The Green Party have launched a ‘poverty’ fundraising campaign via email, calling it a(nother) crisis.
Here is your opportunity to help the Green Party create practical and effective solutions to New Zealand’s Child Poverty crisis.The Green Party has driven the so called ‘poverty’ debate, and have tried to redefine the word poverty in a modern New Zealand setting. Lifting 100,000 kids out of poverty was one of their three main election policies last year.
Child poverty in New Zealand has 270,000 young faces.
That’s the official figure of those growing up in poverty. It’s a quarter of our nation’s children.
These are the kids with no school lunch, too hungry to learn. The kids struggling with asthma from living in cold, damp homes. The kids turning up at A&E suffering from Rheumatic Fever and other entirely preventable diseases.
It’s a national scandal, and it needn’t be so.
Since the election they have promoted the number of 270,000 being in poverty in New Zealand.
Every child deserves a good life and a fair future. That’s why the Green Party has launched the Take the Step Campaign with the aim of radically reducing child poverty in New Zealand, and we need your donation to help make it a success.Raising money for people in poverty may seem like a worthy cause. But further reading suggests none of the money raised will go to poor people.
Click here to make a donation now.
We know that this is a Campaign where success will take a long period of concerted and committed effort.Money raised will fund Green party political campaigning. There is no indication that any money will go to poor people.
It demands that the Government takes action now to effectively tackle child poverty. The first step is to win support for our Member’s Bill to create a child payment for all low income families, whether in work or not. In doing we will have begun the process of ensuring that New Zealand can become a great place to grow up for every child.
This is just the start. We need your support to run a strong campaign that will radically reduce child poverty in New Zealand.
Click here to make a donation now.
And this is likely to be unnecessary and probably futile.
Pete George is quite right. Surely if the Greens were committed to ending child poverty (whatever "child poverty" is defined as being, given that it means different things to different people), surely they would be raising money to give to deserving charities, not to line their own war-chest and indulge in political posturing.
And Pete George makes it plain that there is a solution for the Greens that won't cost a red cent; read on:
If the Green Party wants to win support for their Member’s Bill they don’t need to raise money and they don’t need to run a party promotion campaign. All they need to do is convince one of two MPs to vote for their bill. The vote of either Peter Dunne or John Banks is all the support they need. All it would cost would be somne time and a convincing argument.
Pete is spot on. MMP politics is all about negotiation and compromise. Metiria Turei would be far better holding her nose and making an appointment with either or both Messrs Banks and Dunne, and going and stating her case.
By all means can the Greens solicit donations to help to eliminate poverty. But they would garner far more credibility if that money was spent on directly trying to help people in unfortunate circumstances rather than just indulging in more politicking. Pete George is dead right to call the Greens on this disconnect.
34 comments:
It doesnt take much to peel back the top layer to find how conceited the tree hugger party is. Using hungry kids as political pawns is disgraceful.
Your "Pete" is mocked everywhere he goes for his toadying and lack of integrity. Saying he is 'spot on' reveals your own similarity to this Peter Dunne clone. George's opinion on most things serves as an indication to the thinking reader, of what to avoid and what to dismiss in politics. Ask him what he thinks of Dunne casting the deciding vote on the Government's cowardly Climate Change policy, the one the Parliamentary Commissioner Jan Wright expressed her disgust over on the Nation this weekend past. Dunne is a worm, and his Wormtongued shadow Pete George is cut from the same cold shroud.
It seems to me that the Greens are
"directly trying to help people in unfortunate circumstances". They are doing that but using their strengths, that is, they are an influential political party and that money will be best invested in their ability to communicate the issues to the public and other political levers available to the Greens. Your suggestion that they should use the money 'directly' is naive. What do you want them to do, buy shoes for poor kids? The Greens are cleverly offering people a chance to invest their money where it can have the maximum effect in releiving poverty in New Zealand. They are not 'indulging in more politicking', as you claim, but getting on with doing what they are best positioned to do. Your anti-Green position doesn't allow you to see this. Pete George is in the same boat as you - anti-Green and envious of everything they achieve.
Your claims just don't stack up. If any other Green supporters bothered to come here to this anti-Green, Anti-Labour blog, they'd eat you alive in terms of your shallow arguments. Prey they don't go to the trouble.
Kendle Blue..is that prey as in victims or pray as in you better hope so?
There is nothing wrong with being anti green party (as opposed to being anti conservation) and that my dear one eyed ranter is a fact!
KS, Kendel Blue is quite right, your argument is flawed on so many levels. The Greens have a long and proud history of gaining political change despite never being in Government and this has largely been through private members bills and memorandums off understanding (we have one with National). Such bills and agreements need the support of other parties and the Greens have managed this on numerous occasions, we do this well.
We all know that this National led Government are often swayed by public opinion rather than evidence and research so that political change needs to occur via both public support and work in parliament itself.
Pete quotes the Greens:
"Every child deserves a good life and a fair future. That’s why the Green Party has launched the Take the Step Campaign with the aim of radically reducing child poverty in New Zealand, and we need your donation to help make it a success."
but then he suggests that the Greens are deliberately misleading the public into thinking that the donations may go directly to poor children. This statement so clearly explains that the money will be supporting a political campaign, how could one read it as otherwise?
KS, this is just another one of your many baseless witch hunts against genuine and transparent Green initiatives for positive change.
I couldn't disagree more strongly bsprout. All Metiria Turei needs to do to have her Bill pass is secure the vote of John Banks or Peter Dunne (the more likely of the two). There is no need for the Greens to launch ANOTHER political campaign which they cannot fund themselves, and have to go cap-in-hand to the populus.
And Kendel Blue; you are wrong when you say "The Greens are cleverly offering people a chance to invest their money where it can have the maximum effect in releiving poverty in New Zealand." There is nothing clever about this at all; it is simply another exercise in self-promotion by the Greens.
There is one area in which the Greens excel; spending Other People's Money. Here's hoping that they never get within a bull's roar of the Treasury Benches.
"All Metiria Turei needs to do to have her Bill pass is secure the vote of John Banks or Peter Dunne (the more likely of the two)."
Ha ha ha ha ha! Bullsh*t.
Dunne and Banks are both as anti-Green as you and George are. Dunne is presently giving his vote to pass the idiotic ETS demolition bill, he'll never live down that disgrace, and to suggest that all Metiria has to do... ha ha ha ha!
The Greens have more sense than to approach those old farts for anything at all. Their 'poverty appeal' is an excellent idea and that's proved by your gibbering reaction to it,
" Here's hoping that they never get within a bull's roar of the Treasury Benches.", you blubber, but you know as well as I do, Keeping Stock, Russel's as good as there and when he get's his organically-produced leather shoes under that table, I'll be sending you the name of a good travel agent, because you'll be wanting to snivel off to Aussie, taking the doltish Lofty with you for comfort. Bring on the election, the Greens are super-keen to get their hands on all the country's money and spend it on anything and everything that comes into their heads: tax-cuts to the basket-weavers, give Maori everything they ask for, rail lines right across the country, cycle lanes into Wellington (ditch Transmission Gully!) forced hair-cuts for Ohariu/Belmont ex-MPs, whatever, spend, spend, spend!!!
Good Lord; these Robert Guyton clones are EVERYWHERE!! Have the Greens been doing some secret cloning and GE experiments to produce a squad of blog-commenters? No wonder they need donations!
We are everywhere, Keeping Stock. Every ridiculous, untrue claim you make, we leap upon and tear to shreds and you make it soooo easy for us to do with your baseless claims and one-eyed opinions. How about you come up with something substantial on the Greens, like 'they lied to the country about Kim Dotcom', or 'they are protecting John Banks when it's clear he's failed the MP's credibility test', or any number of other 'unmentionable' ethical and legal failings.
Instead, you attack the Greens for their poverty initiatives.
Pretty low, KS. Pretty low.
If I may repeat, this still being a country that is clinging tenuously to the concept of free speech, and all....There is nothing wrong with being anti green party (as opposed to being anti conservation) and that my dear one eyed ranter's is a fact!
Lilting Lennie....Doltish??? really.
Insults are down there with the lowest form of human contact and communication...just so you know.
I have no problem with you and your clones rabbiting on or even in your silly beliefs, fill your gumboots, you are as entitled to silly opinions, just as I am entitled to correct and true ones.
bsprout - it's obvious what the problem is here - Keeping Stock, Lofty, Pete George and jabba, all suffer from Greenis Envy.
Perhaps it's best we don't stir up that pudding!
"The Greens have a long and proud history of gaining political change despite never being in Government"
They sure have bs, and nowhere is this more evident
Than their destruction of livelihoods in Tasmania. .
"We have heard for more than 30 years that the forests are threatened. It is now time that the government, the greens and their supporters realised that we (the people) are now the threatened species."
Proud?
"Insults are down there with the lowest form of human contact and communication...just so you know"
"my dear one eyed ranter"
Eh, Lofty!
Moist goes overseas to find fault with some greens.
Feeble.
Shall we look to the rotten English Tories in order to slag the NZ National party?
No need.
bs prout - just look at your comment. All the things you talk about the Greens are doing for the poor are already funded by the tax payer.
If you took your green tinted glasses off and looked at your messaging then you would see;
1) how misleading it appears, and
2) how wrong your extortion of money for political ends may appear as you are already funded to do it.
Paranormal
My dear Willowy Blonde, if you find that an insult you are very thin skinned indeed.
Tisssue thin in fact.
And you, Lofty?
Upset by 'doltish'?
Make yourself a cup of chamomile tea and have a little lie down then, that's a wee poppet (and mind you don't scrap your thinnest of skin on the tea-cosey as you pour!)
If we want to use fact and reality in this debate we need not look any further than what National has achieved since 2008: Higher levels of borrowing, fewer jobs, struggling manufacturers and shocking levels of family poverty. One of the few successful initiatives that provided a good return on the investment was the home insulation scheme, a Green idea.
Given the shocking record of coalition partners and their financial management and National's own history of acquiring financial support, I would take care with your stone throwing, KS.
NO NO Rough Rod...I am not upset at all, you misunderstand me ( as you and your lot often do with the general populace) I am merely educating you my dear multi headed clone.
May I have an earl grey instead?
No need to ask permission from me, Lofty.
If you want to poison yourself with a ladies drink, go ahead.
Real men drink gumboot.
From a gumboot.
BS prout, sprouting BS and attacking the messenger. Its wonderful to see you and your communist sympathiser mates wind up like energiser bunnies. To say that giving the greens money is going to have 'maximum effect in relieving poverty', my God I laughed so hard I thought I would die! What are they going to do other than put up plastic polymer billboards, or pay for flights to get their people to legalise cannibis rallies? They certainly wont do shit to deal with the deepest world recession in generations or refill the govts coffers from the surpluses squandered by Labour to win the 2005 election. But wait!! there's printing money!!! the dumbest and stupidest economic policy to emerge in decades (what will rising prices of core products do to poverty in NZ BS BS BS Prout???)
KS - The Greens should be more than skewered for the gross dishonesty in this latest piece of rubbish that they are spouting.
In trying to align themselves with the NZ 'Poverty Industry' they are doing themselves, this country and the billions of people around the world in genuine poverty a huge disservice, and making a complete mockery of the word poverty. To then try and make money for their own political purposes is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The problem in NZ is the definition of 'poverty' - currently this seems to be if you live in a household with less than 50% or 60% of median disposable income. This is how all these 'magical' figures of 270,000 children 'living in poverty' in NZ suddenly appear.
Even those with a elementary understanding of Statistics and Mathematics must realize that by this definition we will always have 270,000 children 'living in poverty'. We could be the richest nation in the world, with the highest living standards (oh thats right we nearly are) - and by these definitions we would still have the same number of children 'living in poverty'.
If you are interested in these definitions have a look at http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php
Lets have a look at a little of the detail of what 'living in poverty' is from this well meaning web site:
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/userfiles/2011_child_poverty_table1b.gif
Deprivation in this table is:
went without music or dance
involvement in sport had to be limited
unable to pay for school trip
lack of friends at a birthday party
lack of one weeks holiday away from home last year
lack of computer
lack of internet access
You see - this is deprivation and poverty in New Zealand, for which the Greens want to fleece the gullible and stupid for money to run endless political campaigns on. A problem that by definition can never go away.
This is a gross insult to the real poor in the world - children that living in developing world slums, that are coerced into forced labour at age 5 or less, sold into prostitution before puberty, are lucky to eat twice a week....the list goes on.
In NZ - I am a child in deprivation if I don't have a computer or internet access. It surely seems to be a huge problem.
To the Greens - shame on you. You are complete hypocrites.
"The Greens should be more than skewered for the gross dishonesty in this latest piece of rubbish that they are spouting."
Really, Ross? I have challenged you before to name the lies that you have accused the Greens of telling and you haven't responded. Please provide example of dishonesty. These are strong accusations and yet you don't seem to have any actual examples...
bsprout: did you read the rest of it. Just one small example of Green dishonesty and hypocrisy is laid out there.
A: Pretending there is mass child poverty in NZ when clearly there is not
B: Trying to raise money from the public to solve a problem that doesn't exist
With regard to your 'challenges' - challenge away - I will respond if I choose. Just because I didn't respond doesn't mean you have proven your point - it just means in the real world some of us have lives.
Cheer up, in 2014 you will lose again, and have another 3 years in opposition to soak up the countries resources pretending to be relevant.
Ross, I think there must be some sort of conspiracy because the Children's Commissioner, Health professionals, University academics, mainstream television, the New Zealand Institute (supported by the Business Round table), most political parties and schools are all saying that we have a huge problem with child poverty. Yet despite this you are suggesting that they are all "pretending". Can you please share the institutions, organisations or research that are providing the information you are using to expose this conspiracy. I would be grateful if you could provide links like I have done below to prove that what your claim isn't just something that you have just invented by yourself.
http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7655339/Child-poverty-our-biggest-enemy
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Shows/InsideNZ/InsideChildPovertyASpecialReport.aspx
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10839028
http://www.nzinstitute.org/index.php/nzahead/measures/income_inequality/
By the way, Ross, you were very selective with what you chose as some of the indicators for poverty and should have also included:
-Sharing a bed
-Continuing to wear worn out clothing and shoes
-Serious health problems
-Not being able to afford meat or fresh vegetables regularly
-having to live in a house that is difficult to keep warm and has major issues with dampness.
Actually bsprout, Ross made his point about "poverty" very well. The measures or "poverty" here are a joke by global standards.
Poverty is the AIDS sufferer who invited us to her "home" in Ethiopia for a coffee ceremony. When we asked our friends about taking her a gift, it was suggested that we offer coffee beans and sugar as she would have spent her money on offering hospitality to us. Poverty is our sponsored child we visited there; one of 1200 sponsorships managed by the local organisation, with more than 1600 children on the waiting list for sponsorship. Poverty was the homeless people who sleep on median strips on the roads in the day-time because it isn't safe for them to sleep at night.
Poverty on that scale is unimaginable in New Zealand. As Fred Dagg famously said: "We don't know how lucky we are".
There is no disease in New Zealand.
Disease in African countries is appalling! That's real disease!
There is no disease in New Zealand.
Lord, preserve us from these fools!
Point well made KS. Another point is the Green tax credit and / or child "payments" have absolutely no guarantee of success in addressing any measure of 'poverty'. The real probability is the majority of these funds would end up boosting the profits of McDonalds, KFC, the Breweries and Big Tobacco. However we must see the Green strategy for what it is, a short term band aid which appeals politically - not to mention a shameful use of so called families in 'poverty' for political gain.
Quite so Bunk; and watch this space; there's more going on...
BS prout - The Greens have been anti poor for a long time. Just look at your record when you reds were last in power. One of your claims to fame was the limiting of used vehicle imports.
What you were warned of has come to pass. The price of second hand vehicles is increasing so that the poorer members of the community have to hang on to their old clunkers longer. It doesn't affect the "rich" who buy new cars that are unnaffected by the Green regs.
We now have a situation where the vehicle fleet will continue to age until we get a similar situation to how we were under Fortress New Zealand. We'll have 20 and 30 year old cars (just think of the old Cortinas, Zephyrs and Vivas) on the roads, deathtraps barely held together because it is too expensive to replace them.
Paranormal
@ Paranormal; just think of all those carbon emmissions from all those dodgy old cars too. The Law of Unintended Consequences comes back to bite the Greens (and by default, the planet) on the gluteus maximus.
"and watch this space; there's more going on..."
Keeping Stock has been contacted by a RELIABLE SOURCE whose CRITICAL INFORMATION will blow this Green scandal WIDE OPEN!
Just like last time, eh KS!
Remember? Your reliable insider and that hot information on the Green Party? What a scoop that was!!!
Read today's instalment EM; the MSM has caught the Greens' scent...
Post a Comment