DAVID SEYMOUR’S BOLD THRUST into green territory at last weekend’s Act conference has clearly rattled the Greens themselves. Even before Seymour’s keynote speech (the content of which had been leaked to key journalists well before delivery) the Greens had let it be known that they would not be offering any comment on its content.
This refusal to respond to the Act Leader’s environmental policies was, of course, a news story in itself. Why were the Greens signalling their anxiety so obviously? To the news media, it suggested that Act might just be on to something. Paradoxically, the Greens’ media strategists’ refusal to dignify Seymour’s remarks with a response did not, as intended, kill the story. All it did was make the Act leader’s speech more interesting.
Why was Act so keen to present itself as green? That was the first question to be answered. Why was a party with an appalling environmental record; a party that had proudly proclaimed its climate change scepticism; suddenly attempting to paint itself as the environmentalists’ best friend? Why was David Seymour so willing, unlike his predecessor, Rodney Hide, to declare publicly his belief in anthropogenic global warming?
The answer, of course, is because Seymour knows that the environment is about to become a crucial political battleground, and that silence on the key question of Climate Change (or, worse still, denial) is no longer a viable option for right-wing political parties. This puts the MP for Epsom well ahead of his National Party sponsors, whose lackadaisical approach to environmental issues (especially Climate Change) renders them acutely vulnerable to left-wing attack. Seymour hopes to spike the Left’s guns by transforming Act into a green party with neoliberal characteristics.
As a young man (much younger than his immediate predecessors Don Brash and John Banks) David Seymour does not need any reminding concerning the extraordinary pull of green politics on voters in the 18-25-year-old age-bracket. He, likewise, knows a crucial demographic when he sees one. A party that cannot attract a sizeable portion of the youth vote (something which Act has never quite managed to do) can have no long-term future in electoral politics. Becoming a green party with neoliberal characteristics is, therefore, Act’s last, best hope.
All the more reason, one might have thought, for the Green Party to be primed and ready to expose the absurdity of a green party with neoliberal characteristics at the very first opportunity. It’s not something that requires an overabundance of brain-power.
Take Act’s plan to privatise Landcorp, for example. This is being presented as the necessary prelude to establishing private, predator-proof sanctuaries in which endangered species can recover and thrive.
That the privatisation of Landcorp will be good for the environment is a claim based upon the state farmer’s supposed contribution to environmental pollution. But, as anyone who knows anything about Landcorp will attest, the SOE has an excellent environmental track-record. Indeed, its farming practices (especially in dairying) are recognised as the benchmarks for private farmers to follow. Its innovative land-use strategies and reforesting efforts have pointed the way in terms of “greening” the countryside.
Getting rid of Landcorp would, therefore, be a seriously retrograde step in terms of protecting the New Zealand environment – and Seymour knows it. He also knows that his proposed private sanctuaries could not possibly bear the burden imposed upon them by the dissolution of the Department of Conservation – his and Act’s true target.
The parties of the Right turned against DoC in the late-1990s and have been plotting ever since to first weaken and then destroy the prime defender and conservator of New Zealand’s clean, green image. Since coming to power in 2008, National has shamelessly starved the Department of funds, forcing repeated restructurings, job losses and an ever-greater dependence upon the commercialisation of the sort of outdoor pursuits most Kiwis once took for granted – and enjoyed for free.
The elimination of Doc would also allow the Right to revive its plans to mine for minerals in New Zealand’s conservation estate; and would clear the way for foreign buyers to take possession of the nation’s iconic landscapes.
Act’s so-called “environmental policies” are, therefore, anything but. Imposing peak-time charges for users of the roading network as a substitute for petrol tax may sound “green” – but only until you realise that it is nothing more than a device to lower the costs of the trucking companies by piling them on to ordinary commuters. Replacing a targeted Emissions Trading Scheme (which will, eventually, include the agricultural sector) with an across-the-board Carbon Tax would be equally regressive. Especially when such a tax is used to offset reductions in personal and company tax!
Seymour’s apparent embrace of “green policies” is, therefore, the exact opposite of what it appears to be. By “green-washing” its neoliberal approach to politics, Act hopes to do two things. First, to build up the party’s electoral base by luring young right-wing voters away from National. Second, it intends to absolve capitalism from having to accept significant restrictions of its actions – even as it pretends to support their imposition.
Why, then, have the Greens not seized this opportunity to expose the hollowness of Seymour’s conversion to green politics? Why not strangle Act’s green changeling in its cradle?
The answer, surely, lies in the Greens ongoing repositioning as a potential National Party coalition partner. While not identical, there are enough similarities between the Greens’ “green capitalist” policy offerings, and Act’s, to raise serious doubts in the minds of left-wing voters. Any attempt to debate the content of Seymour’s keynote speech could all-too-easily have ended-up drawing journalists’ attention to the Greens’ plans to substitute consumption and carbon taxes for the existing taxes on work and income: plans Seymour has openly endorsed by (equally openly) stealing them.
That James Shaw declined to use the occasion of Seymour’s conference speech to not only demolish his bogus green credentials, but also to reassure the Greens’ left-wing supporters that there are absolutely no circumstances which would allow the Green Party to be part of a governing coalition involving National and Act, is politically intriguing – to say the least. Big Business may be feeling reassured by Act’s belated conversion to Green Capitalism; but nowhere near as reassured as it’s being made to feel by the Green Party’s failure to instantly and publicly denounce it.
DAVID SEYMOUR’S BOLD THRUST into green territory at last weekend’s Act conference has clearly rattled the Greens themselves. Even before Seymour’s keynote speech (the content of which had been leaked to key journalists well before delivery) the Greens had let it be known that they would not be offering any comment on its content.
This refusal to respond to the Act Leader’s environmental policies was, of course, a news story in itself. Why were the Greens signalling their anxiety so obviously? To the news media, it suggested that Act might just be on to something. Paradoxically, the Greens’ media strategists’ refusal to dignify Seymour’s remarks with a response did not, as intended, kill the story. All it did was make the Act leader’s speech more interesting.
Why was Act so keen to present itself as green? That was the first question to be answered. Why was a party with an appalling environmental record; a party that had proudly proclaimed its climate change scepticism; suddenly attempting to paint itself as the environmentalists’ best friend? Why was David Seymour so willing, unlike his predecessor, Rodney Hide, to declare publicly his belief in anthropogenic global warming?
The answer, of course, is because Seymour knows that the environment is about to become a crucial political battleground, and that silence on the key question of Climate Change (or, worse still, denial) is no longer a viable option for right-wing political parties. This puts the MP for Epsom well ahead of his National Party sponsors, whose lackadaisical approach to environmental issues (especially Climate Change) renders them acutely vulnerable to left-wing attack. Seymour hopes to spike the Left’s guns by transforming Act into a green party with neoliberal characteristics.
As a young man (much younger than his immediate predecessors Don Brash and John Banks) David Seymour does not need any reminding concerning the extraordinary pull of green politics on voters in the 18-25-year-old age-bracket. He, likewise, knows a crucial demographic when he sees one. A party that cannot attract a sizeable portion of the youth vote (something which Act has never quite managed to do) can have no long-term future in electoral politics. Becoming a green party with neoliberal characteristics is, therefore, Act’s last, best hope.
All the more reason, one might have thought, for the Green Party to be primed and ready to expose the absurdity of a green party with neoliberal characteristics at the very first opportunity. It’s not something that requires an overabundance of brain-power.
Take Act’s plan to privatise Landcorp, for example. This is being presented as the necessary prelude to establishing private, predator-proof sanctuaries in which endangered species can recover and thrive.
That the privatisation of Landcorp will be good for the environment is a claim based upon the state farmer’s supposed contribution to environmental pollution. But, as anyone who knows anything about Landcorp will attest, the SOE has an excellent environmental track-record. Indeed, its farming practices (especially in dairying) are recognised as the benchmarks for private farmers to follow. Its innovative land-use strategies and reforesting efforts have pointed the way in terms of “greening” the countryside.
