Greens trying to buy a referendum

June 1st, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Green Party is spending $50,000 paying people to collect signatures for a citizens-initiated referendum on .

The equivalent of 10 fulltime staff have been hired for the next six to eight weeks in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.

The also have a volunteer army of about 2000 Auckland-based “issues assistants” helping with the campaign and have budgeted a further $28,000 for related sundries.

The bid for a citizens-initiated referendum was launched last month and is sponsored by a coalition of Grey Power, the Council of Trade Unions, Greenpeace, the Union of Student Associations, Labour and the Greens.

The sheer hypocrisy. The Greens spend years railing against money in politics, yet to use their language they are trying to purchase a referendum.

Greens co-leader Russel Norman said the funding was coming out of the party’s $1.3million annual leader’s fund.

`It’s very important to us to stop the asset sales and it’s very important to us that New Zealanders are given a voice because they currently don’t have one,” he said.

What bullshit. A referendum will not stop the partial asset sales. It is just an expensive publicity stunt. And Dr Norman is mad if he thinks people don’t have a voice on the issue. There was a 10 month debate on the partial asset sales last year, known as the election campaign.

Tags: , ,

63 Responses to “Greens trying to buy a referendum”

  1. Nostalgia-NZ (5,039 comments) says:

    Well, at least it’s got DPF fired up!
    I wouldn’t write if off just yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (3,836 comments) says:

    One L russel (it of the squeaky voice) complains about the cost of selling down 49% of five SOEs and says that is worse than misappropriating taxpayer monies.

    I wonder wherther he has ever owned and sold a house.

    If so, perhaps he could try advertising and selling one for “free”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hmmokrightitis (1,569 comments) says:

    Dear Toad,

    Im sure you will be along shortly to tell us the error of our ways. When you do, can you please tell me why its OK for you to use my hard earned, to piss it up against the wall, when we have already had a GE fought over just this issue. Oh, and then, you can tell me why the person who sough to get my signature on Lambton Quay this week lied.

    “National are selling off all our power companies”.
    “Actually, they arent, they are selling a maximum 49% shareholding”.
    “Thats what they say now, you wait, and then they will sell everything”
    “So you thinks its acceptable to lie to people to get them worried enough to sign your petition?”

    Suffice to say the conversation ended at this point. I hope your proud toad, so very very proud. Is it any wonder thinking people have so much scorn for socialists? You pack of lying bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    Yes!
    Anyone can organise a cheap nationwide petition, it’s easy and it costs nothing. Why don’t the Greens just do that?

    DPF: It is just an expensive publicity stunt

    Unless they really, really believe that asset sales are a bad thing and should be stopped?
    Can you foment happy clairvoyancy now too? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Grendel (972 comments) says:

    and yet we all know that Norman and the rest of the greens were happy to deny the voice of NZers when it came to foisting the anti smacking bill on us that had not been campaigned on.

    he was happy to ignore a referendum then, and that was an actual citizens referendum, not funded by a political party, actually run by the people.

    he was happy to ignore 87% of NZers then, why would he care about the over half of NZers who voted for parties that promoted asset leveraging?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    Pretty happy to see this on stuff this morning. I wonder how people actually feel on all this money being spent on something which is pointless. People need to realise THEIR money is being spent on something which is essentially pointless. It disgusts me actually that they would be so reckless with taxpayer money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    Apparently Lockwood Smith has been asked whether this is an appropriate use of public funds. Wouldn’t it be terrible for the Greens if they had to sack all these people because their funding got pulled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham – as I said in the comment I left in the General Debate, Danya Levy left out three important words:

    The Green Party is spending $50,000 paying people to collect signatures for a citizens-initiated referendum on asset sales.

    should actually have read:

    The Green Party is spending $50,000 of taxpayers’ money paying people to collect signatures for a citizens-initiated referendum on asset sales.

    The latter puts a completely different emphasis on the story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, but this line:

    “There was a 10 month debate on the partial asset sales last year, known as the election campaign.”

    doesn’t wash with me. True, asset sales were debated then, no argument there, but come the election parties are elected (or not) on a wide range of issues. Show me anybody (outside of the asylum – sorry, Parliament) who agrees 100% with every single one of a given party’s policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Grendel at 9:16 am: Very good point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,568 comments) says:

    Considering Key made it his election platform, you’d have to be utterly batshit stupid as fuck to be pissed off about National winning the last election and then (shock horror) carrying through with what they promised to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    DPF putting his energy attacking the despicable, Stalinist Greens! I salute that, for a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    @hmmokrightitis

    Oh, and then, you can tell me why the person who sough to get my signature on Lambton Quay this week lied.

