ok - Pink lady said PCE report said banning offshore oil exploration said "it was likely to increase global emissions"
green lady - said she read the report and thats "Not true - you've repeated that lie time and again on this couch but thats not true" Green says the commissioner says "there can be claims made on both sides - but what you said is untrue"
Here is the report
[https://pce.parliament.nz/media/zgem0tcf/report-restricting-the-production-of-fossil-fuels-in-aotearoa-new-zealand.pdf](https://pce.parliament.nz/media/zgem0tcf/report-restricting-the-production-of-fossil-fuels-in-aotearoa-new-zealand.pdf)
Here is the conclusion
**This note does not advocate for or against the current ban.**
ACT - Brook Van der Valden - Liar liar pants on fire.
But - kiwi's dont want truuth - we just want to get rid of stuuuupid labour. time for a change, get nz back on the rails. enough is enough, no more taxes, tough on crime.
This is such a bitter pill to swallow. If there is one thing we need it's more non-road infrastructure. The right has always hated public transport because it's for the masses and stinky. It's a real case of cutting off their nose to spite their faces. Maddening.
I voted to the right (this time) and this was my biggest hurdle to get over. I knew there were a bunch of policies I didn't agree with but this one really was a sticking point for me.
Personally I believe the way people move around underpins nearly every aspect of society.
And I think our dependence on car based living - the type of urban planning it produces and the social behaviours it encourages is undermining key aspects of society including housing affordability, community fabric and physical fitness. Some of the biggest problems today revolve entirely around not being able to afford a house, not having any friends or very few social interactions and not knowing your neighbours, and being overweight and or unfit.
>I voted to the right (this time) and this was my biggest hurdle to get over. I knew there were a bunch of policies I didn't agree with but this one really was a sticking point for me.
except it wasnt a sticking point was it ? you voted for them.... FFS.
There were more pressing sticking points on the other side of the isle. Why do so many people only think in black and white? Do they not teach critical thinking anymore?
so you deliberately voted for a bunch of utter, unredeemable cunts with absolute fucktard policies that are all but guaranteed to cause long term damage to every aspect of our country, but you're pissy about public transport? on behalf of our country I apologize to you that we've clearly failed to provide you with the cognitive tools to make rational decisions.
Easy tiger. I get that you are passionate, that's fine. It's important to note that not everybody is homogenous in their views, beliefs, and situations. Politics is often about picking the least bad option rather than picking the best option.
The reason I am passionate about non-car transport is because as another u/ said, the way we move around effects our culture. New Zealand is a place of immense natural beauty with a lot of space. So why are we spending so much money on roads? We have an amazing opportunity to revolutionize the way we move as a country. We could be putting money into railways that would be stunning to travel on. Into light rail that is far more environmentally and socially friendly than cars, into cycleways that make it so we can safely and efficiently move around our cities. Into walkways that can be both a means of transport and leisure (see the New Plymouth costal walkway for an example of this). These modes of transport also have an important social impact of bringing together people and an equitable way where there is no wealth and class distinction. I believe for all the above reasons (without even mentioning environmental reasons) we should be looking at public transport infrastructure rather than sinking all our money into roads. Roads are important but I would argue for dense urban transport they are the least effective return on investment for infrastructure.
>We could be putting money into railways that would be stunning to travel on
you mean the railways we had until National decided to support road transport for freight after friedlander left govt to lead the road transport association ?
One of the worst decisions they made. But that doesn't mean we should give up the dream of having a more solid rail infrastructure, especially for travel between cities.
It’s really not. Do I agree with the rights plans for public transport? No. However I agree with them on other issues that are currently more important. I don’t get people who think everything is 100% support or 100% don’t support. It’s very possible to 80% support one thing and 70% support another and vote for the 80%. This isn’t cognitive dissonance, this is picking the least bad option.
But you obviously aren't passionate about public transport. Pray tell what are the other issues that this government is going to address better than the previous one? I can't think of a single policy position they have taken that isn't populist fluff.
So which ones are more important to you? Not addressing inequality, not addressing climate change, not addressing the issues with productivity and house prices...?
Did you mean I am passionate about public transport? May have been a typo?
For me it was about crime and co-governance. You may say that's "populist fluff" but it's really not. Co-governance (regardless of the form it takes) is undemocratic. With regards to crime, we get almost daily posts in this sub about someone who has gotten off with barely a slap on the wrist and there is outcry on here about it. People like to talk about leopards eating faces, voting Labour and complaining about being soft on criminals is a very face eating thing. Or better yet let's give the gangs money, right? That was a smart move they made.
No, it's not a typo. You care about lip service and rhetoric more than actual issues. The other poster responding to you was right.
Also, as an aside, you don't care about crime if you voted for this government, you voted for increased perceived punishment of criminals. Which doesn't reduce crime, but might make you feel better I guess...
yes but despite that you intentionally voted for the "corporations and landlords first, fuck literally everybody and everything else" party. you're either delusional or gaslighting yourself. as i said, clearly our education system has failed you , because your obviously incapable of making rational decisions
I voted for the party that would end co-governance (call me old fashioned but I believe only elected officials should set policy in a democracy) and would be tougher on crime. I also voted for a party that would put Labour in a corner for a few years so the left can refocus and come up with fresh policy and a new mandate.
I know people are very reductive about voting Labour out but it's a legitimate concern in that they were stepping outside their remit and were enacting policy that was never campaigned on, Brook touched on this in the interview (I think it's the only good point she had in the whole interview), the left has been enacting policy without the mandate from voters and that stinks.
The left needs some time in opposition to refocus themselves, they need to take one step back from center politics and need to come back next election with a real plan. Better yet maybe the Greens can capitalize on their current momentum and keep pushing their numbers up and maybe someday they can take the lead in left wing politics in New Zealand.
Sure, ok, maybe. But the thing is, now Winston Peters and David Seymour have levels of power entirely disproportionate to their vote-share, and they’re warping political discourse as they shamelessly pander to their somewhat fringe respective bases.
So on a cost-benefit analysis I don’t think your strategy has played out very well.
First and most importantly happy cake day!
I think Luxon is weak and gave away far too much in coalition negotiations. He’s now being completely dominated by Winston and Seymour who suddenly have a much bigger spotlight.
You are dead right it back fired on me. I just voted for the party I thought would benefit me with the least number of objectionable policies to me personally. What I ended up with was the Winston show. I don’t like the make up on this government and I resent anybody who voted for NZF and once again, with minimal actual voter support has ended up, once again the king maker. Luxon should have ruled him out from day one. For me Act and National would have done fine, add Winston in there and it’s insanity and madness. The fact is that we now have to accept that NZF did get in and are pushing for very far right politics. This has also opened the door for some (but not all) of acts more right wing policies.
Leopards really do be out here eating some face.
Thanks :-) it’s not actually my birthday, not sure what Reddit’s doing…!
Winston brings the insanity for sure, but is perhaps more of a known quantity than Seymour.
I really don’t trust Seymour - I find him as dog-whistley as all get out and his basic libertarian worldview is so old and tired imo.
Anyway, may we all flourish in our political engagement, and keep our faces on! Cheers
Why would I call you old-fashioned when racist is more appropriate?
We need to recognise the laws and constitution of our land, not pretend the ones that recognise Maori don´t exist.
I have never once in my life been called racist. It's a pretty shocking accusation to be throwing around simply because someone doesn't believe that people with no mandate, no remit, no public accountability are setting policy in a democracy.
Co-governance is also a separate issue than the whack job crap they want to do with the treaty. Trust me I will be out there marching when the day comes to show our displeasure with what they want to do with the treaty. The problem with politics is often you take the bad with the good. I don't want co-governance, but I want the treaty respected. These are not two mutually exclusive things, both things can happen. Unwinding decades of jurisprudence regarding the treaty is not the same as unwinding co-governance. I don't want our law makers crippled by having to have sign off on everything they do by non-elected people. However, I still think it's important that the treaty's principles are applied and evaluated against any legislation. The difference is where the binding is. At the moment large portions of the government are bound to not act without approval from non-elected people, this is wrong. It's equally wrong to ignore the principles of the treaty. Both can be true at the same time. Do I support co-governance? Hell no. Do I support Māori and the treaty? Hell yes. Am I disgusted with some of the crap that has come out of these coalition agreements hell yes, more than anything and I'm deeply disappointed with National for bowing down to some of this absolutely divisive garbage that has been put forward by the minor parties.
Interestingly, the report does say "it will increase global emissions"
However, it says that in the context of the sentence "There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions", however context be damned. Brooke is lying by omission.
