Hosking on Greens

February 24th, 2009 at 8:11 am by David Farrar

Rob Hosking at NBR has a good column on the politics of the :

Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has become a sort of organically grown, carbon-credit-worthy grown fig leaf for what is basically a radical left-wing party, is leaving politics.

Fitzsimons herself, with her background in environmental science rather than radical politics, along with her public image of being everyone’s favourite great-auntie (and a palpable, and genuine decency) had become a front-woman for what is basically a radical Marxist party.

Strong language, but three of their senior MPs – Locke, Bradford and Norman are or were Marxists. And Turei, despite having worked as a lawyer, is definitely on the far left.

It has become something of a cliché to describe the Greens as water melons – green the outside and red on the inside. It’s a bit more complex than that.

Better to think of them as traffic lights – red one minute, green the next, and a sort of funny orange colour when Sue Kedgley accidentally eats a food additive.

Heh.

Fitzsimons has argued the Greens are not really left-wing because they “reject the model of the big all powerful state that makes all decisions for people, in favour of a community model that empowers.”

How does that sit with, say, Sue Kedgley’s calls to ban pretty much everything she does not think we should eat or drink?

I think you can make a case that the Greens are the most authoritarian party in Parliament, now NZ First have gone. They see the role of the state as to force New Zealanders to live their lives in a particular way.

And then Hosking looks at Turei:

Then there’s the two candidates vying to replace Fitzsimons. Metiria Turei, seen as the most likely successor, framed much of her maiden speech around an address by radical US academic Noam Chomsky, who said those of us in western democracies are “in a cage” and “we’re going to expand the floor [of the cage], meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow.

And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us. You have to protect the cage when it’s under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it….

“We too, in Aotearoa, live in a cage.”

Is this the cage that the Greens keep constructing, to ban things they do not approve of?

Tags: ,

145 Responses to “Hosking on Greens”

  1. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    As I have said previously, the green party in NZ is a political trojan horse, where environmental concerns are used to hide the introduction of Marxist and other far left ideals.

    Environmentalists looking for a voice have few other options insofar as representation is concerned. However, the national party does have a green oriented group within it. Hardcore greenies will tend to dismiss it out of hand, but perhaps the Blue-Greens can get a higher profile?

    Ironically, as far as environmental science is concerned, one of the most highly qualified MP’s is, as I understand it, Rodney Hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    I vote for Bradford.

    She could finish off this turkey the quickest.

    Minor question, isn’t the requiement to select a leader based on sex first rather than ability discrimination?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    I take back everything I said about Turei. She is qualified to co-lead the Greens. She is the Ying to balance Norman’s Ying.
    Apart from that, what politician wanting to lead the country can do without having been involved in “anarcho-feminist performance” (from her bio on the Greens website).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    an “anarcho-feminist performance”?

    is that a video art performance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    > I think you can make a case that the Greens are the most authoritarian party in Parliament,

    So Turei has gone from anarchist to authoritarian? She really can’t make up her mind what she believes in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “Is this the cage that the Greens keep constructing.””

    maybe it was the cage she used to dance in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. coventry (321 comments) says:

    Short phasing traffic lights, I like that.

    And Sue gets my vote, the sooner that happens, the sooner the green base of the greens gets up & leaves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Now, the nats if smart will be angling a green friendly minister to woo the useless commie leaning twats that are green voters before the next election by actually passing some contructive green policies (like labour didnt) and bury the greens for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Bryce Edwards (248 comments) says:

    While I agree with you that ‘you can make a case that the Greens are the most authoritarian party in Parliament’, this doesn’t necessarily make them any more or less left-wing. Authoritarianism is associated with all shades of political ideology: left, right, centre, etc.

    Also, I’d point out that the fact that some of the Green MPs once called themselves socialists, Marxists, communists or revolutionaries doesn’t necessarily mean a whole lot. In fact there’s actually there’s been a large number of Labour, National and Act MPs who fall into this category. And Locke, Bradford and Norman would definitely not describe their political ideologies in this way now.

    A sober reading of the recent political histories of these MPs show that they have pretty much made their peace with mainstream politics and jettisoned anything too radical. There’s certainly nothing ‘far left’ about Metira Turei either. ‘Maori nationalist’, maybe; ‘radical’, maybe. But again, her whole time in Parliament has shown her to be somewhat neutered in terms of radicalism.

    Just as the Labour Party and Greens love to run around like Chicken Little (as they did in the lead up to the 2008 election) denouncing the hidden extremism of John Key and its secret agenda (which never existed), the right in New Zealand do themselves no credit in basically doing the same in terms of the increasingly mild Greens.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz

    [DPF: I should clarify.. I don't think the policy programme of the Greens is extremism or marxism. But when a significant number of their MPs have come from a Marxist background, and they promote a "big state" view on almost every issue, it is relevant to point to the links to their background. There is an underlyign hostility (in my views) to markets and the private sector - well beyond what you get in Labour]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MT_Tinman (3,204 comments) says:

    A “green” movement as a lobby/pressure group outside of parliament is something most people see as necessary and important but any Green Party type outfit will always be out of step.

    More often than not those actually doing the environmentally friendly work (and paying for it) are those who tend to vote right-wing while those making noise about it while expecting others to both do the work and pay for it vote left.

    No political party can encompass both.

    The NZ Green Party has made no attempt to do so, simply becoming a front for failed communist types and others who prefer to force others to change to their way of thinking rather than offer compromise or simply set an example others may follow.

    I’m not one who thinks Fitzsimons is “a sort of organically grown, carbon-credit-worthy …. being everyone’s favourite great-auntie (and a palpable, and genuine decency) ” but consider that the only thing that will be missed about her is her fantastic “leadership” that has taken her party into political obscurity – long may it remain there.

    The only real memory her attempt (damned near successful) to burn down the Coromandel during a drought some years ago.

    The party certainly will remain in obscurity as long as Norman and/or any of the candidates being promoted are at the forefront of the outfit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Slightlyrightly said:
    “Ironically, as far as environmental science is concerned, one of the most highly qualified MP’s is, as I understand it, Rodney Hide.

    Comedic moment of the day Slightly. Big ups!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    whereas greenfly is just a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    an “anarcho-feminist performance”?

    is that a video art performance?

    God I hope not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    BTW Greenfly, Rodney Hide has a masters degree in Resource Management.

    What has Sue Bradford got?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Brian, it is a stomach churning thought.

    Sue has got a life time of dependency on government handouts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Grizz (244 comments) says:

    “What has Sue Bradford got?”

    A D minus for school C English

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    A sober reading of the recent political histories of these MPs show that they have pretty much made their peace with mainstream politics and jettisoned anything too radical.

    By declaring that they would never contemplate joining any government involving the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    “What has Sue Bradford got?”

    Scarier hair than Peter Dunne.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Peter “Lid” Dunne will be devastated he has been “out haired”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Hosking: …what is basically a radical Marxist party.

    What utter tripe. If you look at the Greens’ social and economic policies, you’ll see they are social democratic policies geared towards environmental sustainability. I doubt Hosking (or many of the Kiwiblog commenters) would know what a Marxist was if they fell over one.

    DFP: …three of their senior MPs – Locke, Bradford and Norman are or were Marxists.

    They “were” David, not “are”. You know better than that. And that was many years ago – about the same time Stephen Franks was a Marxist and Kevin Hague was a member of the National Party. Not sure if Kennedy Graham was actually a National member too, but he certainly comes from a blue background. Suppose that also makes the Greens a Tory party.

    Grizz: A D minus for school C English

    Actually, Sue Bradford has an MA and a Post-grad Diploma in Journalism.

    [DPF: Stephen was never a Marxist incidentially, but he certainly did swing from the left to the right. As I said to Bryce, having a third of your Caucus of former Marxists, and a general propensity to see no limit on what the role of state is, do have linkages]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Fricking boomers and experimenting with marxism. i never inhaled. yeah right.

    diploma in journnihlism! hah ah ah ahah

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Toad

    “What utter tripe. If you look at the Greens’ social and economic policies, you’ll see they are social democratic policies geared towards environmental sustainability. I doubt Hosking (or many of the Kiwiblog commenters) would know what a Marxist was if they fell over one.”

    Really?..Bradford left the alliance when it was clear it was going to implode, she leapt into the Green party as a vehicle of convenience, it is simply beyond belief that she changed her political views overnight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Fitzsimons and Donald were the ‘voter friendly’ face of the Greens.

    Now its Norman and Bradford/Turei …… does anyone really believe they can market that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    unaha-closp said: By declaring that they would never contemplate joining any government involving the National Party.

    They didn’t say they would never contemplate it. They said they would not contemplate it following the 2008 election. That decision was policy-based. If the Nats’ policies had been different (and in particular if the ones about gutting the Resource Management Act, building more roads at the expense of public transport, watering down the already weak Emissions trading Scheme, eroding workers’ rights through the fire@will.bill and undermining collective employment bargaining, and handing ACC over to foreign insurers had not be wheeled out) the decision would have been different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    toad – “blah blah blah marketing pr commie speak blah blah”

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. coventry (321 comments) says:

    “What has Sue Bradford got?”

    According to the Greens “BA & MA (Hons) – Chinese Language; History & Politics; DPB; Diploma of Journalism”

    Perhaps Sue could explain in 10000 words or less the effect of the melamine / sanlu saga on Fonterra and how it will in historical context put our exports back 20 years ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    big bruv said: Bradford left the alliance when it was clear it was going to implode

    You are making it up again bruv. Bradford was never a member of the Alliance. She left the New Labour Party and joined the Greens in 1990. However, she didn’t renew her Green membership while the Greens were part of the Alliance, rejoining the Greens in 1998 after they had made the decision to leave the Alliance, and was elected as a green MP in 1999. The Alliance didn’t implode until 2002.

    So you couldn’t be more wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    toad “I doubt Hosking (or many of the Kiwiblog commenters) would know what a Marxist was if they fell over one.”

    A Marxist reads the books of Karl Marx. An anti-Marxist understands them. – Ronald Reagan

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    toad – demonstrating an eye for the irrelevant trivia that marks a man for greatness in the greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    We freedom fighters must ensure the Greens never ever get anywhere near the levers of power. They are the enemy of those who wish to live their lives free from the shackles of STATE control

    Everyone of the Greens policies involve the STATE imposing its will on the citizens and punishing those who refuse to bend under the yoke of the STATE

    The Greens are the enemy of the people and we must never forget this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    >>They “were” David, not “are”. You know better than that. And that was many years ago – about the same time Stephen Franks was a Marxist and Kevin Hague was a member of the National Party. Not sure if Kennedy Graham was actually a National member too, but he certainly comes from a blue background. Suppose that also makes the Greens a Tory party.

    So lets hear them condemn Marxism they same way the condemn the National Party and in that case I may be convinced

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    “…enemy of the people…”

    Channeling Lenin now? heh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    emmess said: So lets hear them condemn Marxism they same way the condemn the National Party and in that case I may be convinced

    What’s the point? The only Marxist parties in New Zealand are tin-pot outfits like the Workers’ Party and RAM (those two got a grand total of 1397 votes across the whole country in last year’s election). I didn’t hear the National Party condemning them either – they are so insignificant that it is not worth the effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    The political failure of the Greens has always been fencing off the more conservative environmentalists from their party. An alliance with the likes of Bradford and Locke, has prevented the emergence of an environmental party that crosses a wide political spectrum. For that reason, their electoral agenda has never got off the ground. It’s dependent on the goodwill of Labour (ruthlessly taken advantage of when DoC got funding cuts and the Biodiversity Strategy left underfunded), and diminishes influence with conservative parties.

    Fwiw, Rodney Hide was (briefly) employed as a lecturer at Lincoln University and did some interesting research in the environmental field. I had it as required reading for my grad environmental paper when Peter Conway (CTU economist) did it- he was somewhat surprised to be reading some of Rodney’s work ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Toad

    “You are making it up again bruv. Bradford was never a member of the Alliance. She left the New Labour Party and joined the Greens in 1990. However, she didn’t renew her Green membership while the Greens were part of the Alliance, rejoining the Greens in 1998 after they had made the decision to leave the Alliance, and was elected as a green MP in 1999. The Alliance didn’t implode until 2002.”

    Thanks, you have just proved my point. Bradford has whored herself around (politically speaking of course) various parties until she found a party that she could use to get into parliament, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she has no interest at all in Green issues and despite your assertions she remains a Marxist first and foremost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    “Hosking: …what is basically a radical Marxist party.

    What utter tripe. If you look at the Greens’ social and economic policies, ”

    What utter bullshit, if you look at the Greens members you can’t fire a full belt from a C9 without taking out a dozen former communist party members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    To summarise some key points from the green’s website that toad links, the greens want to:

    Have government control over monetary policy.
    Constrain movement of money.
    Avoid free trade.
    Keep the tax system progressive.
    High minimum wages.
    Burden employers with increased Bureaucracy, under the guise of “codes of corporate responsibility”, “treaty obligations”, RMA, etc
    Apparently the greens will increase Bureaucracy so much that they see the need to create more government departments just to help people manage the new bureaucracy.

    Sounds pretty far left to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    A Marxist reads the books of Karl Marx. An anti-Marxist understands them. – Ronald Reagan

    That’s very clever. Was that in a speech or in an interview?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    bruv, you don’t understand the history. When Jim Anderton left the Labour Party and founded the NewLabour Party in 1989, there were a number of us who had been active in environmental and community-based politics who, for the first time, saw this as an opportunity to get representation in Parliament. So we joined up. Bradford was actually elected Vice-President at the NLP’s inaugural conference.

    However, Anderton proved to be an old-style authoritarian socialist – there were only two ways to do things with Jim – Jim’s way and the wrong way. For those of us who were more used to consensus-based decision-making, his style was pretty difficult to cope with, and some of us, Bradford included, left.

    The Values Party had existed more in spirit than reality throughout the 1980s, however a number of ex-Values and environmentally oriented people dcided to contest the 1989 election under a Green banner. This provided the impetus for the formation of the Green Party in May 1990. By that stage, some of us who had decided to leave the NLP because of its authoritarian leadership had been encouraged to become involved with the nascent Green Party and found greater affinity to its politics and ways of working than we had with the NLP. However, when the Greens went into the Alliance (which was probably a strategically sensible thing to do under FPP, having got 7% of the vote but won no electorates in the 1990 election), some, including Bradford, couldn’t stomach the thought of working under Anderton’s leadership again and drifted away. After the Greens decided to leave the Alliance, she rejoined, and was selected at No 4 on the Green Party’s 1999 list – the first MMP election it contested in its own right.

    Interestingly, it was that same authoritarian refusal to accept the democratic decisions of the Alliance that led to its eventual implosion in 2002 and to Anderton now leading a one-MP microparty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    “However, Anderton proved to be an old-style authoritarian socialist”

    Does this mean he frowned on smoking weed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bryce Edwards (248 comments) says:

    Toad’s analysis of Green-Alliance history is a bit slanted, but relatively correct.

    I’d also add in another interesting element. After leaving the NewLabour Party in 1990, Sue Bradford went on to become involved in the Green Party for a short period. Speaking about this period later in an interview, Bradford maintained that, ‘she found the Greens to be either ignorant of or hostile to worker and union issues. She describes two kinds of Green: hippie dropouts content to make pots, be creative and smoke dope; and those who are quite right wing, “who think it’s fine to send the unemployed out to work that is environmentally sound like cutting bush tracks” ‘ (Leget, 1993: p.68).

    So Bradford not only ‘couldn’t stomach the thought of working under Anderton’s leadership’, but also couldn’t stomach the Greens essentially middle-class orientation. She later obviously decided she could.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    paradigm said: Does this mean he frowned on smoking weed?

    He did (and does) seem to have the peculiar idea that keeping it criminalised is the best way to address the social and health issues associated with excessive usage – an approach which has demonstrably failed in practice but has provided plenty of cash for the gangs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Toad>The only Marxist parties in New Zealand are tin-pot outfits like the Workers’ Party and RAM (those two got a grand total of 1397 votes across the whole country in last year’s election).

    That means that, by your own definition, the Greens have several MPs who at one stage had views so extreme and “tin-pot” that only a tiny fraction of one percent of NZers agreed with them. That indicates that Green MPs are far from the political mainstream.

    But then I’m still amused that Turei has gone from an anarchist to an authoritarian. One minute she wants to smash the state. The next she wants the state to stop us eating potato chips and drinking cocacola

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Look, we need to be alerted about the whole lie that is environmentalism. The earth is not running out of resources and the sky is not falling. These things are myths and lies that serve a different agenda altogether, from the so-called “saving” of the planet.

    Every effort to honestly collate statistics on the earth’s resources and forest cover and air pollution and so on, has discovered that in the developed world, these things are improving, not declining. Development of an economy and the creation of wealth is good for the environment, not bad.

    But the honest efforts do not get any media coverage to speak of. Like the writings of Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, Steven Hayward, Patrick Moore and a whole lot more I could name.

    If you want to know more, I can link you to earlier postings I have made; the length of which cause protest, I suspect more from Greenies who are mortally afraid of the truth and people who have reading difficulties.

    Every movement that brought grief and calamity on humanity, communism, naziism, started as ideas. The fact that they were false ideas did not prevent their spread and did not prevent large numbers of people putting those ideas into practice regardless of the level of brutality necessary, so convinced of the truth of their lies were they. Environmentalist ideology is heading the same way; our young are being completely brainwashed with lies about “the environment” and what is good for it and what is bad for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Personally, of all the Marx brothers, I have always preferred Groucho to Karl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Both are better than Richard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    stephen God forbid that the Greens ever get their commie hands on the levers of power you will quickly find out that they are the enemy of the people.

    They will ban deny stop and punish ruthlessly to achieve their domination and command and control

    Think Bradfords totalatarian anti smacking legislation just a foretaste of what they will want to impose. They just cant help themselves

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Horse Feathers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Bryce, I think some of the people Sue Bradford was referring to in that quote went on to form the short-lived and inappropriately named Progressive Greens, didn’t they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    That’s awesome!

    gd @ 12:03pm just caricatured perfectly the Redbaiter/philbest/dad4/ et al take on the Green Party of New Zealand, so today I don’t have to.

    Thanks dude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    gd, I’m tempted to not engage on your last post, for fear of the thread being diverted to THAT topic, but it occurs to me that what you perceive as totalitarian might be seen as very libertarian and liberating from a kid’s point of view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. lofty (1,316 comments) says:

    Toad can rattle on all he/she likes, we know the state of the nation, and will not be led down the garden path.
    Bradford, Locke, Norman et al are communists to the core, end of story, say what you like they have hijacked the green party to gain the backdoor power they so desperately crave.
    I hope they pick that sad bullshitter bradford, if they do she will get the greens to their rightful place in the NZ political arena……….NOWHERE………………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. lofty (1,316 comments) says:

    By the way toad, you can’t bullshit a bullshitter, or con a conner, so take your tawdry wares somewhere else.
    Propaganda freak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “we know the state of the nation… Bradford, Locke, Norman et al are communists to the core, end of story, say what you like…”

    So lofty, you’re not one to let a fact-based discussion of a particular issue get in the way of your prejudices and McCarthyesque paranoia then?

    “…you can’t bullshit a bullshitter, or con a conner, so take your tawdry wares somewhere else.”

    Thought not.
    You should get to know Redbaiter; you two would get on great together ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. lofty (1,316 comments) says:

    I have to shoot off to work, but a quick soundbite for you rat.
    Like I said you can’t bullshit a bullshitter….take it or leave it, I have got yours and your communist mates number years ago.
    I have walked and talked that walk too, and then grew up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    (I was going to reply to that, but then I realised the argument hasn’t moved on at all since last time… )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Toad, Greenfly, Ratbiter; you have never once attempted to engage with the facts; all you do is smear the source of the information. Smear Julian Simon, a resource economist who knew his stuff and knew that the people of the world were being lied to. Smear Bjorn Lomborg, a member of Greenpeace and a statistician who set out to prove Julian Simon wrong, and ended up writing an expanded version of Julian Simon’s thesis. Smear Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace, who genuinely cares about the environment and is genuinely worried about what Green politics has become, with adverse unintended consequences for the environment and disastrous consequences for humanity.

    What is it about the mindset of people who are devoted to contemporary Green beliefs, that so few of them are prepared to let the facts alter their mindset?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    ‘You and your little DOG too!’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    3 cheers for Lofty, we need more of your type.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    Phil Best – that’s a bit rich, given some of your “Bah – we all know they’re just socialists” type comments!

    PS: and I’ll thank you for observing that I have never once smeared any of those names you mention, so you can keep those “all you lot ever do is xyx” comments to yourself!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    But Lofty, we shouldn’t walk away from these arguments because we’re “wasting our time”. The floating audience who visits these threads need to see the environmentalists taking a hammering in a fair and rational debate, which never happens in any “mainstream” medium.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “need to see the environmentalists taking a hammering in a fair and rational debate, which never happens in any “mainstream” medium.”

    Pretty rare around here too. The endgame is usually as rational as “F*ck off you watermelon socialists!!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    The smell of fear here is palpable! Kiwibloggers are terrified of the Greens and with good reason. They are unstoppable, well armed with policy, have powerful and fearless representatives (who else strikes such terror into the hardened hearts of Kblog regulars?) and switched-on supporters who can’t be suppressed or bullied into submission :-) It’s little wonder you quake at the very name GREEN You are right to fear Turei and/or Bradford. THEY’RE COMING TO GET YOU!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    The smell of fear here is palpable! Kiwibloggers are terrified of the Greens and with good reason. They are unstoppable, well armed with policy, have powerful and fearless representatives (who else strikes such terror into the hardened hearts of Kblog regulars?) and switched-on supporters who can’t be suppressed or bullied into submission It’s little wonder you quake at the very name GREEN You are right to fear Turei and/or Bradford. THEY’RE COMING TO GET YOU!

    Sheesh man, I’m at work. I’m not meant to be laughing.

    Nominate greenfly for comment of the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Heh, greenfly sounds like a boxing promoter..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Personally, of all the Marx brothers, I have always preferred Groucho to Karl.

    Hah! I passed a 2nd stage uni exam on Shakespeare (that I hadn’t prepared for very well) on the strength of a gag like that. (Well if they’re going to quote Marx on Timon of Athens, they were asking for it).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Bryce Edwards (248 comments) says:

    Toad – there’s possibly something true in what you say about the middle-class oriented Green Party members of 1990 (who Bradford objected to) drifting off to the now-defunct Progressive Greens – people like Steven Rainbow and Guy Salmond. Although in a funny way, hasn’t the modern Green Party now embraced that old Progressive Green approach? The distinguishing feature of the old Progressive Green was their advocacy of using market solutions for environmental problems.

    There was also another registered Green party in the early 1990s – the Green Society, no also defunct, but a bit more ‘spirtual’ than the mainstream Greens. So some of the people that Bradford objected to might have gone with them.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    toad on criminalising weed “the peculiar idea that keeping it criminalised is the best way to address the social and health issues associated with excessive usage – an approach which has demonstrably failed in practice”

    toad on criminalising smacking “what you perceive as totalitarian might be seen as very libertarian and liberating from a kid’s point of view.”

    So criminalising something that a few people abuse (weed) has “demonstrably failed in practice” but criminalising something that a few people abuse (physical disipline) will have a liberating effect? You don’t think that those who abuse will continue to abuse whether its criminal or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Stephen Franks (54 comments) says:

    As a student the usual syndrome, anti-Vietnam war, Labour canvasser etc, but Marxist never. Marxists were quaint, despite their menace, even then. I thought Warren Freer was pushing things in the visa letter he gave me for China in which my description was “progressive socialist”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Stephen Franks said: …anti-Vietnam war, Labour canvasser etc, but Marxist never.

    Sorry Stephen, I got that wrong. Lofty will no doubt say this is evidence of me bullshitting (he didn’t cite any evidence at all to back that assertion) but it was actually a genuine mistake of my (only occasionally, I hope) fallible memory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Hagues – the difference is that you use physical discipline on someone else. You don’t force anyone else to smoke weed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    I argued extraterrestrial assitance for William at Senlac hill and got an A- Llew.

    The guy I had a bet with pussied out and he didn’t claim Offas dike was a reference to his wife being bi.

    Fun with exams and I won a bottle of whiskey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    expat said: “Now, the nats if smart will be angling a green friendly minister”

    The Greens need have no fear. There is no one in the Natty ranks able to string two green thoughts together. Even if there were, Nat history on environmental issues is damning and there would be no way to shake the ‘destroyer’ mantle. It would be fun for the Greens though, if they tried. I nominate Gerry ‘Me and Coal are like this ‘ Brownlee for the role – Minister for the choke, choke, gasp, wheeze Environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Hagues said: ” You don’t think that those who abuse will continue to abuse whether its criminal or not?”
    Are you arguing that smacking is addictive, like ‘smack’?

    Do you think John Key, astride his white charger, will repeal Bradford’s bill? After all, he ‘responded to (a piddling amount of ) public pressure to delay the Copyright Bill. Yay!

    Bring Back the Smack Bring Back the Smack

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    expat! How about Rodney !!! for ‘green-friendly minister! If he could just shake that ‘climate change is a con’ tag…should be easy enough, just get Key’s spinners to give him a makeover and he’s in!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Point of order Mr Farrar, three consecutive nappy wetting comments from one of the green partys subsidized hack/troll is comment spamming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    toad “Hagues – the difference is that you use physical discipline on someone else. You don’t force anyone else to smoke weed.”

    Yes but the physical disipline you use on some one else is for their benefit. And of course there is a social cost when people use drugs.

    greenfly “Do you think John Key, astride his white charger, will repeal Bradford’s bill? After all, he ‘responded to (a piddling amount of ) public pressure to delay the Copyright Bill.”

    I presume that he will wait until after the referrendum before he decides. However I don’t hold out much hope that he will since he played the “compromise card” on the bill. Backing down will be akin to admitting he was wrong to support it, even with his compromise. BTW Key’s support on this bill was one of the reasons I didn’t vote for him/National (the others been that Rodders is by far the best MP in the land and Act’s policies are the best!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Wait a minute.

    Are the Greens soft on crime? Or do they want to ban and punish brutally?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Or are they soft on crime NOW, but would ban and punish brutally if they got in power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Murray – “one of the green partys subsidized hack/troll” Yes! And they pay me in beans (mung)! I’ve earned enough now to trade for my very own spun-hemp kaftan to wear while I’m trolling!

    Hagues – but surely he knows 95% of sensible New Zealanders want to bring back the smack ! Why does he need to wait for another confirmation of the obvious? (Cause he’s bullsh*tting, that’s why)

    Ryan Sproull – yes :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Ryan – that’s Yes to your 3:22 :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Wait a minute.

    Are the Greens soft on crime? Or do they want to ban and punish brutally?

    Yes and yes

    Basic Marxism – make everything illegal and then punish according to “class” guilt.

    Murderers, rapists, thieves end up a little better off (mostly because the police are busy elsewhere) and corrupt party officials have virtual immunity. However were a reactionary bourgeosie child to be caught hoarding jellybeans in violation of the Healthy Education Act then their whole family is going away (on a outdoorsie camp experience).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Greenfly:

    “….Nat history on environmental issues is damning and there would be no way to shake the ‘destroyer’ mantle….”

    Oh, so there is some administration in NZ that has done a “good job” of the environment?

    Do you realise that there is a direct correlation between a nation’s environmental indicators, and its economic efficiency? Do you realise that NZ is well behind Europe and the USA for precisely that reason?

    If the Nats were any good at political warfare, they’d be able to destroy you Greens, with your connections to economy-strangling policies that would, on past observations in the real world, result in worse environmental outcomes, not better ones. Not to mention the effects on people’s livelihoods. Obstructing businesses and development right now, with a recession hitting and people losing their jobs, is not smart politics. Again, the Nats are pretty much asleep at their posts on all this stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    It might be relevant to point out that the species recovery plan for the wetapunga was agreed to in 1998, when we had a National Minister for Conservation.

    The captive breeding of the species- agreed to in 1998- is about to occur in 2009. Again when we have a National minister for conservation. This is something that neither the Alliance (Sandra Lee), Chris Carter or Steve Chadwick got around to initiating. But hey, when you can take the Green vote for granted, why bother doing anything concrete for endangered species.

    A little less polemics and a little more bridge-building with environmentalists of different stripes and colours is probably a better strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Bok (740 comments) says:

    I must have fallen over and bumped my head. Woke up in a place where people talks as if the greens have any relevance at all. What?
    They were too stupid to get along with the Nats and have some input, and as far as conservation goes they are basically up there with the Chinese rulers. And you halfwits are still suggesting that “they are coming and the right wingers are scared?” And here I was about to embark on an around the world trip. I would have fallen right off the side. Whew!

    Toad and greenfly, your compadres here in Australia are in for a very rough ride. The vast damage of the bush fires has been firmly sheeted to the greenie movement and by god they have screwed up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    The Chinese in fact, have brought the Chinese alligator back from the brink of extinction, have increased the population of the Amur tiger, are attempting one of the most innovative restoration projects for the S China tiger and have improved the status of numerous wetland birds and ungulates.

    The Greens in NZ have aquiesed to a conservation programme for endangered wildlife that is inadequate, imperils many species, relishing their role as Labour Party playthings instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Hagues said: …the physical disipline you use on some one else is for their benefit…

    Your opinion. Not mine. As someone who was brutally bashed with switches off plum trees, leather belts and wooden spoons as a kid, I fail to see how I benefited from it. It was a parent out of control. Please don’t confuse opinion with fact.

    Bok said: The vast damage of the bush fires has been firmly sheeted to the greenie movement…

    What utter crap! The vast majority of the damage caused by bush fires has been caused by arsonists, carelessness, and eucalypt trees that emit highly flammable eucalyptus oil vapour into the atmosphere on hot days being a dominant species in southern Australia’s natural ecosystems. The latter factor caused Australian bush fires long before human habitation, and probably will continue to do so long after the environmentally unsustainable practices of Australian industry and agriculture make most of that country uninhabitable by humans. Um, actually, most of it almost is already, come to think of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. centreforward (32 comments) says:

    Jeanette Fitzsimons was a real gentlewoman of New Zealand politics. I think most political commentators have badly underestimated the damaging impact her departure will have on the greens. With more strident, politically correct Mps taking over Green leadership the Greens could struggle to make the 5% threshold in 2011.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Bok opined: ‘ I must have fallen over and bumped my head.”
    Yes Bok, I think you did. You are showing the signs of full-blown delusional thinking. Go lie down and get a grip.
    While you are supine, try to think outside of your constricted world, where greenies are baddies . When you have recovered, come and have a reasoned discussion on green issues ( like the management of the Australian bush ). Best of luck.
    Hagues – what Toad said.
    PhilBest – there has been no administration yet that comes anywhere near what I think is necessary to manage our environment, but the Greens are waaay ahead of anyone else in the running. Waaaaaaay ahead. I’ve never held Labour up as a shining example, but they are at least a glimmer ahead of these NActs. All pale beside the Greens though, despite the dull witted examples cited here ad nauseum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Chthoniid – hmmmm, the Chinese and their now extinct freshwater dolphin eh? Our little Maui is next on the list to go and which party did the work on protecting those little dolphins, do you think? The Greens (Metiria Turei, as I remember it)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    toad “Hagues said: …the physical disipline you use on some one else is for their benefit…

    Your opinion. Not mine. As someone who was brutally bashed with switches off plum trees, leather belts and wooden spoons as a kid, I fail to see how I benefited from it. It was a parent out of control. Please don’t confuse opinion with fact.”

    I’m sorry to hear of your unfortunate experience. However clearly in the context I was talking about physical discipline that was not used in excess (remember it was compared to criminalising all weeders just because some used to excess). If someone is “brutally bashed” then this is not physical discipline, it is abuse (even if your out of control parent thought otherwise). It remains that you cannot reconcile the opinions that weed should not be criminalised just because there are a few who use it to excess with the desire to criminalise all forms of physical discipline just because some use it to excess (ie. abuse children, not physically discipline them).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Could be wrong – but I think the stranded has been hacked

    I popped over to the stranded to look at the views around Auntie Helen and got attacked right royally (unless it has a right of left detector) – all sorts of trojans, rootkits and downloaders hit me – It seems quite a comprehensive attack so don’t go there unless you have good protection.

    No – it’s not a joke – I would make it funnier if it was.

    Oops meant to put this in general debate – sorry

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Good point Hagues. It will be interesting to see what a toad does when it is backed into a corner.

    Given the Leftness of the animal expect it to come out attacking. Expect to be told that you must hate and want to bash children because you support smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Toad
    Please put your brain in gear before you say others is talking crap. 4 independent enquiries here have all blamed the green led move against fuel removal as the main reason the fires were so hard to contain. It amazes me that you have such a shallow regard for the suffering over here, that your blind belief in a flawed approach to conservation over rides the ability to read and listen to what the experts says. Yes you prat, the fires were started by arsonists in some cases, yes you bigger prat, Australia has always had bush fires. And that is why I call you a prat. This was so much worse then ever because green led policies to stop fuel removal. Aussies are pretty adapt at battling bush fires and reading the danger, this time the rules changed. For crying out loud man people died because of stupid environmental decisions and as far back as June of last year fire chiefs had warned of the danger, and today another warning has been issued by experts not some wannabe planet saver in NZ. Usually you speak with the voice of reason. This time you are just another green “fundamentalist environmentalist” that just makes shit up to feel smart. The funny thing is most people in the green movement has done more damage to the enviroment than just about almost any-one else.

    Chntild yes i admit I was harsh on the chinese leadership, their record is far better than most green movements, even hough they have burned and destroyed immense habitat to build dams cities and mines

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    The Yangtse river dolphin- baiji- is what you are thinking of. There was a fairly determined campaign to save it however, at least by a number of scientific organisations and the Chinese government. Oh, and Budweiser but not Greenpeace ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Fitzsimmons resignation will signal the death knell of the Greens. Their almost inexorable rise under Donald stalled after his death. I worked with Donald briefly whilst doing some work with some Labour activist friends who were big noises in the Electoral Reform Coalition. I found Donald to be a charming relatively pragmatic environmentalist – whilst there was little I agreed wtih him about politically, he was an enormously engaging and energetic man who did much to create an electable environmental party. Jeanette was a perfect co-leader; the lovable aunty type who, as David has said, put a warm and moderate face to what has become a collective of far left radicals. One only needs to listen to Delahanty’s maiden speech to know how off the charts these people are.

    For PC correctness’ sake, only women (sorry womin) can be considered and the two leading contenders don’t even come within a bulls roar of Fitzsimmons electoral appeal. Of the two, Turei has the better chance of trying to present a moderate face. But Turei is in the wrong party as the issues that really yank her chain are Maori Party staples. There is plenty of file footage and speech transcripts that paint her as barely less radical and left leaning than avowed Marxist Bradford.

    Labour will co-opt some of the Greens policies and the loss of moderate middle class Green support (that felt safe enough voting Green when Donald and Fitzsimmons were in charge) to Labour will be enough to dip support below the 5% threshold. This resignation is a wonderful gift to the centre-right. With no effective moderate voice to challenge their left wing nuttiness, the Greens true ideological colours will not be able to be nearly as well hidden and they will go the way of all extremist parties – into electoral oblivion. So no greenfly – nothing whatsoever to be afraid of here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Our little Maui is next on the list to go and which party did the work on protecting those little dolphins, do you think? The Greens (Metiria Turei, as I remember it)

    Shrug, so long as a ban of something is involved, the Greens always can be relied upon to support it Greenfly. If a ban isn’t involved (e.g. catasrophic declines in Leiopelmad frogs, near extinction of wetapunga) there’s barely a whiff of interest.

    I also recall determined efforts by NGO’s with large constituencies and various scientists backing more vigorous conservation measures- right up to the international level. I suspect infact, that F&B has had more direct impact on conservation policy than the Greens to date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Bok said: It amazes me that you have such a shallow regard for the suffering over here…

    Yeah, exploit a humanitarian tragedy to advance your own severely retarded political views Bok. Shame on you!

    People died because they lived where the risks are high. Just as people died in New Orleans (hurricane), Galle (tsunami) etc.

    We should adapt our behaviour according to the environmental conditions we face, not attempt to adapt the environmental conditions (usually with unexpected and adverse consequences) to what we perceive we need in the short term.

    Our planet’s climate, tectonics and geology are stronger than the will and technology of humanity, and until we realise that, tragedies like these will continue to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Chthoniid
    About 4 or 5 years ago a number of us started a public campaign using VHS radios , the media etc against Doc(Department of Conservation). At this stage the greens and Labour were firmly running that department. We had to stop them doing something so horrendous and stupid, that I bet you could never guess what it was.

    So i’ll tell you.

    Just on the other side of Great Barrier lies Rakitu Island. Or most know it as Arid Island. It used to be a private island used as a farm, but the farmer eventually gifted (yes the rich prick gifted) it to the people of NZ. And while he was still farming the island he did something really bad. He released birds on the island. Yep non indigenous to the island, flightless birds.

    Th Doc campaign was to eradicate these interloper. Yep they were going to save the island and put it back to it’s original state. The bird? Oh nasty they were! Gallirallus australis. Yep nasty hey. Bloody Weka!

    Their reasoning, these birds were a totally different bird to the mainland weka, because they were introduced and had since through breeding changed. In less than 100 years?

    So what we did was to ask if we can then go and kill the Takahe on Tirirtiri Matangi or the Kiwi on Little Barrier, Doc introduced and release those there, so surely the same logic would apply. or how about a Tuatara hunt on Stephens.

    They backed down, but it was not because of the green movement or “conservationists” it was because of fisherman and boaties who use the Barrier and who wants to protect it as the beautiful place it is. You know those nasty rich pricks with their game boats and yachts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Bok (740 comments) says:

    And then toad proves my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. BR (81 comments) says:

    “The smell of fear here is palpable! Kiwibloggers are terrified of the Greens and with good reason. They are unstoppable, well armed with policy, have powerful and fearless representatives (who else strikes such terror blah blah blah….)”

    Replace “Green” with “Islamist” and you might be onto something.

    Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    kiwi in america: All I can say is stay in America! Maybe you won’t, because your hero Dubya has departed, as he deserved, with a rating as the poorest performed President in US history – do you realise how unpopular your views are now in your adopted country?

    Meanwhile, President Obama is promoting a Green New Deal (which the Greens here have some reservations about, but at least it is a start). And he’s shutting down the human rights travesty of Gitmo.

    Hope that’s not enough to make you come running home to Gerry (Sexy Coal) Brownlee!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Bok said: And then toad proves my point.

    What point is that? We seem to be talking past each other Bok. Different paradigm perhaps, but mine is more evidence-based than yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Tauhei Notts (1,724 comments) says:

    Toad’s comments reminded me that I had read somewhere that over exuberant physical disciplining of children can stunt the child’s intellectual development.
    My heart felt sympathy to you, Toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    And he’s shutting down the human rights travesty of Gitmo.

    And making sure that all new detainees are kept in Bagram, Afganhistan where they are not subject to US law. Your Goofy-eared Hero is not the great liberator of terrorists after all. All in all, most detainees would rather be in Gitmo eating three squares a day than Bagram. Leaving Gitmo means a plane to freedom, a new bomb vest and 72 virgins. Leaving Bagram will mean being handed over to Afghan National Army or Security Police, which will mean bullet in the head. Got to love that Obama.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Yeah Brian – I have major problems with that too. The bit in parentheses about my reservations should have come after the reference to Gitmo.

    Hopefully international political pressure will come to bear, and all illegal detention camps and torture will be phased out by Obama – join the campaign mate!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “all illegal detention camps and torture will be phased out by Obama”

    yeah – until he gets a 9/11 whilst president

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    No thanks toad – I would just have not taken prisoners. The other side doesn’t. Except so that they can beat them, cut their genitals off, behead or shoot them and then mutilate their corpses – and put it on YouTube so jihadi loving leftists can have something to perv at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller said: The other side doesn’t. Except so that they can beat them, cut their genitals off, behead or shoot them and then mutilate their corpses

    They sometimes do, Brian. And those from the “other side” who do so should be arrested, given a fair trial, and if found guilty, sentenced to life imprisonment without parole – but not subjected to summary detention and torture.

    And if they violently resist arrest, then reasonable force, including the potentially lethal use of firearms, may be justified.

    But a “take no prisoners” or systematic torture policy is an obscene human rights violation – whichever side of a war or conflict you are on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    DoC has never been very consistent Bok, partly a result of who you’ve got working as the species manager and who the local guys are. Some are pretty good to work with…and some are not.

    The purity of subpopulations is something where DoC gets unpredictable. Successful breeding pairs of kiwi were broken up when it was decided that Northland, Taranaki and BOP birds were ‘different’ NI brown. This despite the genetic difference being undetectable and as John Craig (Auckland U) pointing out, in pre-European times the forest cover over these regions was practically contiguous. They interbred naturally.

    As an aside, more area is now intensively managed for kiwi conservation by private parties now, than DoC.

    Conversely, with kakapo Paul Jansen just went for broke, mixing birds from all over the place just to get successful breeding pairs. He doesn’t work for DoC anymore (did help inform National’s conservation policy fwiw).

    Weka are somewhat interesting as they were introduced to the Chatham Islands and are subject to (shh, don’t tell anyone) an annual hunt. Which seems to work very well at controlling their boom-bust population cycle.

    (PS wouldn’t mind a chat over a beer or coffee over your experience sometime also.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    I need some clarification here. I read that the one family in the area of the fires that saved their home did so by (wisely) clearing out the growth (i.e. fuel) around their home, thereby creating a firebreak, BUT at the cost of breaking the (Green-initiated) local laws forbidding the clearing of the vegetation. I pointed out elsewhere that the same happens in California, where people SHOULD clear out the heavy vegetation around their homes.

    The point I, as an environmental scientist, would make is that fires tend to occur naturally and much more frequently than we allow. It used to be that farmers in Aus were encouraged to clear out the undergrowth (often by fire) during the periods when fire spreading was not a risk, thus reducing the risk of an even bigger fire at a later time.

    Given that we, as in humanity, have modified the environment already to introduce farming, etc., how is it environmentally sound (etc) to restrict clearance of undergrowth (i.e. fuel) during periods of lower fire risk? We can’t go back to being hunters and gatherers, so let’s try to do the best with what we have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Oops … the clarification… (one glass of wine too many) … I read that there was such a law against clearance of vegetation. Is there in fact such a law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    You can never drink too much wine…albeit I’m on Moneiths at the moment ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    They sometimes do, Brian.

    No, ALL AQ and Taliban prisoners end up dead if they are Westerners. Find me one that has been left alive. Don’t think you will have. Anyway, we have threadjacked this thread and DPF will take no prisoners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    Toad.. i want to be a co-leader of the Greens.. but i cant because im not a chick..

    isnt that a “obscene human rights violation”??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    dime: You could always challenge Russel Norman. His position as Male Co-Leader is open for re-election at the Green Party AGM too if any member wants to stand.

    Somehow, if you joined the Party in the first place, and could get the necessary signatures to be nominated for the position, I don’t think your track record would be very acceptable to the membership.

    Pornography (as opposed to erotica) doesn’t go down very well with most Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    So, do I have a chance Toad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    toad – ya dont know who Dime is :P

    but well done avoiding the question of sexism… again

    Greens approve of hookers right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    and who says “Bookworm Bitches” isnt erotica?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    dime said: ya dont know who Dime is, but well done avoiding the question of sexism… again, Greens approve of hookers right?

    Well, I don’t know exactly who you are, but I have gathered form previous posts you are an entrepreneur in the sex industry.

    And good on you, as long as you are giving your workers a fair suck on the sav (oops, bad and possibly misleading terminology, should have just said not exploiting them and ensuring they earn a good income for their work).

    And yes, the Greens support a legal sex industry. It is always going to happen, so I never understood the point of it being criminalised. A bit like the dak laws actually – more harm than good came from criminalisation. What’s more, unlike dak, commercial sex never damages anyone as long as there is protection against STD transmission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Swampash (114 comments) says:

    David in Chch: you’re thinking of the Sheahan family who bulldozed a firebreak around their house and were fined $50,000 plus $50,000 in costs. Theirs is now practically the only house left standing in the district.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html?page=-1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. David in Chch (519 comments) says:

    Thanks, TimG_Oz – sobering reading (so to speak). And Swampash – they were mentioned in the op piece. They were even following the advice of previous enquiries, it would appear, but the local shire preferred to let the fuel accumulate and ignore the warnings. Apparently even the local mayor, who boasted only months earlier about the scrub and overhanging trees (which so readily promoted the spread of the fires), was one of those who lost everything in the fires. The fool reaped his reward it seems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Chthoniid – ‘shrug’! That’s your response to the Maui dolphin issue? We are talking political parties here, aren’t we? My question to you is; which political party did anything at all about the Maui/Hectors dolphin issue? Clearly, you don’t feel the Green party did enough, but if you can’t point me to anything at all from any of the other parties, I’m going to assume that the Greens were the most involved. Same for the native frog issue – which party did something about that? If you are a reader of Frogblog, you’ll know that they featured ‘Frog Week’ for at least the past two years. Can you cite anything any other party did? If not, same as above – the Greens take the honour of being the most active on those issues. The story is the same for so many other creatures, habitats etc. The Greens are the party that actively engages with those issues and the people involved on the ground. I’d be delighted if you could link me to stories where Act, Peter Dunne, National or even the Maori party (I’d hope you can find something they have spoken up for) have done to greater effect than the Greens (given that the Greens are a smaller party and weren’t in government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. greenfly (1,059 comments) says:

    Dime said: I want to be co-leader of the Greens . Willing to take on Turei and Bradford for the position are you? Poho ki te poho? Brave soul.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    I thought it was obvious why Bradford stayed away from the Alliance. They subscribed to Marxism which she was uncomfortable in as she was a Maoist – her deadly enemies. Or was it the Peoples Front of Judea? Who knows with these loopy left wing organisations.

    I’m sure her masters in Chinese language came very useful when communicating with her evil overlords :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Oh and Greenfly/Toad… I’d like an explanation to why Rodney Hides environmental credentials aren’t good enough for you? Is this another example of the left wing practise of only believing those who blindly follow your ideology and smearing everybody else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Bok (740 comments) says:

    No toad mine is based on field experience in NZ and in Africa.
    Chthoniid I am more than happy to sit down for a beer. I live in Sydney now but will be over in NZ filming a new sustainable energy doco hopefully starting the ground work within the next three to six weeks. I am a conservationist that have not a lot of time for the greens. Their focus is always on sexy and publicity driven causes that is of little or no value. For instance saving the whales and dolphins yet not giving a damn about purse seining . (probably the cruelest and devastating harvesting method known to man. Just sit behind a pull and watch as the kahawai or mullet gets squeezed out through gaps like going through a mincer. In fact they are being squeezed to death and minced at the same time.

    Happy for you to get in touch and chat when I come over.
    Or send me an email at ovationmark@optunet.com.au

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Toad
    I note you avoid the substance of what I said about the future of the Greens and reverted to pathetic personal attacks on my politics. No – Im quite happy here. Obama’s socialist vision will go the way of all socialist visions – collapse in abject failure.

    Here’s a little heads up for all your leties panting at the prospect of Obama unravelling Bush’s foreign policy. Predictions:
    1. Gitmo – Obama has symbolically said he will close it. After sending home a few less dangerous terrorists, after finding out that no other country will have the most vicious and dangerous ones and neither will any US State, County or City, Obama will keep a slimmed down version of Gitmo in place coming to the same conclusion as Bush – there’s nowhere else for this hard core to go.
    2. Warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls – the Obama Administration has all but agreed to keep these in place. Remember when the laws were rewritten under Bush Obama actually voted for them!
    3. Renditions – the latest regulations allow Obama enough wriggle room to continue these – his administration did not categorically rule them out as the anti war left had been demanding.
    4. Enhanced interrogations (the technique that unearthed the 10 airline terrorism attack out of the UK) – again the new regulations state the Army Field Manual is the goal and again waterboarding has not been categorically ruled out.
    5. Withdrawal from Iraq – Bush and Petraeus had signalled troop drawdowns as and when conditions on the ground warrant it – Obama has pretty much stuck with that approach.
    6. Afganistan – Obama says he will INCREASE troops there thus escalating the war.

    Now there will be differences. Obama will be more pro-Palestinian and less agressive with Iran, Russia and North Korea (all with negative outcomes in my opinion). But of course the worshipful Obama media will underplay these backdowns from Obama’s campaign rhetoric about shredding the Constitution and of course the left, who eviscerated Bush for these policies, will merely nod sagely and say how wise and nuanced the Messiah is.

    Toad of course will be outraged and come on this blog and speak of Obama’s callous betrayal ……Not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    The Green party is living on borrowed time. It won’t be too long now before they fail to make it back to parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Yes OECD, I believe you are right.

    And how to exploit such a ripe opportunity?

    The nats if smart will be angling a green friendly minister to woo the useless commie leaning twats that are green voters before the next election by actually passing some contructive green policies (like labour didnt) and bury the greens for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    clintheine said: I’d like an explanation to why Rodney Hides environmental credentials aren’t good enough for you?

    If I put my mind to it, I could get a degree in theology Clint. But it still wouldn’t make me religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Toad, I think your explanation is best summarised by Hagues earlier quote by Ronald Reagan

    “A Marxist reads the books of Karl Marx. An anti-Marxist understands them.”

    as Rodney understands the science

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    as Rodney understands the science

    He barely has time for politics, what with all that science he’s been doing for the past decade or so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    what exactly is ‘the science’ anyway…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Patrick Starr said: as Rodney understands the science

    I can’t be bothered arguing the science here Patrick – any rational scientific argument on climate change just gets submerged in abuse and allegations of socialist conspiracies by Redbaiter, gd, Murray etc.

    Come over to Frogblog or Hot Topic if you want to argue the science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    “I can’t be bothered arguing the science here”

    That’s because even the scientists cannot agree Toad, the Green place blind faith in those who they agree with and use all the usual left wing tactics against those who they disagree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Oh, and you, bruv.

    Try http://hot-topic.co.nz/everybodys-got-something-to-hide-except-for-me-and-my-rodney/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. reddeath26 (97 comments) says:

    @big bruv-
    You mean just the same as how the right put blind faith in those they agree with as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    There’s a fuller discussion of Hide’s statements on climate change here: http://hot-topic.co.nz/im-wrong-about-everything/

    Note also the comments regarding his claims to be an “environmental scientist”, esp #22.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    Sorry, that should be comment #14 at the above link…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Sam Buchanan (501 comments) says:

    “Every effort to honestly collate statistics on the earth’s resources and forest cover and air pollution and so on, has discovered that in the developed world, these things are improving, not declining. ”

    Dunno about that – in part the developed world has moved its resource depletion to developing countries, along with much of its polluting industries, so doing a count based on nation-states doesn’t work. The papers I’ve looked at on the subject seem to assess environmental impact by looking at things like atmospheric CO and heavy metals in water – which have immediate health effects and do get cleaned up when there’s money to do so. But they ignore CO2 and a whole lot of other pollutants.

    I’m surprised to see China cited as good environmental managers given the difficulty I had breathing there (and the sandstorm that hit while I was in Tianamen Square), but if this is the case, shouldn’t people be supporting old Maoist Sue Bradford for the Greens leadership?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Ah, that was actually the one I meant to link to Gareth – got them confused in the rush to comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    got them confused in the rush to comment.

    Not unusual here: many of DPF’s commenters seem to be deeply confused about lots of things… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    I dont consider Toad, Greenfly & you Gareth as ‘many’. you are just probably around .001%

    The confusion you seem to have on this post is that you’ve jumped in so quick you failed to realise Toad has admitted you dont need to understand climate change to be a Green leader- you just need to have blind passion to support the Greens doctrine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote