International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘The Greens’

Getting rid of the public education system should be the goal of every politician

I find this just weird, myself.

The Green Party reshuffled its portfolios today and co-leader Metiria Turei is now in charge of speaking on education for the party.

She came out swinging saying the Government was undermining the public school system through national standards, Novopay, the Christchurch schools announcement and charter schools.

Charter schools were a “deliberate attack on the public education system” …

I consider the public education system to be a necessary evil. We consider that all children should go to school, but not all parents can afford school, or have the time or motivation for home-schooling.

So we have public schools that are paid for by the state. They provide a basic level of education, ensuring that no one misses out on the fundamentals.

It’s like the welfare system – if we can get people off welfare and into work this is a good thing.

So when someone uses words like “a deliberate attack on the public education system” I must confess that I find myself nonplussed.

Then there’s this:

and Turei said the Government should be on notice that she would seek their reintegration.

Turei had not discussed the matter with Labour.

“If a charter school is established, they need to expect that a change in Government is likely to mean a change in their status,” she said.

This is even weirder.

Charter schools are private schools paid for by the state, with certain flexibilities that other schools are not allowed. Some will be started by private companies, others by trusts or societies.

The are not public schools. They are private institutions, private property.

Now, Turei can announce that the Greens would de-fund charter schools. She’s welcome to that policy. The Green party can write whatever policy it wants. If the public approve, they will get votes. Good or bad, that’s democracy.

But the Greens can’t write their own facts. You cannot reintegrate something into something it has never been integrated into in the first place.Stating that the green party will “reintegrate” is not a factual statement.

You can confiscate it however and remove the property from it’s owner. 

This raises the question: are the Greens lying, or are they just incompetent? Actually, there’s a third option: they’re politicians who’re saying what they think will get votes regardless of any other consideration.

Charter schools would make the educational achievement of the most vulnerable children worse, she added.

Proof presented? None. Again, you don’t get your own facts. Logic suggests that with greater teacher ratios and greater flexibility, charter schools will do very well with those students currently being failed by the one-size-fits-all state education system. But Turei doesn’t seem to understand the role of that system any more than she understand’s it’s points of weakness.

The entire point of charter schools is that they have a free hand in their education model. Time will tell if a given school model will work for the students who attend. But a blanket statement that they can only make things worse is ridiculous as it assumes that our current system is near perfect.

The numbers tell us the opposite – it is the state system that is failing the vulnerable, with one in five children failing to complete an adequate education. If you’re following, that means that the state education system is failing in what should be it’s core objective.

“We make to make that really explicit to the Government and to business,” Turei said

In other words, Turei is firing a shot across the bows of “business”. Here by “business” she means any private group that dares to provide education not approved in detail by the officials of the state. (Turei, of course, believes all businesses are evil, so she uses that term because she knows her supporters agree with that self-contradictory and bizarre world-view.) She is demonstrating that she knows full well that her earlier statement was untrue, and that she intends to hurt those who disagree with her on this issue, should she gain the influence in a future government.

Well, you can’t say the Green Party don’t have a sense of humour

Good on ‘em for laughing at themselves. Sometimes we all take ourselves a little too seriously.

The Greens have been criticised by Prime Minister John Key, who said, ‘The Greens call for an inquiry on virtually anything.’

The remark prompted immediate calls from the Green Party for an inquiry, which would focus on why the Greens call for so many inquiries. According to a spokesperson for the Green Party it would focus on why the Greens insisted on holding the government to account and whether it was appropriate behaviour for an opposition party to oppose the government and inquire into its activities.

The Green Party announced it would convene a working group to determine the make-up of the inquiry committee, which would then report to the national executive before December. Once the gender-balanced committee was selected its first task would be to draft its terms of reference. Those would be ready sometime in the new year and the committee would report its draft by July.

The committee will not be headed by Paula Rebstock or Dame Margaret Bazley.

Sources within the Green Party predicted that the inquiry would probably be a whitewash, with its recommendations ignored. A subsequent inquiry into why the inquiry was ignored was likely. The Green Party would not approach Margaret Bazley or Paula Rebstock to lead the subsequent inquiry.

 

In Shocking News a Green Party Policy is ridiculous

The ODT has a story on the Greens’ new water policy.

They give this example:

Mr Lepper is manager of the Earnscleugh Irrigation Scheme, one of about a dozen irrigation schemes in Central Otago.

The Earnscleugh scheme supplies 110 landowners and covers 1100ha. Irrigators are charged about $51 per hectare a year.

“With the addition of other small charges, our income is $65,000 per annum, and with this we run a fantastic co-operative irrigation scheme that is of tremendous benefit to the Central Otago economy,” he said.

“Under the Greens’ new policy and proposed rate of 10c per 1000 litres, we would have to fund an additional $1.76 million a year, from our landowners.

“You do not have to be a genius to work out what this would do to the viability of our local horticulture and farming businesses.”

It seems that the Green Party hasn’t even done basic research into the impact of it’s policy. How hard would it have been to talk to one of their members who has experience in irrigation farming to get some numbers that would work?

It’s a policy that will see well to their base, but will destroy the economy. Were the affected farms to shut down, their failure would impact hundreds of other jobs in their local communities. That means more people on welfare and less productive work in the economy. That’s the last thing we need right now.

But hey, so long as it appeals to the base, right?

“Not Enough Evidence”

The police have bizarrely decided that there is not enough evidence to show that Russell Norman was assaulted.

Dim Post mirrors my own thoughts.

Really anything could have happened out there: all the police had to go on was TV footage from both networks, photographic evidence, parliamentary security cameras and dozens of eye-witnesses including members of the DPS. How Dr Norman’s flag went from in his hand to being trampled underfoot by the Chinese security forces will just have to remain a mystery for the ages.

While I have no doubt that any investigation would not have resulted in a prosecution, this crime still should have been investigated. An assault on a VIP (Dr Norman is the leader of our third-largest political party after all) which is captured on video should be taken very seriously.

The fact that the police refuse to do so, and this gob-smackingly pathetic excuse, suggest something very, very wrong in police HQ.

MP standing in for idiot activist attacked

I agree 100% with DPF on this.

The Chinese security guards obviously exceeded their brief, and there should be consequences for that. Unless Dr Norman was a physical threat to the Vice-President, they had no right to manhandle him. Keeping an embarrassing sign out of sight is not a legitimate reason.

We had much the same in Dunedin in 2008 when Pete Hodgson manhandled a protester who was holding a sign up behind Helen Clark, which the cameras could see. Hodgson was investigated for assault in that incident, and the Chinese security should also be investigated for assault.

Personally I think Dr Norman looks like a prize idiot when he acts as a lone protester rather than a party leader – but he has the right to do so.

One wonders if the the security detail knew he was an MP? Not that it matters.

Update: I do however find it mildy ironic that an MP who still supports the EFA talks like this:

“Don’t bring your undemocratic processes to our country,” Dr Norman had told the Chinese VIPs.

Congratulations Jeanette Fitzsimons

Scrubone congratulations the former Green Party deputy leader on her being awarded the Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

She has been a tireless campaigner for the environment, and a thoroughly nice person by all accounts.

The only downside is that her party made it into parliament.

Greens on the Rule of Law

Seems that the Green Party do like the rule of law.

There are many views on rule of law  but “characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty” are common to most definitions. …

Another view of rule of law is that “a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”.” Which means that we just reduced our degree of rule of law in Canterbury.

Hm… when have I seen that world “discretion” before?

Update: It seems that even the youth wing have forgotten the principles that the party undid when they pushed for Section 59.

Zachary Dorner, Young Greens spokesperson said “Raising the drinking age has more to do with pointing the finger at young people than solving the real issues. What we need to do is to take a look at ourselves and start treating alcohol as the harmful drug that it is”

Wow, so now we have both a Green leader talking about how we shouldn’t undermine the rule of law with vauge “discretion” clauses and the Young Greens spokesperson talking about focusing on actual issues.

Would have been nice if they’d chosen to apply these principles a couple of years ago, and stopped attacking parents using reasonable force  (using vague reassurances of police discretion), rather than going after the real problem of those who abuse their children?

Petitions…

This morning on Morning Report there was a report of the Green Party presenting a petition of 16,000 or so.

Naturally, they insisted on the Goverment listening.

One wonders why they think such things have any moral standing, given their attitude towards much larger petitions presented by others.

Sue Bradford Going

Well, Sue Bradford is off New Zealand Parliament the Green party er, nobody’s loss is everyone’s gain.

Unfortunately, as many have pointed out the damage is done, and it is serious.

But in spite of all that, and in spite of the fact that she is serial liar, and opposed open democracy and did her best to made the lives of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of NZ parents (and anyone who has contact with children, small or grown) miserable, we wish her well with her future endeavors.

WhaleOil says (in part!)

there should be a wall at parliament called the Bradford Wall of Shame that lists every child that her meddling law failed to protect.

Well, if you believe the cover story. Really however, the bill was about removing parental rights in the belief that the world of children is all cupcakes and sugar fairies without evil parents around.

Genuinely abused children had little to do with it.

Dave

Looks like the loss of the leadership to Metiria Turei really hurt. But, despite Bradford being one of the most effective backbenchers, in terms of getting legislation passed, this is the best thing that has happened to the Greens this year. Watch for a rise in the polls for the Greens.

Indeed, when you spend your time telling 90% of the country they’re stupid, you’re a real drag on poll numbers.

There’s Thuggery and then there’s Thuggery

Sometimes it’s hard to see where bloggers stand exactly. Sometimes they seem to be against something

Sue Bradford has been receiving death threats during the campaign around last weekend’s smacking referendum. This sort of thuggery has absolutely no place in our political system, and I’d expect it to be condemned by people across the political spectrum

But just the other day, he was wishing death (or at least, the breaking up of families) for… well, most of the public, but specifically his political opponents.

You may have won the vote, but that doesn’t make you right. Anyone who believes that violence against children is either necessary or acceptable is simply a monster. Anyone who thinks its fine because they were beaten as a child “and it didn’t do me any harm” is simply stupid. Any dead people who feel their parenting style is implicitly being criticised are exactly right, and should get the [expletive delete] over themselves. The old law treated children as property, provided legal cover for extreme violence against children. … But that does not protect the children of the hard-core child beaters who organised this referendum, the people who believe in faeries or devils or other bullshit and think they need to beat their delusions out of their children. Those children need our protection now, and it is absolutely the business of the state to protect them.

What this vote shows is that there’s an awful lot of you monsters out there. Fortunately, you’re dying out. And our country will be a much better place for children when you are gone.

I wonder if he’s going to claim this was a result of a hacked account?

The reality is that today’s news story is a transparent PR beatup and the plonkers who did it are well known. The 11% of voters who rejected good law are over-represented in our media and were quite willing to push a story that cast Sue in good light.

I challenge those members of the media to highlight the disgraceful comments by her, and her supporters. They’re not exactly hard to find.

Of course, the fact that Sue’s inflammatory comments have been ignored for so long might have contributed to the fact that only 6% of the country got out and voted in support of her law.

Update: Hang on, did Idiot/Savant just suggest removing the children from the leaders of the effort against this law?

My advice to Bob, Larry et al – next time you get on the media, ask Sue Bradford if she supports this sort of comment. It almost sounds like some people really are happy for us to walk down the road towards a police state – “if it saves one child”.

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 166 other followers