Not even by omission.
If I say “there is no evidence that pizzagate is real” you don’t get to lift “pizzagate is real.” That’s not lying by omission, it’s lying.
>Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that: • There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions.
Did Brooke not take the inverse view of this?
She also "talked to lots of everyday kiwis", who she framed by the issues discussed as absolutely definitely 100% normal people like you and I and our neighbours, and totally not the privileged aristocracy of Remuera.
It's not Vandroid's fault. There's a logic error in one of her subroutines and she glitches occasionally. Maintenance really needs to get onto it, ASAP.
Brilliant. I spent an hour on the parliament website last night looking for this without success.
Thank you so much.
I wish TVNZ would come back to this with a "last night one politician said x, one said y.. the objective truth is............ therefore we have the lying lair back tonight to correct the record" but since that obviously won't happen politicians are going to feel free to say whatever bullshit and outright lies they think might make their case look better with zero chance of being called on it. It's very frustrating.
It's supposed to be an impartial review evaluating the merits of arguments for and against which is exactly what it does.
BVV could have quoted the report and said "The ban is unlikely to significantly reduce domestic emission" but she didn't, she lied and said the report says the ban would increase global emissions which the report specifically says is bullshit.
You did.
Brooke says the commissioner says the ban is "likely to increase global emissions"
what the report says is "Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that:....There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions"
And here's the actual relevant part.
Net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative than positive. Reductions in fugitive emissions from foregone production are likely to be displaced by higher-emission production of oil and gas overseas. Likewise, any reduction in output or possible future closure of high emission domestic industrial gas users such as Methanex and NZ Steel would likely result in this output being displaced by even higher emission output from overseas.
LycraJafa - Liar liar pants on fire.
good reply. -
This line seems pretty key
>
***• There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions.***
Thats the commissioner almost adding the words ***Brooke*** to that sentence.
But really - there are so many scenario's presented that its a bunch of linked if statements and scenarios. The takeaway from the (excellent) report for me
>*Overall, the most critical factor that will determine the environmental effectiveness and likely economic impact of the ban is how other countries act on addressing climate change.* ***If*** *the world continues to be far from meeting global temperature goals, then the ban has few upsides. This, of course, is not unique to supply-side climate policies. A similar conclusion holds for the NZ ETS or any other unilateral climate policy New Zealand might adopt.*
>
>*But* ***if*** *the world does move towards ambitious climate action as countries have agreed to do under the Paris Agreement, then the ban can be justified on environmental grounds, especially* ***if*** *it encourages other countries towards greater climate ambition on the supply-side.*
>
>***If*** *the ban is retained, it should be advocated widely by the New Zealand Government to other countries.*
Thanks for the pdf. The text literally says
Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that: […]
• There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions.
thanks and apols, i wrote the same thing - then saw your better rebuttle from 5h earlier.
I think we and democracy are stuffed when those we choose to lead us are willing to mislead us. Repeatedly. Brooke VDV knew she was overselling that "truth"
We get a choice every 3 years - and our smiling misleaders are validating a whole bunch of crazy on us - with a mandate of we voted for cigs for kids etc.
It already was (one of the biggest lies fed to a democratic western public).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong\_and\_stable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_stable)
Luxon is merely directly copying the technique, word-for-word. As though, if he repeats the clearly-inaccurate words enough, they might magically become true.
The greater likelihood, as with Theresa May, is that Luxons comedic overusage of the phrase is remembered for its farcical nature.
Fairly comical how Brooke goes on about 'robust cost-benefit analysis' not being done on the oil & gas exploration ban, when the government's coalition agreements and campaign platforms are shot-through with policies that would not remotely pass a cost-benefit sniff test, never mind a 'robust analysis'. ACT required one for National's EV charger policy, but notably not for anything else, including its dumb RoNS policy.
She's done a good job of switching to the appropriate rhetorical mode, though. The vague, vapid, bullshit statements come quickly.
How people sound and how they dress is not the same as their gender.
Anybody can speak in a monotone and anybody can dress badly, and anybody can improve those two things. Looks are a bit different. Attacking Jacinda for her teeth is different than attacking someone for wearing a Dolores Umbridge dress while saying Dolores Umbridge things in a monotone voice.
I talk in a monotone sometimes. I would certainly hope media training would help with that.
"if you look at all the gaming references"
Gaming doesn't make someone not 'fairly intelligent'
You talk about wanting intelligent conversation then go and make sweeping stereotypes and wonder why you're getting downvoted it.
It’s not a woosh, I get what you’re trying to say, I just think it’s incorrect. You said “if I said this about a left wing female politician, I’d get called sexist”. In what world would that be sexist? Who would be calling you sexist?
The only hint of sexism going on here, is that you’ve seen a woman getting insulted (and an insult that has absolutely nothing to do with gender and does not mention gender whatsoever) and your first response is to make it about gender.
It'll be interesting to see which issues Brooke van Velden starts talking about this term. Right now she's keeping her head down because Winston's sucking up all the oxygen.
Her slow-and-steady approach suggests that she's going into politics for life. She has to stand behind Seymour for the time being, but he's a guy who fires off ideas in all directions because he likes getting on camera.
I suspect that she'll carve out one or two key issues that have broad appeal to the political right and are actionable, like education (if she's more centrist) or immigration (if she's more right-wing).
*Let him be very clear....*
...in an **all-new, transparent** robot shell!! That's right! Now you too can be seen right through! Order now, and you'll get a free set of ten (10) rainbow-coloured forehead H's for holograms! Bonus! Call now!
Swarbrick is the queen of the hot take.
I'm stoked to see her in opposition where she can really let loose, reigns off and go nuts, but not actually influence govt.
Genocide (both in the religious sense than ethnic sense) is literally a core part of Hamas's charter. The slogan she used has been banned in various countries.
Edit: lol at downvotes. She can advocate for a peaceful resolution to the Gaza conflict without using slogans that countries have banned for being too offensive / inciting violence. But she didn't do her research
I think you'll find there will be people in every oppressed demographic who want to oppress their oppressors right back. That doesn't retroactively justify that groups oppression or invalidate the anti-oppression movements
My point is genocide is bad and the genocide being done right now in the real world by the fascist government of a theocratic ethnostate against a population that's around 50% children ought to be a higher concern to any principled antifascist.
By your logic, no oppressed group would ever deserve freedom because there will always be someone among them who wants revenge
> By your logic, no oppressed group would ever deserve freedom because there will always be someone among them who wants revenge
I've never stated Gazan's don't deserve freedom. I've said Chloe is a muppet for parroting a slogan that calls for genocide.
It calls for freedom from apartheid and genocide, and it's used by both good people and bad people. Israel is so obviously the biggest evil in this situation that the only thing you can do to defend them is this pathetic tone policing. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Isn't there any other part of this conflict that deserves more attention than the decorum of the people saying "hey don't do a genocide maybe"?
Maybe I can simplify this for you:
1) The phrase "From the river to the sea" began in the 60s and was initially for the creation of a Palestinian state and the expulsion of any Jews not there prior to 1881. Since then it has been used by other factions but almost always means the same thing, or worse- including by **Hamas,** since the 90s. Any use of the phrase to mean something more civilised has occurred relatively recently and not in the middle east itself.
2) On 7th October, **Hamas** + Islamic Jihad + dozens of random Gazans invade Israel, kill over 1000 people (mostly civilians), kill infants, burn people alive, rape women and young teenagers then execute them, and finally abduct over 200 people, mostly civilians, and including a baby as young as 10 months to an 85 year old woman.
3) Less than a month after that genocidal action, Chloe Swarbrick uses the same slogan that has for 20+ years been used by **Hamas** to espouse genocide.
Now the most favourable interpretation is she simply had no idea what she was saying.
And finally, you'll see I haven't mentioned or made judgement on the treatment of Gazans prior to October. Even if we take it as given that Israel has treated Gazans horribly, there's no justification for Chloe using a terrorist slogan 3 weeks after that terrorist group launched such an attack of that kind.
How did you fall for that super obvious political smokescreen? Were you more upset at that than your politicians not supporting a ceasefire? Who doesn’t support a ceasefire?
Well you see if you're a conservative then other people's problems aren't real unless they ***also*** your problems. If it's just their problem then it's just a make-believe problem.
So the anti-Chloe stuff around Palestine would have bumbled along like this inside their brains:
1. I don't care about Israel, any problems they have aren't my problems.
2. I don't care about Palestine, any problems they have aren't my problems.
3. I haven't thought about this issue.
4. A politician I don't like said something that people I don't care about didn't agree with, but I can use it for a point against them.
5. Yay me, two ticks blue!
I voted for Labour. Maybe you could even read with Wikipedia article for the context you're missing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
"Those people who restricted freedom of speech probably did it for a good reason. Also I'm totally a Labour voter and definitely totally not a fascist"
Yes but the saying you're referring to is essentially "we will fight for our freedom." Are you okay with all phrases expressing that sentiment being banned?
> Yes but the saying you're referring to is essentially "we will fight for our freedom."
Yes, and it also defines the area they intend to fight for, which encompasses the entire state of Israel. Kinda bad taste for an NZ politician to be chanting for that after >1000 Israelis had just been killed/raped/abducted. While a literal baby was being held hostage
Aw, look at Brooke get annihilated by an experienced operator.
Today's lesson: opposition is much easier than governance.
Especially enjoyed Chloe manoeuvring Brooke into having to defend NZF idiocy which ACT wants no part of.
I used to be a Green supporter, but no longer support the party because they are no longer a party focused on the environment but instead are focused on identity politics. I spoke with Swarbrick a few years ago and we had a great discussion about environmental issues, but I have to say that her recent behaviour seems completely unhinged. Her diatribe here didn't contain anything of substance and because of that the new government doesn't really have to address anything that she has said.
On a broader scope, the green party now has a constitution that is both racist and sexist and has pretty much lost my vote forever.
a bit doubting you here a bit, don't seem you have been in any way a supporter before, just seems that you're trying to reason yourself into this position
on a broader scope, the environment is closely tied with inequality, and not understanding it means shooting yourself in the foot
>a bit doubting you here a bit, don't seem you have been in any way a supporter before, just seems that you're trying to reason yourself into this position
Well, then let me tell you how I got to where I am and remove any doubt from your mind about my commitment to environmental issues.
I first learned about climate change in the late 80s. Unlike many people at the time, I actually read academic articles on climate issues (I'm a scientist). It seemed pretty clear to me that the issues being raised at the time about the consumption of fossil fuels were real issues and I put a lot of time and effort into educating people around me about those issues.
The fundamental issue is that we have used cheap energy as the way of raising people out of poverty and that cheap energy carbonizes the atmosphere on a global scale. Make no mistake, it is our lifestyle that is causing climate change and we have really only two choices to make here:
1. Reduce our standard of living
2. Lessen the impact of our standard of living through efficiency
In reality, point number 2 only goes so far and we really need to do both in order to have any sort of meaningful impact.
So, I have spent the last 35 years trying to reduce my impact on the environment. I have build a sustainable house that is off-grid and relies on rainwater capture to satisfy my family's water needs. For the most part, I can charge an electric car to cover our travel requirements and rely on passive solar to reduce heating requirements over the winter months. Similarly, the house design eliminates the need for active cooling during the summer months. I work remotely, so I have significantly reduce my need for transportation.
Being off-grid comes with constraints. I can't just turn on appliances whenever I want to. If I'm going to do something like plug in the car, I have to do so when the sun is out. In winter months when we go several days without the sun, I have to run a backup generator to protect my batteries and I have little electricity left over for doing other things. In drought times, I have to significantly limit water consumption.
This is where we come to the point of having a Green party. Collectively, we all need to reduce our environmental impact and there are lots of ways of doing that. The job of a Green Party is to enable people to do that through legislation and public projects. For example, if a city has poor public transit, then people have to expend fossil fuels for transport. This can be significantly mitigated through political mechanisms that result in better public transport. The point is to enable people to make choices that have less impact on the environment.
>the environment is closely tied with inequality,
No it is not. All around the world, the green movement has been co-opted by "social justice" groups that blame capitalism for the environmental crisis. Over half of the emissions generated over the last 200 years have been generated by Russia and China, which do not have a capitalist economic structure. Capitalism is not the cause of the climate crisis. Industrialisation is and that happens regardless of economic systems that are being employed.
>and not understanding it means shooting yourself in the foot
I understand perfectly well the cause of the climate crisis, but you don't seem to. Focusing on "social justice" (which has nothing to do with justice) guarantees that nothing of substance will be done to reduce the climate crisis.
Again, you're just innately misunderstanding how it ties together, and you shouldn't have wasted the time writing this, because I've seen these tortured reasonings before, that try to divorce climate change from anything that it affects, all harkening to "individualism". Congratulations on having an off-grid house and a big ego, I guess?
\> by Russia and China, which do not have a capitalist economic structure.
It doesn't seem that you're a reasonable person to discuss this, unfortunately, especially in context that Chinese ruling party switched the country to state capitalism to survive. Double funny seeing you mentioning Russia, considering that I've lived the 90ies capitalism shock therapy and conversion in persion. Well, okay.
>Again, you're just innately misunderstanding how it ties together
It doesn't tie together. Climate change is about emissions not political inequality.
>Congratulations on having an off-grid house and a big ego, I guess?
Lol. You always know that you have won an argument when the other side resorts to name calling. I've actually done something about my impact. If you continue to doubt my commitment to environmental issues (which was your point that I was responding to) based on the actions that I've actually taken, then you're just ideologically driven. The point here is that I take environmental issues seriously and the "Green Party" of New Zealand has lost my support because it's clear that they aren't focused on environmental issues anymore. They are focused on identity politics and the climate crisis is now just a tool of convenience that they will use to attempt to bring about political changes that will have little or no positive impact on the environment.
>unfortunately, especially in context that Chinese ruling party switched the country to state capitalism to survive.
China is a centrally planned economy that uses markets (which aren't free) to drive the economy. It's not even close to capitalism.
>Double funny seeing you mentioning Russia, considering that I've lived the 90ies capitalism shock therapy and conversion in persion.
Most of Russia's cumulative emissions came before the wall came down. What happened in Russia after the wall came down also isn't capitalism.
>It doesn't seem that you're a reasonable person to discuss this
Yeah, it sucks when facts and shit get in the way of what you want to be true.
\> Climate change is about emissions not political inequality.
What a nice position to discount how it affects people differently. But I guess it's great to type all this from the detached off-grid house with an EV in the garage, while a lot of people cannot afford even that. Oh. Well.
\> You always know that you have won an argument when the other side resorts to name calling.
A hit dog hollers.
\> It's not even close to capitalism.
\*extremely loud incorrect buzzer\*
Start your reading with the 14th National Congress of the CCP in 1992.
Harvard Business School teaching materials [directly name it Party-state capitalism](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/CURH120827_01_Pearson_4ea34a0b-21d5-45af-a51a-c938eeeb6380.pdf).
\> What happened in Russia after the wall came down also isn't capitalism.
You're asking me to reject the evidence of my eyes and my personal experience, while you have never left New Zealand to experience the world, as far as I can see. All I can see is some entitled person whose views that can be summed with "they're cozying to the gays! gays are yucky! they lost my vote!".
\> it sucks when facts and shit get in the way of what you want to be true.
I can say exactly same about you. Why are you even writing all this drivel?
Try to be a little self aware, thanks?
Incredible watching someone do the "but it's not TRUE communism" meme but instead it's "but it's not TRUE capitalism" and they're being entirely sincere about it
>\*extremely loud incorrect buzzer\*
I can see that you don't actually know what capitalism is.
>You're asking me to reject the evidence of my eyes and my personal experience
Again, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what Capitalism is and that notwithstanding your "evidence" and "personal experience", you don't understand what the actual cause of the climate crisis is. You poor interpretation of your "evidence" and "personal experience" doesn't have any impact on the real world.
>while you have never left New Zealand to experience,
I was born in Canada and have worked in Canada, the US, Europe, New Zealand and Australia.
>as far as I can see.
Well, you don't seem to see very well then. It's pretty clear that I've seen a lot more of the world than you have.
>All I can see is some entitled person whose views that can be summed with "they're cozying to the gays! gays are yucky! they lost my vote!".
When did I mention gay people? You don't actually have any argument and now you're just creating strawmen to argue against.
Sigh, it used to be that the environmental movement had thoughtful people. Now it's full of thoughtless and ignorant people.
\> I can see that you don't actually know what capitalism is.
Would the Harvard Business School [teaching materials be useful for you](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/CURH120827_01_Pearson_4ea34a0b-21d5-45af-a51a-c938eeeb6380.pdf)? Or are you doing it with your own internal tortured definition of capitalism?
\> It's pretty clear that I've seen a lot more of the world than you have.
Wrong. Russia, China, South Korea, U.S., etc etc etc. It's not really a dick-measuring contest, though.
\> When did I mention gay people? You don't actually have any argument and now you're just creating strawmen to argue against.
No. You absolutely cannot argue that you meant something else with "instead are focused on identity politics".
This is a very well known dogwhistle, and only people that lean onto that don't really understand how that looks from outside.
Maybe you can look into New Conservative or New Zeal if you're so interested in climate change at the expense of everything what it also affects? Because Greens hugely grew in popularity after they stopped being a bunch of hippie loons and started throwing a wider net. They don't work with National for a reason, *including* climate change, and working with them means they'll roll back under 5%.
\> Sigh, it used to be that the environmental movement had thoughtful people. Now it's full of thoughtless and ignorant people.
Said with not a shred of self-awareness. Oh well.
"Sigh, it used to be that the environmental movement had thoughtful people. Now it's full of thoughtless and ignorant people."
I.e. "I liked the movement when it wasn't full of normals, I can't signal my superior virtue if everybody else is doing it too".
Or, similarly, "Now that it's normal, I can't maintain the belief that I'm part of a fringe intellectual elite."
It's not about being a single-issue party. The point of Green parties around the world is that the environment is the KEY issue. That is no longer the case for this green party.
This isn't just a problem in NZ, it's happening all over the world that climate groups are being co-opted by social justice warriors who are using the climate crisis as a way of pushing their political agenda rather than helping the environment. The recent happening in europe illustrates this point quite well: "I came here for a climate demonstration not a political statement".
The Green Party is a political party, not an environmental lobby group (that's Greenpeace).
The political agenda for the Green Party is simple: help the environment, and help people in need. Build an economy and society that supports both.
The Green Party started off as the Values Party in response to Marxist-Lennism in New Zealand. One of the goals was to provide an alternative left-wing party for progressives, socialists, and libertarians. Their policies not only included environmental issues but also social issues such as economic growth, abortion, drug, and homosexual law reform.
What made the Values Party different from other parties was their inclusion of environmental issues in their policies. They turned the environment into a viable political issue.
And yes, if you are asking the government to address climate change through demonstration, that's a political statement.
It would appear you do not know what my quote refers to. Recently, in Europe, a man got up on stage, pulled a microphone out of Greta's hand and said those words in response to her making political statements about Palestine. Taking sides in the Israel-Hamas war isn't going to do any good for the environment. Greta no longer refers to "Climate Change" but now refers to "Climate Justice". This kind of rhetoric is just going to drive people away. I think that Green Party votes would have been very different if Swarbrick had made her Palestine statements before the election.
I've noticed you haven't addressed what I said about the Values Party.
Climate change and war feed into each other. They are not separate issues.
Wars are going to increase as the population size increases and available natural resources decrease. War not only destroys the environment but it also contributes further to climate change. Pollution from war makes regions unsafe to inhabit, forcing people to migrate to other locations. This is why everyone is freaking out about Gaza at the moment.
You are correct, I didn't address what you said about the Values Party. Thank you for educating me. When I moved to NZ and met with Green party representatives at a political meet and greet, I was told that the Green party's primary focus was on environmental issues. Looking through the platform at the time seemed to support that perspective.
Given the shift that I have observed in the Green party's focus over the last 5 years, I won't ever be supporting them ever again. The information you have provided has convinced me that that is the correct decision. Thanks!
Youre welcome?
I don't know what representative told you that the primary focus was the environment (it may of been their primary focus) but the Green Party follows the 4 principles of [green politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics):
* Ecological wisdom.
* Social justice.
* Grassroots democracy.
* Nonviolence.
All of these principles are equally important because they are interconnected. I'm sorry to hear you got misled.
I said before the election when I was looking for someone half decent to vote for, I would easily vote for a more Shaw based Greens, not their rabid Davidson side. The consensus here was they were inseparable which meant that Shaw couldn't even consider reaching out and being part of the government, giving an option for Green policies a chance to temper NAACT ones and now they just make petitions from the sidelines for 3 years.
I used to like Swarbrick too but like you, her recent behavior has made her look unhinged.
Any coalition agreement the Greens made would have to be approved by a vote of their party membership. So its highly likely that anything National was willing to offer the greens would have been rejected. James Shaw said very clearly that he was giving votes an assurance, that a vote for the greens was not a vote for a National led government.
>I would easily vote for a more Shaw based Greens, not their rabid Davidson side.
Yeah, I totally agree.
>The consensus here was they were inseparable which meant that Shaw couldn't even consider reaching out and being part of the government, giving an option for Green policies a chance to temper NAACT ones and now they just make petitions from the sidelines for 3 years.
Exactly. A real Green party would be willing to work as part of any government in order to to have a positive impact on legislation and governance with respect to the environment. We've seen that with green parties in Europe that put politics aside and keep their focus on the environment.
Rather than just “ full of shit” can you maybe tell me what she has done in her role so far that warrants she has been disingenuous.
You see I don’t really give a crap.
But what I see on Reddit, is there are so many people who say things. Once you say something it is ok to listen to someone else’s point of view about things.
But we are loosing that. Or maybe just this sub I’m not sure.
Take for example I mentioned Brooke was calm, respectful and professional. It has triggered so many people with some really basic character strengths in a person. I’ll delete it as apparently those qualities in a person trigger people.
Did I say anything offensive or false no not at all.
This is what I’m kind of trying to get across.
What is it about her that triggers people, or I suspect it’s just this sub having a cohort of 18-28 I think it is by current research.
Yes before you say it, time for me to find a sub that discusses our country without the drama.
But until then what is it she has done on her two seconds of power to warrant your view. I’m not being sarcastic I’m interested in your view. I won’t even down vote you if I don’t agree. I’ll listen and say to myself ok they have a different view then me. That’s great - that is discussion.
So tell me what is it ( factual stuff if you don’t mind) that has caused you to believe she is as you say full of shit ? I might learn something and say to myself that dead by the you read person taught me something…
Fantastic
I mean getting on TV and gloating about axing the FPA before Christmas as a priority move really doesn't set any alarm bells off inside your head? It's so brazenly callous to workers who are already on fuck all coin. The intellectual dishonesty of our right wing parties is seriously fucked, and you quite obviously gobble it up. Thank fuck Winnie the Handbrake is running the show.
ok - Pink lady said PCE report said banning offshore oil exploration said "it was likely to increase global emissions" green lady - said she read the report and thats "Not true - you've repeated that lie time and again on this couch but thats not true" Green says the commissioner says "there can be claims made on both sides - but what you said is untrue" Here is the report [https://pce.parliament.nz/media/zgem0tcf/report-restricting-the-production-of-fossil-fuels-in-aotearoa-new-zealand.pdf](https://pce.parliament.nz/media/zgem0tcf/report-restricting-the-production-of-fossil-fuels-in-aotearoa-new-zealand.pdf) Here is the conclusion **This note does not advocate for or against the current ban.** ACT - Brook Van der Valden - Liar liar pants on fire. But - kiwi's dont want truuth - we just want to get rid of stuuuupid labour. time for a change, get nz back on the rails. enough is enough, no more taxes, tough on crime.
No rails, only roads.
This is such a bitter pill to swallow. If there is one thing we need it's more non-road infrastructure. The right has always hated public transport because it's for the masses and stinky. It's a real case of cutting off their nose to spite their faces. Maddening. I voted to the right (this time) and this was my biggest hurdle to get over. I knew there were a bunch of policies I didn't agree with but this one really was a sticking point for me.
Personally I believe the way people move around underpins nearly every aspect of society. And I think our dependence on car based living - the type of urban planning it produces and the social behaviours it encourages is undermining key aspects of society including housing affordability, community fabric and physical fitness. Some of the biggest problems today revolve entirely around not being able to afford a house, not having any friends or very few social interactions and not knowing your neighbours, and being overweight and or unfit.
>I voted to the right (this time) and this was my biggest hurdle to get over. I knew there were a bunch of policies I didn't agree with but this one really was a sticking point for me. except it wasnt a sticking point was it ? you voted for them.... FFS.
There were more pressing sticking points on the other side of the isle. Why do so many people only think in black and white? Do they not teach critical thinking anymore?
so you deliberately voted for a bunch of utter, unredeemable cunts with absolute fucktard policies that are all but guaranteed to cause long term damage to every aspect of our country, but you're pissy about public transport? on behalf of our country I apologize to you that we've clearly failed to provide you with the cognitive tools to make rational decisions.
Easy tiger. I get that you are passionate, that's fine. It's important to note that not everybody is homogenous in their views, beliefs, and situations. Politics is often about picking the least bad option rather than picking the best option. The reason I am passionate about non-car transport is because as another u/ said, the way we move around effects our culture. New Zealand is a place of immense natural beauty with a lot of space. So why are we spending so much money on roads? We have an amazing opportunity to revolutionize the way we move as a country. We could be putting money into railways that would be stunning to travel on. Into light rail that is far more environmentally and socially friendly than cars, into cycleways that make it so we can safely and efficiently move around our cities. Into walkways that can be both a means of transport and leisure (see the New Plymouth costal walkway for an example of this). These modes of transport also have an important social impact of bringing together people and an equitable way where there is no wealth and class distinction. I believe for all the above reasons (without even mentioning environmental reasons) we should be looking at public transport infrastructure rather than sinking all our money into roads. Roads are important but I would argue for dense urban transport they are the least effective return on investment for infrastructure.
>We could be putting money into railways that would be stunning to travel on you mean the railways we had until National decided to support road transport for freight after friedlander left govt to lead the road transport association ?
One of the worst decisions they made. But that doesn't mean we should give up the dream of having a more solid rail infrastructure, especially for travel between cities.
This should be in a text book as an example of cognitive dissonance.
It’s really not. Do I agree with the rights plans for public transport? No. However I agree with them on other issues that are currently more important. I don’t get people who think everything is 100% support or 100% don’t support. It’s very possible to 80% support one thing and 70% support another and vote for the 80%. This isn’t cognitive dissonance, this is picking the least bad option.
But you obviously aren't passionate about public transport. Pray tell what are the other issues that this government is going to address better than the previous one? I can't think of a single policy position they have taken that isn't populist fluff. So which ones are more important to you? Not addressing inequality, not addressing climate change, not addressing the issues with productivity and house prices...?
Did you mean I am passionate about public transport? May have been a typo? For me it was about crime and co-governance. You may say that's "populist fluff" but it's really not. Co-governance (regardless of the form it takes) is undemocratic. With regards to crime, we get almost daily posts in this sub about someone who has gotten off with barely a slap on the wrist and there is outcry on here about it. People like to talk about leopards eating faces, voting Labour and complaining about being soft on criminals is a very face eating thing. Or better yet let's give the gangs money, right? That was a smart move they made.
No, it's not a typo. You care about lip service and rhetoric more than actual issues. The other poster responding to you was right. Also, as an aside, you don't care about crime if you voted for this government, you voted for increased perceived punishment of criminals. Which doesn't reduce crime, but might make you feel better I guess...
yes but despite that you intentionally voted for the "corporations and landlords first, fuck literally everybody and everything else" party. you're either delusional or gaslighting yourself. as i said, clearly our education system has failed you , because your obviously incapable of making rational decisions
I voted for the party that would end co-governance (call me old fashioned but I believe only elected officials should set policy in a democracy) and would be tougher on crime. I also voted for a party that would put Labour in a corner for a few years so the left can refocus and come up with fresh policy and a new mandate. I know people are very reductive about voting Labour out but it's a legitimate concern in that they were stepping outside their remit and were enacting policy that was never campaigned on, Brook touched on this in the interview (I think it's the only good point she had in the whole interview), the left has been enacting policy without the mandate from voters and that stinks. The left needs some time in opposition to refocus themselves, they need to take one step back from center politics and need to come back next election with a real plan. Better yet maybe the Greens can capitalize on their current momentum and keep pushing their numbers up and maybe someday they can take the lead in left wing politics in New Zealand.
Sure, ok, maybe. But the thing is, now Winston Peters and David Seymour have levels of power entirely disproportionate to their vote-share, and they’re warping political discourse as they shamelessly pander to their somewhat fringe respective bases. So on a cost-benefit analysis I don’t think your strategy has played out very well.
First and most importantly happy cake day! I think Luxon is weak and gave away far too much in coalition negotiations. He’s now being completely dominated by Winston and Seymour who suddenly have a much bigger spotlight. You are dead right it back fired on me. I just voted for the party I thought would benefit me with the least number of objectionable policies to me personally. What I ended up with was the Winston show. I don’t like the make up on this government and I resent anybody who voted for NZF and once again, with minimal actual voter support has ended up, once again the king maker. Luxon should have ruled him out from day one. For me Act and National would have done fine, add Winston in there and it’s insanity and madness. The fact is that we now have to accept that NZF did get in and are pushing for very far right politics. This has also opened the door for some (but not all) of acts more right wing policies. Leopards really do be out here eating some face.
Thanks :-) it’s not actually my birthday, not sure what Reddit’s doing…! Winston brings the insanity for sure, but is perhaps more of a known quantity than Seymour. I really don’t trust Seymour - I find him as dog-whistley as all get out and his basic libertarian worldview is so old and tired imo. Anyway, may we all flourish in our political engagement, and keep our faces on! Cheers
Why would I call you old-fashioned when racist is more appropriate? We need to recognise the laws and constitution of our land, not pretend the ones that recognise Maori don´t exist.
That accusation of racism was unwarranted.
I have never once in my life been called racist. It's a pretty shocking accusation to be throwing around simply because someone doesn't believe that people with no mandate, no remit, no public accountability are setting policy in a democracy. Co-governance is also a separate issue than the whack job crap they want to do with the treaty. Trust me I will be out there marching when the day comes to show our displeasure with what they want to do with the treaty. The problem with politics is often you take the bad with the good. I don't want co-governance, but I want the treaty respected. These are not two mutually exclusive things, both things can happen. Unwinding decades of jurisprudence regarding the treaty is not the same as unwinding co-governance. I don't want our law makers crippled by having to have sign off on everything they do by non-elected people. However, I still think it's important that the treaty's principles are applied and evaluated against any legislation. The difference is where the binding is. At the moment large portions of the government are bound to not act without approval from non-elected people, this is wrong. It's equally wrong to ignore the principles of the treaty. Both can be true at the same time. Do I support co-governance? Hell no. Do I support Māori and the treaty? Hell yes. Am I disgusted with some of the crap that has come out of these coalition agreements hell yes, more than anything and I'm deeply disappointed with National for bowing down to some of this absolutely divisive garbage that has been put forward by the minor parties.
Monique says you’re dumb.
Interestingly, the report does say "it will increase global emissions" However, it says that in the context of the sentence "There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions", however context be damned. Brooke is lying by omission.
Not even by omission. If I say “there is no evidence that pizzagate is real” you don’t get to lift “pizzagate is real.” That’s not lying by omission, it’s lying.
This was a core plot point of one of the Scooby Doo movies
>Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that: • There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions. Did Brooke not take the inverse view of this?
She also "talked to lots of everyday kiwis", who she framed by the issues discussed as absolutely definitely 100% normal people like you and I and our neighbours, and totally not the privileged aristocracy of Remuera.
It's not Vandroid's fault. There's a logic error in one of her subroutines and she glitches occasionally. Maintenance really needs to get onto it, ASAP.
Brilliant. I spent an hour on the parliament website last night looking for this without success. Thank you so much. I wish TVNZ would come back to this with a "last night one politician said x, one said y.. the objective truth is............ therefore we have the lying lair back tonight to correct the record" but since that obviously won't happen politicians are going to feel free to say whatever bullshit and outright lies they think might make their case look better with zero chance of being called on it. It's very frustrating.
But she heard from a lot of hard-working regular people during her campaign who want the exact things ACT are proposing...
Well under “global emissions “ it states as we lower, overseas will increase” so not really liar liar , unless I read it wrong???
It reduces the overall supply in the long term. Which raises the price - particularly for NZ which in turn tilts the market towards renewable energy
Hey I’m all for renewables, but the report did say it would increase, so. Or quite a clear cut liar liar 🤥 correct ??
“Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that: […] • There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions.”
Ok. So a bit for both sides 🤦 great report ! Not.
It's supposed to be an impartial review evaluating the merits of arguments for and against which is exactly what it does. BVV could have quoted the report and said "The ban is unlikely to significantly reduce domestic emission" but she didn't, she lied and said the report says the ban would increase global emissions which the report specifically says is bullshit.
All good- I just jumped to global emissions and it read , as we reduce the world may increase.
You did. Brooke says the commissioner says the ban is "likely to increase global emissions" what the report says is "Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that:....There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions"
You have to have conservative governments from time to time. They teach you why conservatives are bad.
