Green Party

What a complete car smash from the Green party leader in the UK

The Green party worldwide are infested with loons. We have just seen off one Australian weirdo in Russel Norman.

The leader of the Green party in the UK is an Aussie interloper as well and equally crazy.

Yesterday she has an absolute shocker and got smashed badly.

Michael Deacon from The Telegraph noted

The interview didn’t go well. To be fair to Ms Bennett, Ferrari did ask her a lot of tough questions, such as what her policies were and how she would fund them. A particular highlight was their discussion of social housing.

And the full story isn’t any better:

The Greens are in chaos after the party’s manifesto launch was overshadowed by a series of stumbling interviews by leader Natalie Bennett including one she herself admitted was “excruciating”.

Reaction to the series of media appearances, organised to promote the Greens general election programme, was heated, with many comparing the series of interviews to a “car crash,” while others suggested she had given the “worst interview ever”.

She repeatedly failed to answer questions about the party’s economic policy, stumbling when asked for basic details about the Green platform.

Following a particularly bungling appearance, with LBC Radio, when she went silent for long periods, Miss Bennett admitted to suffering from “mind blank,” and confessed her “excruciating” performance had been impaired by a “huge cold” after she struggled to explain the party’s housing policy.

In one exchange with presenter Nick Ferrari, she was asked several times how much the Green policy of removing tax relief on mortgage interest for private landlords would bring in, responding: “Erm … well … that’s part of the whole costing.”

Pressed on the cost of building 500,000 social homes, which the party has promised, she went on: “Right, well, that’s, erm … you’ve got a total cost … erm … that we’re … that will be spelt out in our manifesto.”

Mr Ferrari responded: “So you don’t know?” To which Miss Bennett said: “No. Well … er.”

[…]   Read more »

A reader emails about online voting

I am extremely concerned about the prospect of on-line voting. The suggestion that they are “looking into on-line voting” for the 2017 election, scares the hell out of me for two reasons.

  1. Votes will be cast without research or consideration. A last minute “click here” without any concept of what that actually delivers.
  2. 2014 election my 37year old stepdaughter with a very busy career went on-line and completed a questionnaire to help her decide who to vote for. The result was the Greens, so she voted accordingly. After the election she was disappointed with her vote as many Green policies were against her belief. The very thought of Laila Harre or Dotcoms influence in Government appalled her. Though she voted because she believes it is important to do so, she voted without understanding the MMP consequence. Lesson learnt.

How many people did just that? Asked a computer to decide their future and their political preference?

The democratic right to vote for a Government to represent us every 3 years should be taken more seriously than on-line polling or questionnaires. I do not suggest for 1 minute that it is a corrupt influence or process, however I suggest under MMP a computer cannot determine party coalition preference. Therefore it cannot be applied, and the result has dire consequences for NZ.

If a questionnaire was to determine my vote I strongly believe it would also recommend a Green Party vote. Why?   Read more »

Money doesn’t win elections

Arts, Travel & Lifestyle blogger David “Pinko” Farrar has worked out the cost per vote for all the political parties.

This proves that vast amounts of money do not change the election if it is spent by idiots like Kim Dotcom or Colin Craig.

What is even worse is that the Greens spend so much money on their campaign yet claim money is an evil influence. These hypocrites actually spent more than Labour in total, and more overall.

While this can be partly explained by Labour being deadset useless at a fundraising, the Greens have reefed in a lot of money to promote their world view.   Read more »

How broke was Labour at the election? Very broke, the Greens outspent them

The latest election expenses are out and it is quite revealing.

National spent the most, Labour spent less than half of National, and the Greens out spent Labour.

But the real take out is that money doesn’t buy you results. The Greens show that as does Internet Mana.

Labour spent half as much as National on last year’s election campaign and was outspent by the Greens for the first time.

Parties’ election advertising expenses were released yesterday and show Labour spent $1.27 million – slightly less than the Green Party on $1.29 million and half the National Party’s $2.6 million.

National was the biggest spender, followed by the Conservative Party, which was bankrolled by leader Colin Craig and spent $1.9 million. Funded by $3.5 million from Kim Dotcom, the Internet-Mana alliance spent $660,000 while the Internet Party spent a further $320,000. Of the parties in Parliament, United Future spent the least – just under $2000.

Read more »

Sour grapes

The Fox and the Grapes

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei complained that she was overlooked by Angry Andrew for a position on the Intelligence and Security committee because of her sex. She had no proof of this claim apart from the fact that he gave the job to someone else.

He said that he didn’t choose her because he wanted someone with 
 ‘skills, understanding and experience’  which in her mind implied that she did not have these qualities. Certainly no one would raise an eye brow at his decision to appoint David Shearer given his background in international relations and aid. After all he did spend nearly 20 years working for the UN, managing the provision of aid to countries including Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq.No one could say that Andrew Little gave the position to some one less able and experienced than her. In fact the opposite is true as she has no international experience at all. Nothing, nada, nil, zero, nought.

Read more »

Will the Green Taliban ever be part of a coalition government?

thi-dating-dysfunctional-relationship

I don’t think so.  They are petulant and self righteous, and expect way too much in return for their actual support base.

What about Labour and the Greens, eh? Can’t live together, can’t live apart.

Just how the two parties can co-habit on the Left has been one of the longest-running conundrums since MMP was a pup.

How can they turn being allies – or is that just very good friends – into benefits for both? And how can they draw the line between potential co-operation in government and competition for votes?

And then there have been the parties playing gooseberry: once upon a time United Future; ever and always New Zealand First.

As centre parties camped on the fulcrum of power they have been able to force the Greens out of government, when Labour has been in power, leaving them no option but to grimace and bear it.

The real problem for Labour is that it needs to position itself as partnering with Winston instead of the Greens, because not enough voters like the idea of the Green Taliban getting near the levers of power on the back of a Labour vote.

A vote for Labour is a vote for a Labour Green government.  And how much did the voters run away from that?    Last time, they did it in unprecedented numbers.

Instead of learning from this, the Greens are even more self-righteous! Read more »

Trotter on Little sleight of the Greens

Chris Trotter writes at The Daily Blog:

In the current political climate, Little is acutely aware that Labour’s close association with the Greens is a big political loser. Too many people who would like to vote Labour are declining to do so because they fear the influence of the Greens within what all the polls tell them would be a coalition government of the centre-left. It is one of the reasons why so many Labour supporters split their votes. They are happy to give their electorate vote to the Labour candidate, so long as, by party-voting National, they can keep the Greens out of government.

Clearly, by so publicly mistreating the Greens, Little hopes to convince potential Labour voters that his party is no longer willing to be lumped-in with Green “extremism”. His message is clear: in any future coalition government the Greens will serve on Labour’s terms – or not at all.   Read more »

Some thoughts on Little shafting the Greens, Sign of things to come?

Andrew Little had a major cock up saying that Maori should be able to write their own laws, something which it appears the Greens agreed to because they reckon his first major cock up is something different  and something that no one cares about.

Norman said it was a “bad call” and is upset he learned of the decision through the media.

Now the Greens say Little has broken the law as well as convention.

The Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 states that the leader of the opposition must nominate representatives “following consultation with the leader of each party that is not in Government or in coalition with a Government party”.

A Green Party spokesman said this was Little’s first “big stuff up” and are calling on him to back down.    Read more »

Party that campaigned on undermining national security upset they are not invited to the national security meeting

Credit: Mark Mitchell

Credit: Mark Mitchell

How precious can you get?   The Green Taliban have spent years saying the likes of the GCSB should be disbanded, our armed forces should not enter theatres of war, and the SIS and the Government can’t be trusted, but they would very much like to be part of the group of people to deal with national security issues.

National and Labour have shut all other parties out of Parliament’s most powerful committee – the committee that will oversee a major review of the country’s intelligence services. Read more »

The problem with ‘ethical investing’

Yet again the Green party is lecturing us on ‘ethical investing’.

Can anyone see a problem with that?

The Green Party has called for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to quit its investments in companies producing fossil fuel.

The fund’s chief executive, Adrian Orr, said it took the issue of climate change seriously and expected its exposure to fossil fuels to fall over time, and investment in renewables to rise.

“But a simple divestment call? The world is just not that straightforward,” he said.

The fund, set up by the previous Labour Government to partially pre-fund future New Zealand Superannuation payments, had $676 million invested in companies directly involved in fossil fuel production as of last June. That represented about 2 per cent of the fund’s assets.

Greens co-leader Russel Norman, in a paper released yesterday, makes an ethical case for not investing in companies whose activities are literally fuelling potentially catastrophic climate change.

He also points to a financial risk of stranded assets, citing analysis by the International Energy Agency and other bodies that the world’s coal, oil and gas companies already have in their proven reserves at least three times as much carbon as can be burned without exceeding the internationally agreed target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.   Read more »