A table
Voice for Life care about prostitution, civil unions, parental notification, abortion and euthanasia.
Vote for the Environment care about biosecurity, climate & energy, education for sustainability, environmental management, freshwater, GE, high country parks, NZ’s global environmental stance, oceans in crisis, protecting nature on land, public access, clean up/prevention of toxic pollution.
Define ‘care’
Care = the organisations’ lists of things that they polled the parties on.
Very helpful. Where did it come from?
What I meant to ask was where it said: “Voice for Life care about prostitution, civil unions, parental notification, abortion and euthanasia.” what did it mean by ‘care’?
Sambo, That’s the question I was answering.
Tim, I made it from data from the linked websites.
In terms of care for civil unions, what does that mean though? Care about it existing or care about trying to make it not exist?
READ THE WEBSITITITEEEEE
If you are mentioning ‘biosecurity’ in under ‘vote for the environment’, then you might also want to include ‘biotechnology’ under ‘voice for life’
Nope – ‘Voice for Life’ and ‘Vote for the Environment’ are names of organisations, and those topics are ones that those organisations have identified as being important to them. i.e. I didn’t make up the lists off the top of my head.
I can’t read. Im not a loser.
http://www.voiceforlife.org.nz/biotechnology.htm
My pologies Jono — I should clarify, I’m working from the issues they identify as important in their voting records stuff: http://www.voiceforlife.org.nz/research/Voting%20Record%20by%20MPs%2005.pdf
gotcha.
Check this out for a center ground statement. This is United Future’s policy on GE – ‘Supports an extremely cautious approach to GE and believes the current government decisions regarding GE are on the border of acceptability’. I wonder which side of border of acceptability that is?
Gosh Matt don’t be so complicated! What does this mean? I don’t understand what is going on. Actually, where am I?
Is it just me, or is that table in Arial?
What does that table mean to you, Matt?
Or, what do you feel Matt, when you read that table?
So now I guess the $10 question is: What do we care about more – Vote for Life, or Vote for Environment?
The table seems to indicate there’s no happy medium.
rudy, you’re back! I thought you had disappeared into the terrifying relativistic black hole I built for you…
haha funny guy…
actually, I have my reply saved on my hard-drive (with bible references to boot:)
But I realised there’s simply no point in discussing things when you can’t agree on the basics…
So I withdrew. We’ll simply agree to disagree.
Rather, your withdrawal seems to indicate that what we are agreeing is that your logic is incapable of convincing me of your truth.
…and in politics surely half the point is that the various parties start from different basics, and have to somehow come to a consensus/compromise.
In Korea they sometimes fight in the chamber. More fights.
Don’t bother Richard. Won’t happen.
Have a nice journey.
Mmm. What are those basics, Matt?
Sorry my brain just fell off.
Alwin, your gloss on my question to matt (#18) seemed unfortunately mocking – and missed the point.
I am not asking how matt feels, I am asking how he interprets the table in an action-oriented type way. What does it mean?
#23 gives a glimmer of an answer.
It seems that something is deeply wrong with both groups’ main lines of thought. Neither have a God-fearing view of the world. One doesn’t care how we live in it; the other doesn’t care that some are untimely removed from it.
I know you didn’t put anything about party policies on the economy, but could you? I think that the Greens, for example, policies affecting the economy make their ‘vote for the environment’ completely irrelevant. At least comment.
Why’s that, fester? Can you explain?
Fester, find me an organisation that is ranking the parties on economic issues and I’d be happy to update my table.
to Aaron: money, is, quite simply what makes the world go round. If a party makes all contribution toward the environment, but none to the economy, then what use is the environment? New Zealand will become a poor beautiful pitiful country. Very third-worldy.
#28: Aaron was the ‘gloss’ intentionally juxtaposed with ‘Matt’?
demons of glossolalia!
ahahaha. No, but very well done for spotting that. :)
Actually, if we don’t look after our environment, we wont make much money. We trade on a clean green image. Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to droughts, floods and other extreme weather events. Our entire economy and our health relies on effective biosecurity. If we take too many fish out of the sea, we’ll eventually wipe out our fishing industry – look at the effect of over fishing in the hoki fishery. The policies that lie behind Forest and Bird, ECO and Greenpeace’s Vote for the Environment campaign are economic necessities, not luxuries.