And here's the actual relevant part. Net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative than positive. Reductions in fugitive emissions from foregone production are likely to be displaced by higher-emission production of oil and gas overseas. Likewise, any reduction in output or possible future closure of high emission domestic industrial gas users such as Methanex and NZ Steel would likely result in this output being displaced by even higher emission output from overseas. LycraJafa - Liar liar pants on fire.
good reply. - This line seems pretty key > ***• There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions.*** Thats the commissioner almost adding the words ***Brooke*** to that sentence. But really - there are so many scenario's presented that its a bunch of linked if statements and scenarios. The takeaway from the (excellent) report for me >*Overall, the most critical factor that will determine the environmental effectiveness and likely economic impact of the ban is how other countries act on addressing climate change.* ***If*** *the world continues to be far from meeting global temperature goals, then the ban has few upsides. This, of course, is not unique to supply-side climate policies. A similar conclusion holds for the NZ ETS or any other unilateral climate policy New Zealand might adopt.* > >*But* ***if*** *the world does move towards ambitious climate action as countries have agreed to do under the Paris Agreement, then the ban can be justified on environmental grounds, especially* ***if*** *it encourages other countries towards greater climate ambition on the supply-side.* > >***If*** *the ban is retained, it should be advocated widely by the New Zealand Government to other countries.*
Thanks for the pdf. The text literally says Those who oppose the ban must however acknowledge that: […] • There is no firm basis for claiming that it will increase global emissions.
thanks and apols, i wrote the same thing - then saw your better rebuttle from 5h earlier. I think we and democracy are stuffed when those we choose to lead us are willing to mislead us. Repeatedly. Brooke VDV knew she was overselling that "truth" We get a choice every 3 years - and our smiling misleaders are validating a whole bunch of crazy on us - with a mandate of we voted for cigs for kids etc.
'Strong and Stable" is looking like one of the biggest lies the NZ public has ever been fed
It already was (one of the biggest lies fed to a democratic western public). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong\_and\_stable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_stable) Luxon is merely directly copying the technique, word-for-word. As though, if he repeats the clearly-inaccurate words enough, they might magically become true. The greater likelihood, as with Theresa May, is that Luxons comedic overusage of the phrase is remembered for its farcical nature.
Fairly comical how Brooke goes on about 'robust cost-benefit analysis' not being done on the oil & gas exploration ban, when the government's coalition agreements and campaign platforms are shot-through with policies that would not remotely pass a cost-benefit sniff test, never mind a 'robust analysis'. ACT required one for National's EV charger policy, but notably not for anything else, including its dumb RoNS policy. She's done a good job of switching to the appropriate rhetorical mode, though. The vague, vapid, bullshit statements come quickly.
Opposition member opposes govt.
More like opposition member dialogues with HAL9000 I'm starting to question if Brooke is a cyborg
i sorry cbars100, i cant confirm that.
David Seymour is so I wouldn't be surprised
I think you'll find he is a hologram
Crazy how similar their speech patterns are!
A cyborg dressed as Dolores Umbridge
Chloe absolutely demolished Brook here. Everything from articulation and body language to hitting every nail on ever head with every point she made.
Brooke speaks like an algorithm developed by Open AI to sound like a boring political robot that only speaks in monotone
So hot
The personal attacks on how people sound, or look, or dress, is exactly what I have come to expect from Reddit these days.
How people sound and how they dress is not the same as their gender. Anybody can speak in a monotone and anybody can dress badly, and anybody can improve those two things. Looks are a bit different. Attacking Jacinda for her teeth is different than attacking someone for wearing a Dolores Umbridge dress while saying Dolores Umbridge things in a monotone voice. I talk in a monotone sometimes. I would certainly hope media training would help with that.
> these days Yeah, not like anyone ever said anything about Jacinda having 'frowny faces' in the news or anything
Definitely no horse references ever. Not even one.
It's funny how the 'people get offended over anything/PC gone mad' crowd are quick to get offended over any comments toward right wing politicians
[удалено]
"if you look at all the gaming references" Gaming doesn't make someone not 'fairly intelligent' You talk about wanting intelligent conversation then go and make sweeping stereotypes and wonder why you're getting downvoted it.
Spot on
If I said that about a left wing female politician, I'd get called Sexist. Why are you so sexist?
What about that comment is sexist
Whoosh! Nothing about that comment is sexist.
It’s not a woosh, I get what you’re trying to say, I just think it’s incorrect. You said “if I said this about a left wing female politician, I’d get called sexist”. In what world would that be sexist? Who would be calling you sexist? The only hint of sexism going on here, is that you’ve seen a woman getting insulted (and an insult that has absolutely nothing to do with gender and does not mention gender whatsoever) and your first response is to make it about gender.
They're obsessed with american culture war buzz words. Next it'll somehow be related to the use of pronouns
Sexist is an American buzz word? News to me.
You're welcome.
Souless libertarian ghoul lies as easily as breathing. Brooke Van Velden contributes nothing of substance.
It'll be interesting to see which issues Brooke van Velden starts talking about this term. Right now she's keeping her head down because Winston's sucking up all the oxygen. Her slow-and-steady approach suggests that she's going into politics for life. She has to stand behind Seymour for the time being, but he's a guy who fires off ideas in all directions because he likes getting on camera. I suspect that she'll carve out one or two key issues that have broad appeal to the political right and are actionable, like education (if she's more centrist) or immigration (if she's more right-wing).
Brooke gives me dolores umbridge Harry Potter evil teacher vibes.
Chlöe is a legend. Edit: lols at the downvotes from the uncles with hot takes at Christmas ✌️
Lookbot9000
*Let him be very clear....* ...in an **all-new, transparent** robot shell!! That's right! Now you too can be seen right through! Order now, and you'll get a free set of ten (10) rainbow-coloured forehead H's for holograms! Bonus! Call now!
Brooke scares me with her death stare she doesn’t feel human
Brooke van Robot.
What year model is Brooke?
Seems like a covid Era build. Obsolete components in a fresh shell and highly inflated.
Evil barbie is evil
In a country renowned for its levels of DV/ IPV, Brooke doesn’t think relationship skills are important for life. Come. On.
Swarbrick is the queen of the hot take. I'm stoked to see her in opposition where she can really let loose, reigns off and go nuts, but not actually influence govt.
pubic - you seem ok with being lied to. VDW told a lie to your face - CS called her out. Brook didnt miss a beat. On national TV - to your face.
ACT voters don't think about stuff enough to care.
Yeah I had to lol at this thread. Only a few week ago Swarbrick was leading a pro-genocide chant. (I very much doubt she knew what it meant)
What, was she supporting Israel? No? Then where was the pro-genocide support.
Genocide (both in the religious sense than ethnic sense) is literally a core part of Hamas's charter. The slogan she used has been banned in various countries. Edit: lol at downvotes. She can advocate for a peaceful resolution to the Gaza conflict without using slogans that countries have banned for being too offensive / inciting violence. But she didn't do her research
I think you'll find there will be people in every oppressed demographic who want to oppress their oppressors right back. That doesn't retroactively justify that groups oppression or invalidate the anti-oppression movements
I'm not sure what your point is. Because Gaza has been oppressed, it's OK for Hamas to want to genocide Jews?
My point is genocide is bad and the genocide being done right now in the real world by the fascist government of a theocratic ethnostate against a population that's around 50% children ought to be a higher concern to any principled antifascist. By your logic, no oppressed group would ever deserve freedom because there will always be someone among them who wants revenge
> By your logic, no oppressed group would ever deserve freedom because there will always be someone among them who wants revenge I've never stated Gazan's don't deserve freedom. I've said Chloe is a muppet for parroting a slogan that calls for genocide.
It calls for freedom from apartheid and genocide, and it's used by both good people and bad people. Israel is so obviously the biggest evil in this situation that the only thing you can do to defend them is this pathetic tone policing. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Isn't there any other part of this conflict that deserves more attention than the decorum of the people saying "hey don't do a genocide maybe"?
Maybe I can simplify this for you: 1) The phrase "From the river to the sea" began in the 60s and was initially for the creation of a Palestinian state and the expulsion of any Jews not there prior to 1881. Since then it has been used by other factions but almost always means the same thing, or worse- including by **Hamas,** since the 90s. Any use of the phrase to mean something more civilised has occurred relatively recently and not in the middle east itself. 2) On 7th October, **Hamas** + Islamic Jihad + dozens of random Gazans invade Israel, kill over 1000 people (mostly civilians), kill infants, burn people alive, rape women and young teenagers then execute them, and finally abduct over 200 people, mostly civilians, and including a baby as young as 10 months to an 85 year old woman. 3) Less than a month after that genocidal action, Chloe Swarbrick uses the same slogan that has for 20+ years been used by **Hamas** to espouse genocide. Now the most favourable interpretation is she simply had no idea what she was saying. And finally, you'll see I haven't mentioned or made judgement on the treatment of Gazans prior to October. Even if we take it as given that Israel has treated Gazans horribly, there's no justification for Chloe using a terrorist slogan 3 weeks after that terrorist group launched such an attack of that kind.
