Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Tom Semmens,
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.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to BenWilson,
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.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
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.
-
Hard News: Most Discursive Website, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Oh, now you’re just being sedimental…
After the earth moved it just rises out of her.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to HenryB,
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.
-
Hard News: Most Discursive Website, in reply to JacksonP,
Nice People Only
Even the people I don't like are nice!
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
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.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Russell Brown,
It would probably trigger a wave of sympathy.
Imagine the sympathy if Bronagh had an affair ... 20 years of Key?
-
learn to co-operate
For me part of the founding process is coming to understand that with MMP the idea that one party has 50% of the people in the country who agree with their policies enough to vote for them is wrong. It simply is not true that half the people in the country think the same way about anything, let alone governing the country.
What MMP allows is for significant blocks of people who really do have mostly the same views on governing to have representatives in government. That is a good thing. That is something we should all strive for including the Labour party.
But there is a consequence that Labour and National still have not grasped. If you have several parties in parliament representing their constituents then no party will have 50% or 40% even - maybe 30% is reasonable. And yes National got 50% this election, but that was mostly because there is no other party of the Right, something that will change.
To govern in that system requires co-operation between parties, something neither Labour nor National understand as yet, or admit to understanding.
What that means for Labour is that instead of trying to define themselves as a party kinda sorta appealing to 50% of kiwis they should instead define themselves as appealing strongly to 30% of kiwis ... AND ... demonstrate the ability to co-operate with other representatives in parliament to govern.
If they do that then the coalition they are part of may win the next election. If they try and win on their own they will fail again.