International Cat Speculators Since 2006


Bob at Family First points out that the Green Party’s previous stance when faced with a petition falling short is to give up and move on.

He also posts a few stats comparing the referendums:

How many signatures were submitted? 324,216 v 391,355

How many were needed to force the referendum? 300,094 v 308,753

How many were found invalid after the thorough audit? 13% v 25%

To collect in two months: 18,027 v 16,500

Government funding: 0 v $91,000

That’s right – $91,000 of your money to get 100,000 irregular signatures :-)

Let’s face it, the CIR route was always a bad one for the Greens given their sneers at the last successful (and wildly popular) one. Submitting a petition with one hundred thousand (use Dr Evil accent for that one) false signatures sinks what was already a seriously leaky moral ship.

There’s some questions being raised that the duplicates and false signatures were planted there deliberately. Perhaps if they had relied on volunteers they might have had a few less. I have no  Either way, they only have themselves to blame for not checking more thoroughly  It’s not like they lacked funding or anything.

Update: Wow, Normal keeps it classy.

Norman Twitter

 

Because clearly there’s no difference putting a fake or duplicate signature on a petition and signing up for information on shares and then deciding that you’re not going to make the purchase (as I did).

One of these is fraud. The other is normal business. It appears we have a party leader who either doesn’t know the difference or think’s it’s good politics to pretend there isn’t.

Advertisements

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: