Labour candidate called for Government to shape up or ship out
March 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm by David FarrarOh dear, one of the problems of having been involved in student politics is quotes can come back to bite you. Not so bad for me as Labour were in power from 1986 to 1989, so I had fun helping lead protest marches against Phil Goff (and rude chants that rhymed) and no confidence motions in Stan Rodger.
Steady Eddy has pulled up an old quote by Labour’s Epsom candidate, Kate Sutton:
Well the Government has not shaped up by introducing universal living allowances, so presumably Kate still stands by her press release that they should ship out!
Related posts:
- iPredict Election Update #48: Labour Government Possible?
- Labour Candidate supports Brash
- Two more Labour candidates
- Labour’s Women’s Vice-President slams Labour front bench
March 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Bile Oil is certainly NZs version of Rev Wright.
….none other than the big-mouthed, stupid fat white woman Kate “pakeha vote for white candidates with names they can pronounce” Sutton
[DPF: Yeah, the e-mail would have been better left to itself without the un-necessary descriptives. Incidentially the poster was Eddy, not Whale]
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
She said it, she should stand by it. Still stalking Richard ghosty or did you take your police warning seriously?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Ah David, good to see you posting the good work of Whale’s even more psychotic friend, Steady Eddy. That would be the guy who famously stalked John Minto and posted a photo of his house on the web, wouldn’t it Dave?. Heavens, the company you keep…
Seriously though, this is just petty. For all you know Kate still believes in universal student allowances and is standing as a candidate to make a difference. You know, change from within and all.
Are you going to start trawling through every former student politician’s public statements looking for dirt, or do you leave that to your arms-length operators like Steady Eddy and your good mate Whale?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Well I just had a look and I’ve got to say that’s a pretty vile post from Steady Eddy.
I’d encourage David’s readers to click through the link and have a look at the kind of filth he associates with and encourages on this blog.
Your encouragement enables this kind of behaviour David, and it’s about time you took some responsibility.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Tane, get a grip. It isn’t encouragement to hat tip, it is just polite. If DPF quoted the bile here then that would be encouragement.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Tane thinks pointing out previous public statements made by a politician is looking for dirt. Hilarious when you consider the content of his own blog.
I’ve linked to KBB and The Standard on occasion also. Let me know when I also get editorial control and responsibility over those sites. Tane seems to have problems understanding this whole idea of individual responsibility.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
David, you’re not just linking to any old site, you’re linking directly to an article that refers to Kate Sutton as “none other than the big-mouthed, stupid fat white woman”.
I’m sorry, but that’s beyond the realms of good taste and doesn’t need encouragement. I’d also point out that the site is run by your good friend Cameron Slater aka Whaleoil, who is, among other things, infamous for harassing a 15 year old boy by publicly photoshopping his head onto gay porn.
[DPF: Linking to a story does not signify approval or disapproval of every word written in it. You know this. Every few weeks you try and declare I am responsible for something written somewhere because I linked to it. It is pathetic tactics. And if you are going to start taking the moral high ground on references to intelligence and weight, why don't you go count up the number of reference to my stupidity and weight on your blog and KBB. I mean seriously you have such a nerve, and it is so insincere.]
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
look farrarr yous know well that she and them labour belong go to United Nations Sweden and them rich and small and dead, watch Chinas peoples coming to you land brothers and sister
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
look farrarr yous know well that she go to United Nations Sweden dead
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Can I take this post as support for universal student allowances? Hope that means National and supporters will be helping the Greens to end the current discrimination that forces students to borrow to live.
[DPF: Actually I have and remain a supporter of universal student allowances. I would have much rather had that come in than interest free student loans]
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
David I can’t recall ever making reference to your weight on The Standard, it’s not realy my style. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
My point is that the likes of Eddy and Whale are extremely creepy and toxic characters, and it’s the opinion of myself and others that by regularly linking to the filth of Whale and his associates you enable his behaviour. You know Whale personally and you have some influence to encourage him to clean up his act; to drop the bigotry and the sexism, the creepy stalking and the pornographic photoshop jobs.
It’s not a good look for the right, and it makes the blogosphere unnecessarily toxic. I’m sure that deep down you’re as sick of this kind of bile as I am.
[DPF: I don't tend to make such references on blogs either. But I don't go around trying to link you to what others do. You refuse to take responsibility for actual comments on your own blog you control, yet maintain I should be responsible for comments on blogs I don't control. As anyone who looks at the long list of demerits I ping people constantly when they step over the line - even when they are attacking Labour Ministers. You know Robinson fairly well, maybe even work with him, yet I don't sense a outpouring of desire for you to be responsible for everything he says online]
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
This is an interesting debate about the ethics of linking to blogs with whom you disagree ethically. Personally l think it depends to an extent on your intended audience. For instance I see frogblog as a Green voice that communicates with people who disagree with the Green movement rather than as a natural place for Greens to gather and talk among ourselves. So in some senses I see a positive virtue in my type of blog linking to blogs with whom I politically or ethically disagree. And I actively involve participants and commenters who disagree with my posts. It’s easier for me to do that though because I’m hiding behind both a pseudonym and a political party, which you two aren’t.
Having said that I’d never link for instance to that site that was naming WINZ social workers because I think it could hurt people, and I think Whale Oil treds dangerously close to that line too much of the time. (And sometimes has fallen over it). I think there is an ethical responsibility to avoid causing or promoting harm.
And as it happens I hardly ever link to Whale Oil anyway because most of his posts are just cut and pastes, which don’t move the debate forward.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Tane – I’m fairly sure I speak for most people here(except DPF of course) when I say –
Fuck off back to the hollow, anonymous, Labour funded, bunch of old tripe you call a blog and quit trying to be the moral temperature taker here.
Thanks
CL
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Eddy – whoever he may be – has made a stupid error by including a childish and irrelevant reference to Sutton’s weight. Because it allows a smokescreen to be created, obscuring the remainder of the post, including the fact that it was leaked to him by a Labour activist who claims there’s a group disgruntled that a “inexperienced career politician” like Sutton should have been selected at all.
And that goes to the heart of several other issues we’ve debated here and elsewhere in the past – namely the quality of representation we’re getting as a result of the parties’ selection processes and the list aspect of MMP.
Quite aside from making a prat of himself by reference to weight (is Rodney Hide twice as good a politician now he’s half the weight he was?!) Eddy’s other insults – that Sutton is “big mouthed and stupid” – would rate as fair if somewhat robust comment in most political fora. Not that that’s necessarily a good thing, but hardly constitutes the outrageous misogyny which Tane and others seem to detect.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
oh, one further thought. There is a tendency in our male dominated blogosphere for most bloggers, including bloggers without a specified gender or female bloggers who are not explicitly feminist in their perspective, to make comments on women’s appearance that are clearly not only unwarranted and cruel, but also intimidating and degrading. It is good when we call each other on this sexism so that it does not go unnoticed. Hopefully it will prevent occurrences in the future and compel us to debate the real issues. It is time we clean up our community and make it more welcoming.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Tane, stop obfuscating. Look at how I referred to Sutton and point precisely which part is so outrageously objectionable.
She is definitely big mouthed – Helen Clark said as much when she slapped slippery Kate over her racially offensive comments on Radio National. On calling her stupid, I’m pretty confident in saying slippery Kate isn’t the brightest crayon in the box, she has a proven track record of making silly statements, including some biggies on her old blog About Town. I don’t think calling her white is offensive.
I’ll happily argue about her weight also. The phrase I used is barely a few letters away from Michael Moore’s best selling “Stupid Fat White Men” – which I hope you’ll condemn – and jibes on weight are hardly rare in New Zealand politics. If you’ve ever sat in the Gallery while Gerry Brownlee is speaking, you’ll know that Labour MPs are keen to dig in and I’m doing the same.
I’d also note that these comments pale in significance when compared to the vicious attacks on David Farrar we hear on the stalker-run Kiwiblogblog where you have often commented.
