The Greens have been accused of using child poverty to mislead people into donating to them.
But a spokesman for New Zealand's third-largest party said they were simply adopting fundraising techniques used by the likes of United States President Barack Obama.
Former UnitedFuture candidate Pete George blogged about a letter emailed to Green Party supporters on Wednesday.
The email was on Green Party letterhead and was signed by co-leader Metiria Turei.
It talks about the party's Take the Step to End Child Poverty campaign and then seeks donations to help "run a strong campaign".
"Help us get more people advocating for children in poverty among the decision-makers, and to print and post the facts, figures and solutions - so our children's plight is understood more widely than ever before," it said.
Mr George said money raised here would "fund Green Party political campaigning" and there was no indication the money would go to poor people.
A spokesman for the Greens said there was nothing suspect in the request for donations.
All donations received would go towards the party's campaign to end child poverty.
"Ending child poverty requires political action. Our campaign is about getting rid of the political causes of poverty," he said.
"Our fundraising appeals are consistent with recent developments in email fundraising. Many people now prefer to fund specific campaigns rather than parties."
Mr Obama's campaign team has employed similar tactics in the US presidential campaign, including asking for donations to fund a website dedicated to rebutting political attacks on the him.
The donations do not necessarily go directly to that cause but rather into the wider campaign fund.
We wonder if the Greens have heard of Whaleoil's Rules of Politics. Rule #1 one reads thus:
Whaleoil’s Rules of Politics
1. If you are explaining, you are losing
The Greens are most certainly in explaining mode this morning.
Keeping Stock began its life in August 2007 as a response to Labour's insidious Electoral Finance Act, passed with the support of the Green Party. The greens at the time made much of how evil it was that money played such a role in the political process, and they were complicit in passing an act which the then Human Rights Commissioner said would have "a chilling effect on free speech".
Now the Greens have decided that if raising vast tracts of money to fight political battles is good enough for President Barack Obama, it's good enough for them. Isn't that ever so slightly hypocritical?
And kudos to Pete George who busted this scam open. Little wonder he is persona non grata on most of the left-leaning blogs; he's captured a significant scalp here; the credibility of the Green Party. Well done Pete!
43 comments:
Whaleoil’s 'Rule of Politics', as with everything else he says, is shite.
This 3rd post on the Greens in as many days is further evidence that you are suffering from Greenis Envy, Keeping Stock.
"Mr George said money raised here would "fund Green Party political campaigning" and there was no indication the money would go to poor people."
Pete George is as duplicitous as his Lord and Master Peter Dunne. While he pretends to be a middle of the road, neutral commenter, he's in fact far from it and just as partisan as you are, KS. At least you have the good grace to admit it. Pete George is self-deluded and believes he has been banned from left-wing blogs, not because he is a screamingly obvious right-winger, but because he's 'exposing the lies of the Left'.
Yeah, right.
Trippoli - I've never claimed to be a neutral commenter, I've always been open about who I am, what I do and what my motives are.
It's a fact I've exposed lies on The Standard and have been harrassed and abused there by commenters who had the protection of the 'moderators' there. It's also a fact that I've been banned blamed for disruption caused by commenters trying to create a ban knowing they wouldn't be touched.
Clare Curran blocked me from Red Alert because her version of open government is her and her colleagues being open to promote what they want without any scrutiny.
Labour party blogs bleed red with hypocrisy.
Nice comeback Pete. Oddly, I've founnd that it is Green Party supporters who will attack you with the most vitriol when you dare question the purity of their motives. So much for principle.
"And kudos to Pete George who busted this scam open"
Pete George has busted nothing 'wide open'. he's simply whining from the margins, as he does relentlessly, hence his expulsion from various blogs. If you read the comments there, you'll see they don't accuse him of lying, more duplicity and an inability to see his own like-dog-balls bias.
I think that we have flushed the hydra of the green bloggersphere today KS.
"Nice comeback Pete."
Unfortunately, 'explaining is losing', so you lose.
@ Cams Later - I'm not a politician or political party. I have nothing to lose!
Pete and KS aren't looking for votes - so if nothing is lost, you're not losing.
The Greens have lost here, just as both John Key and David Shearer have lost over the kim Dotcom/GCSB debacle.
John Banks is still explaining his campaign finance accounting while standing for Mayor of Auckland - he's so damaged his party will be ditching him.
Almost spot on Michael. I most certainly have no desire EVER to seek public office. However I won't presume to speak for Pete George.
So...the greens think its okay to do it....because the Americans do it???
hGood grief, the Greens have public fundraising drive to support a political campaign to end child poverty and we have bloggers screaming about a scandal.
We have many questioning that poverty in New Zealand exists at all (Owen Glenn will be surprised) and using Fred Dagg, Whaleoil and someone called Pete George as authoritative references.
