CrustyMTB wrote:What I'm really hoping for out of this election is the door hitting Winston on the arse as he leaves, never to be seen again to pollute our electoral processes.

Yeah. Even if we do end up with Key as PM I'll still not be too upset as long as NZ First becomes history.

Its funny how the 'greens' only became the green party in the early 1990s, those of us who have been around for a while remember some of them as the values party and they had a large involvement in the Alliance in the early days, more left wing IMO than environmental... but jumping on the green band wagon has certainly improved their standings in parliament.

Given their left wing nature it'd be a cold day in hell before they teamed up with national, if the nats get in it'll certainly constrain them to making up numbers in the house, doubt they'd work with national at all, cut off their noses to spite their faces etc..

The funniest thing that could happen in this election is for Winston to get in and National needing to work with him to form a government. That would bring the lulz.

CrustyMTB wrote:

Ben_T wrote: if greens are voted in then the country is screwed

Mmmmm cause Labour and National have really set the bar high haven't they?

BenW is right, the only principled parties are Act and the Greens, the others are lotteries, who knows whether you'll get Ruthenasia or a Keysean National Party, and Labour have been a curious mixture of centrist conservatism, new-right Chicago school economics and old-skool unionism since the eighties...

What I'm really hoping for out of this election is the door hitting Winston on the esra as he leaves, never to be seen again to pollute our electoral processes.

And Phunk, I still you, you crazy libertarian, free-marketeer you!

i never said that nation & labour were good

JK2 wrote:

RussS wrote: For crying out loud - we are already one of the most taxed societys in the developed world without adding anymore.

no we aren't

Sorry, but we most certainly are. Now if Uncle Helen nuked some of the freakin taxes we pay on taxes things might come into line with the real world. Unfortunately all this crappy pack of cretins have done is enlist us in even more taxation.

That farkin carbon tax is gonna hurt so bad and most people don't realise it yet

RussS wrote:

JK2 wrote:

RussS wrote: For crying out loud - we are already one of the most taxed societys in the developed world without adding anymore.

no we aren't

Sorry, but we most certainly are. Now if Uncle Helen nuked some of the freakin taxes we pay on taxes things might come into line with the real world. Unfortunately all this crappy pack of cretins have done is enlist us in even more taxation.

That farkin carbon tax is gonna hurt so bad and most people don't realise it yet

I'm all for saving the envornment etc. but the ETS is a waste of moolah. The Kyoto protocol is a nice idea, but stupid, since the worst countries aren't in it.

Watch the country despise The Green's when the costs really do become apparent. Tax the farmers? Good on you, smash the folk that generate close to 20% of our GDP, when the market continues to become more and more competitive. If these guys get hurt too much, we will have to start tearing up the West Coast, digging for gold and other minerals, to keep afloat. Which would be worse for the environment methinks.

The Green movement has grown in recent years, as it has been able since folk were generally less concerned on their financial stability. It is not amazing that folk start to not give a toss about the environment when they are out of a job and stoney broke.

jeremyb wrote: Its funny how the 'greens' only became the green party in the early 1990s, those of us who have been around for a while remember some of them as the values party

Whats your point?

RussS wrote:Sorry, but we most certainly are.

No, your wrong. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

HTH(I'm a twerp)

Kazmeistyr wrote: smash the folk that generate close to 20% of our GDP

And 50% of the polution...

michael wrote:

jeremyb wrote: Its funny how the 'greens' only became the green party in the early 1990s, those of us who have been around for a while remember some of them as the values party

Whats your point?

RussS wrote:Sorry, but we most certainly are.

No, your wrong. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

HTH(I'm a twerp)

Kazmeistyr wrote: smash the folk that generate close to 20% of our GDP

And 50% of the polution...

Sure, I understand that. BUT, that is how it is I'm afraid.

We contribute something like 0.002% ( might be 0.02) of greenhouse gases blah blah to the earth. If we canned all the farmers in the country, it is not going to make a iota of difference to the world. It sounds nice, but it won't do diddly squat, other than cripple the economy. If that were to happen, I seriously doubt even a few folk would be happy living in a Teepee, eating possum, drinking moonshine and beating each other senseless for each other's potato crops. It is more likely that they will bugger off to another country. If we don't encourage farming, we'll be left to try and make up the massive amounts of money for the economy from other means, which really only leaves mining, which I dare say would be far worse for our environment. You can have your touchy-feely "tech-based" economy - I'm for it - but it's gonna take decades to get anywhere near competing with other countries, and since a lot of the clever folk are already overseas, it's not gonna be easy.
Meanwhile, China builds a big-arse coal-fired power plant each week for the next few years, and we will buy more and more of their products, as it's all we will be able to afford.

