Metiria Turei's confessed benefit fraud

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Metiria Turei's confessed benefit fraud

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 18

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840927 8-Aug-2017 09:26

Pumpedd:

networkn:

dejadeadnz:

James Shaw's media address was nothing short of disgraceful. I agree with David Clendon and Kennedy Graham -- you can run a line that Turei shouldn't be basically destroyed for what initially appeared to be a stupid, youthful mistake (committing benefit fraud). But when you add to that her piecemeal disclosure of relevant facts (like having her mother staying with her whilst committing the fraud) and her deliberate electoral fraud, a spectre that this is someone who systematically believes herself to be above the law and continues to be above it, is nigh-on inevitable.

Wow, I think we found something we can agree on. The entire thing stinks and I can't believe the Greens Leader wouldn't have simply understood how bad it was and moved her on. The fact he is defending her makes me feel slightly ill.

The complete lack of judgment from the top echelon of the Greens and also Labour by extension shows that really, there is a lot to be concerned about. I'd have had more respect for JA if her first order of business was to say to the two leaders of the Greens... "Here is the MOU, and unless you want it torn up, she has to go".

The issue for Labour is, they need the MOU more than the Greens do I think. Labour can't win without the Greens, but the Greens will go into Parliment pretty much with the support they have now or slightly less.

and people would seriously vote for these people to be in Government....wow..just wow...

Not really IN Govt. The Greens are valuable for the votes and seats. Ideally they would be active in the eco Ministries, but NOWHERE near the hard left social Ministries. Win-Win The hardcore lefties need to be muffled

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1840934 8-Aug-2017 09:50

tdgeek:

Not really IN Govt. The Greens are valuable for the votes and seats. Ideally they would be active in the eco Ministries, but NOWHERE near the hard left social Ministries. Win-Win The hardcore lefties need to be muffled

The ongoing affiliation between "green" and "hard left" political factions is counter-productive to achieving environmental protection policies.

Conservatives automatically reject much policy they identify as "green" as it's perceived as being inevitably anti-capitalist.

The problem isn't just Metiria - there's entrenched anti-capitalism within green movements everywhere.

End result is that in "clean green NZ" 9/10 of the best selling new vehicles are utes and SUVs, and we can't even agree to ban supermarket plastic bags, as it becomes a political statement to reject and cock a snook at the "watermelons".

This has to change - environmentalism has to start at the level of the individual and it must lose the "radical" badge.

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840937 8-Aug-2017 09:56

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Not really IN Govt. The Greens are valuable for the votes and seats. Ideally they would be active in the eco Ministries, but NOWHERE near the hard left social Ministries. Win-Win The hardcore lefties need to be muffled

The ongoing affiliation between "green" and "hard left" political factions is counter-productive to achieving environmental protection policies.

Conservatives automatically reject much policy they identify as "green" as it's perceived as being inevitably anti-capitalist.

The problem isn't just Metiria - there's entrenched anti-capitalism within green movements everywhere.

End result is that in "clean green NZ" 9/10 of the best selling new vehicles are utes and SUVs, and we can't even agree to ban supermarket plastic bags, as it becomes a political statement to reject and cock a snook at the "watermelons".

This has to change - environmentalism has to start at the level of the individual and it must lose the "radical" badge.

For my money the greens need to drive this by acting like a real political party and dropping the activism. It's hard to take a party seriously when they deface billboards and carry on like that. I believe in climate change though not to the same level as some, and I think we need to take better care of our environment, and I think the Green Party is important in New Zealand. I think they could do a lot worse than form a coalition with National, but when offered the chance they stuck their nose in the air and as a result, probably haven't achieved in Parliment, what their voters voted them in to get.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1840938 8-Aug-2017 09:56

Their departure prompted a flippant response from the party's youth wing co-convenor, Meg Harrison, who tweeted "F*** Kennedy Graham and David Clendon thb"

Green Party true colours shining through right there... It confirms to me that the Green Party of NZ are more than happy to throw their own environmentalists under the bus in order to advance a socialist agenda.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1840942 8-Aug-2017 10:05

It looks like she wanted to mail them some poop too. New low for the Greens!

tdgeek

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840943 8-Aug-2017 10:07

networkn:

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Not really IN Govt. The Greens are valuable for the votes and seats. Ideally they would be active in the eco Ministries, but NOWHERE near the hard left social Ministries. Win-Win The hardcore lefties need to be muffled

The ongoing affiliation between "green" and "hard left" political factions is counter-productive to achieving environmental protection policies.

Conservatives automatically reject much policy they identify as "green" as it's perceived as being inevitably anti-capitalist.

The problem isn't just Metiria - there's entrenched anti-capitalism within green movements everywhere.

End result is that in "clean green NZ" 9/10 of the best selling new vehicles are utes and SUVs, and we can't even agree to ban supermarket plastic bags, as it becomes a political statement to reject and cock a snook at the "watermelons".

This has to change - environmentalism has to start at the level of the individual and it must lose the "radical" badge.

For my money the greens need to drive this by acting like a real political party and dropping the activism. It's hard to take a party seriously when they deface billboards and carry on like that. I believe in climate change though not to the same level as some, and I think we need to take better care of our environment, and I think the Green Party is important in New Zealand. I think they could do a lot worse than form a coalition with National, but when offered the chance they stuck their nose in the air and as a result, probably haven't achieved in Parliment, what their voters voted them in to get.

I'd agree with that. Be a political party whose chief aim is being pro green and pro eco and to work positively with the coalition partner to achieve gains. Activism isnt governing, its just activism

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1840991 8-Aug-2017 11:38

How many Green politicians and voters are there? How many immature individuals making inappropriate comments? But never mind that, let's tar them all with the same brush and dismiss it in a vapid fart of smug superiority.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1841001 8-Aug-2017 11:53

Rikkitic:

How many Green politicians and voters are there? How many immature individuals making inappropriate comments? But never mind that, let's tar them all with the same brush and dismiss it in a vapid fart of smug superiority.

Just because you feel inclined to insult the people who expect the Greens to act in a way that is in the interest of said voters and NZ overall, doesn't make their views invalid.

Let's just ignore that it's senior people carrying on like that inside the Greens and authorizing these actions, because "their intentions are good overall".

The Greens need to learn to behave appropriately if they want more general acceptance. This means accountability, good reasoned policy that takes into account not just their agenda but how those policies may affect everyone.

When I think of the Greens the overriding feeling I get is they are well intentioned overly emotional people who don't play well with others. For them it's all or nothing, and the real world and especially politics is about compromise.

I had a colleague who left his own IT business to go into Parliment. He was an intelligent and reasoned person and I thought he would do well. He had good ideas and a strong desire to make change. I saw him 2 years later, he was a broken man. He said he went into Parliment with 30 ideas that he considered very important. He said he realized that after being there 3 months, everyone else had 30 ideas they considered important. He said he pretty much had to hold his nose and support 28 policies he didn't particularly like so he could have others do the same so he could get 2 passed.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1841006 8-Aug-2017 12:06

Quote from Barry Soper in NZ Herald sums it up for me...

"Turei's behaviour since her sensational admission of fraud, and protecting those who continue to commit it, has no place in politics.

She, like up to a thousand beneficiaries who are prosecuted for welfare fraud each year, should now be facing the legal consequences rather than continuing to co-lead a party and have any credibility as an alternative Government."

Her reasons for remaining as leader and indeed in the Party are pure selfishness. She is destroying her own party...quite sad really.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1841009 8-Aug-2017 12:17

networkn:

Just because you feel inclined to insult the people who expect the Greens to act in a way that is in the interest of said voters and NZ overall, doesn't make their views invalid.

Let's just ignore that it's senior people carrying on like that inside the Greens and authorizing these actions, because "their intentions are good overall".

The Greens need to learn to behave appropriately if they want more general acceptance. This means accountability, good reasoned policy that takes into account not just their agenda but how those policies may affect everyone.

When I think of the Greens the overriding feeling I get is they are well intentioned overly emotional people who don't play well with others. For them it's all or nothing, and the real world and especially politics is about compromise.

I had a colleague who left his own IT business to go into Parliment. He was an intelligent and reasoned person and I thought he would do well. He had good ideas and a strong desire to make change. I saw him 2 years later, he was a broken man. He said he went into Parliment with 30 ideas that he considered very important. He said he realized that after being there 3 months, everyone else had 30 ideas they considered important. He said he pretty much had to hold his nose and support 28 policies he didn't particularly like so he could have others do the same so he could get 2 passed.

What I object to is the tendency of some to imply that all Greens or 'progressives' are undisciplined flakes with no self-control who should never be in charge of anything. There are a lot of good people in the Green movement and party, just as there are a lot of good people in National and other parties of the Right. It is doubly unfortunate that this is being obscured by a few who should learn to think before they open their mouths, but that says nothing about the work being done by many others. New Zealand needs a credible environmental and social welfare political movement, whether that is the Greens or someone else. I am saddened by the way the current distractions are undermining the dedication and committed efforts of those who really do care about these matters.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

allio

883 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1841032 8-Aug-2017 12:41

Wiggum:

I suggest you go and do some more homework on that one. The house was in a family trust.

In Bill's case it wasn't illegal. Bill claimed the allowance on advice from Parliamentary Services, not because he was knowingly trying to rort the system. Did Bill also commit electoral fraud, and illegally register at a secondary address to vote for a mate?

Yes, actually! Except he didn't vote for a mate, he voted for himself.

https://twitter.com/LewSOS/status/893191286219460608

Looking forward to your explanation of how Bill's offense is perfectly okay because he owned his secondary address. Or did his family trust own it? Honestly I find it difficult to keep track.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1841069 8-Aug-2017 13:01

allio:

Wiggum:

I suggest you go and do some more homework on that one. The house was in a family trust.

In Bill's case it wasn't illegal. Bill claimed the allowance on advice from Parliamentary Services, not because he was knowingly trying to rort the system. Did Bill also commit electoral fraud, and illegally register at a secondary address to vote for a mate?

Yes, actually! Except he didn't vote for a mate, he voted for himself.

https://twitter.com/LewSOS/status/893191286219460608

Looking forward to your explanation of how Bill's offense is perfectly okay because he owned his secondary address. Or did his family trust own it? Honestly I find it difficult to keep track.

Bill's secondary address was in a family trust. Bill did not have legal ownership of the house, its owned by the trustees. It would have been very different if the house was owned by Bill.

https://sorted.org.nz/guides/family-trusts

Re the electoral fraud: So you using some twitter chatter as the source of your information? Go away, and do you research properly. Come back with some real "PROOF". Metiria confessed to both benefit fraud, and electoral fraud. So no proof is necessary there.

allio

883 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1841114 8-Aug-2017 13:48

Wiggum:

Re the electoral fraud: So you using some twitter chatter as the source of your information? Go away, and do you research properly. Come back with some real "PROOF". Metiria confessed to both benefit fraud, and electoral fraud. So no proof is necessary there.

Before I go away and do my research, will you condemn him if there is undeniable proof that he was registered to vote at an address he did not live in the 2011 general election?

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1841122 8-Aug-2017 13:52

allio:

Wiggum:

Re the electoral fraud: So you using some twitter chatter as the source of your information? Go away, and do you research properly. Come back with some real "PROOF". Metiria confessed to both benefit fraud, and electoral fraud. So no proof is necessary there.

Before I go away and do my research, will you condemn him if there is undeniable proof that he was registered to vote at an address he did not live in the 2011 general election?

If he voted twice in a single election like Metiria did, yes. I don't think there is anything wrong with being registered to vote at more than one address. This could happen for instance when you move etc?

Edit: May want to start a separate topic for that one. This one is about Metiria

allio

883 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1841146 8-Aug-2017 14:04

Wiggum:

If he voted twice in a single election like Metiria did, yes. I don't think there is anything wrong with being registered to vote at more than one address. This could happen for instance when you move etc?

Edit: May want to start a separate topic for that one. This one is about Metiria

Nice backing out, but here you go anyway.

The Clutha-Southland electoral roll from 2011, when Simon William English was most assuredly not living in Clutha-Southland. He was the MP of Clutha-Southland, so as a result of his omission he got to vote for himself (rather than some joke candidate in McGillicuddy Serious).

And Metiria didn't vote twice in the same election - where on earth did you get that from?

New topic - that's up to the moderators, but I think the current PM being guilty of the same "offence" as Metiria is sufficiently on point.

And while we're at it, how about the former PM?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 18