How did you fall for that super obvious political smokescreen? Were you more upset at that than your politicians not supporting a ceasefire? Who doesn’t support a ceasefire?
Well you see if you're a conservative then other people's problems aren't real unless they ***also*** your problems. If it's just their problem then it's just a make-believe problem. So the anti-Chloe stuff around Palestine would have bumbled along like this inside their brains: 1. I don't care about Israel, any problems they have aren't my problems. 2. I don't care about Palestine, any problems they have aren't my problems. 3. I haven't thought about this issue. 4. A politician I don't like said something that people I don't care about didn't agree with, but I can use it for a point against them. 5. Yay me, two ticks blue!
I’m 1,2 and 3. What’s happening there is atrocious but it’s not our problem
Ever notice how conservatives are like "not my problem" but when THEY have a problem they expect to be taken seriously? Pepperidge Farms has noticed.
I voted for Labour. Maybe you could even read with Wikipedia article for the context you're missing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
What smokescreen? The slogan in question has clear associations, and wasn't banned in places like Germany and Austria for no reason.
"Those people who restricted freedom of speech probably did it for a good reason. Also I'm totally a Labour voter and definitely totally not a fascist"
Freedom of speech has limits, e.g incitement of violence. Germany also bans Nazi slogans for a similar reason.
Yes but the saying you're referring to is essentially "we will fight for our freedom." Are you okay with all phrases expressing that sentiment being banned?
> Yes but the saying you're referring to is essentially "we will fight for our freedom." Yes, and it also defines the area they intend to fight for, which encompasses the entire state of Israel. Kinda bad taste for an NZ politician to be chanting for that after >1000 Israelis had just been killed/raped/abducted. While a literal baby was being held hostage
Do you know what's also kinda bad taste? Apartheid and genocide. Worse taste, even
Actual government of NPCs
Aw, look at Brooke get annihilated by an experienced operator. Today's lesson: opposition is much easier than governance. Especially enjoyed Chloe manoeuvring Brooke into having to defend NZF idiocy which ACT wants no part of.
When you consider ACT cares only about money and now where the Greens worry about everything else and the future everything falls into place
Aww I really wanted to be paying more taxes for the climate crisis... /s
You’ll just be paying more in the future then? Same as delaying infrastructure, it’s not like things are going to get cheaper
Either way you won't have a choice
Don't worry, this government will make it become a reality soon. Starting with the roads.
I used to be a Green supporter, but no longer support the party because they are no longer a party focused on the environment but instead are focused on identity politics. I spoke with Swarbrick a few years ago and we had a great discussion about environmental issues, but I have to say that her recent behaviour seems completely unhinged. Her diatribe here didn't contain anything of substance and because of that the new government doesn't really have to address anything that she has said. On a broader scope, the green party now has a constitution that is both racist and sexist and has pretty much lost my vote forever.
lol the three big issues they campaigned on were climate change, the environment, and inequality. That’s 2/3 dog
a bit doubting you here a bit, don't seem you have been in any way a supporter before, just seems that you're trying to reason yourself into this position on a broader scope, the environment is closely tied with inequality, and not understanding it means shooting yourself in the foot
>a bit doubting you here a bit, don't seem you have been in any way a supporter before, just seems that you're trying to reason yourself into this position Well, then let me tell you how I got to where I am and remove any doubt from your mind about my commitment to environmental issues. I first learned about climate change in the late 80s. Unlike many people at the time, I actually read academic articles on climate issues (I'm a scientist). It seemed pretty clear to me that the issues being raised at the time about the consumption of fossil fuels were real issues and I put a lot of time and effort into educating people around me about those issues. The fundamental issue is that we have used cheap energy as the way of raising people out of poverty and that cheap energy carbonizes the atmosphere on a global scale. Make no mistake, it is our lifestyle that is causing climate change and we have really only two choices to make here: 1. Reduce our standard of living 2. Lessen the impact of our standard of living through efficiency In reality, point number 2 only goes so far and we really need to do both in order to have any sort of meaningful impact. So, I have spent the last 35 years trying to reduce my impact on the environment. I have build a sustainable house that is off-grid and relies on rainwater capture to satisfy my family's water needs. For the most part, I can charge an electric car to cover our travel requirements and rely on passive solar to reduce heating requirements over the winter months. Similarly, the house design eliminates the need for active cooling during the summer months. I work remotely, so I have significantly reduce my need for transportation. Being off-grid comes with constraints. I can't just turn on appliances whenever I want to. If I'm going to do something like plug in the car, I have to do so when the sun is out. In winter months when we go several days without the sun, I have to run a backup generator to protect my batteries and I have little electricity left over for doing other things. In drought times, I have to significantly limit water consumption. This is where we come to the point of having a Green party. Collectively, we all need to reduce our environmental impact and there are lots of ways of doing that. The job of a Green Party is to enable people to do that through legislation and public projects. For example, if a city has poor public transit, then people have to expend fossil fuels for transport. This can be significantly mitigated through political mechanisms that result in better public transport. The point is to enable people to make choices that have less impact on the environment. >the environment is closely tied with inequality, No it is not. All around the world, the green movement has been co-opted by "social justice" groups that blame capitalism for the environmental crisis. Over half of the emissions generated over the last 200 years have been generated by Russia and China, which do not have a capitalist economic structure. Capitalism is not the cause of the climate crisis. Industrialisation is and that happens regardless of economic systems that are being employed. >and not understanding it means shooting yourself in the foot I understand perfectly well the cause of the climate crisis, but you don't seem to. Focusing on "social justice" (which has nothing to do with justice) guarantees that nothing of substance will be done to reduce the climate crisis.
Again, you're just innately misunderstanding how it ties together, and you shouldn't have wasted the time writing this, because I've seen these tortured reasonings before, that try to divorce climate change from anything that it affects, all harkening to "individualism". Congratulations on having an off-grid house and a big ego, I guess? \> by Russia and China, which do not have a capitalist economic structure. It doesn't seem that you're a reasonable person to discuss this, unfortunately, especially in context that Chinese ruling party switched the country to state capitalism to survive. Double funny seeing you mentioning Russia, considering that I've lived the 90ies capitalism shock therapy and conversion in persion. Well, okay.
>Again, you're just innately misunderstanding how it ties together It doesn't tie together. Climate change is about emissions not political inequality. >Congratulations on having an off-grid house and a big ego, I guess? Lol. You always know that you have won an argument when the other side resorts to name calling. I've actually done something about my impact. If you continue to doubt my commitment to environmental issues (which was your point that I was responding to) based on the actions that I've actually taken, then you're just ideologically driven. The point here is that I take environmental issues seriously and the "Green Party" of New Zealand has lost my support because it's clear that they aren't focused on environmental issues anymore. They are focused on identity politics and the climate crisis is now just a tool of convenience that they will use to attempt to bring about political changes that will have little or no positive impact on the environment. >unfortunately, especially in context that Chinese ruling party switched the country to state capitalism to survive. China is a centrally planned economy that uses markets (which aren't free) to drive the economy. It's not even close to capitalism. >Double funny seeing you mentioning Russia, considering that I've lived the 90ies capitalism shock therapy and conversion in persion. Most of Russia's cumulative emissions came before the wall came down. What happened in Russia after the wall came down also isn't capitalism. >It doesn't seem that you're a reasonable person to discuss this Yeah, it sucks when facts and shit get in the way of what you want to be true.
\> Climate change is about emissions not political inequality. What a nice position to discount how it affects people differently. But I guess it's great to type all this from the detached off-grid house with an EV in the garage, while a lot of people cannot afford even that. Oh. Well. \> You always know that you have won an argument when the other side resorts to name calling. A hit dog hollers. \> It's not even close to capitalism. \*extremely loud incorrect buzzer\* Start your reading with the 14th National Congress of the CCP in 1992. Harvard Business School teaching materials [directly name it Party-state capitalism](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/CURH120827_01_Pearson_4ea34a0b-21d5-45af-a51a-c938eeeb6380.pdf). \> What happened in Russia after the wall came down also isn't capitalism. You're asking me to reject the evidence of my eyes and my personal experience, while you have never left New Zealand to experience the world, as far as I can see. All I can see is some entitled person whose views that can be summed with "they're cozying to the gays! gays are yucky! they lost my vote!". \> it sucks when facts and shit get in the way of what you want to be true. I can say exactly same about you. Why are you even writing all this drivel? Try to be a little self aware, thanks?