Getting rid of Landcorp would, therefore, be a seriously retrograde step in terms of protecting the New Zealand environment – and Seymour knows it. He also knows that his proposed private sanctuaries could not possibly bear the burden imposed upon them by the dissolution of the Department of Conservation – his and Act’s true target.
The parties of the Right turned against DoC in the late-1990s and have been plotting ever since to first weaken and then destroy the prime defender and conservator of New Zealand’s clean, green image. Since coming to power in 2008, National has shamelessly starved the Department of funds, forcing repeated restructurings, job losses and an ever-greater dependence upon the commercialisation of the sort of outdoor pursuits most Kiwis once took for granted – and enjoyed for free.
The elimination of Doc would also allow the Right to revive its plans to mine for minerals in New Zealand’s conservation estate; and would clear the way for foreign buyers to take possession of the nation’s iconic landscapes.
Act’s so-called “environmental policies” are, therefore, anything but. Imposing peak-time charges for users of the roading network as a substitute for petrol tax may sound “green” – but only until you realise that it is nothing more than a device to lower the costs of the trucking companies by piling them on to ordinary commuters. Replacing a targeted Emissions Trading Scheme (which will, eventually, include the agricultural sector) with an across-the-board Carbon Tax would be equally regressive. Especially when such a tax is used to offset reductions in personal and company tax!
Seymour’s apparent embrace of “green policies” is, therefore, the exact opposite of what it appears to be. By “green-washing” its neoliberal approach to politics, Act hopes to do two things. First, to build up the party’s electoral base by luring young right-wing voters away from National. Second, it intends to absolve capitalism from having to accept significant restrictions of its actions – even as it pretends to support their imposition.
Why, then, have the Greens not seized this opportunity to expose the hollowness of Seymour’s conversion to green politics? Why not strangle Act’s green changeling in its cradle?
The answer, surely, lies in the Greens ongoing repositioning as a potential National Party coalition partner. While not identical, there are enough similarities between the Greens’ “green capitalist” policy offerings, and Act’s, to raise serious doubts in the minds of left-wing voters. Any attempt to debate the content of Seymour’s keynote speech could all-too-easily have ended-up drawing journalists’ attention to the Greens’ plans to substitute consumption and carbon taxes for the existing taxes on work and income: plans Seymour has openly endorsed by (equally openly) stealing them.
That James Shaw declined to use the occasion of Seymour’s conference speech to not only demolish his bogus green credentials, but also to reassure the Greens’ left-wing supporters that there are absolutely no circumstances which would allow the Green Party to be part of a governing coalition involving National and Act, is politically intriguing – to say the least. Big Business may be feeling reassured by Act’s belated conversion to Green Capitalism; but nowhere near as reassured as it’s being made to feel by the Green Party’s failure to instantly and publicly denounce it.
I don’t know whether you missed it but Seymour did propose a charge at source to replace the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which is admittedly a failure. The flaw is that his initial charge would be zero.
That is he proposes substituting a deeply flawed ETS scheme with a no charge charge scheme. yeah right
Isn’t it great that more parties are trying to be the party of the environment. That is the change we see in the ACT party’s new political posturing.
Chris laments at the “green-washing’ of neoliberal politics. What next, people will start accusing the the Green party of ‘green-washing’ of its’ neo-marxist ideology.
What examples of ” ‘green-washing’ of its’ neo-marxist ideology” by the Green Party can you provide, David?
Russell Norman ‘moved to NZ in 1997, saying this was to observe the red-green Alliance coalition”
Is the Greens for large role for the government or less?
Will it work with any party in government to work towards a better environment? Or is it a left wing party? To quote Chris Trotter above: “reassure the Greens’ left-wing supporters that there are absolutely no circumstances which would allow the Green Party to be part of a governing coalition involving National and Act”
Need I say more.
Any objective observer would say that the Green party is the most left-wing party in New Zealand.
Only a fool will deny that.
So, David, you have no evidence of ‘green-washing’ of its’ [Green Party] neo-marxist ideology” ?
Ok, just checking.
Obviously your not reading/listening.
Look at Green’s policies on their website and how does fit with the definition below.
Definition- courtesy of wikipedia
Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the NEW LEFT. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber’s broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power, to Marxist philosophy. Strains of neo-Marxism include: critical theory, analytical Marxism and French structural Marxism
I guess denial is always the first step.
If the Greens accepts ACT’s new policy of Carbon tax with compensation reduction in other taxes, I would reconsider whether they are an environmental party or the “watermellon” party.
David, I’m not only “listening”, I’m willing to read. You called the Greens “neo marxist”. I’m willing to read any examples you can share with us to enlighten us. But simply calling it, doesn’t necessarily make it so.
So. Share. And I’ll read. It’s not difficult.
List are tiresome but some examples for your edification:
Cultural NeoMarxism strand:
1. male and female co-leaders (presumably to upset the current power structures
2. Equal number of males and females in cabinet, notwithstanding merit, which would be too capitalistic
3. gender equality: equal pay for different work based loosely on sex. Nurses which is female dominated should be paid as much police officers. (most people don’t disagree with the statement that equal pay for equal work but the Green party ideology extends to equal outcomes despite differences in types of work and hours)
Economic neomarxism:
poverty defined as % of median wage
determines class classifications are rigid and therefore justifies redistribution. Not deprivation of the essentials resulting in perverse statistics where increase in median income causes more statistical poverty thus the need for more redistribution.
Most of their policies are robbing peter to pay paul.
Anti corporate culture (bourgeosie)- tax on sugar, presumable anti-obesity but based on little evidence of effectiveness. See study on substitution of artificial sweeteners for soft drinks- no effect on weight.
Preference for small scale operators: the proletariat. Homeopathy versus big pharma.
The list goes on…….
Ok, you’ve finally provided examples, David. So we can debate actual solid issues rather than futilely jousting at phantoms in the fog.
Your points;
Gender equality – you consider gender equality to be “neo-marxist”?
Poverty definitions – that’s “neo-marxist”?
Taxing unhealthy obesity-causing foodstuffs is “neo-marxist”? Do you believe the same for alcohol and tobacco?
“Preference for small scale operators: the proletariat” – I don’t even understand what that means.
“Homeopathy versus big pharma” – why not? Homeopathic “medicine”, from my understanding, is mostly water. So I’m uncertain what your beef with it is.
Seems to me that you’re labelling these issues based on your own personal political preferences, rather than any actual marxist content of said issues. Which means we’re seeing your ideological stand on these issues, not the Green Party.
Gender equality as a noble goal is great, it’s how you get there that counts.
Deterministic quotas I am against. See each person as an individual not as gender/race category first.
Content of their character not color of their skin nor gender.
In which case, if merit was all that was required, there should automatically be gender equality. But there isn’t. And that indicates a (sometimes subtle) bias toward male privilege.
Otherwise, gender equality would be reflected along demographic lines.
So something is amiss, because gender equality isn’t happening naturally.
Far from the hystrionics of “neo marxism”, the Green Party’s moves to gender equality on their Party List (which is what I’m assuming you’re referring to) is recognition that the problem exists.
Conversely, the top twenty List positions for the 2014 ACT Party List was nearly all male (see: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/party-lists-election-2014/). That’s despite the population being 51.3% female.
So, David, where do you think the problem lies? With ACT, which is stacked top-heavy with men? Or the Green Party, that is working to address gender discrimination?
I wish there was a quota for unathletic short
(6 feet) men that can’t jump or shoot in the NBA. They comprise 90% of the population.
If it happened to be 90% women in cabinet I would be happy if based on merit.
What to do now that girls do better at school. Quota for boys at UNI? humbug
Good to see you come from denial to happy acceptance of neomarxism.
Ok, now you’re just being silly.
” Cultural NeoMarxism ”
Marx himself never wrote at any length about culture (what he deemed “the superstructure”), and the fact that cultural theorists have often used the lens of class, alongside other factors such as race, gender, and sexuality to analyze culture doesn’t necessarily relate to Marxist classifications
In legitimate academic circles, Cultural Marxism was originally a criticism of the lack of revolutionary Marxism at the Frankfurt School by more orthodox Marxists and Historical Materialists;
The conspiracist usage originated in Nazi Germany, where Kulturbolschewismus (“Cultural Bolshevism”) was used as a political term of abuse, as well. The Nazis being the Nazis, they of course often mixed it with their idea that all Bolshevism was a Jewish plot. ….