We have people claiming that deprivation in New Zealand should only be a concern if it is at the same level as that in Africa and accusing the Greens of continually lying (despite a lack of examples).
I am perfectly aware that KS supports the opposite end of the political spectrum as myself, but I had had thought he was above scaremongering and stretching fact to this extent.
This is truly sad stuff.
Oops, I apologise for the lack of editing above.
A Voice Today
The Greens think it's okay because the money they collect will be used to finance a campaign directly focused on relieving poverty.
Terrible, eh!
How dare they!
Someone call Pete George!
"If you are explaining you are losing"
I like it.
John Key has been doing a lot of losing lately.
Thanks Cam.
bsprout - I haven't screamed about a scandal, I have highlighted the Green Party using poverty to promote political fundraising.
I know people who have been Green sympathetic who are getting turned off by Green political promotion methods. I doubt importing US style politics will be very popular.
Devout Greens may go along with any means to promote the gospel but the support Greens need to grow will not be anywhere near as sympathetic about cynical and hypocritical polituical exploitation.
Greens used to be seen as slightly wacky but had a useful contribution to make to the NZ political mix. They are increasingly seen as a political machine that thinks any means is justified. I think that is backfiring.
I'm sorry Pete, it still sounds like you are implying improper behaviour. All political parties need funds to operate and it seems perfectly reasonable that rather than just ask for donations that a party is open about the campaigns the money may be used for. What promotional methods are you implying are improper? Is it using social media as Obama did?
I'm sorry but your whole argument is still a mystery to me and others.
Bsprout - Pete George is bullsh*tting you, doing his 'dance on the head of a pin' act but it's just that, an act. He delights in 'guilelessly' claiming 'but I'm just questioning', when it's obvious to you, me and every one else that he's doing all he can to smear the Greens. Your confusion over what he's trying to say stems from that. Keeping Stock here, features Pete George's 'exposes' only when they match his own 'get the agreens' agenda and you can deduce from the fact that he's done that with this non-story, that he too knows an anti-Green story when he sees it. rememebr the exciting 'bust' he promised on the Greens a while back? The one that turned out to be pure, unadulterated bullsh*t? This 'exciting reveal' from George is of the same ilk. It will go nowhere, it means nothing, it is just two boys talking up their pissing-power, in order to cover their Greenis Envy.
How could anyone, possibly, entertain the notion of envy towards the Green Party? The fact that you cannot see that you are using "children in poverty" to front a Green Party whip around is a disgrace. BS Prout says "...perfectly reasonable that rather than just ask for donations that a party is open about the campaigns the money MAY be used for". You must be joking - although given your lot sponsored the most egregious piece of legislation in our country's short history (Electoral Finance Act) - so I guess I shouldnt be surprised by the statement. The points made by PG and KS are relevant and its is good they have been made because you arent the lilly white tree huggers that the electorate thinks you are. Its easy and lazy to come on here and have a crack at the messenger(s) - if you get a buzz out of that you have my pity.
"lilly white tree huggers", Bunk?
The public think we are lilly white treehuggers?
They are in for a fright then. We are red-blooded political fighters, watch out! We're after your scalp!
So let me list the accusations against the Greens that I have gleaners so far (I am open to corrections).
1) The Greens shouldn't ask for donations to support a political campaign to end child poverty, this is wrong.
2) Some people may not understand the requests for funds and think that the Greens will be giving the money directly to poor children.
3) The Greens are lying and exaggerating by claiming there is a problem with child poverty in New Zealand, we are hardly Africa.
4) By just responding to questions regarding their honesty and motives, the Greens must be guilty of something and have lost the argument.
5) It is wrong to use money on a public campaign because all they need to do is convince John Banks and Peter Dunne to support their bill (which will apparently be very easy).
6) The Greens should not operate as a other political parties by supporting their party infrastructure and running public campaigns to promote their Green solutions but instead give the money they raise directly to charities (is this what National does?).
7) The Greens appear like a political "machine" and this is a bad thing they should stick with being a "wacky" little party that occasionally comes up with a good idea.
8) Most Green commentators are actually just Robert Guyton.
What is really happening here is that the Greens have grown over twenty years to be an efficient, informed and capable party. We have many high performing MPs that often draw praise from this very blog. We are asking the hard questions to the Government and finding it wanting. We have won praise from political commentators for our election campaigns and performance in the house. We are growing in strength and have been polling over 10% for some time and even got a few points shy of 20% at one point.
We are a real political threat and as such will subjected to this sort of nonsense with increasing regularity. If one can't win using evidence and fact and solid debate then inventing scandals, claiming hypocrisy and making accusations of lying is the only way to bring us down.
