When it was 60 jobs for a bottling company, Greens say yes. When it’s 60 jobs in mining, Greens say no – are the Greens drunk or stupid?
Hello, we are the Green Party and we aren’t sure what we do anymore.
The unbelievable answer as to why the Greens said yes to allowing a Chinese company to steal our water was because it created 60 jobs over 4 years.
According to the Greens, 60 jobs over 4 years is ‘economic growth’ and as such they had to bend over spinelessly because the Overseas Investment Office told them to.
I’ve already pointed out that the Greens could have said no to this, could have used some imagination to change it, could have been far more clever in their handling of it, but the real smack on arse here surely has to be that the Greens, right after saying they would green light this water theft for 60 jobs, turns down a coal mine because it’s only going to create 60 jobs.
When it was bottling water, the Greens decided that 60 jobs was economic growth. The Greens then turn down a mine because the 60 jobs gained from it wouldn’t be economic growth.
My guess is they rushed out the Mine decision after getting mauled for their stupid bottling decision.
The Greens don’t know if they are Arthur or Martha, and if they ever did work it out there would be a 6 month hui to decide pronoun use, and that decision would be announced by National whom they handed their Parliamentary Questions over to.
They are chequers players playing chess and they simply don’t have the brains team in the back room to make strategic and tactical decisions.
At this stage, if they keep fucking up like this, I believe their own incompetence might see them dip below 5% in 2020 election.
Yup…good post…there is no consistency…”chequers players”
“My guess is they rushed out the Mine decision after getting mauled for their stupid bottling decision.”
That is exactly what I had thought.
Maybe it will look better charging some form or royalty on exported water than a levy on exported coal, though?
its not just them Martyn I heard our housing minister say on RNZ this morning that the homeless may be able to rent those apartments, the ones rich foreigners are going to buy in Auckland but they cant live in them. Now this is bullshert and we all know who will rent them and it wont be the homeless it will be other rich people that can afford them. The business sector are crying cause no one can afford to build these apartments unless we allow rich foreign investors to buy them as only they have the capital and we need more accommodation so we are hamstrung. I noticed Judith was stumbling her way through the issue to even she had problems spitting it out this morning on RNZ. This issue is the stumbling block for our politicians at the moment such is the mess/crisis
Greens may be slow learners but at least they bothered to say no to Oil. Maybe because Labour told them it was OK as long as they were not the Chinese who our government is now indoctrinated/too scared not to say Yes to?
Doesn’t really sound like we do free trade anyway. More like dysfunctional trade of giving away national resources while pretending it’s the law to do so. Yep it is one far right wing interpretation of the law under how the Natz ran things, but not actually the law.
BTW does not even sound like we will get the 60 jobs for the water anyway and but if they get to ‘full capacity’ and I think that is also counting the existing workers.
If they are low waged then the Kiwi citizens have to support them further, then it’s like double dipping, help yourself to our water and we will also subsidise your cheap works too! What a deal!
Eugenie had no choice on on the water-bottling issue. As No Right Turn pointed out, as a government minister she has to follow the relevant law, and if she didn’t her decision would have been overturned on judicial review, making her look incompetent.
It’s also not Eugenie’s role to point out the problems in the existing law that lead to the decision, it would be partisan and unprofessional for a minister to editorialize on matters surrounding her own ministerial decision. Criticizing the laws that constrained Eugenie’s decision-making, and campaigning for changes to them is the role of the activist leadership of the Greens. Anyone who doesn’t understand this necessary separation of responsibilities is the one bringing chequers strategy to a chess game.
With all due respect.
Bullshit.
I read I/S justification and it didn’t convince me.
If they had any imagination, they could have delayed, pushed back, asked for a second, third and fourth external revue and most importantly could have simply ruled that 60 jobs over 4 years wasn’t enough of an economic justification – JUST AS THEY DID WITH THE MINE!
The Greens are in the paper again today because they didn’t get their question in because there’s disorder in the back rooms of the Greens, you know, the point I’ve been making.
I think DS that you’re forgetting the Greens are in Government! And they need to act like it. I wish somebody will tell James Shaw…