Greenie predictions from Earth Day 1970.

[JimO]

You have to be kidding. Are you trying to say that NZ's high rate of incarceration is because we have a lot of islanders here? How come the Cook Islands, Tonga, Fiji and Samoa all have lower rates than us? Do only the bad ones come over here?

Idiotic thinking like that is why we will never resolve the problem. Try looking at other factors that are consistently higher in the prison population than with us good, white and god fearing folk:

• Undiagnosed mental health problems
• Poor education and illiteracy
• Poverty
• Poor role modelling in childhood
• Drug and alcohol addiction

Could any of them be the causes? Or are islanders geneticaly inclined to break the law?

what race makes up most of our prison population probably not islanders, the islanders definitly can be blamed for obesity figures, your list is bang on for maori problems, but how can that be after all the money they have had shoveled at them for years

[Spearfish]

Couldn't agree more and the Greens lack of political nouce is surprising. Green movements tend to attract educated people who are confident at expressing themselves and able to construct strong cases for their position. So why do we seem to have half-wit Green politicians who bang on about a single issue and don't answer the criticisms of their views?

Not every Green certainly, but I can think of a few who put me off because of their rabid rants.

smoking weed isn't conducive to good concise political debate. <----that can read two ways, but meant to be about the greens.

[shrub]

what race makes up most of our prison population probably not islanders, the islanders definitly can be blamed for obesity figures, your list is bang on for maori problems, but how can that be after all the money they have had shoveled at them for years

Ah, them bloody maoris. All a pack of lazy, thieving mongrels - very different to us decent white folks, hey?

Seriously, none of them are maori problems - they're social problems and money doesn't make them go away just like having the internet doesn't make ignorance go away - as you have demonstrated spectacularly well.

[JimO]

Ah, them bloody maoris. All a pack of lazy, thieving mongrels - very different to us decent white folks, hey?

just like having the internet doesn't make ignorance go away - as you have demonstrated spectacularly well.

thanks but i think you are wrong not all maori are lazy thieving mongrels, you should be ashamed of yourself even thinking things like that and if you pull your head out of your arse long enough you will see that there are "white" folk in prison as well, just not as many

[shrub]

thanks but i think you are wrong not all maori are lazy thieving mongrels, you should be ashamed of yourself even thinking things like that and if you pull your head out of your arse long enough you will see that there are "white" folk in prison as well, just not as many

I love the internet; every day a fresh muppet. Too funny

[JimO]

I love the internet; every day a fresh muppet. Too funny

goes both ways bud, out of interest what do you do for a job? i would say its something important, because you come across a somebody that does something important, probably use a lot of paper in a day a important person like you would. eh! me im just a lowly blue collar worker

[shrub]

goes both ways bud, out of interest what do you do for a job? i would say its something important, because you come across a somebody that does something important, probably use a lot of paper in a day a important person like you would. eh! me im just a lowly blue collar worker

I wind up muppets, and yes, it's very important.

[Woodman]

The problem with the green movement is that they have a major image problem. They tend to come across as huggy wuggy whining wimps. They need to man up a bit (a lot) and put more focus on real conservation and leave the gays, the unemployed, and the criminals etc to fend for themselves.

You're right about the image issue. I'm a member and I have been to a few Green party planning meetings (I'm also a member of National and Labour - I figure that I might as well know as much as possible about the various parties). I struggle not to walk out early from Green meetings because most of the people there are the vegetarians on bicycles type of person and are well meaning but out of touch with everything. Mind you, National party meetings are filled with fat old farmers and accountants that are bitter about everything. I've only been to one Labour party meeting and that was about 3 years ago and they actually seemed pretty normal.

As for focus on conservation, I agree there but we need to have a party that is willing to look at the big issues intelligently. The way National and Labour have treated crime and punishment is a shocker - we have one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the developed world - worse than Libya, Mexico, Algeria and even Saudi Arabia! In fact about the only developed country worse than us is the US. Are Kiwis dramatically more dishonest and violent than poms, Germans, Japs and Norwegians? Or is our police force much more efficient at policing crime? Does our high incarceration rate mean less people offend? Or is it merely showing Mike and Mary Concerned of Herne Bay that Something Is Being Done? And can we really afford to have thousands of people locked up and costing us a brazillian dollars a year?

Should we look at the models used in places like the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, all of which have less than half as many people in prison per 100,000 population? Do we need to look at crime as a symptom of a deeper malaise? Should we make stopping crime more of a priority than putting people in prison?

If you look at the Green's policies, most of them make a hell of a lot of sense and while I dislike linking myself with vegetarians on bicycles, I will continue to support them unless a party with smarter and more innovative policies emerges.

Sorry to quote myself, but I have as a reference.
You will note that I said that the Greens should focus on conservation and leave other things like criminals alone, but like the Greens you yourself have gone off on a tangent and lost focus in one post as if the conservation side of being a Green is just not that important.
What they need is normal, upfront hard asses to really rock the conservation boat. Mock funerals and that lame sort of shit just makes everyone laugh at them.

[JimO]

I wind up muppets, and yes, it's very important.

as long as your enjoying yourself comrade and you didnt wind me up but im 100% sure i wound you up mr important

[shrub]

Sorry to quote myself, but I have as a reference.
You will note that I said that the Greens should focus on conservation and leave other things like criminals alone, but like the Greens you yourself have gone off on a tangent and lost focus in one post as if the conservation side of being a Green is just not that important.
What they need is normal, upfront hard asses to really rock the conservation boat. Mock funerals and that lame sort of shit just makes everyone laugh at them.

That is a valid criticism, but there are a few reasons why the Greens involve themselves in much more than purely environmental issues. From a purely pragmatic perspective they need to have a broader range of policy issues to attract more voters - while the environment is important, for many people things like a civil society or social equity are more immediate concerns, and a party that was strictly focussed on environmental issues would limit it's appeal and therefore significantly reduce the number of seats.

A second reason is that environmental responsibility/sustainability is a very broad reaching concept and is heavily impacted by social and economic policies. In essence we all live, work and play in the environment, so our every action has an impact on the environment so to focus exclusively on environmental issues like water quality, greenhouse gas emissions and species protection without taking into account the impact of conservation on business would be counter productive. And a major tenet of green ideology is participatory democracy because the more influence you and I have on the legislative process the better, and because social justice is inexorably linked to participatory democracy the better the society the more democratic - ever wondered why democracy is most successful in the more socially developed nations?

However perhaps the most important reason is because the two big catch-all parties have almost identical policies and a political ideology that is hard to seperate - hence the trend towards the more presidential style politics we're experiencing and the runaway success of the John Key brand - think of previous PMs - Clark, Bolger - neither had the charm and charisma of Key and I doubt either would be electable today. The Greens are very aware they will never make the world green, but from within the select committee process and in the debating chamber they have an influential role in advancing the interests of ordinary working people, small business owners and people who are outside of the workforce (for whatever reason).

[Winston001]

- ever wondered why democracy is most successful in the more socially developed nations?

- hence the trend towards the more presidential style politics we're experiencing and the runaway success of the John Key brand - think of previous PMs - Clark, Bolger - neither had the charm and charisma of Key and I doubt either would be electable today.

Nice post and sorry to hack it up.

Don't you think its ironic that the free open democracies also have an intense contempt for politicians? I guess that's better than fear which has been the lot of dissidents in Arab countries.

As for PMs/leaders - people like and respect strength. For that reason alone I think Helen Clark would still be electable. We haven't had much of this of the past few decades - Keith Holyoake, Norman Kirk, Robert Muldoon, David Lange, and Helen Clark. The rest like Geoffrey Palmer may have been much better PMs than those I've listed, but they didn't capture the public.

I don't like this aspect of politics but thats just the way it is. For example IMHO Don Brash should be in John Key's place. Brash is a decent highly intelligent man with a great deal of experience...but the public decided he was boring. Oh well c'est la vie.

[shrub]

Don't you think its ironic that the free open democracies also have an intense contempt for politicians? I guess that's better than fear which has been the lot of dissidents in Arab countries.

I'm not sure that's strictly true, or at least it's not true for me and i'm sure I'm not alone. I have immense respect for some politicians in Labour, National, Maori and the Greens; and if Brash takes over Act I will add them to that list because I see them as intelligent, highly principled, hard working men and women who genuinely want the best for NZ. Sometimes (eg Brash) I don't entirely agree with their position, but I respect them all the same. However I have utter contempt for some politicians who I see as there for glory (John Key), to milk the system and for those politicians who have a deeply flawed perspective they want to impose on everything (Roger Douglas and Peter Dunne spring to mind there). I guess politicians are people and there are gooduns and baduns, and in a representative democracy with a (fairly) free press we get to see them in all their naked glory.

As for PMs/leaders - people like and respect strength. For that reason alone I think Helen Clark would still be electable. We haven't had much of this of the past few decades - Keith Holyoake, Norman Kirk, Robert Muldoon, David Lange, and Helen Clark. The rest like Geoffrey Palmer may have been much better PMs than those I've listed, but they didn't capture the public.

I don't like this aspect of politics but thats just the way it is. For example IMHO Don Brash should be in John Key's place. Brash is a decent highly intelligent man with a great deal of experience...but the public decided he was boring. Oh well c'est la vie.

Sadly I disagree with you there. Helen Clark was one of the strongest, most intelligent and principled leaders we have had and you’re right in linking her with Holyoake et al; but she wasn’t physically attractive, lacked charm and didn’t have a lovely nuclear family, and that’s why she now works for the UN. John Key is not all that intelligent, is weak and plainly only in the job because it’s a notch in his belt, but the National party recognised that he had the charm, charisma and looks to win an election, so they appointed him leader. Then their PR machine painted him to be a successful businessman who rose from a state home to greatness, and who had aspirations for you and I to do the same under his inspired leadership; and the rest is history.

The fact he is not a “successful businessman” in the same way the people who voted for him are, and is actually a wheeler dealer yuppie (the kind of person most of them probably despise) has been ignored. Just like the flaws in the “state home and solo mother” myth, when his mother was on the widows benefit, which was bloody generous, and a huge number of middle class people lived in state homes back then.

And I agree, Don Brash would have been twice the PM. I met him a few times when he was governor of the RB and found him intelligent and a bloody decent guy. Some of his ideas I disagree with, but I disagree with some of Russel Norman’s ideas too.

[Winston001]

e. However I have utter contempt for some politicians who I see as there for glory (John Key)...


John Key is not all that intelligent, is weak and plainly only in the job because it’s a notch in his belt.....their PR machine painted him to be a successful businessman...

The fact he is not a “successful businessman” in the same way the people who voted for him are, and is actually a wheeler dealer yuppie (the kind of person most of them probably despise) has been ignored. Just like the flaws in the “state home and solo mother” myth, when his mother was on the widows benefit, which was bloody generous, and a huge number of middle class people lived in state homes back then.

Interesting. Maybe I'm out of touch but I don't see John Key that way. I respect the guy but agree that currency trading isn't being an entrepreneurial businessman. On the other hand its a rare skill - intensely high pressure, requires microsecond decisions, and instant recall. Most don't survive.

John Key IMHO is personable, stable, sensible, and down to earth. He's also bland: reminds me of John Major when he was PM of Britain. Nice guy but eventually ho hum.

But...but sometime we need bland. Stability. Certainty. I think NZ had enough of the political hard edge of Helen Clark with its cynicism and bite against others in almost every public comment she made. It was immensely effective but eventually created an us-and-them political polarisation.

And because this is KB and not the 5 Minute Argument, what I've just said is the real deal. No argument.

[onearmedbandit]

[JimO]

i vote Hone Harewera for king of NZ