“yet you seem to think that giving out our money to people for the purpose of breeding or to piss up against a wall is fine.”
You base this claim on … what exactly? You may feel free to link to any post I have made where I say that, or anything even remotely similar. Go on. Put up or shut up.
As for your claim that “there are many of us who believe that almost all welfare is a recipe for disaster”, let me ask you about your views on a carbon tax, or similar forms of forcing business to pay for its polluting activities.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
A Carbon tax is bullshit, if you support that then you believe the global warming con.
Taxing polluters (farmers & industry) for the damage they do to our rivers and streams is fine with me.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“A Carbon tax is bullshit, if you support that then you believe the global warming con.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica
I’ll take my science from scientists, thanks, not you. Sorry.
Found that post yet? Or is there an apology on its way?
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
MT_Tinman said: “The McGillicuddy Party crew were considerably more electable” and yet… somehow, the Greens managed to foist 9 Mps on the country this election past, where the McGillicudy’s managed to get how many elected?! How serious is that!
Vote:Brian Smaller refers to “The Great Leap Backwards” in a way that implies that such a thing is somehow worse than the cringing, duplicitous backsliding that we are witnessing with the present Government. Strange days!
Big Bruv – don’t worry about the streams and rivers – our regional council follows the maxim that “dilution is the solution to pollution’! And if you believe that then you’ll swallow the ruse that the Waitaki is presently being flushed to get rid of Didymo
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Of course we’re on a dead end street.
Sooner or later the planet dies, that is a fact of life.
The only argument is when.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
AGW is a con.
There’s nothing like “little people” scared of change. Green party supporters are Luddites through and through.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi – the Luddites weren’t scared of change, they were sharp enough to realise that not all change is good. They were also very bold in their response to the certainty that people would lose their jobs – an admirable trait, I’d have thought. Your description of Green supporters sounds as though you think of them more as leprechauns than Luddites and we all know how lucky it is to have those wee green fellows around and conversely, how unlucky it is to irritate them
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“Green party supporters are Luddites through and through.”
I’d disagree with your analysis of this greenfly – OECD rank 22 kiwi (or Or2k … sounds like a computer virus, that) has got it arse backwards (not for the first time). The Luddites sought to preserve the status quo, by destroying technology that had the potential to vastly alter human life … they were basically anti-change. The Green party wants to restructure the economy, develop new technologies and reorient human values … it is profoundly pro-change. The real “Luddites” here are the business-as-usual crowd who think things like “AGW is a con” because they find the prospect of the world altering too threatening. They’d rather close their eyes, pull the blankets over their heads, and suck their thumbs than face reality with a clear eye and open mind. Comforts them, you see.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
AG said
Well I certainly think AG is a con.
So what do you do AG to stop man-made global warming? Do you dig and cultivate a garden to reduce the food miles of the veges you consume? Sit in the dark to reduce electricity consumption? Save your web browsing and blog commenting for work only so you are not burning yet more electricity at home? Read a book rather than watch TV? Ride a bike to work?
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Excellent! A chance to be holier-than-thou. Thanks, BS!
Do you dig and cultivate a garden to reduce the food miles of the veges you consume?: Yes, insofar as the climate allows.
Sit in the dark to reduce electricity consumption?: Installed low-wattage bulbs, solar hot-water, extra insulation.
Save your web browsing and blog commenting for work only so you are not burning yet more electricity at home? Obviously not!
Read a book rather than watch TV? Depends on what is on TV. But I don’t have a plasma/LCD!
Ride a bike to work? No. I walk.
You also missed out on reducing packaging waste as much as possible, buying second-hand wherever possible, and buying the most fuel-efficient car for my limited transport needs.
On the downside, the cloud of smug is a concern.
Vote:January 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
AG – I wrote “the Luddites weren’t scared of change” but meant “the Luddites weren’t scared of change”
Vote:They weren’t shrinking violets or ‘wets’, they took action. You’ve painted them as conservatives “The Luddites sought to preserve the status quo”, which I find funny as most greenslammers don’t usually portray the Greens in that way
These guys (Ludd and co.) didn’t roll over when the livelyhood destroying factoryfellas started rolling in the looms and pushing out the weavers.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Nandor says:
Yeh Nandor but then why is it the Greens only ever talk about environment quality and never about economic activity. The Greens talk as if they’d be really really pleased if we priced farming out of existence to stop their [in your perception] destructive activities.
I agree wholeheartedly about the population issue – this is a finite planet. So where are the Greens in dealing with population control esp in the most prolific segments = the poorest segments?
You see what I mean? It’s like the Greens pick and choose their policies based upon the evils they perceive but they never tackle the really hard questions like population control amongst the poorest. Why not?
By refusing to tackle the hardest issues with real-world thinking, the Greens consign themselves to operating on the margins, proposing impractical solutions to problems that if addressed using their solutions, would not achieve any real relief from the very problem they decry while at the same time unnecessarily inconveniencing millions for no real benefit.
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 am
Reid,
First, the destructiveness of pastoral farming is not my opinion. It is well established in numerous reports in NZ and overseas, including the one I cited already. See the recent Environment Waikato report for the latest example, although Fed Farmers was quick to try and deny the scientific evidence. Funny how people love science except when they don’t like what it says.