David, you’re being ridiculous and doing your argument no favours. Any accusation of “neo marxism” seems based more on your own right-wing prejudices rather than anything set in reality.
So it’s easy to dismiss your finger-pointing as rubbish.
“Economic neomarxism:
poverty defined as % of median wage”
Lol. Go back to wiki and read about neo-marxism. That’s not neo-marxism.
Neo-marxism is way to the left of Greens. You’re delusional David. The Greens are environmental social dems. Neo-marxism is quite radical and a neo-marxist wouldn’t push for the Greens economic policies.
Sounds like you got your theory from Whaleoil.
The whole point of neomarxism is that it is difficult to define and means different things to different people. Thank you pointing out that the Greens are not only an environment party and there is alot of green-washing of their other policies. Which was my original point.
I stand by my cultural marxism points. It is not classical marxism but non-revolutionary subliminal pervasive force trying to change society structures.
Neo-marxism isn’t radical in terms of violence but a way of thinking about the world. Marxist thinking of economic classes and struggle but disavowing the hard edges of stalinist models.
Make up your own mind on its merits. It’s there, own it.
“The whole point of neomarxism is that it is difficult to define and means different things to different people.”
lol. No it’s not. Neo-marxism is pretty much the Franfurt School and thinkers after that aling themselves with said school.
I’m a card-carrying neo-marxist. And a post-marxist too. Cultural marxist is a slur you find in youtube comments from dumbasses.
Anno1701 and Frank have pointed out many holes in your youtube theories. You’re not on Kiwiblog here. Lol. Try reading some shit
Must’ve been a big week for the whale – ‘neo-marxist’ and ‘derangement’ – standard four is proving harder than he expected.
Corruption all is corruption. This vile game with our natural heritage makes me sick!
Why do I have a sense of deja vu ?
Chris you have put up your article twice in succession.
It looks as if the right are seeking the success with the green movement that they have had to at least some degree with progressive liberalism. Basically they are saying, if it’s not socialism we can absorb it, if it is socialism we can render it ineffective by robbing it of allies. If Shaw really does want to pull the Greens rightward, he will be faced with resistance from those members that stick with the Greens because they consider Labour to be too far to the right.
Let’s give the Green party a little while to respond – I’m not sure how much attention they should pay to a party polling less than the margin of error and reduced to inviting speeches from journalists at their ‘conference’.
It might as you surmise indicate an unwarranted lurch to the right – but if not the left are done no service by crying “j’accuse” prematurely.
Yeah, the interesting thing is ACT’s shift, not the Green’s response. The goal in politics is to get the other side to accept your ideology. Thatcher did it with Blair, Clinton, Clark etc. The Greens have done it in NZ (without being in power is a point we shouldn’t ignore). Now the Greens should dig in the heels and move further to the left to cement this. The worst thing the Greens could do is go into a National based coalition – then all of the ideological gains were made for nothing…we’ll see what they do over the next decade or so.
ACT’s greenward move is a pretty poor copy at this stage – like a child’s drawing of what they imagine Green policy to be – rather like Dave’s waffle about socialism that demonstrates conclusively that he a) knows nothing about socialism and b) knows nothing about the Greens.
The Gnats, bless them, are not an intelligent party. They do not understand Green policy, which means they tend to fight about the wrong things. They took Green repproaches of ministerial lying as a political attack for instance, when it is really a quality assurance warning that they (the Gnats) are failing NZ.
I think Chris may have missed the target this time however – a manipulative Green party dying to leap into bed with Key would not I suspect have given speeches like Gareth’s or Eugenie’s that might come back to haunt them. They’d have been toned down – more like Grant Robertson’s.
There is no such thing as ‘green’ within the framework of current politics; some political parties want to wreck the environment a little faster than others, some a little slower, but all promote policies geared to wrecking it.
