h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I assume it's because Greens - the leafy sort, at least - contain iron.

contain iron? do you mean they're actually healthy? I never considered that .. but I may try to nibble on one

Thought I'd drop that post here too. I've replaced the only thing remotely offensive:

>>I missed it but apparently Roger Douglas just made a speech calling for National to use some shock tactics. Which Key promised he wouldn't do. So already you have a difference with their most obvious coalition partner.

Not that ACT will have that much power -I'm sure they'll compromise in order to be in govt.

But the Maori Party has five seats (same as ACT), and people on TV are talking about MP being part of govt. I can't really see it, although it does give National more options that if ACT was the only possibility. They could form a minority govt with confidence and supply support from ACT or the MP.

The good news is that Peters and NZF are out. It's likely that will be the end of them. I feel pretty [angry] with Helen Clark who refused to ditch Peters even when he got caught up in an electoral finance scandal mid campaign.
<<

Thanks...

It's a pity the way the NZ election went; it broke a run of good results.

Yeah, but it was no surprise.

I still can't work out what it really means for NZ now that the Nationals are in ... Time will tell, I'm sure.

Ivan asked in the other thread how bad can it be?

My two main concerns are:

1. National said they would overhaul the Resource Management Act. The RMA is internationally reknowned for it's ability to protect the environment*. It means that people with few resources can challenge big corporations and prevent them from damaging developments eg local campaigners stopped Meridian from putting another, big dam on the Waitaki River. That would have been much more difficult pre-RMA. Developers of course hate it. It does slow processes down alot and it can be made overly bureaucratic, but my understanding is that the Nats don't want to reform it a bit and make it more streamlined but that they want to undo it enough so that people with lots of money can do what they want again.

I'll expect lots of tinkering to departments like Conservation that in real terms will mean less money.

*partially. We still do an incredible amount of really bad stuff here, environmentally.

2. The Nats believe in the trickle down theory - what's good for the economy is good for everyone. But low income people will get hit doubly, by decreasing wages and benefits, and by more users pays for education, health etc. I know from the 90s that being on a benefit under National is much harder in terms of the attitude and policy of the departments too (the Nat 'stick' philosophy seems to be the only thing that actually trickles down).


I don't know how much they'll get away with given the world recession. They've said they'll not sell any state assets in their first term. I don't trust them though. I've turned all media off since Sat night, and am trying not to think about it too much.

I'm not sure what's worse, having a National govt, or living in country where so many people would vote for them.

And it's hard to see where Labour will go from here. Helen Clark, for all her faults, has been a great leader and I can't see any filling her shoes at the moment. Not that's she's retiring but I also can't see her being Prime Minister again.

The Greens really need to get their shit together. They did get 2 extra MPs this time, a little ray of sunshine.

Thanks kea.

After our 2004 election I spent a fair bit of time avoiding the media too. It was all too... frustrating.

Thanks Kea. Not very rosy, is it? I'd heard a rumour about the RMA, but hadn't realised that the proposed changes were likely to be wholesale. It's an horrendous bit of legislation to work with, but it's advantages do seem to outweigh the disadvantages. So just as I get my head round the RMA, in comes a govt who wants to ditch it

I'm not sure if they'll ditch it or gut it

I'm going to an RMA-For-Idiots course tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see if the trainers have anything to say about the possible impact of the new government.

Fb

Can you let me know what they say (if anything)?

Yup, okay
Do you work with the RMA, kea?

Not in a formal way. Just from activist conversations mainly.

It looks as though they may be trying to reduce the hearings/Environment Court thing, so that more contentious resource consent applications go straight to EC, rather than having to go to a District Council hearing first.

Also I heard that more large applications may be 'called-in' early, either by Regional Councils or MfE - depending upon consideration of regional or national interest.

Nats are aiming to 'streamline' the RMA. This looks as though it will lead to the Local Government Act assuming legislative primacy (this will have to be a Ministerial direction) which will have major implications for LTA's consultation, participatory and prioritisation processes.

From my pretty uneducated position (inasfaras the RMA/LGA are concerned) I'd say this could be a good thing. However, it depends how considered the changes are: if they try to do it all in the first 100 days, serious mistakes are more likely to be made than if they take their time.

Phew! How's that for a serious post?

Fb

*sits and listens with interest but has nothing to add*