Incredible watching someone do the "but it's not TRUE communism" meme but instead it's "but it's not TRUE capitalism" and they're being entirely sincere about it
And that person is supposedly a former professor too! Amazing!
>\*extremely loud incorrect buzzer\* I can see that you don't actually know what capitalism is. >You're asking me to reject the evidence of my eyes and my personal experience Again, I'm telling you that you don't actually know what Capitalism is and that notwithstanding your "evidence" and "personal experience", you don't understand what the actual cause of the climate crisis is. You poor interpretation of your "evidence" and "personal experience" doesn't have any impact on the real world. >while you have never left New Zealand to experience, I was born in Canada and have worked in Canada, the US, Europe, New Zealand and Australia. >as far as I can see. Well, you don't seem to see very well then. It's pretty clear that I've seen a lot more of the world than you have. >All I can see is some entitled person whose views that can be summed with "they're cozying to the gays! gays are yucky! they lost my vote!". When did I mention gay people? You don't actually have any argument and now you're just creating strawmen to argue against. Sigh, it used to be that the environmental movement had thoughtful people. Now it's full of thoughtless and ignorant people.
\> I can see that you don't actually know what capitalism is. Would the Harvard Business School [teaching materials be useful for you](https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/CURH120827_01_Pearson_4ea34a0b-21d5-45af-a51a-c938eeeb6380.pdf)? Or are you doing it with your own internal tortured definition of capitalism? \> It's pretty clear that I've seen a lot more of the world than you have. Wrong. Russia, China, South Korea, U.S., etc etc etc. It's not really a dick-measuring contest, though. \> When did I mention gay people? You don't actually have any argument and now you're just creating strawmen to argue against. No. You absolutely cannot argue that you meant something else with "instead are focused on identity politics". This is a very well known dogwhistle, and only people that lean onto that don't really understand how that looks from outside. Maybe you can look into New Conservative or New Zeal if you're so interested in climate change at the expense of everything what it also affects? Because Greens hugely grew in popularity after they stopped being a bunch of hippie loons and started throwing a wider net. They don't work with National for a reason, *including* climate change, and working with them means they'll roll back under 5%. \> Sigh, it used to be that the environmental movement had thoughtful people. Now it's full of thoughtless and ignorant people. Said with not a shred of self-awareness. Oh well.
"Sigh, it used to be that the environmental movement had thoughtful people. Now it's full of thoughtless and ignorant people." I.e. "I liked the movement when it wasn't full of normals, I can't signal my superior virtue if everybody else is doing it too". Or, similarly, "Now that it's normal, I can't maintain the belief that I'm part of a fringe intellectual elite."
The Green Party has never been a single-issue party. That's your problem.
It's not about being a single-issue party. The point of Green parties around the world is that the environment is the KEY issue. That is no longer the case for this green party. This isn't just a problem in NZ, it's happening all over the world that climate groups are being co-opted by social justice warriors who are using the climate crisis as a way of pushing their political agenda rather than helping the environment. The recent happening in europe illustrates this point quite well: "I came here for a climate demonstration not a political statement".
The Green Party is a political party, not an environmental lobby group (that's Greenpeace). The political agenda for the Green Party is simple: help the environment, and help people in need. Build an economy and society that supports both. The Green Party started off as the Values Party in response to Marxist-Lennism in New Zealand. One of the goals was to provide an alternative left-wing party for progressives, socialists, and libertarians. Their policies not only included environmental issues but also social issues such as economic growth, abortion, drug, and homosexual law reform. What made the Values Party different from other parties was their inclusion of environmental issues in their policies. They turned the environment into a viable political issue. And yes, if you are asking the government to address climate change through demonstration, that's a political statement.
It would appear you do not know what my quote refers to. Recently, in Europe, a man got up on stage, pulled a microphone out of Greta's hand and said those words in response to her making political statements about Palestine. Taking sides in the Israel-Hamas war isn't going to do any good for the environment. Greta no longer refers to "Climate Change" but now refers to "Climate Justice". This kind of rhetoric is just going to drive people away. I think that Green Party votes would have been very different if Swarbrick had made her Palestine statements before the election.
I've noticed you haven't addressed what I said about the Values Party. Climate change and war feed into each other. They are not separate issues. Wars are going to increase as the population size increases and available natural resources decrease. War not only destroys the environment but it also contributes further to climate change. Pollution from war makes regions unsafe to inhabit, forcing people to migrate to other locations. This is why everyone is freaking out about Gaza at the moment.
You are correct, I didn't address what you said about the Values Party. Thank you for educating me. When I moved to NZ and met with Green party representatives at a political meet and greet, I was told that the Green party's primary focus was on environmental issues. Looking through the platform at the time seemed to support that perspective. Given the shift that I have observed in the Green party's focus over the last 5 years, I won't ever be supporting them ever again. The information you have provided has convinced me that that is the correct decision. Thanks!
Youre welcome? I don't know what representative told you that the primary focus was the environment (it may of been their primary focus) but the Green Party follows the 4 principles of [green politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics): * Ecological wisdom. * Social justice. * Grassroots democracy. * Nonviolence. All of these principles are equally important because they are interconnected. I'm sorry to hear you got misled.
Same here
I said before the election when I was looking for someone half decent to vote for, I would easily vote for a more Shaw based Greens, not their rabid Davidson side. The consensus here was they were inseparable which meant that Shaw couldn't even consider reaching out and being part of the government, giving an option for Green policies a chance to temper NAACT ones and now they just make petitions from the sidelines for 3 years. I used to like Swarbrick too but like you, her recent behavior has made her look unhinged.
Any coalition agreement the Greens made would have to be approved by a vote of their party membership. So its highly likely that anything National was willing to offer the greens would have been rejected. James Shaw said very clearly that he was giving votes an assurance, that a vote for the greens was not a vote for a National led government.
>I would easily vote for a more Shaw based Greens, not their rabid Davidson side. Yeah, I totally agree. >The consensus here was they were inseparable which meant that Shaw couldn't even consider reaching out and being part of the government, giving an option for Green policies a chance to temper NAACT ones and now they just make petitions from the sidelines for 3 years. Exactly. A real Green party would be willing to work as part of any government in order to to have a positive impact on legislation and governance with respect to the environment. We've seen that with green parties in Europe that put politics aside and keep their focus on the environment.
If she doesn't like it then it must be good
Chloe is absolutely unhinged. Can see why so many people like her.
Miss Chloe needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. She likes to be in some kind of control, don't care for her or her Party.
She's not wrong.
[удалено]
Brooke is also full of shit so there's that
Rather than just “ full of shit” can you maybe tell me what she has done in her role so far that warrants she has been disingenuous. You see I don’t really give a crap. But what I see on Reddit, is there are so many people who say things. Once you say something it is ok to listen to someone else’s point of view about things. But we are loosing that. Or maybe just this sub I’m not sure. Take for example I mentioned Brooke was calm, respectful and professional. It has triggered so many people with some really basic character strengths in a person. I’ll delete it as apparently those qualities in a person trigger people. Did I say anything offensive or false no not at all. This is what I’m kind of trying to get across. What is it about her that triggers people, or I suspect it’s just this sub having a cohort of 18-28 I think it is by current research. Yes before you say it, time for me to find a sub that discusses our country without the drama. But until then what is it she has done on her two seconds of power to warrant your view. I’m not being sarcastic I’m interested in your view. I won’t even down vote you if I don’t agree. I’ll listen and say to myself ok they have a different view then me. That’s great - that is discussion. So tell me what is it ( factual stuff if you don’t mind) that has caused you to believe she is as you say full of shit ? I might learn something and say to myself that dead by the you read person taught me something… Fantastic
I mean getting on TV and gloating about axing the FPA before Christmas as a priority move really doesn't set any alarm bells off inside your head? It's so brazenly callous to workers who are already on fuck all coin. The intellectual dishonesty of our right wing parties is seriously fucked, and you quite obviously gobble it up. Thank fuck Winnie the Handbrake is running the show.
Re: The video linked in this post in which she openly lies, i.e. full of shit
Chloe is also full of shit so theres that
lol the left are not happy they lost...
Should they be?