Green defence flaws

There has been a concerted Green effort to try and defend the Blowing the whistle revelation that they are again employing people to soliticit signatures for their asset petition. There are basic flaws in their arguments. I’ve answered some of their claims.

bsprout: ” if the public largely supports the Green point of view doesn’t this mean that the Greens are able to present their views convincingly”

We don’t know if the public largely supports the Green point of view. And if this was so clear what the need for a petition and referendum?

The means of soliticiting signatures significantly diminishes any degree of convincing.

“while the $120 million spent by the National led Government to present the opposite view has failed?”

They are not spending that to contest the Green petition. They have not done any promotion of any share floats yet. If they were to use any of that money to campaign politically I’ll be criticising them as I’m criticising Greens.

You and others seem to be claiming that if National can spend money promoting the sales it’s fair game for Greens to use any taxpayer money to oppose them.

If National misuse taxpayer money that doesn’t justify other parties misusing taxpayer money.

It also doesn’t justify abusing the CIR process by hijacking it for what you seem to see as a counter campaign.

Re the $120m – you’re trying to compare quite different uses of money.

If the share floats go ahead do you think they shouldn’t do whatever is deemed necessary to optimise the success of the float?

If they don’t prepare properly and if they don’t promote adequately and then best price possible isn’t attained then the country will lose out.

Green grizzling at the costs of share floating hightlights their business ignorance.

Leave a comment


  1. Steve W

     /  3rd September 2012

    What I hear a lot is people who support many activities are happy to donate funds to enable those causes, but for a variety of reasons they can’t donate time or they aren’t physically capable of performing the required tasks.

    Peter Shirtcliffe opposed MMP but he didn’t waste his time standing on street corners to gather signatures.

    The story goes that he gave the National Party a big fat donation and bought himself a binding referendum on MMP which we had at the same time as the last election.

    The Greens and Labour and the unions and other organisations involved in the anti-asset sales referendum effort are mainly using unpaid volunteers, but the funds people are donating to support the cause are also being used to pay activists to help in the effort.

    I see no problem with this. People are very keen to sign the petition……whether the person who holds out the clipboard is being paid a pittance or not. It’s the signatures that count…and there is strong, clear support for the referendum.

    • Do you think there woulod be “strong, clear support for the referendum” if Labour and Greens weren’t driving it, ie if it was left to ordinary citizens?

      Whatver the outcome it’s going to be very easy for government to dismiss it as politically motivated, because the anti asset sales campaign IS politically motivated.


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