I suspect that if Labour were clearer about its values and platform, it would find itself attracting more people, not fewer.
My hunch as well. But it is a risk that more clearly defining the principles alienates some at the same time as it makes it easier for others to choose Labour ("that's the party that represents me").
only my cat puts more effort and hours into trying to bring about my early demise
Don't be silly, killing you would be too easy. Establishing a state of fear and paranoia while still being cute enough to get steak trimmings is what defines feline talent.
If it involves reducing the competitiveness of the only industry that stands between us are the third world
This is simply not true. There is no conflict between clean rivers and high yield dairy production. The conflict comes from being willing to change practices, different not less productive.
Dr Joy at Massey says he has very little opposition to his suggested changes in practice from actual farmers once he can talk with them one on one. I kind of trust his assessment that both productivity and sustainability are possible.
They have massive land and extremely rich soil
China does not have extremely rich soil. It suffers from being part of a huge continent and much of its land is nutrient poor and particularly water poor. That said it still has vastly more arable land than New Zealand.
the green political viewpoint
Ah fair enough. On that we agree. My friends at work have long argued we should just form our own political party and call it "The real Greens" or something similar. That is a reflection of our frustration with the difference between the party we have now and the green political movement which almost every one of my colleagues support.
That perhaps is the path that a Labour party could take. But probably not, since it distracts from what is really needed which is a genuinely strong Labour identity that powerfully represents a smaller portion of New Zealand rather than weakly representing a larger portion.
Oh, now you’re just being sedimental…
After the earth moved it just rises out of her.
they aren’t and never have been
You’ve read the Browning article?
As Browning points out
As defined by the UN, sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of others, now and in the future, to do the same
Too much of The Green policy forgets about meeting the needs of the present. And too much is fixated on rationalising existing ideologies rather than actually finding the best solution based on the best evidence available.
We both know where this is going perhaps we should stop this discourse and get back to Labour. Whatever The Greens are Labour will need to learn to co-operate with them.
find it surprising, then, to see a person so clumsy in presentation of self
Being able to discern and do the right thing in a given situation is a different skill from self promotion.
I don't know myself but I don't find it difficult to believe that he can make good decisions, which is what we want from a person with power, and still not be able to give interviews well. If the latter was the most important trait then we may as well appoint actors to govern us.
Nice People Only
Even the people I don't like are nice!
Greens are about sustainability
Nope they aren't and never have been. The Greens are about a whole bunch of things ranging from loony herbal remedies that must replace an authoritarian health bureaucracy to economic policies like capital gain taxes. It has been and continues to be my problem with The Greens. They are a blend of great and ghastly. It is their strength and weakness.
But they are not about sustainability. If they were they would be consistent about that and apply whichever method gave the best sustainable solution to a problem.
They do however, honestly represent a portion of New Zealand.