Campaigning on waste

For some reason Labour is saying on its campaign website that it is:

putting forward a Waste Minimisation Bill which will encourage producers to develop better designs and cleaner production processes to improve a product’s sustainability.

That seems an odd sort of thing to do given the Greens have already got a Waste Minimisation Act passed through Parliament with the near unanimous support of all other parties. It must be a different bill because surely they would not be claiming credit for that Act. Next they’ll be claiming Jeanette as their leader?


It’s worth noting toad’s post on a similar topic:

I’ve just noticed Labour stating this on its election site as one of its achievements:

And more than that, we abolished youth rates. After 3 months or 200 hours work 16 and 17-year olds now have the same minimum wage entitlements as anyone else.

The Bill that did this was introduced by Green MP Sue Bradford. And the Green Party had to enlist strong lobbying support from the union movement to get Labour to support it. And when they finally did agree to support the Bill, they did so only on the condition that it was watered down to provide that “new entrants” to the workforce could be paid less than the adult minimum wage until they had worked 200 hours or 3 months.

And now Labour, having had to be dragged screaming and kicking by the union movement to support Sue Bradford’s Bill at all, have the temerity to claim the achievement as theirs!

10 Comments Posted

  1. There are plenty of people, Blue P, who rate others by their actions, rather than their words. I believe you are one of those 🙂
    Whenever I read your comments, I’ll think, he talks one way, lives another. Integrity, that’s what I look for.

  2. What makes you think I care how you “rate me”?

    I’m happy with my investment. You may not be, not that you know anything about it, but I guess I’ll just have to try and live with that burden 🙂

  3. BP – you don’t know or care how your forest is managed? Hmmmmm…..
    Don’t think I’d rate you as a green at all. Why don’t you put down your hot little mouse and go and have a look at your investment and while you’re there, use that ‘thing in your head’ and work out whether your investment is beneficial beyond the money it might bring you.

  4. Greenfly, I do not know, nor do I care, because you appear to be grasping at straws in order to turn a positive into a negative.

    Are you trying to suggest that the term “net benefit” is something unique to the National Party? I did not “pick it up” from the National Parties Environmental Policy. I used that thing in my head….

  5. I’m glad to hear ‘it’s under managment’ BP – but my question was ‘what is that managment?’ Do you, for example, have your stream edges planted? Your forest could well be one of those that wreck, rather than benefit, the environment. Just keen to see if your ‘greener than green’ claim stacks up.
    *net* benefit is a great concept to hide behind. The National Party is certainly using it as a a ‘smoke screen’ in their Environment Policy. I’m guessing that’s where you picked it up from.

  6. It’s under management, Greenfly. I’d never assumed a forest could be a destructive thing to own, but that seems to be your angle.

    I’m sure any forest plantation could optimise and do things better, but, regardless, surely the *net* benefit for the environment is positive, yes?

  7. BP – you’ve not shown us how you are, as you said, ‘greener than most greens’ yet. You’ve claimed the high ground with your ‘I own a forest’ statement, by haven’t shown that you are a responsible manager, and don’t manage your pinus radiata the way most pinus foresters do – badly and in a way that exploits the environment. Do tell.

  8. >>Thieves!

    I think you mean “natural partners on the left”. With friends like these, eh.

    Do let us know when you’re ready to rise above battered wife status…..

Comments are closed.