Reaction to Key Speech
The Herald has a story on the speech. The part that struck me was this:
Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft was quick to back Mr Key’s comments saying that, while it was not the job of a judge to commentate on political party policies, Mr Key’s comments were “measured and thoughtful” and comparable to what was being introduced in the Western world.
John Armstrong has a thumbs up:
Advantage Key. Whatever the Prime Minister has kept up her sleeve for her landmark speech tomorrow, it is going to have to be something pretty darned special to better John Key’s effort today.
As a piece of politics, the state of the nation address delivered by National’s leader comes as close to hitting the bull’s eye as you can probably get.
Not only does the speech meet the requirement that National start talking policy. It is overflowing with policy ideas.
It cannot be attacked for lacking substance. The speech shows National is much more serious about policy than it was at the last election. It successfully conveys the impression of a Government-in-waiting.
The speech’s big strength is that it is constructive rather than merely critical. Key lets the policy ideas do the talking rather than relying on overblown rhetoric to carry the attack to Labour.
However, Labour’s failings are the undercurrent driving the speech.
Be it youth crime or the economy or whatever, Key’s overarching theme for election year is that New Zealand can do better than it has under Labour’s rule. Today’s speech is the first in a long line of policy releases with which National will seek to answer the obvious question of how.
Vernon Small at the Dom Post is more guarded but says:
The message is not as punitive as some might have expected from National, but this is KeyNat not BrashNat.
And the timing couldn’t be better after a rash of recent headlines about teenage crime, including a 16 year old who allegedly killed a 22 year old in a dairy on Friday and the recent series of brutal bashings by a teenage gang on the North Shore.
Meanwhile Key has managed to keep most of his policy powder dry for the campaign proper, especially on tax and the economy.
Clever.
It will be interesting if what Clark talks about tomorrow will be a policy announcement which has been worked on and developed over time (as this one clearly was) or whether it will be a kneejerk announcement.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The point about Helen Elizebeth Clark is she has had 8 years to do something. The truth is she has run out of ideas, and her socialist dogma has run its course. Good parents are being prosecuted for giving their kid a clip around the ears meanwhile the real badies go unpunished. Games is up Clark move on.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The Standard is covering the story to get some form of collective thoughts on this. I can imagine Helen telling the reporters to take their Ritalin and F-Off tomorrow.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Bloody good stuff, JK. Good job.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I have a read around the papers and blogs most days, DPF is always rather fair and gives credit when credit is due. Even to the point of saying well done to a labour member or bad move to a National member. Why can’t the socialists at the strandard do the same?? More attack from Tane on Key’s speach. Is he worried Ms Klark won’t match it tomorrow? Or is it they only know how to attack? I think he/they are right on track and long may it last.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
It will be interesting to see how quickly Clark’s team can re-write her speech.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I’m sure the policy has been worked on over time, but I’m not quite as convinced that the idea of running it for the “Key Speech” isn’t picked out in reaction to some recent events. I’m guessing that there were a few speeches prepared, and events dictated which one to use.
Of course Clark will tailor her speech to take this into account. Why not?
January 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Many commentators are hailing this speech as the first salvo of the election campaign. It’s success or failure will be gauged by Helen Clark’s ripost, and the manner in which it is delivered.
But John Armstrong is correct. It will have to have some fantastic content to score eny points against John Key. Helen may try to focus on the substance of what Key has said, while painting a picture that things may not be as bad as it seems. The recent headlines in the papers would make that a foolish move.
Helen may also try to attack John Key. Such an attack would ultimately backfire. The content of Key’s speech will have a number of NZers nodding their head and thinking “I like what he has to say” With National so far ahead in the polls, this would also be a foolish move politically.
The ninth floor will be burning the midnight oil tonite methinks.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I hope she doesn’t launch an attack on Key – perhaps some key points in response to the policies. The time for to attack him will be in the debates where she will try to make him look unsure of himself, out of his depth, and unready to leave. I also hope that the policy focus isn’t on youth justice. I’d be interested to know where Key got the 25,000 number from, because everything I have seen is much less. I’m hoping to see something on housing, health, or education. They’re key issues that she could make the running on, setting the bar for Key, which he may struggle to reach, given the focus on tax cuts.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
You can guarantee there will be a “we thought of it first” in her monologue tomorrow, but, like the left wing blogs, no substantive facts to back up that statement, and no journalists energetic enough to hound her on it.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I think it is useful to look at Key’s intro to the speech and have taken the liberty of quoting it below:
“………When Sir Ed climbed Mt Everest back in 1953, he wasn’t the only New Zealander on top of the world. We all were. We were among the five wealthiest countries on earth. Not any more.
Fifty-five years on, we are no longer an Everest nation. We are among the foothill nations at the base of the OECD wealth mountain. Number 22 for income per person, and falling.
But what does a wealth ranking matter, you might ask? Why does it matter if we’re number 22 or number four?
It matters because at number 22 your income is lower, you have to work harder, and you can save less. You face more uncertainty when things go wrong, when you or your family get sick or lose a job. No New Zealand sports team would be happy to be number 22. Why is the Government?
This is a great country. But it could be so much greater. It has been so much greater.
So the question I’m asking Kiwi voters is this: Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still? National certainly is.
Under Helen Clark and Labour, our country has become a story of lost opportunities…..”
He is defining a clear battleground and an intent to move NZ forward
He then said:
Well, I’ve got a challenge for the Prime Minister. Before she asks for another three years, why doesn’t she answer the questions Kiwis are really asking, like:
• Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
• Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
• Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
• Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
• Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
• Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
• Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
• Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
• Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?
Those are the questions on which this election will be fought.
Helen Clark thinks she can hoodwink Kiwi voters into giving her another three years to answer these questions. Well, I say she’s had nine years, she’s had her chance and she’s wasted it. The truth is that as time has gone on, Labour has concentrated more and more on its own survival and less and less on the issues that matter to the people who put them there.’
There was more but you get the flavour, I do not think the Herald and Stuff, especially STuff are focusing on the real content, especially in the economic are. vernon SMall betrays where his opinions lie.
Sorry for the cut and paste, but think we need to look at what else he said
January 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Labour won’t address it head-on, that would appear to be letting National set the agenda. I’m sure she’ll mention it somewhere, but it’s unlikely to be the main focus. In a few months youth crime won’t be topping the agenda, you can be sure of that.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I don’t think that really matters Ben (although I suspect you are right). Key is really delivering something that will be taken as a ‘first impression’ as NZ’ers wake and realise we are in election year. And we all know that first impressions count, long after the substance of the event is but a faded memory. Clark has a much harder task of wiping her slate clean (through noting else than incumbency/familiarity) with her opening speech.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with Key’s suggestion and it may be worth a crack – but is it me, or is this actually going to make very little difference? I mean, will the effects down the road from this policy actually be measurable or observable. Altimately we are talking about a VERY small group of people, of whom a small proportion MIGHT obtain some benefit? This appears to be more feel-good policy rather than do-good policy?
Still, that’s probably the reason: don’t need no goshdarn pinko do-gooders around here.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Good speech.
John Key has reaffirmed his status as a Prime Minister in waiting.
It doesn’t really matter what Clark says tomorrow, the electorate has, in her words, ‘moved on’.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Ben Wilson
Well one reason why not is that Helen is PM – she should have her own agenda not some half baked response to the leader of the opposition.
However I suspect there is a reason why she timed her copy-cat I can show my cards too for the day after National’s – to try and undermine or steal the thunder and remind us why we are falling in the OECD ratings.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I quite liked it. Particularly the bit about getting kids to “raise their sights.” I feel that our young people are become aspiration-less, if there is such a term, and it’s quite refreshing to hear a politician use such language. I also thought this paragraph had merit:
“I want every young Kiwi to be able to find a way onto the path to success. I believe the only limit on our nation’s ambition is the limit which our young put on their individual ambition.”
Inspiring stuff, but I bet the whole thing doesn’t go down well at the Labour – Standard. Or should that be the Standard- Labour? So hard to know these days.
G
January 29th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Sam, agreed. This is Key’s first ‘Think of the children’ salvo, with a conservative twist, in which the thinking involves forced marches and the slammer for 12 year olds.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Both is surely allowed?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Interesting to see him mention that Labour has wasted money, and that he plans to spend $100,000 each on sending young offenders to boot camps. Also interesting to note that he will only support things that work, but opposes pre-school health checks despite the overwhelming evidence that they have huge benefits in more than one area.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
My pick is that almost everything in Key’s speech will be introduced in policy before the election. Copy-cat socialists aren’t well know for their ability to find solutions – they just fund problems and ban people from talking about them.
The policy on youth suicide is a classic – numbers are not published… Yep that solves it.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Pre-school health checks? You mean screening for anti-social behaviour, or something else?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Buggerlugs
Yes pre-school health checks – find the normal number of health problems that exist in the population and blame poor education outcomes on that because we just know there is nothing wrong with the schools – how could there be – they are state run.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Ben Wilson
Of course they are allowed to respond to the opposition – but wasn’t Helen’s state of denigration speech going to be about Labour – oh that’s right – Labour is about what ever will get it elected. Expect the focus to be on subtle and softly spoken denigration of National.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Key is right about the punitive approach thing….it’s what is needed for politicians peddling and profiting from manufactured ignorance and prejudice.
IF people want to go to the army, then a helping hand is welcome. But the whole rational of using the army as some type of remedy for societies problems shows a lack of creativity that is made pitiful, given the herded support that it will undoubtly find in some quarters who think it’s the right direction in a way to live. Lucky that it only has to compete against other political footballs and not the democratic content that “Democrats of Social Credit”(DSC) would smash the prison walls down with.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
The Government should be setting the agenda not the opposition. And if she cannot come up with policy then move on and become the opposition. Her resignation to the GG tomorrow will do and JK can be a caretaker PM until an election can be held – 29 March will do just fine.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I think the references to “forced marches and the slammer for 12 year olds” is a bit mischievious. However I think John Key realises that the penalties for youth offending is seen as too soft by a lot of middle NZ. Some of these individuals would respond to a more severe punishment far earlier in the justice system as opposed to the softly softly approach that seems to teach young offenders that they can get away with small offences so why not try bigger ones.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“Particularly the bit about getting kids to “raise their sights.” I feel that our young people are become aspiration-less”
Grant – rubbish and you know it. Kids these days have plenty of aspirations. The wrong ones.
“Interesting to see him mention that Labour has wasted money, and that he plans to spend $100,000 each on sending young offenders to boot camps.”
First off BeShakey, there are not going to be any “boot camps”.
Second – would you rather spend $100K, once, to direct a child down the right path; or spend $100K annually trying to the petulant bastard behind bars?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“trying to keep the petulant bastard behind bars?”
And a
after my comment to Grant. 
January 29th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Given the informed and (dare one say it) supportive comments by the likes of John Armstrong for JK’s speech, why does the Herald even bother reporting Annette King’s “Boo, sux, we’re already doing that, so there” comments in an “update” to the published story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489350
What else were Labour going to say?
Sadly, the fact that they think they can say it and be believed is even more of an indictment on the current government.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Burt – LOL.
Good old Comrade Mary Wilson on Chuckpoint (sic) got her talking points from the 9th floor (the three references to ‘so you’re putting them in the army’ refers) and Labour even jacked up some people on the street in Sth Akld to say they were dubious (according to Radio Pravda) even thought one bloke didn’t sound dubious, just confused.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I never doubted your sense of humour SMM.
G
January 29th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I have to agree with SeaMonkey Maddness, I’d rather spend $100K once early on, on a kid instead of year after year keeping them behind bars as an adult and have a long list of his/her victims to boot.
What I really want to hear from Key as the year progresses is where he;s NOT going to spend money. I want to hear he’s going to scrap the govt home loan scheme and scrap the welfare payments for families on $100K+ through working for families as examples. Niether policy does any good but does raise real estate prices and discourge work and higher productivity.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Having just listerned to anite king on,NewstalkZB ( FUCK WE ARE ALL DOOMED ITS ALL RUTH RICHARDS FAULT), shit i think it was,me finding KIWIBLOG, Mr Farrar ban me, the countries falling apart, and its all your fault for youth crime, bashings murders ,whatever, labours looking for scapegoats, i know, Truby King , a soft target, or BIG NORM ,he was a man not these gay limpwristes, ruling in his name LIARBOR, DONT VOTE FOR THESE TOSSIERS
January 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Richard Hurst
I have for a long time suggested that the WFF and the top tax threshold should simply be reversed or as a second option – make them the same.
Simple catchy stuff – remind people that they cannon be rich pricks on one hand and poor on the other all at the same time.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Where’s my post??? I got told this was a democratic blog!
[DPF: (a) You were told wrong. (b) All new posters have their first comment held as an anti-spam feature. Once they have made one legitimate post their other posts appear automatically]
January 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Just heard Annette King on Radio Live – All labour policies with a blue ribbon, at the same time light on substance.
We have now seen labour tactics for the remainder of the year:
Already doing it – labour policy with blue ribbon.
Nothing to see here, move on. (sorry Lee C – I think)
January 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
John. I was just about to comment about the same thing. Annette started off its all Labour in a blue ribbon and then proceeded to back peddle when half the stuff isn’t Labour policy.
Apparently in 2002 a select committee recommended boot camps, but Labour pulled the pin by stating they don’t work. Of course providing no backup or evidence to this effect.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Good on John, I believe 100 mill a year is budgeted for troubled youth, this is chicken feed if it works. Liarbore will come out with their usual bullshit in an attempt to scare the horses bit it will be to little to late, the people have had a guts full of the socialist way. Dear Leaders utopia has become a crime ridden mediocre litttle country at the arse end of the world, we deserve better.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
It looks like JK is setting the agenda and those that set agendas usually win. HC’s response will show if she has actual policies, me too policies or just the usual socialist shite that has proved useless in practice the last 8 years.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
My pick is that almost everything in Key’s speech will be introduced in policy before the election.
Key has acknowledged that he’s building on existing policy in some areas and I think you’ll find that a fair chunk of what he proposes actually exists in some form. You just ignored it because it came from the Evil Liarbour Dkyeocracy.
But let’s not mistake a reasonably thoughtful approach for a successful execution. Labour’s relatively similar youth crime strategy was launched in 2002 and has struggled because it was so hard to co-ordinate multiple agencies, and because those agencies are already running at capacity.
So it’s not easy, and it’s not cheap. The train-or-lose-your-benefit part in particular will be a crock unless a hell of a lot is invested in it. There are kids on invalid’s benefits who are not technically “too sick to work”, who are there because schools and employers can’t offer them anything. I see no sign in the speech of a disability policy.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
and Labour even jacked up some people on the street in Sth Akld
Are you really as absurdly paranoid as you sound?
January 29th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Like the “tax breaks for charities” policy this sounds nice, but in reality won’t achieve a lot by itself (i.e. it will affect perhaps a few hundred children). So while, as John Armstrong says, it’s a very good piece of politics (which contrary to what DPF doesn’t mean that he gives it “the thumbs up” ). It hides National’s real substantive policy behind a “feel good” veneer, and provides a good talking point which John Key’s publicity people will tell him to bang on, and on, and on about.
My pick is that Labour will “me to” it anyway. i.e. it’s such a pitifully minor policy that they may as well.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
They are now trying to make out JK is worried about 1,000 youth instead of the larger majority. Problem is 1 bad arse probably influences 10 others Suddenly you have 10,000 which can do a lot of damage.
Labours biggest problem is they trust no one except Govt departments. Therefore of course they have no resource, no feet on the ground and no result.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Roger Gnome. I have a business and are waiting for the new chatities tax policy to come into affect. I already sponsor some charities and will be happy to sponsor more, but at the moment take a double hit.
Get a life and start actually suggesting something positive. Do you actually have a job?
January 29th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
BeShakey, against pre-school health checks? I think you need to source that sort of accusation.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“First off BeShakey, there are not going to be any “boot camps”.
Second – would you rather spend $100K, once, to direct a child down the right path; or spend $100K annually trying to the petulant bastard behind bars?”
Firstly, fuck me, is that the sound of the right getting angry because the Herald is adding some of their own text to their press releases before printing them?
Secondly – I’d rather spend a hell of a lot less than 100k for a hell of a lot more return by focusing on things that can be done before young people commit a crime that are proven to reduce offending. Rather than ignoring the idea of preventing crime completely, in favour of ‘being tough on crime’. I’d rather prevent crime than wait for it to happen and then be tough on it.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“My pick is that Labour will “me to” it anyway.”
Doesnt matter if they do. It is associated with Key now.
You have been whining for months about the lack of policy from National. Now you get the first taste, you can’t say anything bad about it and you are whining that it isn’t substantial enough!
January 29th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Kimble – (shockingly) Key was a bit vague on a few things in his speech. I’ve interpreted “the problem I am talking about today is the group of serious persistent offenders. In the view of Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft, this is a group of about 1,000 young people. We don’t need a pre-school check to work out who they are.” as being about the pre-school health checks, since we don’t have pre-school are you going to be a criminal checks.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“Doesnt matter if they do. It is associated with Key now.”
Nah, once both major parties adopt it, the press forget about, and then so do the public.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
““My pick is that Labour will “me to” it anyway.” Doesnt matter if they do. It is associated with Key now.”
Bit late on that one since Key has already ‘me to-ed’ Labour’s policy (Labour everyone under 20 in training/work, Nats introduce the same policy but only for under 18). It’ll be interesting to see how Labour play that one. I suspect that you’re right about them not getting much credit if they adopt any of the substantive new proposals Key has made.
“you can’t say anything bad about it and you are whining that it isn’t substantial enough!”
In most respects it isn’t bad policy. There are bits I don’t like (will taking away peoples benefits achieve anything, is this going to be effective, what about preventative measures etc etc), but some of it is fine, certainly the big picture aim of doing something about youth crime, while unoriginal, is good.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
BeShakey, the big picture aim of providing a safety net is unoriginal, the big picture aim of economic growth is unoriginal. At the big picture level there really isn’t much original unless you want to change the purpose of government. The important part is what we are going to do. Labour have had 9 years and not done these things, so presumably they didn’t see it as a priority. John Key is saying it is a priority and this is what we are going to do. If they are obvious things that any idiot could have thought of, or just cobbling together ideas that are already out there into a programme, then surely that reflects very poorly on those who are currently in power – so useless they couldn’t even achieve the obvious?
You really are scratching for complaints aren’t you.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“The important part is what we are going to do. Labour have had 9 years and not done these things, so presumably they didn’t see it as a priority. John Key is saying it is a priority and this is what we are going to do.”
Oh really?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/nationals_youth_plan.html
January 29th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I’ll try that again…
January 29th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
PaulL – given that Labour is supposedly making such an absolute mess of everything, I would have thought some big picture originality would be appropriate, not just relatively minor tinkering.
Labour is doing many of these things. Some of them they aren’t because they are silly and won’t work. Others are original and worth considering. Labour has also slashed unemployment, including youth unemployment; reintroduced apprenticeships; put more money into health services that are likely to reduce offending; have put more police on the street, with more to come (NZF policy but still needs Labour support); has seen the total crime rate go down, and most categories of crime go down – the two main exceptions being violent crime and youth crime (although even here the figures are debated).
The fact that Labour isn’t implementing the new policies that Key suggested doesn’t mean that they haven’t prioritised youth crime, simply that they have introduced other measures, and have done a hell of a lot of other things that have had a big impact in this area, even if not directly ‘law and order’.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Tip for anyone reading this from John Key’s Army of Publicity People©:
When a centre-right politician is making a speech, never allow them to be lit from underneath. I dont care if they are going bald and want to hide it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489350
“Ms King said the National leader’s comments showed little understanding of how to improve the situation.”
That’s a bit rich coming from someone who has been in a position to improve the situation for many years but has so far failed to do so.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
This one may be of interest to some here as well…
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/nationals_youth_plan.html
You can find all that information here (just download the PDF on the left hand side of the screen):
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/index.html
January 29th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“It will then punish the victims…”
I think this sums up your thinking, Nome.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
BeShakey this is a youth policy (13 to 18 years). There is nothing here to proclude National from having other policies and I’m sure they will around children and primary education.
Just because Labour can only release one policy a year and still cock it up doesn’t mean National needs to follow their lead.
Guarantee Klarks speech tomorrow will be full of how wonderful we are, nice fluffies and no substance.
I got sent an article today about Gordon Brown and how he used the media to make out he was running a wonderful economy until they checked under the hood. Sound familiar?
Labour is running out of places to hide the facts and queues to shift people between to hide the problems.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
On left-wing radio they said Clark has labelled the speech as “lacking in substance and without ambition”
I wonder if she’s trying to take a leaf out of Rove’s book, who was par excellance at taking an opponent’s biggest strength and turning it into a weakness: e.g. Kerry and Swift-boat.
Naturally she won’t succeed but it will be interesting to watch. My assessment at this point is that she won’t mind terrifically if she loses. She can see the writing on the wall and the next 3 years are going to be tough. Although the recent UN award was a highlight for her, it’s not yet a trend, but she has done enough to ensure her own place in NZ history and she might want to call it quits after this year and use her contacts to lobby for the next big thing. Therefore, although punters are predicting one of the dirtiest campaigns we’ve ever seen, I wonder if that will actually happen, given it would damage her internal NZ reputation if it happened. If it was the second or third term, I would expect her to fight as only she is capable of. Of course, she will give the appearance of doing so, she has to, for the team. But it will be interesting to see her response tomorrow in terms of the tone she sets.
Hopefully I’m completely wrong and it’s an all-out catfight. I rather liked someone’s suggestion on another thread that it would be interesting to see the North Vietnamese Army torture the candidates to see who could hold out the longest. We might even see a grudge match between Tau and Trev instead of a debate. I might even pay to see that.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
And that about sums your debating abilities.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Of course Clark will tailor her speech to take this into account. Why not?
Well, one year the most reported aspect of Tony Blair’s conference speech was what he didn’t say – not a single mention of the Tories or the Leader of the Opposition (think it was Ian Duncan Smith). You don’t waste your time talking about people who are so far beneath your notice, they’re not even worth insulting.
No it’s a poverty issue, one which National is set to deepen. It will then punish the victims of its policies with boot camp, and have a chuckle about it over a pinot gris at the local country club. Don’t you just love National?
Well, I’d love to live in your world full stop. I can’t even rouse myself to pull a coke down my local, the Pass ‘n’ Punt. Really…
January 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Raider – this isn’t a youth policy it’s about two problem areas youth crime and young people who have some problems with school. If you want to do youth crime policy you should absolutely be looking at what leads to it and how to prevent it. You are always going to have to deal with the after effects of crime, but minimising it should be a key focus.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I will now not stand for anyone saying that Labour is the party of social engineering.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
“can’t even rouse myself to pull a coke down my local”
Pull a what?
January 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“pull a coke down my local” – it’s the new youth lingo Nome, I’m sure it means hes going to commit some kind of crime. Oh well, not my problem, let the army deal with ‘em.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“And that about sums your debating abilities.”
Yeah, I am the absolute master of the ‘one line annihiliation’.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Yeah sure kimble. Seriously, you bore me to tears.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I am sure your tears have nothing to do with boredom and everything to do with your bleeding heart.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
See? Absolute master.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
oh dear.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Yes, honey?
January 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Labour did not reduce unemployment the improved economy handed over by Douglas and Richardson did that.
Labour has done nothing under the hag other than dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator and then some.
Education standards are apalling.
Youth crime is out of control.
Economy is shot due to wrong policy settings by that wasteful retard Cullen, who is so vindictive and obsessed with class hatred he should join John Minto and frig off to Cuba or North Korea and stay there
Greedy pricks.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Labour just hate the National Party talking about THEIR issues. But Labour just trot out the same old thing. The reality is the Labour Party do not give a rats arse about poverty nor disadvantaged youth and much else, they just wanna jack-up a social programme and tell the poor to SHUT the F**K up and vote Labour.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
“The reality is the Labour Party do not give a rats arse about poverty nor disadvantaged youth”
Um, it’s the statistics stupid!
January 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
They had on Close Up one of the youth workers in Sth Auckland who says his scheme is working in 3 schools dealing with youth crime.
Guess what. Labour has reviewed his funding and the scheme has been axed!
Must have been too successful. If the kids at the schools straightened out and got jobs they may start voting National and we can’t have that. Better to have them brown, poor and voting Labour, than brown with jobs and ambition.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Hey Tim. Great minds think a like. We must have been typing the same topic at the same time.
Gnome won’t understand you as its not in his Marxist manual.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“Better to have them brown”
National’s scheme will make you white? Or is that just a metaphorical for it’s secret eugenics program? The plot thickens ….
January 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
grammar – who needs it….
January 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Fuck grammar Gnome. As long as people are on the bones of their arse pleading for a hand out Labour is happy.
Offer some solutions or go back to your Gulag
January 29th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“than brown with jobs and ambition.”
You should read every word, Nome, as the alternative was presented and included “brown” as well.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Yeah, didn’t read the last sentence. Bugger …
January 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Labour doesnt care about people. They only care about getting votes. Thats why they increase spending and ignore whether it fixes the problem.
The increase in spending is visible, easily sold, and gets the votes. If they really cared if it helped people they woul make sure it is being spent wisely. But they only care about the impact of the spending when a scandal erupts that will cost them votes.
They have sat back and let the booming world economy drag little old New Zealand along, content in knowledge that even though they didnt have anything to do with it, they can still claim the credit.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The fact you didnt read the last HALF of the last sentence goes a long way to explaining why you misunderstand so much of the world around you, Nome.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
roger nome
Apart from “Labour good” “National bad” & Labour may as well pick the eye’s out of this and call it their own original policy – WTF are you actually trying to say here?
You were all for “tory charity” a while back, even suggesting that Labour should just implement the policy before they did exactly that, now you run it down… Did you forget that you supported it or is it because you needed to get some form of “National bad” going about policies and were wanting a distraction about the fact Labour have no original ideas and copy National (who are Labour lite).
January 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Labour is the party of social engineering.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“Labour doesnt care about people.”
Que orderly throngs of marching socialist automatons. Really do you think about this shit before you spew it out?
“They have sat back and let the booming world economy drag little old New Zealand along, content in knowledge that even though they didnt have anything to do with it, they can still claim the credit.”
And of course if we had similar economic growth under National it would be all their doing, because otherwise the “socialists” would have ruined the economy…..
Never mind that National would have done away with workers rights for the first 90 days of employment….
January 29th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“now you run it down…”
No, I just point out that was sly politicking, that’s all. Make a solid, but rather minor policy into your policy platform, so you can hide you major, but publicly unpopular policy (i.e. sale of state owned assets). That’s all.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Roger
” publicly unpopular policy (i.e. sale of state owned assets). That’s all”
Is that the best you can do, things are not looking good for your lot if you have to keep digging up things from the past, BTW, remember it was YOUR party that started the sale of state owned assets.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
roger nome
If I take the tax I normally paid on the donations I normally make to charities and give that to charity (IE: Increase what they receive by 50%) just what I give will make a big difference to several children.
Do you make significant donations to charities roger ? I’m picking you don’t if you think that perhaps 50% more in the hands of charities will only effect a few hundred children. Remember it’s not really about how much you give in $$$ terms that’s important – it’s how much you give as a proportion of what you earn that defines if you are a “giver” or not.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
One more thing Roger
Have a chat with H1 & H2 please, we need a lot more of the nasty little sound bites H1 came out with on the news tonight, the people of NZ have had enough of her and her nasty evil ways so the more you can encourage her to spit and spew when she mentions Key and the Nat’s the better, each time she does it the Nat’s win another couple of hundred votes.
Can you also ask if they can keep putting up Annette King as a spokesperson, I heard her on both Radio Live and Newstalk ZB tonight, she was absolutely fantastic for the National party, the best bit was when she attempted to lay the blame for youth crime (12 -16 year olds) at the feet of Ruth Richardson.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“Do you make significant donations to charities roger ?”
As a percentage of my income – yep probably quite a lot (not that I actually have any “spare” money).
“If I take the tax I normally paid on the donations I normally make to charities and give that to charity (IE: Increase what they receive by 50%) just what I give will make a big difference to several children.”
Like I said Burt, it’s a good policy, but it was never going to change the face of this country. Not like WFF for instance.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
roger nome
So how will WFF help kids who’s parents don’t work – you know the really poor ones who can’t afford iPods and cellphones or a $700K house in Epsom.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“the best bit was when she attempted to lay the blame for youth crime (12 -16 year olds) at the feet of Ruth Richardson.”
Answer me these question? What age was a present day 16 year old in 1993 and 1998. Then ask yourself why youth poverty and violent crime both doubled in that approximate period. Now tell my what effect that massive change in our society may have had on that 16 year old…
January 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Roger
I am sure you are smart enough to do the math.
Answer me this please, given that Labour have been in power for the last nine years what have YOU done about this problem.
