...goes to this one from the Homepaddock. Ele Ludmann and her horrid crew have made history with this pointless, aimless, content-free piece of Tory puffery.
Read it and weep. Really though, just don't bother :-)
Showing posts with label Ele Ludmann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ele Ludmann. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2015
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Homepaddock lunacy
This from Ele Ludemann:
"A farming couple had a request from a student who wanted to look for evidence of a rare insect species on their property.
They were happy to do so until neighbours warned them not to.
They’d allowed a student to do something similar on their farm then had restrictions placed on what they could do as a result of what was found."
"A farming couple had a request from a student who wanted to look for evidence of a rare insect species on their property.
They were happy to do so until neighbours warned them not to.
They’d allowed a student to do something similar on their farm then had restrictions placed on what they could do as a result of what was found."
It's a sad state of affairs, that you, dear reader will probably recognise immediately, but Ludmann, National Party southern chair and hack, is oblivious to. Endangered insects are discovered, then protected by legislation. Ludmann recommends, obliquely and damagingly, that if farmers find such insects, they should hide the discovery from authorities, for fear that they will be prevented from converting the habitat the insects occupy into pasture for cows or whatever. Stuff the rare insects, they don't produce sale-able milk or meat, Luudman 'says' through her warning to farmers. Insects! Hurrumph!
It's the little things that give you away. All the talk of farmers being environmentalists is revealed as pish when comments like Ludemann's surface from the effluent that under-lies farms.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
A few sheep short in the Homepaddock
 |
| Ele's fears realized - Greens under the bed |
"The Green Party trades on its association with the environment.
But that’s just a cover for its foundation of radical socialist economic and social policies which are anything but sustainable – economically, environmentally or socially."
Monday, December 2, 2013
Un-making Hay exposes Right-wing lies.
It's funny, isn't it. Well, it won't be to you, gentle reader, if you're not wedded to the minutiae of politics as some of us are, but this "Hay dumped by Greens", "Green hypocrites" brouhaha that the right-wing bloggers are desperately trying to get traction with across the blogs, typifies the narrowly-focused, fact-free, dishonest way in which the likes of Keeping Stock, Kiwiblog, Homepaddock and the other "I'll sell my grandmother if it keeps Key in power', National Party shills, present their stories to the world.
It is, quite frankly, feeble. Attempting to explain the true situation to any of them on their respective blogs is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. Those blogs come complete with commenter-goons, whose self-appointed task it is, to frustrate reasoned debate and demean any commenter who isn't dyed true-blue. My dear friend and dinosaur, Jabba, typifies this breed of Nat with his dull comments and relentless ad hominems but there are worse.
What's most galling is the willingness of Jabba and his ilk, and the bloggers themselves, to maintain their misleading, dishonest blog titles and claims regardless of information provided by the brave souls from the Left who can be bothered engaging on those blogs. However, David Farrar's Kiwiblog today provided a nice example of how dishonest posting can be exposed by the simple provision of facts.
He, like Ludmann and KS, have whipped themselves into a lather over the removal from the candidate list by the Green executive of David Hay. The Right claim the Greens have destroyed their credibility by doing this, despite their own party's exact-same behaviour in the past. Without going into the details, which reveal that the story told by those blue-bloggers is falsely presented, here's the comment by at Kiwiblog that patiently exposes the technique used by National Party shill-bloggers, and tells the true story. Farrar claims:
So the Greens are now the party where if you declare you want to stand for the leadership, you get banned from candidacy. Sounds like the current co-leaders are very desperate to avoid a vote. I suspect their concern if not that Norman would beat Hay, but that the size of the protest vote for Hay could show how much discontent there is.
Chardonay Guy responds:
David, surely this is basic party discipline at work? Would someone who challenged Key’s leadership be similarly welcome within the National caucus? And look at the civil war that convulsed ACT in the Key administration’s first term over Rodney Hide’s leadership, as well as the New Zealand First schism in 1998. How is this any different?