Kazmeistyr wrote:The Green movement has grown in recent years, as it has been able since folk were generally less concerned on their financial stability. It is not amazing that folk start to not give a toss about the environment when they are out of a job and stoney broke.

In NZ we rely on our clean green branding, especially with our Tourism and Farming industries. Overseas consumers are becoming more and more aware of sustainability as a brand attribute they want.

That means for NZ, protecting the environment is an economic imperative. Now it could be that state funding of farm pollution is a good idea. However personally I think that that sort of approach is flawed and smacks of failed economic policy. Ironic that only the Greens are advocating for a user-pays. The market logic then goes that in exchange for building the cost in we get to maintain and / or develop our brand equity as clean and green. We can't keep on trading on that much longer in the internet age and expect to get away with it when issues like water quality are getting out of control.

Besides, I personally believe that NZ farmers are some of the most innovative in the world, if the costs are built into the system then issues will get resolved. You need to be pragmatic about it, start in places you can get 'quick wins', for example NO2 emissions is an example of an area that could be addressed immediately. Saves money too.

So for me I want to see a focus on building the costs into the economic model. That's why I'll be voting for the Greens.

And for those who call for state funding of farming pollution... who's the socialist / commie now

There's a massive tourism market here.

The thing is that there is a hell of a lot of gains that can be made quite cheaply, in terms of how polluting farms are, at the moment how ever there is no incentive to do so.


[Edit: what he said!]

We have a wonderful clean green image - image being the appropriate word. NZ is a filthy dirty eco killing monster - we just hide it well and ignor it.

Being greener wont help our tourism, we are already considered green.

However, if the truth about NZ came out, our tourism would suffer greatly

michael wrote: No, your wrong. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

There are statistics - and there is the truth. Those figures make things a shit load nicer looking than they really are in reality. Once someone in power actually has the balls to change the tax structure to remove the environment where we have a tax on taxes those figures will probably become somewhat accurate.

And "farming" is a loaded and misused word. It covers everything from the highly profitable and clean seed crop industry, to the currently barely econimically viable sheep, right through to the white crude producing dairy.

Would I happily kiss the economic benefits of the last 10 years (unsustainable)dairying boom goodbye, to go back to the cleaner waterways and avoid the looming problems around water management?

Shit yes!

If you live in Chch look forward to treated non-aquifer water in the near future. Of course by then you'll be hearing the argument that if the dairy farmers don't drain the Waitakere/Hurunui/Waiau dry then creeping salination will ruin all farming in the entire catchment.

This isn't a clean green image issue. It's more fundamental than that.

RussS wrote:

michael wrote: No, your wrong. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

There are statistics - and there is the truth. Those figures make things a shit load nicer looking than they really are in reality. Once someone in power actually has the balls to change the tax structure to remove the environment where we have a tax on taxes those figures will probably become somewhat accurate.

Sooooooooooo your saying your perception of taxes is right and the OECD is wrong?!?!?!

Lived in twenty other countries and done an in depth analysis of their revenue and hidden costs, by any chance? If not I'd go no further on that point...

HTH(I'm a twerp) champ!

RussS wrote:

michael wrote: No, your wrong. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

There are statistics - and there is the truth. Those figures make things a shit load nicer looking than they really are in reality.

You mean we have statistics and your reality. Your reality is more than likely impaired from one of the following. A) Ideaology, B) No capacity for critical thinking, C) taking press releases reported as news as fact or D) Just plain not having a clue.

Gee, you could have at least busted out , "there's lies, damned lies and then there's statistics", that would have been far more fallacious and effective. Just how are you judging reality?

Whats actually wrong with the statistics? Do you just want a bit more cash in your pocket?

RussS wrote:Once someone in power actually has the balls to change the tax structure to remove the environment where we have a tax on taxes those figures will probably become somewhat accurate.

There's gst on council rates, big fucking deal, you are after all paying for a service from them.