    The person who sought my signature told me the Crafar Farms were among the “Government assets” being sold. I’d call it misinformed, not lying though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mr Nobody NZ (397 comments) says:

    Based on their performance during the election surely the Greens just need to erect some billboards and get their supporters to write their names all over them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    If the Greens feel it is ok to spend public money to gather signatures, then surely it is acceptable for me to ask them to pay me for my signature.

    (At present estimations I place the value of my signature on this petition at between $5bn – $7bn.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rodney Hide (60 comments) says:

    Using taxpayers’ money to gather signatures for a referendum is worrisome enough. But the deeper concern is how the Greens use the names and addresses collected. I would suspect they are planning to use those names and addresses as a rich source for members and votes.

    That, I suspect, is the real point of the referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    Fucktards, if the public outrage was so great against the asset sales the populace would be knocking on the melons door to organise a petition to challenge the sales. This is simply a publicity stunt paid for by you and me and run by hollow people trying desperately to push failed politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. flipper (3,836 comments) says:

    Rodney makes a very good point.

    That would be similar to what Labour did with NZEI petitions, would it not?
    The Greens also used that technique with ECE folk.

    Wonder what would be said it the NATS and ACT did that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    There seems to be some confusion about what happens after a general election. The Greens may not have been in a position to form a government but that doesn’t mean they should not advocate and fight for their beliefs and those of their supporters, which they are doing.

    Can anyone link to a poll where a majority support partial asset sales?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    Hey look it’s Rodney the Rorter! Lecturing us on the proper use of public money Rodders? How are renovations going anyway? Finished yet? Time on your hands now you are on the dole so you’ve come to kiwiblog to wile away some time while you wait for the silent phone to ring?

    Mr. Farrar’s position on this is an exercise in unbelievable hubris. What planet is he on? Does he seriously believe a political party in a democracy isn’t entitled to campaign against a government policy using its funding? I say again – what planet is he on?

    Is David Farrar going to have a hissy fit every time a political organisation organises effective opposition to his precious National government? And what does this reveal about the mental state of the National party strategy team, given he is their chief online cheerleader with close ties to the top leadership? Is national so used to the cult of Key giving them an armchair ride that have now convinced themselves we live in a one party state where the opposition is tolerated as long as it isn’t effective, kinda like their favourite other country Singapore?

    Get a grip Mr. Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tom Barker (132 comments) says:

    I was out collecting signatures for this petition in Kilbirnie, Wgtn yesterday (unpaid, on my own volition). My daughter and I could barely keep with the demand to sign it. Many of those who signed told me they voted Nat. in the general election, so I can’t see how that precludes a referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    graham (700) you try taking out a policy worth 7-8 billion and then expect a party to fund all the other things they campaigned on. Thats what f***s me off so much about this. They expect the government to drop this policy but would then jump on them if they dropped other policies because trhey could no longer fund them. They keep harping on and on about how National doesn’t have a plan blah blah blah but want them to drop a key part of the plan they pout forward to the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    God what a sad sack country we are where a very small step away from the failed policies of state ownership of productive assets is even rermotely controversial.

    Add to this, for example, the $250m the government plans to spend on rail which is just good money chasing the bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Grendel (972 comments) says:

    Tom, imagine what you could have achieved if you had been working instead? you could have been building wealth for your family and whanau instead of trying to refight the election. and also, i doubt it. i am sure many people say that in order to spread discord amongst those who voted for national and were happy with the policy, it would not be the first time i;ve seen it happen.

    Oh look its fish, nothing to debate with Rodney, just straight to Adhom.
    which part of party funding a ‘citizens referendum’ did you miss fish.

    if the citizens are that concerned they will do it on their own, they do not need the greens using tax payers money to try and rort it. the correct place for the greens to fight was at the election and now in parliament. not trying to get a second go at the election via the media.

    yet despite all this, i would not actually care if they actually used their own money. they are using taxpayers money to campaign, when its not meant to be for that.

    do you not care about taxpayers funding party campaigning? bet you would be having a great sook if national or act did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (9,662 comments) says:

    I like fish boy cause hes not hysterical and batshit crazy. dont you have class to teach or something.

    Graham – did you vote National?

    At least we were told pre-election about the partial sales to good bastard kiwis who want something to invest in :)

    if it was that strong an issue for you you should have voted for someone else.

    i dont recall being told about things like buying a train set.. abolishing the privy council etc

    what did helen once say? we won, you lost, eat that!? something along those lines.. or was there a diddums in there too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. publicwatchdog (2,277 comments) says:

    Yes, National did campaign on asset sales – but National did NOT get a majority of MPs.

    Only 59 out of 121 MPs are National.

    NO MAJORITY = NO MANDATE for asset sales.

    Do the maths.

    (Meant of course in a caring way ………….. :)

    This is why ‘shonky’ John Key is defending the indefensible ‘dodgy’ John Banks, because he desperately needs his pivotal vote for the Mixed Ownership Model Bill.

    In my considered opinion, time would be more productively spent focusing on forcing the resignation of the not-so ‘Honorable’ John Banks, who is arguably NOT FIT FOR DUTY as an MP – let alone a Minister of the Crown.

    Which is what I for one, am doing.

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,066 comments) says:

    do you not care about taxpayers funding party campaigning? bet you would be having a great sook if national or act did it.

    ACT and National do do it. All parties fund their political activities from their leaders funds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Rodney Hide (60 comments) says:

    Dear Mr fish_boy

    Thank you for asking. Yes. We have made tremendous progress on the house. The inside is all done and I painting the roof and just pouring some concrete steps.

    My phone hardly rings. It’s glorious. And yes I am having a spell from mixing the concrete.

    I am afraid you may have unwittingly done the Green Party a mischief stating of Mr Farrar, “Does he seriously believe a political party in a democracy isn’t entitled to campaign against a government policy using its funding?”

    You will find the Parliamentary Services funding is to assist MPs and party leaders in their parliamentary duties and campaigning is deemed not an acceptable use of Parliamentary Funds.

    I would have thought that paying people to collect signatures for a referendum is campaigning but that decision will ultimately be up to Parliamentary Services, the Speaker, and the Auditor General.

    All it takes is someone to lay a complaint…..

    I trust Mr fish_boy you are having as good a day as mine.

    Best

    Rodney

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Cunningham: Let me make it clear, I’m not saying National should drop this policy. I *personally* would rather they didn’t; however, I recognise that National do have a mandate to go ahead with this from the very simple fact that they won the election, and this policy was very clearly signalled (despite what Mad Penny says). And I agree, it’s a bit bloody rich of the Greens to pick and choose what policies should be kept, and what should be dropped. (All parties do that however, the Greens are not the only ones). But the old classic “We won, you lost, eat that” does come to mind.

    What I am saying, however, is that although asset sales were debated during the lead-up to the election, come election day parties are elected (or not) on a wide range of issues – not just one. I voted for National based on their overall plans for the country, even though I disagreed with this one issue. That is why I feel the Greens are entitled, in principle, to undertake a referendum on the issue. And I would hope that if the majority of people said, “Actually we’re fine with partial asset sales” that the Greens would respect that.

    Yeah, right.

    The way they’re going about it, however, is another issue entirely …

    doesn’t wash with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    @ dime 10:40 am: Yep I voted National. As I say above, I felt they were best overall for the country, based on the majority of their policies – not all of them. In that, I may not agree with partial asset sales, but I unreservedly accept that they do have a mandate. And I will be one of the good bastard kiwis lining up to buy ‘em – they can sit alongside my Air NZ, Auckland Airport, and Contact Energy shares. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Mark (497 comments) says:

    Russell Norman is such a lying leftie hypocrite – no wonder he got kicked out of Oz. The Greens are a corrupt lying bunch of retards, enriching themselves at the expense of hardworking NZders.

    They want to live like kings while keeping the rest of NZ poor. They are the evil party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    @ Penny: Someone who STEALS water, shows others how to STEAL water, and STEALS electricity does not have a ‘mandate’ to call other people ‘shonky’ or ‘dodgy’ …

    graham
    Attendee: Royal Wedding 2011 (watched it on telly)
    Attendee: Grand final, sheep racing at Helensville A&P 2011 and 2012

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nostalgia-NZ (5,039 comments) says:

    A Parliamentary duty must be to determine the wishes of the electorate.

    It’s a day dream to even consider that determining public opinion on an issue is electioneering. There may be spin-offs for a party prepared to engage with the electorate over important issues but no more so than any other service for the electorate.

    This remains an important issue, even now 6 months after the election and no doubt signatures on the petition or lack of them will reveal the people’s voice.

    graham has it about right above, the electorate was split in polls over asset sales at election time – this will give a clearer picture on a single issue rather than hybrid choice on who should be the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    publicwatchdog (981) but their support partners agree so they do have a mandate FFS. Why is it so hard for the left to understand how democracy works. If you feel so passionate about this then why don’t you go and start a petition to get the anti smacking bill reversed. I mean after all it wasn’t supported by the public but Labour implemented it anyway without a 50% majority. The irony is the left always go on about democracy yet are happy to ignore its principals when it suits them. Disgraceful!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    The first two sentences in my post at 10:49 were a little unclear.

    To (hopefully) make it clear :) I’ll add in six words:

    I’m not saying National should drop this policy. I *personally* would rather they didn’t GO AHEAD WITH PARTIAL ASSET SALES; however, I recognise that National do have a mandate to go ahead with partial asset sales from the very simple fact that they won the election, and this policy was very clearly signalled (despite what Mad Penny says).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. alloytoo (463 comments) says:

    We should be taking careful note everytime a lefty claims that the Nats don’t have a mandate.

    I suspect (sadly) we’ll have ample time to shove it in their faces when left coalition wins the next election.

    Especially if National polls better than individual coalition partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Longknives (4,682 comments) says:

    “Only 59 out of 121 MPs are National.
    NO MAJORITY = NO MANDATE for asset sales.
    Do the maths.”

    So if National did have ‘the majority’ you wouldn’t protest Penny??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide said

    You will find the Parliamentary Services funding is to assist MPs and party leaders in their parliamentary duties and campaigning is deemed not an acceptable use of Parliamentary Funds.

    I would have thought that paying people to collect signatures for a referendum is campaigning but that decision will ultimately be up to Parliamentary Services, the Speaker, and the Auditor General.

    All it takes is someone to lay a complaint…..

    I understand that this matter has already been the subject of correspondence with Mr Speaker; it will be interesting to hear his response.

    PS – Rodney; are you bringing a dose of sanity to RadioLive this afternoon? I hope so…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Longknives (4,682 comments) says:

    By the way- How is the ‘Occupy’ movement going?
    Are they ‘Occupying’ anything other than WINZ offices, Tinnie houses and Prison Cells these days??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    Penny – how did you feel about NZ First voting for Labour’s Emissions Trading Scheme in the dying days of the 48th Parliament, just before the 2008 election. Peter Brown spoke on behalf of NZ First in that debate, and was pretty contemptuous towards the Bill that Winston had ordered him to support. And might NZ First’s support for a Bill they actually opposed have been a quid pro quo in return for Labour voting against the motion to censure Winston Peters for knowingly misleading the House?

    You see, that’s what happens in an MMP environment; deals get done, and political expediency is far more important than principles. Then again, I guess you voted to retain MMP…

    Keeping Stock

    Attendee: Legend in His Own Lunchtime dinner, 1996
    Attendee: Church (most Sundays)

    http://www.PennyLuvsBanksie.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. m@tt (609 comments) says:

    “There was a 10 month debate on the partial asset sales last year, known as the election campaign”
    Again… If you are so sure the country is in favour of asset sales why are you worried about a CIR?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Cunningham (828 comments) says:

    m@tt (424) does anyone seem worried about the outcome? People are more pissed off that the greens are using taxpayer money to fight something they have already lost. I don’t give a shit if the result is 99% against assets sales to be honest. What really pisses me off is that my taxpayer money is being paid towards something that has absolutely no chance of changing anything. Surely the Greens can come up with a more creative way to waste taxpayer money. The left are of course masters at that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hmmokrightitis (1,569 comments) says:

    What Cunningham said – its not the process – if the greens want to do it, and believe it SO much, then they can damn well pay for it. I did not give them permission to use their funds, from my taxes, in that manner.

    And Im joining in too, it looks like fun…

    Attendee: A large curry induced dump this morning at 0610 hours, pre long run
    Attendee: The Bright is Batshit Conference 2012 (cloud based) (missed out on allocated seating, caught bus home)

    PS. Penny, you do realise that you weaken your argument a tad around corrupt practices when you yourself break the law. Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    @ Penny:

    Number of people who took part in the Occupy movement in NZ: 500?
    Number of people who didn’t take part in the Occupy movement in NZ: 4,431,800

    Occupy did NOT get a majority of the population.

    Only 500 out of 4,432,300 people took part in Occupy.

    NO MAJORITY = NO MANDATE for anything that Occupy were claiming.

    Do the maths. (I’ll help – it’s 0.01% that Occupy got)

    (Meant of course in a caring way ………… :))

    graham
    Attendee: Royal Wedding 2011 (watched it on telly)
    Attendee: Grand final, sheep racing at Helensville A&P 2011 and 2012

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. m@tt (609 comments) says:

    @graham
    Using your very own methodology you have just proven that National have NO MANDATE to sell assets.
    Number of people that voted for national in 2011: 1,058,638
    Number of people who didn’t vote for national in 2011: 3,373,662
    Do the maths…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    @Penny Not-so: Actually, there IS a mandate and that was courtesy of the voter in the last election. And I’m sure your vote counted…

    You may recall the election – it was a time when you (again) offered yourself as a prospective MP but (again) failed to make an impact on the margin of error. Of people here, I really thought you’d understand the nuances of the democratic process, but clearly not.

    Elaycee,
    Attendee: Ferret Society Training Camp, Banks of the Ruamahunga River, 1984.
    Attendee: Steam Whistle Club Knees Up, Cross Creek, 1969.
    help:my_skunk_has_fleas.nut

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. dubya (222 comments) says:

    Please sign the petition to have Russell Norman deported:

    http://www.petitiononline.co.nz/petition/deport-russel-norman-from-new-zealand/1541/113a7b6959731916344dc13d59400d62

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    @ m@tt: No-o-o, I’m using Penny’s methodology to point out that if she wishes to use that line of reasoning, she should really keep quiet about Occupy (who claimed to represent the ’99%’, which was LIE) as they didn’t have a mandate – using Penny’s logic, not mine.

    Do the thinking…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Winston should help finance a referendum as well.

    The greens have shown him up big time in this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. DJP6-25 (1,308 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide 10:48am. Good luck with the house Rodney. All the best.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. DJP6-25 (1,308 comments) says:

    This couldn’t be astroturf could it. Is that environmentally friendly?

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. simo (150 comments) says:

    Pity the Greens can’t extend their generousity with our money to funding shoes for kids, instead of trying to mess with the electoral system which returned a mandate to partial asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Here’s a question. Wouldn’t the unions be best placed to mobilise people to get this amount of signatures?

    If so, then why aren’t they? Are they too poor? Or don’t they really care?

    And if they’re too poor, what have the unions been spending all their members’ money on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Penny, come back, we have a few questions you haven’t answered yet!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    Quite so Simo; you could buy a helluva lot of shoes or lunches for children in poverty (whom the Greens seem so concerned about) with the $78,000 of taxpayer funds the Greens are spending on political grandstanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    graham

    Penny doesn’t answer questions. It is beneath her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Ah, right – silly me …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Keeping Stock (10,174 comments) says:

    Penny’s probably out protesting on the corner of Dominion and Balmoral Roads again. Although quite why she’d protest against John Banks in the Mt Albert electorate is anyone’s guess!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    Andrew Geddis damns this at length:

    Boo for my side. Boo!

    He also says Hypocrisy

    The initial problem with the Greens throwing their support behind the CIR process is that it leaves them somewhat open to charges of, if not hypocrisy, then at least selectivity. Because our last experience of CIR – the so-called “Smacking Referendum” back in 2009 – produced a pretty decisive vote against a policy that its member was instrumental in guiding through the House and into law. Yet on the day the vote’s outcome was announced, then-Green MP Sue Bradford responded to it by saying: “Even a large `No’ vote tonight won’t be a clear mandate to the Government to act in any particular way.”

    And hijacking CIR

    There then is a broader problem with a political party so deeply involving itself in the CIR process. When this was set up, it was designed to be a way in which broader civil society can send a message to parliamentarians on issues that it thinks important enough to mobilise around.

    So to now have a political party effectively bankrolling the process of forcing a CIR represents something of a distortion of its intent. Essentially, it is turning CIR’s from expressions of the views of a self-organising general public into yet another campaign tool deployed to advance the particular interests of organised political parties that are funded through public subsidies.

    And a few more:

    …it becomes pretty hard to rail against the influence of money in politics when you yourself are spending money trying to influence politics.

    …even if you achieve your goal of getting the requisite number of signatures and force a CIR vote on the issue, it is going to be tainted by accusations that it is just a Green/Labour stunt rather than a genuine exercise in demonstrating the public will.

    And…

    …that then hands the Government the perfect excuse to ignore the result of the vote, no matter how overwhelming. And that then makes the whole exercise a waste of time and money.

    Which brings me back around to my first point. We should just dump CIR’s altogether – not use them for things we like, while ignoring them for things we don’t.

    CIR – fine in theory, well, they would be if they weren’t toothless, but in practice a futile waste of time and money, especially as time goes on and political parties learn to use them to extend their own campaigning, abusing the intent of their own rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Viking2 (11,263 comments) says:

    To Kiwibloggers who enjoy a glass of wine.
    And to those of you who don’t and are always
    seen with a bottle of water in your hand.
    and of course the water woman, Penny.

    As Ben Franklin said:

    In wine there is wisdom,
    In beer there is freedom,
    In water there is bacteria.

    In a number of carefully controlled trials,Scientists have demonstrated that if we drink1 liter of water each day,at the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli, (E. Coli) – bacteria found in feces.
    In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop.

    However,We do NOT run that risk when drinking wine or beer(or tequila, gin, rum, whiskey or other liquor)because alcohol has to go through a purification process of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting.

    Remember:
    Water = Poop,
    Wine = Health.
    Therefore, it’s better to drink wine and talk stupid,
    Than to drink water and be full of shit.

    There is no need to thank me for this valuable information:
    I’m doing it as a public service!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Viking2 (11,263 comments) says:

    A woman goes to the Doctor in Glasgow, worried about her husband’s temper and threatening manner.

    The Doc asks: “What’s the problem?

    The woman says: “Weeell Doctor Cameron, I dinae know what to do. Every time ma hubbie comes home drunk, he threatens to slap me aroon’.”

    The Doctor says: “Aye, well…. I have a real good cure for that. When your husband arrives home intoxicated, just take a wee glass of water and start swishing it in your mouth. Just swish and swish but don’t swallow it until he goes to bed and is sound asleep.”

    Two weeks later she comes back to the doctor looking fresh and reborn. She says: “Doctor that was brilliant! Evrae time ma hubbie came home drunk, I swished with water. I swished an’ swished, and he didnae touch me even once!
    Tell me Doc…wha’s the secret? How’s the water do that?”

    The Doctor says: “It’s really nae big secret. The water does bugger all – it’s keeping your mouth shut that does the trick…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Viking2 (11,263 comments) says:

    Nymphomaniac Convention

    A man boarded an aircraft at London ‘s Heathrow Airport for New York , and taking his seat as he settled in, he noticed a very beautiful woman boarding the plane.
    He realised she was heading straight toward his seat and bingo – she took the seat right beside him.

    “Hello”, he blurted out, “Business trip or vacation?”

    She turned, smiled enchantingly and said, “Business. I’m going to the annual nymphomaniac convention in the United States …”

    He swallowed hard. Here was the most gorgeous woman he had ever seen sitting next to him, and she was going to a meeting for nymphomaniacs!

    Struggling to maintain his composure, he calmly asked, “What’s your business role at this convention?”

    “Lecturer,” she responded,” I use my experience to debunk some of the popular myths about sexuality..”

    “Really”, he smiled, “what myths are those?”

    “Well,” she explained, “one popular myth is that African-American men are the most well endowed when, in fact, it’s the Native American Indian who is most likely to possess that trait.
    Another popular myth is that French men are the best lovers, when actually it is the men of Greek descent.
    We have also found that the best potential lovers in all categories are the Irish.”

    Suddenly the woman became uncomfortable and blushed. “I’m sorry,” she said. “I really shouldn’t be discussing this with you, I don’t even know your name!”

    “Tonto,” the man said. “Tonto Papadopoulos, but my friends call me Paddy.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    My experience and the experience of all those I’ve talked to is that getting signatures for the S59 referendum was about as hard as offering water to a thirsty man.

    It says so much that the people who were on the wrong end of a massive groundswell of public support are now having to pay people to try and get a simmiliar result.

    Nonetheless I wish them well. They’re more than welcome to cement their place on the wrong side of history if they *really* want to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.