Total invisibility of latest Green Party welfare announcement worrying


Wow – that Green Party announcement just disappeared without trace didn’t it?

If the Greens fall in a forest and only Twitter noticed – did it happen?

The mutation from radical environmental party with inclusive social justice values to alienating woke middle class identity politics vehicle means there is a real chance the Greens will skip under 5%, especially with TOP back in the mix.

The micro aggression policing Pure Temple politics the new alienating woke middle class identity politics represents has as much appeal as dental surgery without anaesthetic. Their first year in power has been a disaster.

TDB Recommends

Reclaiming the word ‘cunt’ follows Minister Sage’s total confusion over what her powers were when she rolled over for Chinese business interests stealing our water, the decision to give National their Parliamentary questions and their seeming surprise mining permits were being issued for National Parks all represent a party totally out of its depth strategically and tactically.

The less said about the joke that is Carbon Neutral 2050 the better.

Their issuing of a statement on Welfare that no one else bothered covering is a danger signal of their increasing political irrelevance. There doesn’t even seem to have been a media plan around this.

The Leadership judge their success by how many retweets their woke twitter virtue signalling gets them, it’s a mistaken view of winning that will crush them in the 2020 election.



    • Come on. They’re up against Seymore. They should be putting him away. But they’re so wedded to this ideological desire to dose there worse enemies in comfort. I regret this 100% Social Justice very much.

  1. “headless chickens ” springs to mind …of the Faux Green Party (FGP)

    real NZ environmentalists vote NZF now …this is the new environmentalist green party…with it opposition to 1080 and support of real environmentalists, independent scientists , thinking rural people, hunters, fishers, gatherers, trampers etc

    NZF has gravitas

    • Real environmentalists vote NZF? Unlikely, in view of NZF’s opposition to 1080. Political parties that listen to scientific advice support use of 1080, as does Forest & Bird, Federated Mountain Clubs and most environment-related NGO’s. Use of 1080 to control invasive mammals is a heartening example of evidence-based government policy – few if any other current government policies have such a solid base of evidential support.

        • Some light reading about 1080 and native insects:

          Note the authors concluded 1080 operations were “unlikely to have any long term deleterious impacts on invertebrate populations.”

          But you care deeply about native insects, Red Buzzard? Or is it really by-kill of introduced deer and pigs that concerns you?

          • People on the ground will make up their own minds
            ( and vote NZF)….bearing in mind many of the scientists and officials who are pro – 1080 depend on the government for their wages and salaries…it is very easy to manipulate studies

            1080 is banned else where in the world on the advice of their scientists and the observations of their people….why should New Zealand be an exception?

            btw …so you think it is ok the by-kill?…secondary poisoning and extermination of kea and kiwi and other birds through secondary poisoning?

            … and the killing of deer, pigs should concern you !
            ( not to mention anecdotally people…eg. sudden ‘unexplained’ critical illnesses and food poisoning and even death by heart failure after eating wild foods?!!!…think?!)

            …the native insects and invertebrates are part of an ecological system and food chain



            • You say “it is very easy to manipulate studies”. Really? Please identify even one study that has been “manipulated” in this way.

              Contrary to your claim, scientists and academics do criticize aspects of government policy. An example:

              Those authors haven’t been sacked.

              But nearly all practicing New Zealand ecologists support use of 1080 with appropriate precautions, for the reason that it’s currently the most effective option for broad-scale control of invasive pest mammals remote areas, especially in remote areas.

              It’s disappointing you’re prepared to smear the work of countless scientists and conservation workers by claiming their complicity in a vast (and imaginary) conspiracy. And all so you can have a few more (introduced) deer and pigs to hunt.

              1080 is also used in USA, Australia and Israel. If you had done your homework you would know perfectly well why NZ is the world’s biggest user of 1080 – we are practically unique in having no native land mammals apart from two bats, but many species of introduced mammals that threaten native birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants. Mammals are the group that is most susceptible to 1080 (see, so if there were an ideal pesticide for protecting native biodiversity in NZ, it would be 1080.

              As for the “extermination” of kea and kiwi by 1080… I must have missed something. Where’s the evidence, please?

        • RB, I took the time to read Dr Hayes’ comments. No where does he back up any of his assertions. He presents no evidence whatsoever. No citations. No quotations. No references. Nothing.

          Then he parrots the oft-quoted ban-1080 cliche;

          Has eliminated millions of endemic bush birds and in areas where here the poison has been dropped the BUSH IS SILENT.

          I would like to know;

          1. Which “bush is silent”?

          2. Did we venture into any 1080 zones?

          3. How soon after a drop?

          4. What evidence did he take from drop zones?

          5. How did he calculate a “billion dollar business”? Who is the billion dollars going to?

          If you’re going to use someone as a credible expert, shouldn’t you be asking these questions yourself?

          For example, where is the evidence that 1080 has “Pushed already endangered birds closer towards extinction, with over 10,000 Kea being killed by 1080 in the past five years!” That’s quite a claim. Let’s see the proof.

          Because a “faith based” approach to this sort of thing has already yielded one bogus scam (the meth scam), and that cost taxpayers dearly.

          Meanwhile, the Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, conducted research of her own and has concluded what the science has already told us: the 1080 programme is safe. Without it, our forests really would be “silent”.

        • Having a few letters after his name doesn’t exempt Hayes’ claims from rational scrutiny – which is what you should be doing before you parrot his statements, Red Buzzard.

          Let’s look at just one of his sweeping claims:

          “DOC’s 1080 program has nothing whatever to do with eliminating predators – all of which are readily eliminated by trapping and reside only in the forest fringes.”

          If introduced predators reside only in “forest fringes”, would you please explain why DSIR scientists reported 25kg of mammal biomass per hectare (possums, cats, rodents) in the Orongorongo Valley? Here’s the abstract of the paper I’m talking about – I can send you a pdf of the whole text if you like:

          As for the claim that introduced mammals are “readily eliminated by trapping”, are you putting your hand up to organize an army of volunteers to “eliminate” possums, rats and stoats in Fiordland or the Raukumara range by trapping, Red Buzzard? For a year now I’ve been using Goodnature traps to control possums at my work sites, but I’m never going to eliminate them as they quickly reinvade from the surrounding bush.

        • I once beleived all the hype about 1080, then I talked to an old friend of mine who happens to work in that industry.
          He said DOC use 5 different poisons, 1080 being one of them, but of the 5 poisons, 1080 isn’t the most dangerous, he said there is one where the area has to be shut off for months, if not years because of its toxicity.
          He also said all the native species have continued just eating what they have for thousands of years and don’t touch the baits.
          If that’s what he has seen and experienced then I’m going to take that as fact and maybe we all just bite the bullet for awhile and see what the results are.

    • Real environmentalists vote NZF now? Unlikely, in view of NZF’s declared opposition to 1080. Parties that listen to scientific advice support use of 1080 to control invasive mammals in NZ, as do Forest & Bird, Federated Mountain Clubs and most environment-related NGO’s. Use of 1080 for pest control in NZ is a heartening example of evidence-based government policy – few if any other current government policies have such solid evidential support.

        • Where is your evidence, RB?

          So far you’re presenting propaganda. That is not evidence.

          Remember the meth-scam, and how that was predicated on propaganda and bogus “stats”?

          Unless you can present something convincing, I prefer to go with Environment Commissioner Jan Wright’s evaluation of the use of 1080.

          Based on current evidence, 1080 is our best option. Otherwise, the only ones threatened are the hunting lobby, it seems.

          Do you prefer the prevalence of thar, deer, etc, over kea, kereru, etc?

          Because it seems to be that the destruction of 800,000 rats, mice, etc, is preferable to the extinction of every Kea in the South Island (according to the ODT story you linked to.)

          The ban-1080 “movement” is not science-based. It is faith-based. And I find that deeply disturbing.

        • I don’t like neoliberalism either Red Buzzard, but please explain what’s “neoliberal” about 1080.

          BTW, the “1080science” website you’ve linked to isn’t science – as Frank Macskasy has pointed out, it’s anti-1080 propaganda masquerading as science. Not a single document on that website has been peer-reviewed by journal editors or referees. Without the rigorous scrutiny of peer review, the authors are free to make all sorts of misleading or false claims – as anti-1080 activists frequently do.

          • GO NZF the REAL political party for environmentalists !

            …anti -1080 rural NZers who know what is happening on the ground from longitudinal empirical observations of 1080 mass poisoning …kea kill…bird kill…the silencing of the dawn chorus…the poisoning of eco systems…the poisoning of animals instead of trapping and hunting…the threat to humans

            … NOT the Faux Green Party ( FGP)

  2. Even on a more serious level, what they’re suggesting is just a really complicated and conditional substitute for a UBI. So why don’t they just follow TOP’s lead and campaign for one?

  3. I really do hope you’re correct Martyn.

    I found the announcement outrageous. Do the Greens live in an economics vacuum? Unable to cost their proposal, they were mocked endlessly in the media. And for good reason: They’re clueless.

  4. I voted Green for the medicinal cannabis vote.
    Julie Ann Genter with all her wisdom created a bill, it got us all excited.
    Coalition time Winston was walking over everyone and the Greens went limp and bowed down to doing what Labour wanted, just like last time, leaderless BS.
    After the coalition talks its announced JAG is now the Minister for Women and because she is now a minister she cant progress her bill, so they pass on onto the political rookie who knew nothing about cannabis to take the lead.
    Now we got well and truly shafted because the Greens bill which is what the people wanted gets thrown away and the number it helps reduced drastically.
    I mean we made all this song and dance because the pharma drugs are too expensive, growing our own was the solution, what do we get? More pharma BS.
    Both Labour and Greens can get stuffed now, Im done voting, its just a waste of time.

Comments are closed.