First sentence should read "gleaned".
bsprout - this using poverty for fundraising and campaigning has really touched a political nerve. People were already very dubious about the 'poverty' being defined by the Green machine in New Zealand.
This redefining with gross exageration of a very serious world problem has raised flags.
The co-opting of it for party campaigning was seen as cynical.
Importing US style politics is very risk. Especially for a party that was once Green.
If you are not aware of any of this you are stuck in a blind bubble. If you remain oblivious to the damage you are doing to the Green image then I think you will be competing with NZ First rather than Labour in the next election.
Some corrections in fact, Pete, it is not the Green Party's definition one used by the likes of the Children's Commissioner, government agencies and church groups like the Salvation Army. The Commissioner is a respected pediatrician and seems to know what he is talking about. The Children's Commissioner's estimate of 270,000 children living in poverty is a figure that is widely accepted. Take your claims of gross exaggeration up with them.
What exactly is the Green party doing that is replicating US politics? You are making a broad accusation here and need to describe what you mean by this. Is it using social media, or just raising funds to support a campaign? I don't really understand what in particular you are referring to.
bsprout: " The Children's Commissioner's estimate of 270,000 children living in poverty is a figure that is widely accepted. Take your claims of gross exaggeration up with them."
The Children's Commissioner is not fundraising for a political campaign using the exaggerations of poverty to promote themselves.
Do you not see the difference?
I will take up these exaggerations with anyone - I think it's counterproductive to addressing real and serious issues by using terms that most ordinary people would see as totally disconnected from common perceptions of poverty.
Why do Greens use this redefinition of poverty?
So the Greens are after my scalp. The analogy is about as dumb and poorly planned as green economic policy.
I'm now very interested, Pete, it is generally accepted that poverty is relative and that we need to define what should represent a poverty line in a developed country like New Zealand. Paula Bennett is reluctant to do this as she claims people move in and out of poverty on a daily basis. What has been established as a level that is unacceptable in New Zealand is when children do not have security of food, have to wear clothing that is barely up to the job or have no shoes, are regularly in ill health or suffer from serious illnesses (rheumatic fever) and live in substandard houses (amongst other things).
I am interested to know what standards you would tolerate, because you obviously feel that the bar is set too high.
Pete,
I did say on another thread here on KS that this is the NZ Poverty Industry!!!
If you were to believe this figure of 270,000 then you would be accepting that one quarter on New Zealand children live in poverty in deprivation. ONE QUARTER!!!. Give me a break - I travel all around NZ for my work, and I don't see it.
The trouble is with the base definitions as I have previously stated on the other thread.
By using such definitions a whole industry can develop based on the core fallacy - which is what is happening. All cross-quoting each other, all demanding something be done, all wanting large dollops of taxpayer money to hold endless conferences and pay for countless staff to produce forest loads of paper in reports confirming there is indeed a 'problem'. Such is the meat and drink of the socialists.
Guess what - if there was no money available for this idiocy, and was never going to be any money, then the actual size of the problem could be captured - and you would be lucky if there were more than 10,000 children in NZ in genuine deprivation.
That is still 10,000 to many in this fair and bountiful country, but it is a very manageable problem - that doesn't need 5,000 activists and and another 5,000 researchers to solve.
That the Greens are choosing to undertake political fundraising on the banner of combating this 'child poverty' fantasy still means they are rank hypocrites, and in reality exposes them as political cynics of the highest order.
If bsprout and the other Green apologists that post here don't like that - tough - change your actions and the current despicable actions of your party.
If there is one thing NZers can't stand it is hypocrisy - we hammer it when we see it in our political parties - which is one of the reasons Labour got turfed out, why in my opinion Winston Peters has zero credibility, why ACT will be gone at the next election, and why National are skating at the moment. What a sorry bunch.
It is also the reason the Greens will continue to get hammered at the moment.
My advise to the Greens - stop being cynical hypocrites or get used to getting hammered - because there isn't much middle ground.
And bsprout - just try to be honest for a minute and instead of cross quoting the 'poverty industry' please tell me whether you personally, genuinely, deep inside yourself believe, based all all the evidence you have in front of you, that there are 270,000 (one quarter) of the children in NZ living in poverty and deprivation. A simple yes or no will be sufficient. I am actually interested in whether you believe this.
My position, which you already know, is i do not believe this to be true.
The Green's decision to campaign on the issue of child poverty is brilliant! It's put them right in front of the public, 99% of whom will admire them for it and it has the added bonus of irritating the hell out of you girls!
Go Green!
Way to take control of the political message!
Go Russel, you send a chill down the spines of these anxious righties and Go Metiria, you just terrify them. That's a great platform to be attacking from and you are slaying them!
Ross, I see that you base your opinions on your own experience which although valid to a point it is hardly extensive. If I were to base it on my own experience as teacher I would have thought there could be more than 25% of struggling families. Many families are able to hide their circumstances well (because of pride) and rely on parents and friends to help with food and accommodation and it is only when talking to them do you realize the extent of their difficulties. In low decile schools over half the children would come from homes that are not able to provide a decent meal every day. In one school I taught in, which wasn't the lowest decile, if it wasn't for the fruit in schools scheme many children would have gone hungry and we kept loaves of bread in the staffroom so that we could make sandwiches for those who regularly came without lunch.
My wife is a GP in a low decile community and 50% of her patients are obviously financially challenged and they have many poverty related illnesses.
However, I live in Invercargill which is in one of our more affluent provinces and I hate to think what it must be like in areas of higher unemployment and greater housing and living costs.
Through your extensive personal research you have set a number of 10,000 as the extent of poverty and yet Auckland alone has a housing shortage of 11,000 homes and that doesn't count the thousands of low standard rentals are are barely fit for habitation.
New Zealand has one of the worst statistics in the OECD for child health and welfare and we are giving out 1000s of food parcels every week. When our median income is around 28,000 a year it means at least a quarter of income earners are trying to survive on less.
You talk about the poverty industry and I must accept it does sort of exist because we spend between $6-8 billion a year on mitigating the health and educational effects of poverty in children. It is costing us dearly not to invest money in helping our most vulnerable children.
bsprout: interesting answer, but you didn't answer my question - do you believe a quarter of our children live in poverty and deprivation? Yes or no?
Amazing, Ross, I did say that I thought it could even be more than 25% in my answer but if you just wanted me to say yes to 25%, the I will. YES.
I think you should be very careful about throwing around the word hypocrisy, Ross, especially if you are supporting the current Government.
bsprout: thanks for your reply, I appreciate it.
With regard to political hypocrisy, I loath it wherever I see it - I thought you would have picked that up from my earlier post, when I described National as skating.
"My advise to the Greens - stop being cynical hypocrites or get used to getting hammered - because there isn't much middle ground."
But there is some middle ground, Ross, and while you regard the Green's actions as cynically hypocritical, that's just your bias obscuring your judgement. The Greens have consistently maintained their integrity in decision making (with occasional wobbles, as you must expect from any party)but unlike other parties, the Greens have made honesty and integrity central and critical to their behaviour. I know you can't see it, so jaundiced is your view, but bsprout can, I can and so can the other pro-Green commenters here. It will always throw you as you are looking at the Greens through lenses that have been smeared and chipped by the behaviour of the parties you support. The Green world, call it Planet Green if you like, is a better place. Take it from me :-)
"......bsprout can, I can and so can the other pro-Green commenters here."
That only adds up to two, bsprout and "you know who". Transparent enough as we can all see through the flim flam. Integrity? Tee hee.
Shelly
You are wrong!
tee hee!
Integrity?
OK, One of the Gang, so I am wrong?
No integrity it is then.
Hey sprout, you know everything it seems, oh my how I wish I was so erudite and knowledgable just like you, you good southern commie you.
I reminded of a line or two in David Nivens book " The moons a balloon". Where a Director of European extraction was heard to say to the cast...." You think I know fuck nothing, but I can tell you, I know fuck all"
Just like you you eh BS?
Now I am somewhat peeved about any watermelon supporter using a PC, iPad, iPod, or any other communication device.
I think I will do a bit of research on on the mined components of the devices you hypocrites so freely use.
In respect to the blog owner I will refrain from calling you lot of watermelons (common usage) names.
SO, I shall call you something worthy of your status.......wait, wait, wait I am trying to think of something that befits your status in society.........nope, nothing.
Watch this space.
Lofty 1 + 2, I find it interesting most of the anti-Green rhetoric is just parroted phrases that appear to be handed out for the minions to use as if they are fact:
-The Greens are just watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside (they're really just communists in disguise).
-The Greens are all hypocrites because they are all against mining and therefore they shouldn't use computers or fly in aeroplanes.
-The Greens lie all the time about poverty and the state of the environment. Apparently Climate change and campaigning against poverty are really clever schemes to make lots of money.
Throwing in heaps of expletives also helps to get these cliched phrases across, apparently.
This stuff sounds just like the rubbish that the American Tea Party say about Obama.
If you can't have a discussion based on reason and fact then you have to use personal attacks and make up stuff and pretend it's real. It's actually just really sad.
bsprout has pretty much explained the modus operandi of Key's detractors right there.
Check your mirror bsprout.
I could not have put it more succinctly BS, many thanks.
It is nice to see you peel back the layer that exposes you & and your parties lies.
Cheers
The eager confirmations from Cinderella and Lofty just emphasizes the extent of the mindlessness of it all :-(
Post a Comment