Sorry, but what is going here seems little different from ACT (2002-2005). In that case, Heather Roy and Rodney Hide were at each others throats and Sir Roger was evidently not a very happy chappy. One cannot have constant internal sniping and disunity within a parliamentary caucus or potential candidacy and expect to be lauded for parliamentary stability. Why criticise the Greens for behaving like a responsible, disciplined political party instead of process-obsessed ineffectual leftist pressure group? Oh.
So the Greens are now the party where if you declare you want to stand for the leadership, you get banned from candidacy.
The recommendation to refuse Hay’s entry to the candidate pool was made in September. His leadership bid was in response to that, not the other way around as you suggest DPF.
In short, what Hay did in 2011 was attempt to campaign for the electorate vote in Epsom, despite a clearly articulated nationwide party strategy to campaign for only the party vote. This was particularly important in Epsom, where many Greens were holding their noses and voting for National’s Paul Goldsmith in order to try to stop the odious John banks from taking the electorate.
…National’s Board uses it very very rarely, and basically only uses it for people who are “mad” or “bad”.
Which was Roger Payne?
It is, quite frankly, feeble. Attempting to explain the true situation to any of them on their respective blogs is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. Those blogs come complete with commenter-goons, whose self-appointed task it is, to frustrate reasoned debate and demean any commenter who isn't dyed true-blue. My dear friend and dinosaur, Jabba, typifies this breed of Nat with his dull comments and relentless ad hominems but there are worse.
What's most galling is the willingness of Jabba and his ilk, and the bloggers themselves, to maintain their misleading, dishonest blog titles and claims regardless of information provided by the brave souls from the Left who can be bothered engaging on those blogs. However, David Farrar's Kiwiblog today provided a nice example of how dishonest posting can be exposed by the simple provision of facts.
He, like Ludmann and KS, have whipped themselves into a lather over the removal from the candidate list by the Green executive of David Hay. The Right claim the Greens have destroyed their credibility by doing this, despite their own party's exact-same behaviour in the past. Without going into the details, which reveal that the story told by those blue-bloggers is falsely presented, here's the comment by at Kiwiblog that patiently exposes the technique used by National Party shill-bloggers, and tells the true story. Farrar claims:
So the Greens are now the party where if you declare you want to stand for the leadership, you get banned from candidacy. Sounds like the current co-leaders are very desperate to avoid a vote. I suspect their concern if not that Norman would beat Hay, but that the size of the protest vote for Hay could show how much discontent there is.
Chardonay Guy responds:
David, surely this is basic party discipline at work? Would someone who challenged Key’s leadership be similarly welcome within the National caucus? And look at the civil war that convulsed ACT in the Key administration’s first term over Rodney Hide’s leadership, as well as the New Zealand First schism in 1998. How is this any different?
Sorry, but what is going here seems little different from ACT (2002-2005). In that case, Heather Roy and Rodney Hide were at each others throats and Sir Roger was evidently not a very happy chappy. One cannot have constant internal sniping and disunity within a parliamentary caucus or potential candidacy and expect to be lauded for parliamentary stability. Why criticise the Greens for behaving like a responsible, disciplined political party instead of process-obsessed ineffectual leftist pressure group? Oh.
Dear ol' Toad adds:
The recommendation to refuse Hay’s entry to the candidate pool was made in September. His leadership bid was in response to that, not the other way around as you suggest DPF.
In short, what Hay did in 2011 was attempt to campaign for the electorate vote in Epsom, despite a clearly articulated nationwide party strategy to campaign for only the party vote. This was particularly important in Epsom, where many Greens were holding their noses and voting for National’s Paul Goldsmith in order to try to stop the odious John banks from taking the electorate.
…National’s Board uses it very very rarely, and basically only uses it for people who are “mad” or “bad”.
Which was Roger Payne?
This sort of 'interaction' is typical of this level of political action and can make an ordinary sort of bloke like me feel jaded. However, I'm buoyed by the clarity brought to these skirmishes by the likes of ChardonayGuy and Toad (Armchair Critic and Viv) along with Judge Holden, Edward the Confessor and others, all of whom are regarded as trolls, commies, whatever, on the Tory-blogs, or banned altogether in order to lessen their 'disinfecting' effects on the Right-wing blogs.
Go the Good Guys!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)