Two, the Greens do talk about economic issues. I’m not sure what you base your view on, but eg a pigovian taxation policy to internalise externalities has been well articulated on numerous occasions. Sorry if you were too busy to notice, but that’s hardly our fault.
Three, what do you propose we do about population? A Chinese style one child policy? That needs draconian enforcement to work and leads to infanticide when children are not the ‘right’ gender. As far as I understand, the best way to stabilise population is economic equity – people have less children when they achieve a certain level of material security, because large families are often a sort of superannuation insurance measure for the poor. That certainly was the case with Western Europe. Greens have lots of policy for that.
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 am
Nandor, you were too good for the greens, especially since a certain delahunty openly despises democracy – oops sorry democratheid.
Exercpt from State of the Pakeha Nation 07
“…But the past and present state of the majority of the Pakeha nation is one of denial. Denial that we even exist as a nation, which uses DEMOCRATHEID (apartheid by majority) in maintaining control of Aotearoa. DEMOCRATHEID is by no means a complete system or we would not be finding growing numbers of Pakeha supporting Te Tiriti events such as this one, but a powerful systemic injustice remains…”
see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00068.htm for full story
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 am
nandor tanczos said:
“As far as I understand, the best way to stabilise population is economic equity – people have less children when they achieve a certain level of material security, because large families are often a sort of superannuation insurance measure for the poor. That certainly was the case with Western Europe. Greens have lots of policy for that.”
Nandor, please try to avoid ill-defined and inappropriate terms such as equity; appropriate words might be capacity, development or security. I know the green party disapproves of these words however they are needed to correctly describe the topic.
When the citizens of a country have a certain level of wealth, that they are able to live comfortably and suffer low mortality rates; then and only then will the statistics reveal a lower birth rate. If everyone goes hungry or is stuck in abject poverty the situation is equitable (everyone is in the same boat), yet everyone is suffering and I strongly suspect the birth rate will remain high. They key point derived from your arguement about control of birth rates is to raise the standard of living of the third world. Now I suspect this is where your use of the word equity plays a roll. You would have us redistribute wealth from our developed countries to the third world in order to achieve this. This is, however, short sighted. We know the level of wealth needed to reduce population growth to the point it declines from international statistics: It is only at the levels of wealth the first world has now obtained that the population actually begins to declines. We therefore need to raise the level of wealth in the third world to approximately that in the first world. Obviously there is not enough wealth in the first world to achieve this. Thus one might ask, what can we do?
It is fitting you bring up the case of western europe. I would have you reflect on how western europe managed to develop. To put it simply it greatly increased its productive capacity during the industrial revolution. A new wealthy class, the “middle class emerged” . Note that there was no redistribution of wealth from the aristocracy to the masses to create this new class: the wealth of the middle class was created by increasing productive output: accessing and exploiting new resources, developing new technology and up-skilling the workforce. This is the only way a meaningful increase in the standard of living will be obtained.
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 am
Yes, I often think that when debating with AGW fanatics, Nandor. Everything in life is an equation, n’est pas? The Greens are way out on one end of the spectrum, seemingly ignoring the other end. Changing the economics for example of farming has enormous effects on the entire NZ economy. Where is the balanced view, objectively calculating the pros and the cons, of your policies in respect of that particular issue, or any other? Bringing in nebulous emotive concepts like ‘destruction of the planet’ doesn’t help your case, amongst those of us who think, neither does performing emotive acts like banging effigies heads into the sand.
Your party’s base isn’t built on logic and thought, it’s built on emotion, primarily, fear. Fear of change, fear of wealth creation, fear of the actions of those who don’t think like you do. That’s called paranoia, in my book.
The biggest mistake you make is what paradigm refers to above in his 3:31. You mistakenly believe that wealth creation is about grabbing more than your fair share of the cake rather than what it really is, growing the cake. If you could get over that, perhaps you might start moving your base into mainstream territory.
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Paradigm, fair point about the use of the term ‘equity’. I was referring to international equity, but it would have been clearer to say ‘raise the standard of living of people in poor nations’.
You are right, the real question is how we do that. I’m not sure you are correct that there was no redistribution of wealth from the aristocracy to the emerging industrialists and middle classes during and after the industrial revolution. However more important , as you say, was increased productive capacity. Technology played a huge part of course, which is why technology transfer to the poor countries and fairer trade rules are important for the above.
However lets not belittle the importance of the other ingredient you mention: access to new resources. It was the looting of the colonies, especially the theft of mineral and human resources, that provided the resource base of Western Europe’s economic development. Wealth ‘redistribution’ was a part of Europe’s economic development. I feel its time to repay the favour, if you like, in particular because of the apparent inability to uncouple economic growth from resource throughput. It appears as if the standard of living of people in the poor nations cannot come anywhere near ours within the resource limits of the planet.
Once again we come back to the basic issue – the economy is a subset of the environment.
btw Tinman, of course eventually the planet dies – I’m not debating the laws of thermodynamics. Houses eventually rot, but that doesn’t mean we should shit in the pantry and burn the furniture.
Vote: