Hard News: The Digital Natives
152 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Scott Yorke assembles some relevant tweets and posts.
What the hell was up with that lot? Did they confer or just all explode together?
-
Sacha, in reply to
either really good or really bad message control.
need more grey -
Sacha, in reply to
you can see why people are reacting to the reaction, eh?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
What [Labour] have said is “We’ll talk”
Link welcomed.
Labour, the Greens' prospective coalition partner, introduced emissions trading in the first place, and its finance spokesperson David Parker wants the scheme retained.
"We're happy to consider (the Green Party's) alternative but we do note we favour an Emissions Trading Scheme as opposed to a carbon tax."
The Greens say this disagreement is fine; they are a different party from Labour and whichever side wins the argument will depend on how many votes are gained at the general election on 20 September.Labour's David Parker said he liked the idea of recycling any financial gains into tax cuts for low-income people, and flags the idea of doing something similar with an improved Emissions Trading Scheme.
Also Here:
Labour introduced the ETS and finance spokesman David Parker says his party still favours it over other ways of putting a price on carbon.
"We prefer the ETS route but we're willing to consider the Greens' proposal," he told NZ Newswire on Tuesday.
"We're not describing the Greens' policy as rubbish, it's a credible alternative."
Under the policy, agriculture would be exempt although the dairy sector would be taxed at $12.50 a tonne.
Inevitable price rises would be offset by income tax cuts.
For the change to be made, the Greens would have to persuade Labour to accept it under a coalition agreement.
Greens co-leader Russel Norman says it would be a priority issue but he's stopped short of describing it as a deal-breaker.
No, they haven't jettisoned their existing policy immediately on hearing that the Greens have a different one, but this is hardly hostile stuff.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Ta. Love my day job but it does cut into the research time. :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
And that's the sort of reaction I would have expected.
Who was the spokesperson quoted initially as saying Labour would no longer respond except to National policies? That's what got my goat.*
* no animals were harmed in the making of this point.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Labour does not have to agree or disagree with everything their likeliest allies propose.
However, making a reported blanket ‘no comment’ promise between now and the election is not smart behaviour under MMP, and at 30% it hardly makes them look like a government in waiting, does it.
No, just as nobody should expect National to have an instant reaction to everything their current or potential future coalition partners propose. But if, say for the sake of argument, Winston Peters started consistently clearing 5% and mooted a pretty radical shakeup of immigration policy I suspect we'd all be finding a "no comment" or "we'll look at it after the election" from Key a little too cute for words.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Let the goat go! It's not the craziest idea. It means that they maximise time spent talking about their policy. I noticed both Cunliffe and Norman doing exactly this. Every time Labour get asked about Green policy, they just talk about their own policy. Every time Greens get asked about the policy of anyone else, they just talk about their own policy. Except when it comes to National policy, which they both attack, and then refer again to their own policy. I got the impression of real coordination there. It's what you do when you really do have the other guy's backs. Don't keep turning around to look at them.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I’d expect Key to do exactly what Cunliffe is doing. He’d talk about National’s immigration policy. Then he’d attack Labour’s. He wouldn’t even talk about NZF’s.
ETA: Actually, then he'd have a crack at the Greens' and demand that Labour comment on that.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Who was the spokesperson quoted initially as saying Labour would no longer respond except to National policies? That’s what got my goat.*
In the source one of Jessica Williams' tweets? She may be able to clarify.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
You know, that makes a lot of sense. It’s those strategy games you play on the computer, innit?
-
linger, in reply to
Rich: “ETS […] has comprehensively failed”
Sacha: ETS was “comprehensively gutted since"True… but more accurately, the ETS was made to fail ( both in its original too-weak incarnation by Labour, and more so in each subsequently weakened revision by National).
As an obvious starter, dairy should have been included at the outset. -
I think the way to look at ETS is that the neocon-markets-are-always-the-best-way-to-solve-problems solution doesn't seem to be working, too many loopholes (and I guess they are what markets are good at) - maybe it is time for something not quite so soft that puts hard requirements on polluters to clean up after themselves
-
Sacha, in reply to
don't see anything there.
guess ZB talked with someone.
presume someone talked. :) -
I think I should note that the Green's policy bears a very strong resemblance to that introduced by the right-wing state government of British Columbia (only the Green Party rate is not as high) which had been working very, very well for them
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/british-columbia-carbon-tax-sanity
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
something not quite so soft that puts hard requirements on polluters to clean up after themselves
Not wishing to derail a thread that is about politics rather than this issue specifically.
This is not the issue for NZ. The fact remains that NZs contribution to greenhouse gasses is insignificant. We can't affect climate change by simply reducing or even eliminating our emissions. Hence any scheme that solely focuses on internal effects is useless and potentially even harmful to NZ.
What we can do is two things, first is set an example, "here's how we did it aren't we good". That is what the green party policy aims to do and also what the old ETS aimed to do. It is a good goal but not likely to change the world.
The second thing is to develop solutions that can be applied worldwide. That is likely to only come from research aimed at solving worldwide emissions problems preferably with a focus on the problems in NZ. Neither the Greens nor Labour have made any attempt to address climate change as a worldwide problem that NZ can contribute towards. On that score they both fail and are both irrelevant.
Where Labour and The Greens could link really well is to take the penalties they impose on greenhouse gas emitters and apply it to actually solving climate change rather than simplistically trying to bribe voters.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
don’t see anything there.
guess ZB talked with someone.
presume someone talked. :)Ryan Boswell of One News got the memo as well, by the looks. Tweeted:
Labour’s refusing to comment about the Greens $29m spend on free GP visits for teens saying it has to do the numbers first
Well, duh. It’s only in the interests of reporters looking to fill bulletins for Labour to comment.
And:
Labour’s refusing to talk about the Greens carbon tax “we don’t talk about other parties policies"
And: Labour must pick a side on carbon tax – commentator:
Labour may risk losing votes if they refuse to take a position on the Green Party’s proposed carbon tax policy, a political commentator says.
In a move seen as unfair to voters, Labour is refusing to say whether they support the policies or not until after the election.
The commentator is Chris Trotter. FFS.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it has to do the numbers first
which is the sort of thing I would have expected them to say.
-
Sacha, in reply to
not likely to change the world
that nuclear-free thing will never catch on ..
-
Trying to get my head around this – $25 per tonne is just 2.5c per kg. A litre of petrol contains about 650 gms of carbon, which is less than 2c per litre. But I *think* the price is per tonne of CO2 emitted, which is approx 2.3 kg per litre of petrol. That’d mean a price rise of 6-7c per litre.
Still doesn’t look likely to change behaviour much. Petrol prices already fluctuate far more than that. It also makes screams about how this will wreck our competitiveness/industries wholesale look pathetic. According to AA, we already payFuel excise
53.524 cents – National Land Transport Fund
9.90 cents – ACC Motor Vehicle Account
0.66 cents – Local Authorities Fuel Tax
0.045 cents – Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy
In addition, GST is collected on the overall price of fuel including excise. The GST on excise amounts to a 8 cents per litre “tax on taxes”.
There are no taxes on diesel other than GST. Instead, diesel vehicles pay Road User Charges. All fuels also pay an Emissions Trading Scheme charge (approximately 1 cent per litre).That is, we already pay more GST on the tax portion of a litre of petrol (a tax on a tax, like the GST on rates) than this (new, unaffordable, crazy) carbon tax would add.*
*Unless, as is highly likely, I’ve made some simple blunder :) -
BenWilson, in reply to
which is approx 2.3 kg per litre of petrol.
I found that hard to believe until I did some basic maths/physics. Every carbon atom ends up bound with 2 oxygen ones. Atomic weight of carbon around 12, oxygen around 16, so the ratio of weight is 4/3. Total weight of C02 per liter thus ends up as 650g+4/3*(650g)*2 = 2383g =2.38kg. Presumably the difference ends up as other things, like carbon monoxide etc.
Quite amazed by that, I'd never appreciated that the weight of the gas created was more than 2 times as much as the fuel used.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You know, that makes a lot of sense. It’s those strategy games you play on the computer, innit?
I'm always hoping to make that pay. Only a few thousand wasted hours left!
But I'd say it's more informed by sport. When you drill as a team you can expect coordination without having to micromanage the movements of the other players. I didn't really write what I exactly meant, though. I should have said that you don't keep pointing your gun at your fellow players. You certainly should look at where your team is at all times to see where your own energies would be best applied. But most of your focus and attention should be on the opposition, and particularly your mark. In a good team, they know where the other players are and trust them to do their jobs. Your communication to them should not really be open, but in secret. You drill together, learn call codes, plan strategy and tactics. People don't need to hear you yelling at each other, or about each other, when they can clearly see from your movements that you're acting in concert.
-
Sacha, in reply to
People don't need to hear you yelling at each other, or about each other, when they can clearly see from your movements that you're acting in concert
I refer you again to recent evidence to the contrary. When nobody is visibly disciplined for stepping out of line, we have to assume they're sanctioned by their team, really.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Quite a few Labourites clearly feel strongly that IP/Mana actually is the enemy. My comments about teamwork refer to the Green/Labour synergy. Labour definitely don't need IP/Mana anywhere near so much, indeed they would be best placed by playing them off with the Maori Party.
The general left wing feeling that they should naturally ally with Mana is probably wishful thinking. I'd like it if they did, personally, but I can see that the seats held by the Maori Party hold just as much power, and in far more compromising and malleable hands. And I'd still say that the Maori party are of the left, in general.*
Best would be if they all got together, of course. Which is hardly out of the question. I think they'd only be fighting if the left bloc had enough seats that Labour could get away with playing them off against each other.
*ETA: They're in a National led government, but only because that's what it takes to get power. They weren't actually required - National has a bare majority with ACT and UF.
-
Compete or cooperate? Bryce Edwards rounds up coverage.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.