26 November 2011

New Zealand election live blogging 1055GMT

Party vote summaries... in a Parliament of 121

Parties in Parliament

National rise from 44.93% in 2008 to 47.99% tonight 2 seat gain overall to 60.  Pleasing but disappointing compared to the polls.

Labour drop from 33.99% to 27.13% tonight 9 seat loss to 34. Gutting result, but could have been worse, nothing as bad as National's 2002 result of less than 21%

Greens rise from 6.72%  to 10.62% tonight 4 seat gain to 13.  Very pleasing for the Greens, would have liked more, but will now influence legislation substantially in select committees.

New Zealand first rise from 4.07% to 6.81% tonight. Re-enters Parliament with 8 MPs.  The comeback King, Winston Peters.  Written off constantly by a media which by mentioning him gave him electoral oxygen. 

Maori Party drop from 2.39% to 1.35% tonight.  2 seat loss to 3.  Has to be wary of seeing to support National too much, Maori vote dissipating to Mana and Labour.

ACT drop from 3.65% to 1.07% tonight. 4 seat loss to 1.  Devastating for ACT, much soul searching needed now.  ACT Board will need to decide whether Banks will lead or not.

Mana, first time standing. 1% retain single seat won in previous by-election.  Radical Maori separatist and Marxist vote now has a clear home.

United Future drop from 0.87% to 0.61% single seat retained.  One time significant coalition partner for Labour continuing to be a one man band in Ohariu.

Conclusion?  National will govern with United Future and ACT with a small majority, but will enter into confidence and supply agreement with Maori Party.

Parties outside Parliament

Conservative Party, first time standing. 2.76%.  Very credible result, must try to win NZ First voters over to try to cross the 5% threshold or spend up large in one seat.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party Small gain from 0.41% to 0.48%.  Treading water with core supporters

Democrats for Social Credit small gain from 0.05% to 0.07%.  Clearly attracted a few more with the global financial crisis

Libertarianz small gain from 0.05% to 0.07%.  Did Banks turn some ACT voters towards Libz?

Alliance drop from 0.08% to 0.05%.  Far left voter bled to Mana and the Greens


Election 2011 - Live blogging - Libertarians results

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi (independent) 101 votes, 2nd last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 26 ahead of Alliance

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance 122 votes, last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 32 votes, ahead of Alliance

Kaikoura - Ian Hayes 115 votes, last. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 22 votes, ahead of Alliance

Mana - Richard Goode (ALCP) 272 votes, 2nd last (ahead of ACT).  98.1% votes counted. Libertarianz 17 ahead of Alliance and Socred.  (ALCP 128 votes above Libz, Alliance, Socred)

Northcote - Peter Linton 60 votes, last.  100% votes counted.  Libertarianz 32 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Ohariu- Sean Fitzpatrick 96 votes.. 100% votes counted. Libertarianz 45 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Tamaki - Stephen Berry (independent) 139 votes. 100% votes counted.  22 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath (Party Leader) 621 votes! ahead of ACT. 100% votes counted. 85 votes ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana

Waitakere - Peter Osborne 44 votes. 98.1% votes counted.  25 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Wellington Central - Reagan Cutting  53 votes. 100% votes counted. 9th place (4th from bottom).  31 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Whangarei - Helen Hughes 93 votes. 100% votes counted. 30 votes ahead of Alliance.

Total party vote 1402, 30 short of Socred.  Improvement on 1176 in 2008.


New Zealand election live blogging 0945GMT

So the Nats will need Peter Dunne and John Banks to govern, that's fairly easy.   Dunne will want nothing other than his bureaucracy isn't closed,  Banks will want what exactly?

The Nats will negotiate an agreement with the Maori Party just to be sure, but beyond that it is insurance for the future.  The Maori Party would be critical in the following election, but its relationship with National has been costly in losing votes and two seats.

The Greens have their best ever result, as Labour voters went to the left, the Greens campaigned very cleverly and the media was complicit in giving them an easy ride.

NZ First re-emerges as the media Winston hates gave him the oxygen of publicity by treating him as an outcast, playing into his hands.  

Both the Greens and NZ First will bring new barely competent nobodies to Parliament, none of whom will face having to prove themselves in government.

ACT is virtually finished - the Banks strategy failed, miserably.  Don Brash could have campaigned much better, but this was a disaster because the Banks strategy split its support base and saw a massive distraction in Epsom.

The Mana Party is Hone, but he took votes from the Maori Party and so has reduced the overhang to one, helping the Nats.

Three more years of the same, with new conservative National MPs, and the middle muddle ground of mediocrity winning the day.  The victories are with boring no change National, radical Greens and the bigoted xenophobic populist NZ First.

Oh and you've kept MMP, the left will be thrilled, for despite all of the above, over 45% of the vote was for much more government.

The real fight for hearts and minds is far from won.

New Zealand election live blogging 0900GMT

A pattern has emerged in New Zealand elections.

If voters perceive a foregone conclusion for the major parties, voters for the second placed party desert it for others.  The Greens and NZ First have taken the soft headed voters on the left and the bigoted working class voters on the right.  Both will get hit when Labour improves next time.

Yet Labour hasn't experienced the rout that National did in 2002, not by a mile.  This result is akin to 1996, but it wont be enough to save Phil Goff

Largest silent winner is the Conservative Party, a credible 2.8% of the vote but no seats

ACT faces immediate infighting, John Banks wont be made leader although he'll expect to be.  That will kill the party

United Future is slowly dying, but Peter Dunne is hanging on.

Mana Party might just be Hone, it would be a travesty if Annette Sykes has a platform for her vileness.

However, the biggest joke has to be how MMP has delivered 13 Green MPs and 9 NZ First MPs.

National may lose West-Coast Tasman to Labour, but pick up two Christchurch seats.

Yet a small note of victory for Libertarianz, an increase in party votes.

New Zealand election live blogging (Libertarians results)

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi (independent) 38 votes,  second last.  Libertarianz (which he wasn't fighting for directly) with 10 votes, double that of the Alliance

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance a credible 95 votes, last. Libertarianz 25 votes neck and neck with the Alliance

Kaikoura - Ian Hayes 50 votes, last, Libertarianz 12 ahead of the Alliance

Mana - Richard Goode (ALCP) 103 votes ahead of ACT.  Libertarianz 5 ahead of Alliance and Socred

North Shore - Michael Murphy 40 votes, last. Libertarianz 13 votes, ahead of Alliance and Socred

Northcote - Peter Linton 25 votes, last. Libertarianz 14 votes ahead of Alliance and Socred

Ohariu - Sean Fitzpatrick 48 votes, last. Libertarianz 26 votes, ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana

Tamaki - Stephen Berry (independent) 57 votes, last.  Libertarianz 2 votes ahead of Socred (!)

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath 402 votes, ahead of ACT.  Libertarianz 65 votes ahead of Alliance, Socred and Mana

Waitakere - Peter Osborne 8 votes, last.  Libertarianz 3 votes, ahead Alliance , Scored

Wellington Central - Reagan Cutting 16 votes 2nd last equal.  Libertarianz 6 votes, ahead of Socred

Whangarei - Helen Hughes 47 votes, last.  Libertarianz  13 votes, ahead of Alliance

overall? 816 votes with 60% counted, definitely an improvement on 2008

New Zealand election live blogging 0800GMT

National looking like its dream result, but it is early.  Reminds me of 2005, when it looked good, but slid behind when big Auckland booths were counted.

Labour will be searching for a new leader.  However picking up Te Tai Tonga reduces the overhang by one, which is good for National

Greens will be pleased they'll have a big caucus

NZ First looks like sliding in, but it is early to say.  Blame the media for loving him for controversy.

Conservatives a credible 2.7%

Maori Party has lost around 40% of its party vote to Mana

Key issue will be whether Mana gets enough party votes to justify a second seat - let's hope Annette Sykes is kept out, she is well behind in Waiariki

Peter Dunne and John Bank both look like they have Ohariu and Epsom respectively, but early for both

50% of Wairarapa counted and Richard McGrath has pulled in more electorate votes than the ACT candidate with 298 votes and 48 party votes - between Maori and Mana

New Zealand election - live 0745 GMT

So I have finally woken up.   TVNZ  and RNZ both coming through strong.

This looks like Labour's 2002, 25% is dire, almost as bad as National in 2002.

NZ First re-emerges, blame the media for giving him the auction of publicity.  As David Farrar has said, why didn't the Conservative Party get the same?

Big focus is the Maori seats with our separatist racist candidate Hone looking like taking his seat, if so he may be on the cusp of bringing in the 9/11 cheerleader Annette Sykes.

Coromandel has Catherine moonbeam Delahunty third, ouch for Labour.

Peter Dunne must be worried in Ohariu

Long list of Labour seats at risk, Palmerston North very narrow for Labour


New Zealand election live blogging

Having written my guides to voting (they are the most popular posts), and noting Not PC's excellent rival guide, the time for politicking is over.  A few million people will be making some ticks to choose people to govern them.  I did my special vote days ago at the New Zealand High Commission at Haymarket, London.

I will be blogging and tweeting live about the election when results start appearing - as I listen/watch NZ media from London.

I secretly like psephology so I will find it a fun way to spend a chilly Saturday morning in London.  I can combine it with having a drink everytime someone I like wins, and be sure I will remain sober the rest of the day.   Politics at election time is extremely hard work for those who do it, but don't empathise with them.  Bob Jones once wrote how he refused to talk at a "leadership forum" for young people, on the grounds that the last thing he wanted to encourage was people to lead others, and that New Zealand's problems at the time (early 1980s) were in large part due to a man who epitomised that.  Politicians have been working hard to gain power.  Most of you work hard to earn a crust.  I know which group I have more time for.

Yet, despite what you might think of any of the parties and politicians, today there are thousands of Syrians fighting with their lives, many in prison, some being tortured, trying to evict a 41 year old hereditary one-party dictatorship. Too many take for granted their right to live their lives in relative peace and freedom the way they wish. Saturday is your chance to say whether you agree with the current lot or want the government to do more or less, in different shades and you don't face the army aiming guns at you for your views (or the secret police rounding you up to a rally to cheer the thugs on).

I spent a week in a totalitarian state last year (no, not China), seeing and meeting people who all lived in constant fear of saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing - value the freedom you have, for only when you don't have it, do you realise how precious it really is.

25 November 2011

You don't have to vote if you don't know what party to choose

It is typical for politicians and political activists to make general calls for everyone to make sure that they vote, and that democracy was fought for by our forefathers etc etc, so it is really important everyone votes.

I disagree. 

New Zealand has a political freedom Australians don’t have. It’s not compulsory to vote. This in itself is quite precious. I have already indicated that there are several electorates where I don’t think there is a single candidate standing who either supports my point of view or is even better than the worst ones on the ballot paper. I don’t subscribe to the “don’t vote, it only encourages the bastards” view entirely, but in some cases it is true. It would be telling if the turnout in some electorates was so low (e.g. Nelson) that the mandate for the winning candidate would be questionable. 

You see I don’t have a high regard for democracy per se (although I support it as a way of choosing politicians), I don’t value your vote if you are opposed to what I support. Obviously if you want to vote Libertarianz, ACT (excluding candidates who are anti-freedom) or Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, then get off your arses and do so. Freedom isn’t free you know. However, the rest of you I'm indifferent about who you vote for. I didn't notice much difference with John Key replacing Helen Clark, except Helen Clark actually believed in telling us all what to do. 

If you disagree with me, I don’t want you to turn out to tick Labour, Greens, Mana, Maori or whatever else that endorses initiating more force against me and other New Zealanders, spending more of my money or borrowing more in my name. If you wondering whether to bother going out to vote for one of those parties then don’t bother getting dressed, just lie in bed. In fact, make sure you drink very very heavily on Friday night, have a great time. Alcohol will improve your judgment. In fact by lying in bed and being unproductive you’ll be endorsing in your own way the philosophy of the parties on the left, who celebrate the actions of those who are least active, least productive and least successful, whilst demanding the greatest effort, time, money and dedication from the most able, active and successful.  That's why the fact 200,000 of you can't be arsed to be enrolled, doesn't bother me, their opinions don't interest me, since they are uninterested.

So if you don’t know whether to bother voting and if you’d bother you’d vote for any party other than Libertarianz, ACT or the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, then stop stressing. Don’t vote. That leaves two categories of voters left. The completely apathetic (those who are uninterested) and those who want to vote, but have absolutely no idea who to vote for. 

To the apathetic, by whom I mean those who don’t care about what happens, not those who are philosophically anarchists and reject elected democracy. I presume you’re going to leave your home sometime today. Think a little about this. Around 40% of all of the activities in New Zealand are undertaken by government. You pay for that. Your income and everything you buy helps to pay for it. Government tells you what to do and what you shouldn’t do, and you apparently don’t give a damn what it does to you or anyone else. Maybe the government does a lot for you, maybe it houses you, provides you money to feed and clothe you, maybe it pays for your kids’ education, maybe it pays for when you go into A&E after you’ve had a silly accident. If you don’t give a damn, then maybe you are the sort of person for whom some politicians dream of – the person who wants to be looked after, told what to do, told what to think, paid other people’s money and to be entirely reliant on others. Like a child, free to play and indulge your whims, whilst other people parent you – except your parent is the government. If that is you, you’re pathetic. You can’t be bothered to even choose the party who will be your new surrogate parents and rule makers. You don’t care what happens to all those services you depend upon. You may as well not have grown up. You don’t deserve to be a parent because you can’t even look after yourself. You don’t deserve a driving licence because you can’t be trusted to know where to go, or to make decisions on your own. In fact, why doesn’t someone else do your shopping? Does that get your attention? 

Well if you disagree with me. If you insist I have painted you wrong, then prove me wrong. Vote for a party that doesn’t believe adults should be dependent on the state, which believes that adults can run their own lives, keep the proceeds of their labours and efforts, and deal with others on the basis of voluntary interaction. Prove to yourself, your kids and others that you don’t want to be seen as needing looked after in some patronising way by John Key, Phil Goff or the Norman Turei Group. 

Forget the electorate vote if you can’t decide, but vote Libertarianz. 

To those who don’t know who to vote for, then ask yourself this. In your day to day life do you feel like you’re competent enough to decide how to spend your own money, how to live your life, who to interact with, on what terms and to choose who you help, who you ask for help from and what to put into your body? Do you like politicians borrowing money on your behalf to pay for things you didn’t ask for? Do you like politicians deeming certain groups or companies to have extra privileges in consultation, or in getting taxpayers’ money? Do you think your life is better off with politicians doing more for you and asking more of you, than if they did less and expected less from you in return? Do you believe you own your life and you find most politicians to be patronising, insulting, lying and concealing bastards?

If so, there are three parties on the ballot in this election for the party vote that believe in less government. If all that matters to you is legalising cannabis, then the choice is obvious. If it is about more, then you have two choices. Each has an advantage and a disadvantage. 

Vote Libertarianz if you want to support a principled and consistent stand for less government, more freedom across all spheres of life, and to advocate less taxation, less regulation, the right to private property, the right to self defence, a small racially colourblind government, and to support all adult interaction becoming voluntary. However, voting Libertarianz has one obvious disadvantage. We all know that given current polling, there is very little chance Libertarianz votes will result in a Libertarianz MP getting elected. As a result, many libertarians will vote for the alternative. ACT. 

The sole advantage of ACT is that it has a reasonable chance of electing MPs, although it is dependent on the very not libertarian John Banks being elected in Epsom. Herein lies the disadvantage. You can vote for ACT on the basis of supporting Don Brash and his own, personal, belief in more freedom and less government, and because some of the ACT list also endorse this. However, you will do so knowing ACT is not as consistent in its policies as Libertarianz and it carries John Banks with it, knowing he is the key to ACT being in Parliament. Up to you if you think John Banks will be a reliable carrier of the banner of less government, more freedom and fiscal prudence. I don't, but others whose views I give credence to think it is a price worth taking a risk for. So that’s it. 

Vote Libertarianz, ACT or ALCP for your party vote, knowing full well one of those parties has the strongest chance of getting elected, but the price of that is its dependence on a socially conservative fiscally profligate ex. National Party MP. My own distant hope is Don Brash suddenly picks up North Shore, rendering the Epsom silliness redundant. 

If you’re not voting for any of them, then maybe get drunk this Friday night and stay in bed all day Saturday. You’ll be doing millions of New Zealanders the world of good in your own small way.

I don't believe people should be forced to vote, or feel they have to vote, when they don't have a clue what to do, or what it is all about. They have that right, and frankly such people are less of a threat to me and others than the enthusiastic handmaidens of the statists who are hustling hundreds of thousands in fervent joy to vote for people who will tell them what to do. Airheads who don't vote are a lot safer than airheads who do.

24 November 2011

Why do the Greens get such an easy ride? Part Two - 50 questions that should have been asked of the Greens

As I wrote previously, it appears the Greens are having a media honeymoon.  However, is this justified?  Do the Greens not have policies that could be seen as controversial?  Do their MPs not make statements that deserve further scrutiny?

Well I have composed a long list of questions I think journalists should ask, and more importantly questions YOU should ask your local Green candidate, especially if you are thinking about voting Green.   You may wonder if the Greens are quite so cuddly and inoffensive as the media makes them out to be.

So here it is - 50 questions to ask the Green Party (and one light-hearted one at the end)
My only other question is, why hasn't anyone else been asking them?...

Does your Treaty of Waitangi policy that “All claimants to have the opportunity to have their land and resources returned to them” include claims of private land?  If not, why is that not clear?

Do the Greens still believe Sue Kedgley’s claim that it is wrong to “shift responsibility for health and improving diets from the state to society and to convince people that public health is all about personal responsibility"?  If so, how do see the state leading responsibility for people changing their diets, how would the state adequately replace personal responsibility?

What are “all reasonable steps to prevent immigration numbers and the sale of land to rich immigrants from having an adverse impact on Aotearoa/NZ and its Taonga.”?  How can they have an adverse impact?  What is a rich immigrant?  What will an immigrant do to land than a locally born New Zealander wouldn't? 

How does the Green Party plan to implement its policy to ”Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children and pregnant women”?  How many TV and radio stations would you shut down?  Will you want to close wifi networks at schools and home?  Will you demand children and pregnant women not use laptops, TVs or any other electrical appliance?  Will you demand all homes with children and pregnant women to be outside mobile phone coverage?  Does the party understand how pervasive EMR is and has been for decades?  Does it understand that visible light is electromagnetic radication, and if not, how can anyone trust the Greens on science in other fields?

Do the Greens still believe it is ok to frighten people about non-ionising radiation from mobile phone towers, despite the complete absence of evidence about negative health effects? Is it appropriate for the leader of a major political party to engage in name calling when someone calls him out on not scaremongering Radio NZ transmitter sites, which emit more of the same type of radiation and have done so for decades?

Do the Greens still believe there is a media conspiracy against them on this issue because telcos advertise in the media? What evidence do they have of this?  Could it just be that your science is extremely flimsy and the media refuses to engage with such ignorance?

Do the Greens trust potatoes still, or do they stand by Jeanette Fitzsimon’s press release of 1999 that it was then "the last Xmas when you could trust potatoes"?  Wasn’t all of the fuss over genetic engineering in 2002 just scaremongering?  How many people have been killed, hurt or harmed by genetic engineering anywhere in the world? 

What do the Greens mean about  “Recognise ancestral land ownership in rural areas” for Maori?  Why shouldn’t private land owners in rural areas be worried?  What will you stop them doing?  What isn't recognised now?

What did Catherine Delahunty mean when she said that the Pakeha nation is "racist"?  Does she stand by her use of the term “genocidal spindoctors” to describe National Party speechwriters in 2005?  Does she stand by her hope that Maori will be the largest cultural grouping in New Zealand by the late 21st century?  Is this also Green policy?  Why is it that other parties don't care about the ethnic composition of the country?

When Catherine Delahunty saidWe have plenty of beaten women; gutted communities and whanau living in state housing that have never had proper electricity or water supplies. But lots of Pakeha are drinking wine and surfing, and they say so loudly without saying a word, would you please shut up about the connection between racism and poverty” is she blaming Pakeha for Maori women being beaten up?  Why are Pakeha who drink wine and surf to blame for beaten women?

Do the Greens agree with Catherine Delahunty when she describes Pakeha as having "colonial privilege" even if they were born in New Zealand?  At what point can Pakeha be described by Catherine Delahunty as being equal to Maori as New Zealand citizens with equal rights, if ever?  Do you think Pakeha voters of the Greens know that you believe that?

Do the Greens agree with Kennedy Graham when he saidThe political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow.”?  What political rights does he think should be “calibrated” and what does he mean by that?  When he said “Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living”, what freedoms do the Greens want to “licence”?  What individual freedoms must be subordinate?

Don’t the Greens think Kennedy Graham flying to London to discuss climate change at taxpayers’ expense is remarkably hypocritical?  How many more long haul flights will Green MPs seek to undertake to support fighting climate change and why?

Does the Green Party still share the view of Sue Kedgley that “We need to challenge the doctrine of free trade and accept that people's right to food, to be free from hunger, must have priority over an ideological fixation on allowing market forces to prevail at all costs” so abandoning New Zealand’s long standing bi-partisan trade policy goal of opening up markets to its agricultural products?  Does it share her view supporting the official French policy to effectively continue the EU’s highly subsidised highly protectionist Common Agricultural Policy?  Does it believe that free trade actually really means highly subsidising exports?  If so, why? What future do the Greens see in New Zealand's farming sector if farmers face a world that is protectionist, subsidised and engaging in "food sovereignty" policies?  

Why is it good value for taxpayers to have spent $1.3 billion on a railway that private companies would only have paid a quarter of that for?  Why do you think the private sector hasn't bothered investing in it, despite you being convinced of "peak oil" and that the end of mass use of the private car and road transport is nigh?

Do the Greens still think that it was appropriate to blame the Brisbane floods on climate change linked to the coal exported from Queensland, as if Queensland was getting its just desserts?

How do the Greens think that making membership of student unions voluntary “takes away choices?  Isn’t it the exact opposite?  Would you think differently of student unions if they had been  hot beds of free market capitalist and pro-entrepreneurial activism?  Doesn't this make you claims about believing in human rights superficial?

The Greens want to force electricity companies to generate a proportion of their power from expensive renewable sources.  In the UK a similar policy is estimated to be putting up prices by an average of 50% in real terms by 2020, with a fully privatised sector. How much will this policy of renewables put up power prices to New Zealanders? 

When Metiria Turei says “We need to get smokes out of our homes and out of our shopswhat will you do to achieve this? Do you really want to stop the sale of tobacco products altogether? Why don’t you have the same attitude towards marijuana?  Why don’t you think tobacco smokers should be left alone? 

Do the Greens still believe Don Brash wants to smash Maori culture and force women to be subservient?  Do you have any evidence for such exagerrated claims?

How will the Greens “Support equitable access for Māori to secure employment and decent wages”? How do Maori not have equitable access?  Who is stopping them? 

Do you think Maori can be racist? Why do you think people of Maori descent should be given different political structures from those of other citizens? Why do you think this should be constitutionally entrenched?  Why should the accident of your birth determine how the state interacts with or consults with you?


What examples do the Greens have of “unnecessary production and consumption”, and how do they propose to curb them?  Will this mean banning the production and sale of certain goods?  If so, what ones?

What products will be banned when the Greens implement their policy to  “Require domestic and imported products to be durable and recyclable”? Does this mean every producer of goods that are neither will be regulated out of business?  Does this mean no New Zealander could import a product that is neither durable nor recyclable?  Doesn't this ban anything perishable?

What exactly is "hugely harmful" to the public in private companies being contracted by local government to manage water services?  Where in the world has this proven to be the case?

Does the Green party still believe all of the Cuban government’s claims that its health care system is fantastic?  Is it in the habit of believing the official reports of one party states that imprison political dissidents as mental patients?  Why is Cuba exempt from the sort of scrutiny on human rights that the Greens apply to China or Burma?

Why do the Greens think parental choice of schools is a myth?  Why do they think the state always knows what’s best in education?

When you want to “Ensure all new houses and buildings fully comply with disability access requirements unless specifically exempted.  Will this mean anyone building a house on a hill about a road having to build a ramp or lift unless they get a special exemption from a bureaucracy?  Wont this make it prohibitively expensive to build homes anywhere that isn't on flat land adjacent to a road?  Wont this just increase the price of homes and reduce the supply?

When the Greens want to regulate broadcasting and the press with an authority that will “have the power to impose appropriate sanctions against media outlets in cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that it has exhibited wilful or negligent abuse of power and by doing so has either visited material harm on another party or pursued its own self-interest at the expense of the public interest.”, what examples of the media pursuing its own self interest do they have in mind? Doesn’t this mean introducing newspaper censorship in New Zealand for the first time in decades?

Why do the Greens fear foreign investment?  Do you share this fear of New Zealanders owning land and businesses in other countries, if not why not?  Why do you want to welcome refugees and migrants from all and sundry, but if anyone from another country wants to own a business, you treat them like the devil?

More specifically, what was the security threat posed by a Canadian company buying a New Zealand airport?  Should the British government be fearful that New Zealand company Infratil owns Prestwick Airport near Glasgow for the same reasons?

The Greens repeatedly criticise the trade choices made by New Zealanders in such banal terms as “swapping water with China”.  What exports do the Greens want stopped? What imports do they want stopped? Why do they think they know best what people should sell and buy?

Does the party’s support for taxpayer funding of the voluntary sector not make it the state sector?  Why should taxpayers be forced to support political advocacy groups?

What are the implications of “Requiring the inclusion of environmental science and ethics in all study programs.” involving science education?  Why is this relevant to physics for example?

What does “Support legislation that increases the reliability of the Internet” mean?  How do the Greens propose improving the reliability of a disaggregated global network by a law passed in New Zealand?  Can you pass laws to fix most problems?


How many other traffic laws do the Greens endorse breaking besides walking on a motorway?



Does Russel Norman stick to his belief that the London riots were caused by poverty, not opportunistic criminals seeking designer goods and electronics?

Do the Greens support the view of their blogger “Toad” that democracy doesn’t have to be secular, or liberal, and that it’s “ok” if democracies start a war if the people support it?  In which case, would the Greens support a Christian theocratic state that sent troops to Iran if it was democratically elected?

If the Greens think there should be fruit in schools, why don’t they set up a charity to raise money for it?  In fact, why don’t they ever advocate people raise money themselves voluntarily rather than make taxpayers pay?

When you expect that “significant time for environmental education” will be included in the teacher training curriculum, what should be excluded from the curriculum to allow for this?

Why do you think small business owners should be criminalised because they want to open on a religiously based public holiday?  How do owner-operator shops with no employees exploit people by merely opening their shops for people to choose to enter?


Why do you dismiss electric cars so flippantly, but treat electric trains as being the saviour to all of Auckland’s transport problems?  What proportion of trips in Auckland do you expect will be by train by 2014?

Do the Greens still support a Hamilton-Auckland train service, even though it would be slower than a bus, lose money and the local authorities wont pay for it? 

What’s Green about banning foreign ships that happen to be going from port to port within New Zealand as part of an international voyage, from selling empty space to carry cargo around New Zealand –when the ships would still be sailing regardless?  Isn't that policy just about pleasing militant  maritime unions?

The Greens paint a picture of the environment getting worse,and Russel Norman selectively quotes the Environment 2007 report from the Ministry for the Environment to support stopping road building, even though the report does not say that and provides plenty of facts that are inconvenient such as “Home heating is the main cause of air pollution in populated areas in the winter”  yet the Greens beat up on cars and trucks. The report also said  “Levels of PM10 particulates at roadside locations in Auckland appear to have fallen over the past 10 years”.  Why does a party that purports to be about the environment ignore good news about it?

Do any of you laugh at Catherine Delahunty’s tweets too? Like “Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine"?

So ask yourself if the Greens DO get around 10% of the vote on Saturday, how much they might have got if a few of those questions had been asked over the campaign, or the past few years, and why the mainstream media seems to have its tongue up the Green Party's proverbial.  Moreover, ask yourself why the National Party hasn't been doing that - is it because it has seen this party as a partner?  If you're planning to vote National, how will you feel if that is exactly what happens?

P.S.  Go here, register instantly and tick an up for this post if you like what you see, it seems the obvious people have been doing the opposite (and I have inspired over 100 comments there).