You’ve thrown up another old chestnut in trying to obfuscate here, repeating the assertion that I “stalked” John Minto. I used a publicly available database to extract information, including a photo that was already on the web and publicly available – the process took less than 30 seconds – to make a point about Minto’s hypocrisy. Here we have someone who has engaged in a particularly vicious brand of envy politics but who lives up large. I stand by my decision to post the information I posted. I have never approached or met Minto, and I don’t even live in the same city. I would suggest you apply the same level of scrutiny to the sick fucks at Kiwiblogblog or just fuck off back to your Labour-sponsored blog.
To be fair, you did address Sutton’s comments in passing but before you actually read my fucking post! The argument that Sutton is some how trying to change things from the inside is ridiculous when you consider just how strident her rhetoric was. She tied her name to a press release claiming that Labour had killed democracy in New Zealand. I was sent another press release compared Labour’s policies “to the excesses of National” while expressing “anger” and “outrage” at a Government that “hammers” students. I think you also need to retract your statement that I have been “trawling” through press releases. To be fair, you made it before you read the post in question but there is an issue at play here. I was sent two press releases by two Labour members – involved in the Princes St debacle of last year and who were active in AUSA politics – angry at the machine politics Sutton represents.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Tane your pontification and righteous indignation is laughable, but then when you are languishing where you are in the rankings and I continue to rise that must really hose you off.
I love that you continually post my real name like it is going to embarrass me or something. Why don’t you start posting under your real names instead of the anonymous, labour funded, lickspittle pseudonyms you use.
I will not stop calling attention to utter hypocrisy of leftist liars, that includes your little nest of try hards suffering from Key Derangement Syndrome.
I note that you dredge up past quotes from John key and hang several months of posting on it but somehow it isn’t alright to draw attention to a Labour candidate who has shown a history of bagging her own party.
Don’t worry we have at least six more weeks of posts on Axis of Weasel member Kate Sutton. There is so much material it is just a matter of choosing the order of her personal destruction as a candidate.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
To be fair, Kate Sutton IS big-mouthed, stupid, fat and white, though I’m not sure calling her a woman is accurate. Perhaps we could get the NBR to investigate?
[DPF: And that is 20 demerits. Probably should be even more than that.]
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Investigate whether she is a chick? Sooner them than me, Blair.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Yes, Tane, and I hold you personally responsible for the little charmers on The Standard who’ve called me a ‘house nigger’ and ‘Uncle Tom’. Oh, wait… that’s different, isn’t it?
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
I really can’t see the point of all of this. if she is a woman or a dyke or a martian or a custard tart with fucking pansy on top. The main issue for me is whether what she has to offer is good for the country and whether what she believes in will further the general good. If I were to be censured on my past pronouncements, I would be considered unsuitable for civilised company just on the basis of stuff I have said in the last six months. Some of which I would still stand by. Anyway.
The attraction of the ‘right’ for me is that it allows debate. What I mean is that it encourages revison and is not bound by an ideological attachment to a fossilised philosophy.
If you are claiming that a person’s previous ideas must forever nail their present attitudes to the post, then you are missing the major ideological plus which separates the liberal ideology from the older Marxist one- ie the the Liberal one is not locked in – it can accept, even welcome differences and prosper from the addition.
While I can appreciate the evident moral distress that Tane experiences from the existence of sexism, homophobia, racism and bigotry, I need to ask ‘Is the distress genuine, or is it expressed with an element of satisfaction that he feels he has somehow ‘exposed’ his political enemies as being morally deficient?’ the reason I need to ask this is because I have seen examples of his own blog and contributors to it express sentiments that are at best unwholesome, at worst, nasty. he may defend himself by stating he is not responsible for what other blgggers say, but then he is not above supposing that DPF should be answerabel for what other say, So which standard is he applying, and is he prepared to stand by it when challenged?
Anyway, if the MP in question has grown or developed then with time, then good. if not, then she deserves to be scrutinised. Personally I can’t see what is wrong with the idea that students should have a living allowance. Tane, what do you
think? Is it a good idea, or are you more comfortable discussing ephemeral issues like sexism, homhobia etc??