The answer is nothing and in true Labour style when it becomes an issue you blame the Nat’s of 15 years ago, this worked for the first term of Klarks corrupt govt, hell it even worked for the second term to an extent but that has well and truly run its course Roger.
The public are sick of the youth crime and the quite rightly hold your party to blame, might be a good idea to tell H1 that she should book the removal van for November, she will have an office to vacate.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“roger nome
So how will WFF help kids who’s parents don’t work – you know the really poor ones who can’t afford iPods and cellphones or a $700K house in Epsom.”
I agree burt. Aside from fostering the conditions that have given us close to the lowest unemployment rate in the world, Labour haven’t done a lot to ease the pain of the chronically unemployed (BTW about 0.7% of the work force have been unemployed for more than 6 months). IMHO Labour should be removing disincentives to get into work by increasing the amount you can earn before your benefit is affected to around $200 per week. Further to this they could be providing actual jobs (not just “training”) to at risk youths. It’s hard to rob a grocery store when you’re at work, and after you pull the $350 from your bank account at the end of the week you buy the cigarettes instead of stealing them.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
roger
WFF is a fine idea, but it’s implementation if F-ed up in the extreme. WTF were Labour thinking (other than: This will win votes!) when they set the threshold at $120K against a rich prick tax threshold of $60K
This kind of “party first” policy making is Labour through and through. It’s why we need a change of govt.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
nome,
It’s a lefty delusion that crime arises mostly from social conditions. People like you mistake the co-incidence for the cause. Hence it always gets worse under your regimes.
How do you explain how two families can live side-by-side, one produces crims, the other church-goers? You can’t, so you never even try.
Get real, moron.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
RUTH DAMN ITS ALL YOUR FAULT 16 yo thug( i dont know any ruth bitch? for doing the bash), liarbor speak, and this silly woman controls us ,sigh
January 29th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“nome,
“It’s a lefty delusion that crime arises mostly from social conditions.”
“Many academic studies have found that there are pervasive linkages between measures of socio-economic disadvantage and crime (Conger et al., 1992; Dodge et al., 1994; Farrington, 1990; Furgesson et al., 2004; Kazempiur & Halli, 2000; Kramer,2000; Ludwig et al., 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993).” …..
http://rogernome.blogspot.com
but what would they know. ried has learned more about criminology from watching America’s most wanted than any of these idiot professional criminologists with PHDs could learn in an entire life time. Can you pass me the chip packet Reid?
January 29th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Kimble advises:
‘scuse me while I bang my head on the desk. Redbaiter has already commented on how no consideration seemed to have been given to the potential for mischief-making (accusations of “boot camps” etc) before this was launched.
Then they go a set it up so he can be photographed looking like Bela Lugosi’s love child.
Key hasn’t got much chance of surging forward if his own staff are tying his shoelaces together. This is Political Campaigning 101 stuff – there’s no excuse for not getting it right. Never put your man (or woman) in some cute “I’m human too” pose – it’ll be dragged out and used against you forever more (e.g. Alexander Downer donning fishnet tights and high heels for a “lark”, Dukakis in a tank etc). Never let them be lit from below or, if you can help it, photographed from below at too acute an angle or they’ll look like Mussolini…
If you don’t know this stuff, people, hire someone who does. Fast.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Gnome,
Firstly its not about taking credit for whether the economy is good, it is what you do when its good that counts. Labour has wasted a once in a generation economic boom (not of their own hands) and used all the money on hair brain schemes rather than improving infrastructure and productivity.
Secondly by stating “As a percentage of my income – yep probably quite a lot (not that I actually have any “spare” money).” we can now see your real problem with National and right wing voters. Your’ve got envy syndrome. You hate the fact that we have money and even though it was earned by sweat and hard work it makes you sick that you don’t get your fair share.
Harden up buddy, work a bit harder and you might achieve something.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Shorter SR …
You’re a left-wing student with not a lot of spare cash – therefore you have envy syndrome. Nope – I just believe in social justice is all. i.e. equal opportunities for all regardless of the family that they’re born into etc…
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Yeah it’s on the other post.
Boot Camp.
Now I want to go to one of these. Disapline is only in daytime “training” huh?
Therefore in my time I want:
My cellphone for texting.
I want my iPod.
I want my Playstation.
I want my X-Box.
I want free Internet coz my daytime Internet will be disrupted.
I want my car to cruise at night.
I want my fines written off, seeing as I won’t be able to work.
I want my girlfriend to visit.
I want …….
January 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
You still haven’t expained the anomaly nome.
Meanwhile your lefty planting bears fruit.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Not like WFF for instance
Ah, Numb, isn’t it true that beneficiaries aren’t eligible for Working for Families? I’ve seen WFF change the face of the nation – like the mother who can’t afford childcare because although she has a baby that requires her to stay home, and another child who is old enough for daycare, and her husband has shot through, she isn’t eligible for WFF – and crying because her neighbours, who have a household income of $85,000, get WFF which allows the mother to…wait for it…stay home and watch Oprah for the four hours her kids are at WFF-funded kindergarten.
Don’t believe the shit you get spun via talking points, you pseudo-academic blinkered pious cretin.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Rex wrote:
*sigh* With all due respect to Master Baiter, he’s an object lesson in why you should turn up sober to the second lecture in Political Campaigning 101: Don’t get so obsessed with control-freaking trivia, and trying placating people who are going to shit on you regardless, that you lose the plot. Required case study: The Decline and Fall of Tony Blair.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“Buggerlugs”
I agree that WFF isn’t entirely just, but it has reduced child poverty by 30%. Not a bad start. BTW – can you tell me? What would the National party do to improve the lot of solo mums?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Here we go again Gnome. What a wanker!
How many times have you lefties brought out the “I just believe in social justice is all. i.e. equal opportunities for all regardless of the family that they’re born into etc” line only to have 99% of the blogsphere prove that we come from working class families.
Repeat after me “We are not in England, there is no class war”.
Why don’t you stop getting your brain filled with leftist ideals from lecturers that can’t survive in the real world and get yourself a job?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Oh, and here’s an essay question for the next tutorial:
Has Hillary Clinton’s campaign done more harm than good by trying to micro-manage every photo op and interview, aggressively attacking and trying to discredit any story that is ‘off-message’ etc.
Marks will be deducted for conceitedly brief or facetious answers. Please print LEGIBLY on one side of the paper.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
roger
The best thing the Nat’s’ could do to improve the lot of solo mums is take away the DPB.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Let’s wait and see what they have policy-wise, you pseudo-academic blinkered pious cretin. Unlike you, I don’t blindly believe something is good because I have a particular political bent.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
SR – who said anything about class war? You need to calm down, silly old man. You’re starting to lose it.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“Let’s wait and see what they have policy-wise”
Yes indeed. Let’s wait …..
January 29th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I’m still waiting nome.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Gnome how do you prove child proverty has reduced by 30%. More like iPOD, SkyTV subscriptions and plasma TV purchases have increased.
All Labour has done is stuck lower income and middle income people into a rut because of the huge marginal tax rate introduced by WFF.
Also the student loan scheme seems to be working well. Cullen got that prediction right didn’t he that student debt wouldn’t rocket up.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“Buggerlugs” and SR – I call you out as being the same drunken and impotent 50-70 year old. Game over.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
rogernome: “I agree that WFF isn’t entirely just, but it has reduced child poverty by 30%. Not a bad start.”
Bullshit. It has just some parents more money based on how many children they have. You have no way of knowing whetehr or not those chilkdren are better off.
Sorry roger, but like the rest of the Labour filth, you will need to come some facts, rather than just parrot lies.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
roger
I look forward to see what dear leader has in store for us if you are so keen on new policy.
Mind you, if Labour has done everything so well for the past nine years why do you need new policy to deal with out of control youth crime?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Class war? you’re the one that started with the bullshit about born into money.
And what makes you think I’m old? because I’m a Tory?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I must say that I enjoyed listening to Larry Williams climb into Annette King on Newstalk ZB tonight. She had no answers, bleated and ranted about non-working families, and sounded absolutely pathetic. She even tried to blame the recent murders in Sth Auckland on Ruth Richardson!!!
Dog tucker.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
No, Southern Raider, you are old because wisdom is the domain of the elderly!
January 29th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“Class war? you’re the one that started with the bullshit about born into money.”
Um yeah, google OECD and Social mobility – then read some of the literature on the relationship between social mobility and income inequality. That’s if you can understand it… but i have my doubts.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
so..’boot camp’..
but call it ‘fresh start’..
(innovative..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“Mind you, if Labour has done everything so well for the past nine years why do you need new policy to deal with out of control youth crime?”
Maybe because Labour is far from perfect – but that could be said about any government….
January 29th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Gnome thats your problem. You spend too much time reading UN statistics and reports, but don’t live in the real world.
Normal people don’t have time to read and spurt out the bullshit you come up with.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Craig Ranapia says:
With respect Craig, trying to ensure your candidate doesn’t look like an extra from Dawn of the Dead isn’t “control freaking trivia”. Michael Deaver for one would disagree with you. He engineered the sort of photo ops that helped create the Reagan myth.
Not that I’m advocating substitution of trivia for substance. But for that portion of the audience who watch the TV news with the sound down while waiting for their soap opera to come on – and even for those listening to the sound bite – the underlying visual imagery delivers important messages.
What Red was advocating was in no way placating them (are you calling Redbaiter, of all people, an appeaser!?
) but simply having someone play devil’s advocate so that silly accusations of “boot camps” and “giving young thugs weapons training” were possibly anticipated and dealt with in the initial press conference, not later when you appear to be on the defensive. It’s damned good advice.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“She [King] even tried to blame the recent murders in Sth Auckland on Ruth Richardson!”
DPF, what do the polls say about the voter attitude to the RR period?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“You spend too much time reading UN statistics and reports, but don’t live in the real world.”
So we should let armchair social commentators like you who can’t even be bothered schooling themselves up on a subject become our policy makers? Sounds scarily like the National Party’s 1990s crowd. No thanks.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“Buggerlugs” and SR – I call you out as being the same drunken and impotent 50-70 year old. Game over.
In other words, Numb’s run out of talking points, we’re being horrid to him, and he can’t handle the heat. Fuck off out of the kitchen then.
As for me being 50-70 and impotent? I wish I was impotent because sometimes I have vague favourable recollections of what it was like to be single and without numerous kids running around. And I only feel 50-70 y o after bashing my head against a wall trying to get through to idiots like you.
Blind faith is not a basis for living, Woger.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
nome, good to see you again. You still haven’t addressed my question.
???
January 29th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
ried, I lost interest at the “fucking moron” part… sorry.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
andrew becroft also says
“”Apprehensions for youth offenders as a whole is declining but a small group of 750 to 1000 young boys are offending more violently,” Judge Becroft said.
He said the largest increase in violent offending has come in the 51-99 age group.
”
Lock ‘em up…then they wont be able to vote NZF anymore!
January 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
So we should let armchair social commentators like you who can’t even be bothered schooling themselves up on a subject become our policy makers?
Oh, tres pot kettle black.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“He said the largest increase in violent offending has come in the 51-99 age group.”
Dad4Justice?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
“Oh, tres pot kettle black.”
There’s a difference bro – I read, you don’t … remember?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I don’t use the F word nome, except sometimes in relation to Bush. So I don’t understand your reticence.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Bro? Oh look, it’s Tane posting from his home PC.
Ko te mutunga kë mai o te heahea, bro.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I’m sure DPF can check our settings to determine where not the same person if that makes you happy Gnome.
I can read, but have actually attained some degrees by using those skills. You’re not going to be one of those 40 year old students are you. If so you’ve got the CV to make a good Labour MP. No work experience, no common sense, just a brain fill of crappy ideas from 1920′s Russia.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
SR – yep, it’s good Woger reads, but unfortunately you have to be able to look objectively upon what you are reading.
He can’t, and therefore, in his words, game over.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
A few other pieces on this that you guys might like to have a look at …
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-key-chooses-his-target.html
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1003
January 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
roger nome
You are really close to dropping the “Labour good” – “National bad”. Go on, just once try and actually judge the parties on what they stand for rather than their party name. I dare you!
January 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
It is very nice to see National making the first steps to start tightening up on solo mothers. Clarks government is very fond of solo mothers as a very free DBP was one of her major objectives in government.
My sister in law for a few years looked after many problem kids, most of which came from solo parents. What shocked me was the cost of looking after these problem kids (once you get social agencies, lawyers and a tiny pittance paid to the care giver) is $84,000 a year. Next to that, a one off $100K seems pretty reasonable if it works.
From reading between the lines I suspect this is the first step in a program to sort out the appalling problems successive govts (started primarily by Labour, but National in the 90′s could have done much more but didn’t) have allowed to fester and grow through this easy welfare.
Well done John.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Stop linkwhoring as well. No one in their right mind is going to waste bandwidth on going to either of those blogs.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
the best comes from kiwiblogblog though
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/699/
January 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Whats Helen going to get up to tomorow? I’m picking a “I only got into politics for the children speech”, flanked by video clips of Martin Luther King, starving children from a World Vision ad and music from the Live Aid song We Are The World.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Only Gnome would seriously link to The Standard as a solid source of unbiased information. It would be like me linking to the National Party website.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
They say when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs the one that barks is the one that got hit.
Judging from the frantic posting from the lefties you wonder if there isn’t some truth to that.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Labour has the patsies working overtime tonight. Just in the the NZ Herald site the unbiased Sam Dixon gives us his views “John Key gives us more hollow plans, designed to put the boot in and make us all feel good about ‘punishing the buggers’. He’s playing to spend $100 million but the real problem won’t be solved. At the same time, he’s rejected spending $12 million on early childhood interventions with a proven record of success.”
Sounds like a press release straight from the 9th floor.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
So you’ve never heard of crim families encouraging their kids to commit crime? I haven’t either.
Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalallalalallalallalallala
January 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Go to http://clintheine.blogspot.com/2008/01/it-all-makes-more-sense-now.html for a great picture.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
And only nome would link to KBB as if it was some sort of holy writ.
Roger, such links lend your arguments no credibility whatsoever.
G
January 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
reid
I totally agree, head in the fricken sand going on with both sides of the divide.
My opinion: Clearly the strategy is to implement both schemes. The fence at the top needs fixing and there are still plenty of bodies still in the process of falling so we need an ambulance at the bottom for a while yet.
I know, I know it’s too non partisan and would require some kind of agreement between race horse 1 and race horse 2 in the two party system.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Strategically, a very clever move by National. One glance at the crime stats for any given Jan period, always shows a statistical glitch. Hell, even as I write this, I’ve just heard another 2 x people have just been shot in South Auckland.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Bingo, burt.
Frankly I don’t have much confidence that Power will do anything except what’s in his own personal political interests, he seems that sort of person. But when you have a mistaken mindset as lefty’s actions thus far have borne out, you have to vote against them.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Paul I bet Clark blames JK for organising that gun battle tonight.
National couldn’t have picked a better day. Make these policy announcements King and Clark deny there is a problem and to cue doomsday erupts in Flatbush.
Bloody brilliant.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Hi Gnome, I like your idea about going back in multiples of 16 years, it has potential to explain a lot of generational problems.
But, try going back two generations, umm 32 years, 1976, ummm, “The Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) was first introduced in New Zealand in 1974″.
That’s a much more powerful explanation for youth deprivation and youth crime than a cut in the level of the benefit.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
If not so damn tragic, it would be hilarious… Gee, thanks Labour..NZ the way you want it!
January 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Usual lefty social engineering disguised as “human rights.”
Not that it didn’t address a real issue, but that the implementation throughout successive shades of govt has NOT fixed the problem it originally was sold to do.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Gneome
“BTW – can you tell me? What would the National party do to improve the lot of solo mums?”
Improving the financial lot of solo mums is absolutely the worst thing you could for the children at the edge of NZ society. Read the James Whakaruru case to appreciate what I mean.
There are children out there who are viewed as NOTHING more than a cash generating asset for their parents. This means minimising the cash spent on the child to below the amount provided by their benefit.
Tough for middle class (and you are believe me) to visualise, but read the case and weep.
Then put your calculating brain in the shoes of James Whakaruru’s mother and think about the effect of a change in the dollars per child benefit.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
But don’t forget that a lot of solo mums are not “on the edge.” I have no issues with society supporting solo mums, but do when it becomes a lifestyle and the kids aren’t placed front and centre. With the vast majority of solo mums, this happens. The question is how do you separate them from the minority that abuser both or either the privilage and their kids? And I (maybe wrongly), perceive that this proportional segment is on the rise.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
You quote yourself with approval:
You paint a picture of Good Labour/Bad National. I’ll take you at your word, and not double-check your figures, but what you’ve written doesn’t make sense.
(1) 11% in 1986 (5 years before a National government)
(2) 35% in 1995 (4 years after National in government, so a “stock take” point of 9 years)
(3) 2004 (5 years after Labour in Government, and 4 years of National before that, so a “stock take” point of 9 years).
Hence I’ve “corrected” your quote for you.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
BTW..it was Labour (aka Mallard), that closed down Auckland Metropolitan college which had been established since the mid 1970′s for kids who’s intellect and/or personality, was unsuited to mainstream education. The track record of this instituiton was quite extraordinary in turning kids into useful, productive members of society. Now National, advocates a return to similar insitutions. Go figure…
January 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
That’s why I said “financial” and “at the edge”, its not easy but just giving money on a per child basis has been the cause of incredible cruelty.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Wasn’t it also Mallard who shutdown Trentham primary? Great new building development underway on that site now, beautiful right next to the park, kinda perfect for…. Children.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
The second law of politics is to accuse your opponent of your greatest flaw. Lets us see how the misearable old bag criticises John Key.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
reaction to the Key speech?
I’d say muted.
I’m sorry for the National party supporters here who expected much from this, only to be faced with the dampest of squibs.
John is hardly the inspiring type, lets hope can at least avoid any gaffes in the next few months.
Remember he claimed he was proud to be leader of the Labour party? thats is seeming to be more of a Fraudian slip every day!
January 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
sonic must be saving for a holiday. Double pay,meal and taxi allowance for working this late as a duty blogger.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Yes Burt, there is a vast left wing conspiracy where we are all paid huge sums of money to deal with your feeble arguments.
And I have to say it is money for old rope mate.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
“can’t even rouse myself to pull a coke down my local”
Pull a what?
Oh, sorry, I meant fuck my sobriety by swilling pinot down the Auckland Club with the rest of my Hooray Henry friends. We might even drive through Otara in the Beamers taunting poor people with morsels of smoked salmon and brie.
Seriously, Nome, if you’re going to be a class warrior do update your material. Until then, I must demand the nearest pub to where I live extend their wine list beyond ‘house red’, ‘house white’ and ‘bubbles for chicks’.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Craig, I have looked, but your outraged posts at people being called Chardoney socialists must have all been deleted.
Class war, only ok when your side does it eh Craig (like death threats and such)
Craig Ranapia, defending the indefensible since ages ago!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“Well, Helen, I’m sure your programmes work well for thousands of kids and I hope that continues to be the case. I’m talking, however, about the 25,000 kids your programmes do NOT help.”
January 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Is there a reason why I keep remembering a policy release (some years ago) announcing it was government policy that those under 18 would be in school, training, work experience or jobs?
Did National block Ron Mark’s bill because they wanted the policy in Key’s speech?
On the policy level the focus needs to be on
1. pre school education and family support – this is where intervention works best.
2. specialist teaching and classes for those with learning disabilities such as dyslexia so they do not fail.
3. more resourcing for anti-truancy programmes (including special education for those dropping out)
4. community facilities and services in areas with at risk youth
What Key is proposing is an ambulance at the cliff, not prior intervention. It’s scope is far too limited.
No one questions the in school, training or work for those under 18 – or even the need to keep innovating and searching for containment measures when things go wrong. But focusing on what to do when things go wrong, instead of what works earlier and ensuring it occurs is too negative.
The emphasis on the negative is emotive and suggestive of some threat that needs to be responded to. This leaves the ugly smell of politics on the policy.
I have my suspicion that this is simply the white laager – ANZUS, more police and more prisons for the underclass keeping the “unwashed” at bay internationally and locally – Orewa white tribe homeland lite. It dogwhistles so. It speaks to the “mainstream family” under threat from the growing Polynesian and Maori population. And it also speaks to concerns amongst the more conservative of the consequences of a society without enough
“discipline” – thus Key says National will bring back discipline. But discipline is not the first and most important part of the equation.
If we get it right we will immunise youth to the gangster rap anti-society nihilism, if not discipline is not going to work – not if youth are not supported in their family, their schools and their community.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I know there is a silver bullet and Lindsay Mitchell for one knows where to point it!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:39 am
5. Stop paying children to have children while we tell our kids to wait till they can afford it would be a bloody good start.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:47 am
One response – forcing teenage parents to adopt out their children is fairly high intervention nanny statist is it not? Why not move on to force all parents on welfare to adopt their children out (and then move onto euthenasia for those without private pension plans).
Another response – who are the “they” having children while teenagers and who are the “us” waiting to afford it?
January 30th, 2008 at 1:04 am
For hard out recidivist violent offenders who kill I do believe that life = life (or death) meaning they should be offered euthanasia. It is very peaceful – just like an anaesthetic at the hospital – not a grotesque event like the trendies have got us all conned into believing (yet again) – and heaven knows the planet could do with the resources they are wasting.
In fact, by immediately assuming there is only one alternative, you show a very good example of the trendy smoke screen – “massaging the voters erogenous zones” I think Lange called it. In fact in America after the Clinton welfare reforms things are going well. Americans of course have a very can do attitude anyway and now they know that if they want a baby they will just have to leave it with a relative and wait tables to pay for it.
Anyway, some real action would have to be better than one killing every 72 hrs or having to endure subhuman scum like the filth that bashed the North Shore couples, eh? It would only take a generation to turn it around.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Hi all,
With all this talk about violent crime could I just recommend forming a Neighbourhood Support (Neighbourhood Watch) group. It can be a lot of fun, you get to meet your neighbours and very helpful community constables, and reassure the more frightened people around that there are things that can be done and there is someone there for them. This is particularly useful for people of minority ethnicities in your area to encourage them to call the police rather than put up with intimidation or bullying.
I am chairperson of Auckland Neighbourhood support and we are particularly keen to get more groups going including dairies and other shops. We are also looking for volunteers for a range of duties so if you would like to help please email me at kevin@ns.org.nz. You can find out what to do to start a group on our website (http://www.neighbourhoodsupport.org.nz/) or groups in other areas on the national website (www.ns.org.nz). If you could spread the word via your email networks that would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers and sorry to threadjack
January 30th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Roger as usual likes to very selectively choose statistics. For example, he says that families in poverty have fallen by 30% since WFF. But he ignores the fact that before WFF, those living in extreme hardship had increased by 27%. So in other words, Labour stuffed the economy, and then, in usual socialist fashion, stole money from everyone else to put things back to where they were.
This is the best they can do after 8 of the best years in anyones living memory. It is an utter disgrace and for the Rogers of the world that love to support this pathetic effort – shame on you.
During Nationals time, (and unlike Labour time when we have had the best prices for our commodity produce in over 50 years, under National it was the lowest), we still averaged economic growth of 2.4%, gained 284,000 new jobs and ended their 9 years with 3% growth and a 1.5bil surplus. To reiterate, this was the lowest commodity prices.
Labour inherited a very healthy economy and then had the advantage of the highest commidity prices in 50 years. Yet before the last election Mikey admited that the aver average NZ’er was no better with the 41 additional taxes they had clobbered us with.
It’s a disgrace, and Roger, you are too intelligent to keep justifying this crap for much longer without losing all credibility.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:55 am
kevin said.
.”..With all this talk about violent crime could I just recommend forming a Neighbourhood Support (Neighbourhood Watch) group…”
with all this talk about vigilante groups..
can i suggest wannabe vigilantes watch that simpsons episode on that issue..?
(then they can (just) slink away in embarrassment..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
philu.
I preferred..
…’Family Guy’ when they..
Thought they were the A-Team..?
(What, people in wheelchairs can’t own guns??!!)
Lee (http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/)
January 30th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Yeah, phil, my local Neighbourhood Watch group runs around with knives stabbing taggers. Try again.
Um, I believe the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee unanimously reported back — and did so in pretty strong language — that Ron Mark’s bill should not proceed because it was not only unworkable, but would ultimately have the opposite effect to that intended by Mr. Mark. Can’t see why the rest of the committee would want to do John Key any favours, and heavens forfend that we actually have a select committee judging legislation, and submissions, on their merits.
And where would we be without Sonic…
That’s right, Sonic, my fellow VRWC drone DPF covers my tracks…
You obviously missed the numerous times I’ve locked horns with WhaleOil, Redbaiter, D4J etc too. But the Freudian projection of your own faults on others is nothing new.
And Sonic projecting and making shit up – again. Must be one of those days that ends in Y.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am
BTW, SPC, if it’s now National Party policy to lower the age of criminal responsibility to twelve someone really should tell Ron Mark. As I type this, he seems to be working himself up to a stroke based on a rather serious misapprehension.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:13 am
gee..!..natty-pollies railing on about ‘getting tough’ on recalcitrant teenagers..
(that’s something new/different..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
and key is on nat-rad..forced to define the finer points of his bootcamp schema..(!)
(heh-heh..!..isn’t it all turning so pear-shaped..and so soon..!..)
now he’s talking about ‘crime-waves’..
oh dear..!.
nothing is really ‘new’..?..is it..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am
whoar said: “‘gee..!..natty-pollies railing on about ‘getting tough’ on recalcitrant teenagers..”
For once, could you discuss the topic and advance some ideas? All you do over and over is to proffer a series on nonsensical utterances.
Is that the luddite/green approach to dialog? Am I asking too much?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:27 am
but that is the topic manolo..
and key is meant to be the ‘ideas-man’ in this..
‘bootcamps’..eh..?
yagottalaff..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Wow, you mean John Key gives an interview where he’s asked actual questions – and handled himself pretty well, IMO. Wow… You really are an easily amused chap, philu.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:35 am
craig..he is fast reduced to discussing the mechanics of his ‘bootcamp idea’..
if that is your definition of key ‘handling himself pretty well’..?
and you are happy with that..?
well..you ‘go well’..!..eh..?
(heh-heh..!..)
john ‘bootcamp’ key..eh..?
he’s so macho..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Neighbourhood Support is for all members of the community. Members are encouraged to call the police if they see anything suspicious, and certainly not to take the law into their won hands. The police rely on people reporting crime and I we could not function as an organisation if we didn’t have a good working relationship with the police so why on earth would we break the law phil?
I have recently been involved in a case where an Asian shop owner was being victimised but wouldn’t report the crimes. The local neighbourhood support group finaly convinced them that all incidents must be reported, otherwise how are the police meant to do their job?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It would help assess whether what ‘philu’ writes is nonsense if it was presented in a coherent readable form, instead of the incoherent stuff he insists on presenting which is unreadable.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Colin Espiners blog at Stuff was biased and what one might expect. Similar to the dam with faint praise commentary from G Espiner on TV1 last night.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“It would help assess whether what ‘philu’ writes is nonsense ”
Who cares about assessing such childlike unreadable pompous idiocy?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
‘Irony’
Personally, I always pass the drivel by
January 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
yes adam..we understand..
and we won’t ask too much of you..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
has anyone ever called you a ‘pompous prick?”..adam..?
or is this a first..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
mm!!..’gimme some a’ loving..!..every day..!’..
is playing on whoar fm one..
‘scuse me..!
i have to jump araounfd the room a bit..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Phil’s biggest problem is the delusion he cannot apparently overcome that he speaks for some cheering crowd of like dull brained commie bludgers. One always knows one is talking to an uncivilized ill mannered half educated barbarian when in spite of the fact that even when they’re singularly isolated in their viewpoints, and particularly notable for their incoherent self obsessed ranting, they persist in using the collective pronoun at every opportunity. Desperately afraid to mentally exist as an individual.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I’ve reached the conclusion philu is an imbecile trying to pass as a “greenie” (the reverse also works).
January 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Please refer to that guy as “philu”. Us guys called “Phil” wish to maintain our distinct identities.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Like Manolo did above. Thank you, Manolo.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
i’ve reached the conclusion..
..manolo isn’t the brightest lamp in the lighting shop..
..but he does try so hard to pretend he shines just a/that little bit brighter..
..than he actually does..
..was it always this way ..?..manolo..?
..at school too..?
and phil worst..?..
you could just call yourself phil-the-inferior..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
philu
Im just switching on the vapour daddy… it’s warm, im away eh?
vapour…ummmmm yum. you – phil-you were correct…like…good.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Manolo is a good guy. And I don’t care what other people call ME as long as it is clear that they aren’t referring to YOU.