The greatest hypocrisy comes from the so-called Green party, which until recently promoted international tourism (dependent on massive per capita use of fossil fuels and contributing inordinately to emissions) as ‘a sustainable component of the NZ economy’, and is still keen on tourism and ‘development’:
‘Vision
The Green Party envisions an Aotearoa New Zealand in which:
Tourism contributes positively to national and local economic development.
People choose holidays that enhance their own lives and the lives of all of the other species and communities with which we share the planet.
New Zealanders develop a stronger “holiday close to home” focus.
Overseas visitors choose to stay longer and visit more parts of New Zealand.
Visitors are encouraged to show respect for the natural beauty and heritage of Aotearoa/ New Zealand and to support our efforts to preserve this.’
https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/tourism-policy
Not so long ago we heard complaints from the ‘Greens’ about the decline in NZ manufacturing, and then calls for Quantitative Easing to stimulate economic growth.
I don’t know what planet politicians are living on but it’s not the same one I am living on, the one that is undergoing Planetary Meltdown and is the scene of the Sixth Great Extinction Event (which will eventually include homo sapiens).
Is it any wonder that the level of disengagement increases with time when it is blatantly obvious that we are governed by criminals, clowns and nincompoops, and the wanna-bes are not significantly better?
Environmentalism is mainstream now, so no surprise to see ACT finally board the train. Maybe National told ACT they’ll get a contest in Epsom if they can’t connect with the Greens? National don’t need ACT like they used to, and as neoliberalism continues to stumble, their libertarian ideology is becoming more of a liability. It’s dangerous to kill off the smaller support party that sits further from the centre – Labour did it and it shifted the political centre away from them. Key is not so bothered by that, he wants a forth term and he’s more than happy to float back to the centre-right where he was for his first three years as PM.
Key would love a forth term of a Nat, Green, MP, UF and ACT coalition. If that happened then UF and ACT look like deadwood. UF might be useful to maintain Key’s centrist image. That coalition would leave Labour looking like a fuddy-duddy tag-team with NZ First… crusty old reactionaries on the sideline blaming the immigrants for housing.
A shrewd move from ACT and probably caused by a nudge from National. All this is a possible because Labour publicly executed MANA at the last election instead of pushing for left-wing coalition of Lab, Greens and InternetMana – John Key’s still laughing about that one.
But if this does happen the Greens are changed forever (or already changed?). Their base is left, their grassroots connections are left and their energy is from the left. Not much left if that goes. It’ll be tree-planting photo-ops with ex-tobacco lobbyists. Classy
Enviromentalism is where the votes are hence ACT are changing their strategy seeing as neoliberalism has failed. They are changing shape or shifting the paradigm?
ACT have gone back to their core beliefs – and Prebble’s core belief is that he can steal Landcorp without landing in prison.
I note that the Greens are completely silent on Christchurch City Council’s plans to write off large parts of the East due to a putative threat of sea level rise 100 years hence.
I guess they’d rather sacrifice a few people’s lives than question the orthodoxy
What I DO find interesting is that there seems to be a sudden desire on the part of both the right and the left of the political spectrum to attack the Greens whereas before they were mostly ignored.
You’re questioning climate change and the rise in sea levels, Andy?
Do you also question evolution and plate tectonics?
To answer your questions
(a) Yes
(b) No
The question regarding sea levels is not to question that they are rising (17cm in the last 100 years), but to question that they will rise by 1.0m in the next 100 years.
Based on this rather gloomy prospect, the council are proposing to take away the property rights of several thousand home owners.
I did present my case to the hearings panel last week, and the panel were very interested in our arguments.
Probably so that Councils will not be subject to litigation by subsequent, irate land-owners, Andy. Those same land-owners objected to notifications on their LIM reports carrying warnings of future flood-prone warnings. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/72579872/Residents-to-fight-LIM-listing-on-coastal-hazards
In effect, these land-owners want to be able to sell their properties without warning prospective buyers. Rather unfair, don’t you think?
Or do you think that people don’t deserve to have full disclosure of possible problems when buying the most expensive asset of their lives?
CCC base their decisions on a one metre sea level rise projection out to 2115.
This will affect around 6000 properties
Does anyone outside of these 6000 property owners give a stuff?
one might question the one metre projection as it is an upper end of the scenarios presented.
One might also ask why certain areas have been left out (e.g Sumner) and other areas like Southshore actively targeted by the council for abandonment
Sorry, Andy, but I fail to understand why you are sheeting home blame to the Greens?!
The Greens are neither in control of the CCC nor in government.
You might as well blame the Scouting Movement or Freemasons.
The Greens are ubiquitous Frank, when they are merely a substitute label for the ‘reds under the bed’. Your average rwnj tr0ll operates on superstitious dread that matches their medieval understanding of the natural world.
Last week I represented the needs of these people in the hearings panel. Yes, OK, not actually blaming the Green Party here, just having a vent.
Hope you understand
Ok, thanks for your honest response on that, Andy.
You’re welcome Frank. Sorry, it has been a frustration across ChCh on a number of issues.
‘highly non-linear’…’we’ve had sea level rise of several metres in a century’….’changing the composition of the atmosphere much faster than ever happened in the past’….’amplifying feedback’…’could get within 50 years metre-scale sea level rise’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykn8_ayFqNI
What a load of hogwash. The Green Party has stuck up for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury more than any other party. They were the only party to argue that there should be a small tax on all New Zealanders to pay for the Christchurch rebuild and protested the overthrow of Canterbury Regional Council more than anyone else, to start with.
In the Green branch I’m in there wouldn’t be a single member who would support a coalition with National. I don’t doubt the same views run right through the party.
That’s probably fair enough. I don’t think any political party wants to work with the Greens
What I DO find interesting is that there seems to be a sudden desire on the part of both the right and the left of the political spectrum to attack the Greens whereas before they were mostly ignored.
“to say the least. Big Business may be feeling reassured by Act’s belated conversion to Green Capitalism; but nowhere near as reassured as it’s being made to feel by the Green Party’s failure to instantly and publicly denounce it.”
Yes Chris I left the Greens because they now have empty vessels lie James Shaw that when you write to them to express your views you never get any responses!!!!
All are like David Seymour just empty vessels or more aptly like Hollow men as Nicky Hagar rightly calls them all.
Seymour is doing this because he smells weakness in the Greens position. There is a goldmine of contradictions and hypocrisy in the Greens polices and I’m pleased he’s grasped the opportunity.
I expect this was just his first salvo and I am looking forward to the next.
Long term, the Greens are in a tricky position. Do they remain the Cinderella to Labour’s repeated failed election attempts or do they dump some of their crazier policies so they can join a successful coalition? The danger in doing this is that they may leave behind some of their crackpot/fanatical supporters. If Shaw is smart he’ll make this move very slowly and carefully. Maybe a 5-10 year programme of ‘adjustments’.
Or… just as likely, the Greens simply couldn’t be arsed?
Why give oxygen to a 1% Party (1% being it’s electoral party-vote support and who it represents)?
Seymour’s speech will be a one-day wonder, as the 24 Hours news-cycle moves on to the next crime story or graphic reporting of the latest horror road-crash…
Yeah, who’d have thought winning an electoral seat would put someone in parliament?
You need to improve your syntax
Yes frank exactly.
Socialist environmentalism is an oxymoron.
As socialist states collapse (as they always do) they leave behind an environmental catastrophe for their successors to sort out.
The reason for this is obvious: In a society where the state owns everything, nobody takes ownership of the environment.
It rather depends on the legitimacy of the state – and the environmental factors already present – in some countries a collapse of human enterprise would help the environment, in others it’s the reverse. Your tiresome capitalist/socialist dichotomy is not the only factor. Have a look at this and see if you learn anything http://www.theglobalist.com/haiti-and-the-dominican-republic-one-island-two-worlds/
That’s where the political right have stepped in and taken ownership.
As owners, they believe it gives them the right to do what they like with THEIR environment.
My home, my castle, my manor.
If I want to exploit it, rape it, spoil it and leave it useless to future generations IT IS MY RIGHT!
Fits you like a glove eh Andrew?
Comments are closed.