Do you think the present Government has made any major advances to make student allownces a reality? If not, what do you think would be a good forward step? Do you agree sith DPF, and the MP in question? If so, why are you wasting so much hot air discussing irrellevancies? Get a life.
If not, then why aren’t you siding with, rather than attacking those who point out the deficit?
What is the issue? The sexism, homophobia etc, or the inactivity of the government on this issue? Ps those who are hung up on the sexual orientation, race, weight or gender of the MP are just plain stupid. Get a life.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 1:40 am
To be fair on Kate, she has always been a nutter and her heart is in the right place. She really-truely believes what she says… except for when a career with Labour beckons. Then of course she’ll sell all her beliefs up the creek to get a juicy list spot. And we all know she didn’t get one of those either.
She can take two routes. Either continue to speak up against the hypocritical Labour party and realise that capitalism is the way forward, or take the Jordan Carter route and be a mouthpiece of the party regurgitating their lies to the disbelieving public and hope that it will get her a better spot next time.
Naa, I think Blair was right the first time.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 8:25 am
She’s a loose cannon. I blogged about earlier comments a couple of weeks back.
Vote:http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/03/serious-chip-on-shoulder.html
March 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Lindsay nice touch – I borrowed your link for discussion on http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/ thnx.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
So DPF, in 1986-89 what were your views of Roger Douglas? Have they changed since then?
[DPF: My views on Sir Roger are much the same now as they were then, which was generally positive]
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am
In the meantime John Bloody Key is doing his best to lose the “un-loseable” election.
If the latest polls do not start the warning bells ringing in the National party HQ then nothing bloody will, when will they learn that the people of NZ want a real choice, the WANT different polices and they most certainly do NOT want Labour lite.
Key is never going to “out Clarke” dear leader, he must be his own man and start acting like a National party politician
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Trust in God, and keep your powder dry; Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes, bruv
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Tamaki resident, the difference is that this are views Sutton had three to four years ago, not twenty. She also had some pretty radical ideas as late as 2006, I’ve just done a post that carries the full speech Lindsay Mitchell referred to earlier. Really offensive stuff, claiming that “gang rape and sexual violence” are “the norm” at Auckland University because “the blokes … who steal our jobs” want it to be like that.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The more I read about Kate Sutton the more I conclude she is a fine Labour Candidate for Epsom.
I note the Labour Party has not sought to deploy her obvious strengths on its behalf in the Maungakiekie Electorate. What this conveys to me is that Labour is not uncomfortable with the status quo in Epsom.
What strikes me as odd is why all this National Party interest in her.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I think the reference to Sutton’s weight is entirely relevant. Another Labour Green coalition and I can foresee fat people having to wear ankle bracelets (you know like the ones home D people wear, the fuckers who should be doing hard time on bread and water) to monitor thier shopping habits may become a distict possibility.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Bruv, don’t read the MSM headlines, put the poll numbers through the electoral calculator. That’s a govern alone poll result for National, the first for some time.
Labour closing by sucking the votes off Green, Maori party only a small overhang, as good as it gets atg the moment.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 4:44 am
The Labour party are gifting Epsom to ACT unless the Nats get any funny ideas. It’s a lovely present really…. esp with Jordan possibly up against Sir Roger. It just shows the Labour Party has a sense of humour
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Ignoring whether the people of Epsom would rather dance with the post Diet Rodney or the pre Duma Kate, and who Winston would prefer in his old electorate of Hunua, Roger or Jordan, a return to the issue of universal student allowances.
I preferred no interest on tertiary loans, as that provided an incentive to work here (stay or return) and included former students – made their debt repayable. National’s latest policy on this indicates they have chosen to go further in this direction rather than go with universal allowances.
The next move should be to pay the rate of dole for those over 25 to tertiary students in their allowance (this being the effective borrowing rate also). This and zero rate tax on the first $6000 should boost student incomes.
While I vote Green and find their advocacy of a universal allowance useful to provoking focus on this issue, the key fact now is the rising costs students are facing and thus the need for focus on priorities. For now, its increasing the amount of money students can get, whether paid or borrowed.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
SPC – “While I vote Green…”
Ahhh it all makes sense now. Oh dear.
Vote: