Greens are dangerous

Quote of the day:

Greens are la-la dreamers. I wasn’t going to make comment but then thought better. Their idealism is naive but it’s not harmless. It’s dangerous. So this year it needs to be exposed as regularly as it appears. Lindsay Mitchell

Labour has been trying to out-red the Greens in order to shore up their left flank.

That will be difficult.

The Green Party trades on its association with the environment.

But that’s just a cover for its foundation of radical socialist economic and social policies which are anything but sustainable – economically, environmentally or socially.

12 Responses to Greens are dangerous

  1. homepaddock says:

    Consideration – careful thought, typically over a period of time; a payment or reward; something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances; a desire to avoid doing something that will make another person sad, upset, angry, etc.


  2. robertguyton says:

    Then your post was particularly considerate, Ele.


  3. Dave Kennedy says:

    Green Party MPs are constantly quoting Treasury, the Law Commission, mainstream research and science and government appointed commissioners when challenging Government policy. It is National that is dangerous and making bizarre decisions. We have had constant privacy breeches, school closures have been overruled and Steven Joyce has been kept busy being Mr Fixit. All of National’s coalition partners have accusations of fraud or leaking hanging over them or are facing extinction. Backhanders and back room deals are a huge part of current governance and a whiff of corruption is everywhere; the SkyCity deal, the $45 million paid to Joyce’s old employer Media works, the demise of Solid Energy and the rushed asset sales.

    One of the few policies that has been successful has been the home insulation scheme that was a Green idea and part of the original memorandum of understanding. Despite it providing an excellent return for the investment it was almost wiped completely.

    last election National MPs were openly supporting the Greens over Labour and now the Greens are suddenly dangerous, good grief!


  4. bennettleton says:

    Dave Kennedy, has just proven comprehensively that while Greens parties members may or may not read empirical data their comprehension of it is quite a different matter, why don’t you detail for us Dave exactly how National GAVE mediaworks $45m, I’ll save you some time you can’t because they didn’t, what you refer to was a LOAN agreement between the crown and mediaworks even allowing for the greens financial illiteracy surely you can distinguish , at best there is a question as to the merits of the governments role in entering into transactions of this nature, but they were commercial transactions at market rate nevertheless and I note this amount was indeed REPAID ahead of time, further it was the height of the GFC and it wasn’t just mediaworks the government entered into such arrangements with, but let’s not go letting facts get in the way of such typical ill informed emotive drivel


  5. Ric Stacey says:

    Whats your solution for children who are too hungry to learn ? I see the national government supports Fonterra’s breakfast in schools policy. Your comments add nothing constructive to the debate. Do you think the Green policy of having nurses in low decile schools will reduce later hospital costs?


  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    I think you are referring to the licenses for the mainly unused frequencies that Mediaworks controlled and refused to allow others to have (but couldn’t afford to pay for). This loss in Govt revenue was not supported by Treasury nor the Ministry of Economic development but was fast tracked through anyway.
    What facts did I misunderstand?


  7. bennettleton says:

    That’s is not what you said in your first comment at all, you said the government GAVE mediaworks $45m, in fact mediaworks and others held renewable frequencies and the government afforded ALL holders of such frequencies financial terms as in any commercial arrangement and sums which have now been repaid in full. Are you suggesting the government would have been better to let various parties default on strict payment obligations and then resold such frequencies at firesale prices?


  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    I had lots of communication from community based stations and those who work in the industry that Media works were favoured unreasonably and got the bulk of the support. I admit that I glossed over the details but it was essentially a gift to a private company if they are allowed to retain control of the frequencies with minimal cost. It was also seriously questioned by the Ministry of Economic Development because it basically translated as corporate welfare and a substantial loss of revenue.


  9. bennettleton says:

    But details matter! I hope your comrades haven’t glossed over their numbers!


  10. robertguyton says:

    Glossing over the numbers – aka “Keying the figures” alt. “Blinglishing the books”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: