Espiner on Clark
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm by David FarrarColin Espiner analyses the PM’s reaction to the polls:
Prime Minister Helen Clark is refusing to accept the latest round of poll results.
It seems that now not only is Fairfax’s Nielsen poll wrong, but TVNZ’s Colmar Brunton as well, and even the Australian Roy Morgan poll, once a Labour favourite.
I guess it’s nice to be in such esteemed company, given that the three pollsters are probably amongst the biggest in Australasia. It does make me wonder, though. I thought Clark was smarter than to deny the polls. Much better to accept there is a problem and try to deal with it than refuse to accept it is staring one in the face.
This is what the Prime Minister used to do. I remember when Labour fell well behind National during Don Brash’s meteoric rise to popularity after he took over as leader in 2003. Clark quickly realised that Labour’s affirmative action policies for Maori were a major turnoff for voters, and after initially calling Brash a racist she accepted that Labour had got it wrong and changed tack accordingly.
This tacking according to the prevailing wind has always been a hallmark of Clark’s leadership, and it surprises me to find her so becalmed. There really is no point in saying that three major polls are all wrong – much better to study them to find out why the results are so poor for Labour.
Clark’s strategic nous (which I agree used to be very good) seemed to have deserted her in 2006 and this shows it has not returned.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
It doesn’t get better than this. Hels refuses to accept reality. Once again making it a cake walk for John Key.
If she doesn’t accept that Labour is losing badly then I’m guessing that Labour’s fight back is going to be lame.
What ever she does from now on is irrelevant as defeat is guaranteed!
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Are her medication levels at a steady and stable level Heather? Poor supreme leader, distorted thinking brought about by extreme emotional distress relating to the polls.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I believe she will drop below 25% in at least one poll before the election (I understand Auckland is looking like blue ribbon country. Whaleoil wonders if Clark will take Labour below 20.9%
Does anyone know what the mood is in the Labour camp at present? It can’t be good except for Clark who as well as being in denial remains “absolutely positive”. She is surrounded by absolute donkeys and this has been to the Greenies advantage as Labour have substantially bled support to the Greens who will survive this election, but will be tossed out in 2011.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I wouldn’t discount the unlimited advertising available to Labour just yet. We saw in 2005 that extra spending on advertising brings big dividends. Even if Labour were correct when they said their additional $800K made no difference to the outcome of the election, the additional few billion in last minute policies certainly did. The extra 100,000 (or more) voters that registered on the back of interest free student loans and increases to WFF in the last few weeks before the election were gold for them. They can do this again, and we know from history that when the focus is “power at any price” then there won’t be any though for how f##ked up the country will be once the ‘swung’ voters start to cash in their bribes.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Ah the freight train of public opinion is bearing down on the level-crossing where the Labour bus, stuffed full of the dozy faithful, is broken down.
Savour the slow motion ….
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I don’t think Clark will poll below 20.9% (and it should be remembered that the 2002 national result was caused by national supporters voting for other parties). 28.19% is the record low achieved by Labour under one Helen Clark back in 1996, which was caused by a strong Alliance and the NZ First party devastating Labour in the Maori Seats (not to mention Mike Moore brooding on the backbenches). If she equals that in this year’s election, it’s an interesting way to end one’s political career.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Does anyone know if New Zealand has any realistic Gold medal prospects for the Olympics?
I’m sure Hels will engineer a photo op to ride on other people’s glory. The only problem is if New Zealand has a Sydney result instead of an Athens result then the country will go ballistic again, asking why we under achieve and Hels takes another hit.
Are there any other big news events between now and the election? If Labour hold out until the last possible date for the election then there is the US presidential election results that Hels might try to ride off (Although it looks desperate to hold on to office until the last possible moment). How can Labour recover in the polls when all the evidence points to steady and constant decline? Hels is fighting against destiny.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Her strategic nous has not deserted her.
She just realises that there is nothing she can do to win this time around so she is trying to do as much um “good” as she can before she gets the boot. The ultra-left have a similar absolute belief in their own correctness as religious extremists. In her mind she knows what is right and she will do it despite all evidence/polls to the contrary.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
When National rose in the polls under Don Brash, Labour launched their ‘listening’ tour of NZed. Helen also made her big ‘bring it on’ speech. Labour at least appeared determined to hold onto power.
Fast forward to 2008 & National is streets ahead in the polls & Labour is just sitting on it’s hands. Is Helen keeping the leadership dogs at bay with a promise of a ‘neutron bomb’ she plans to drop on National? I hope not, but I guess we’ll just have to wait & see.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
metcalph
A stong public vote for minor parties is way overdue, an MMP coalition formed on genuine alliances rather than workable numbers is exactly what this country needs. Forced to vote for a major party I would vote National, not because I’ve always been a National voter because that’s not true at all. Strong Labour background in one side of the family and ambivalent on the other. The 2005 election was the election for me where I’d voted ‘other than Labour’ as many times as I’d voted Labour. But this Labour govt have made a pudding of it. They hauled their asses into govt on the ‘punish the rich’ mentality. Because the dim-bulbs didn’t adjust the ‘rich prick’ thresholds for so long their core voters (who resent being called rich pricks) are now classified as such in the tax system. What complete incompetence, how could they let that happen?
They deserve to go.
As a further note, National need to be realistic, the potential to govern alone adds some “ummm” factor to the political polls. But hey I’m sure their strategy guys didn’t miss that and know what they are up to. Labour should just call a friggen snap election, they risk being decimated on the back of a big surge of ‘unpopular but potentially worthwhile work’ that is all unraveled by a National party running solo on 70 seats.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Dear Leader is not only in denial, she is in deep doo doo.
Vote:She is part of a wind of change sweeping the word- note elections in Oz, the USA and the UK.
She has also lagged behind for far too long thats its too hard for her to make a comeback, just as Howard in Oz and the UK Tories could not either.
http://www.nominister.blogspot.com has full details.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
metcalph wrote:
Well as far as I’m concerned her career should have ended in 2005 & she’s been on borrowed time ever since.
Tags: election fraud, $820,000, broken spending cap, corrupt practice, Mangere
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hels is going to be humiliated on election night.
A good outcome and the whole point of the exercise.
I hope TVNZ are prepared for their election night coverage. They’ll need to pre-purchase the rights to play the song by Sarah Brightman with Andrea Bocelli “Time to Say Goodbye”. It can then be used for the end credits with a retrospective of Hels career in politics leading up to the lingering shot of her sweet sweet tears of defeat at Labour HQ in Mt Albert.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Burt
A stong public vote for minor parties is way overdue, an MMP coalition formed on genuine alliances rather than workable numbers is exactly what this country needs.
We have had that already. The National-New Zealand First Coalition and the Labour-Alliance Coalition. Neither are remembered with any warmth for some odd reason. And the less said about Peter Dunne, the better.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I particularly liked the bit on One News when they observed that Our hero Mr John Key seems to have skyrocketed into the lead in the polls in spite of having released next to no policy – and that it seems all he will need to do is keep his mouth shut and the election will be his!
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
the next government of new zealand will be a lab/grn/mp coalition..
(then we’ll be able to kick some arse..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
metcalph,
I’m not sure why you say that about the Labour-Alliance Coalition. Unlike Shipley and Peters, the Labour-Alliance Coalition partners did not fall out spectacularly. The Alliance self-destructed.
Nor did the 1999-2002 government deserve opprobrium. I think the 2002 election result demonstrates that it was not considered a bad government. I consider it exceptionally good, but recognise that this view would not be shared here.
As for the current polls, I have seen evidence that there is indeed a large measure of denial in some quarters.
Edit: RRM, it’s because he hasn’t released any policy FFS. If it was going to be so popular, it would be trickling out, wouldn’t it?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I think that Helen’s political nous finally deserted her the day she signed off on the EFB. it was an act of sheer breathtaking arrogance.
Now, the option she is choosing to follow is that of calm, in control and unflappable leader of her party. But the EFA proved her to be spiteful and out of control. Who in the Labour Party will truly thank her for the panic-measure which lead to the destruction of Labour as an electoral power?
If she’d done it right, the EFA could have been the galvanising symbolic and historical action which would have earned her a place in the history books. Instead she let it turn to shit in her hands.
Her party is stuck with her, but will relish the day it can say ‘Thanks for everything Helen, but it’s time to step aside and let let someone new take up the fight.” I mean so they really want her to go on forever? Let’s face it she ain’t getting any younger.
When she goes she will have to take her baggage with her. We all know who they are.
Then this country will only have their legacy to deal with…..
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Postscript: On National’s refusal to release policy, that’s not stopping some of us from discussing it anyway. See Gordon Campbell’s review at scoop and my own modest effort.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Oh come on, DPF — what does anyone expect her to say: “We’re so fucked, we should work up a price list and register the Beehive as a brothel”? Clark is trying to put her spin on another round of terrible polls – stop the presses! And when that doesn’t work, try and discredit the whole exercise (of course, Labour’s own internal polling is not for anything more than highly selective leaking) — shock! horror!
Feh… I’ll stay focused on the one poll that actually matters — the 2008 general election. Perhaps everyone else should do the same.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I’m not sure why you say that about the Labour-Alliance Coalition. Unlike Shipley and Peters, the Labour-Alliance Coalition partners did not fall out spectacularly. The Alliance self-destructed.
All I said was that those coalitions weren’t remembered with any warmth. I said nothing about why.
Nor did the 1999-2002 government deserve opprobrium.
Philida Bunkle and Marion Hobbs rorting the system to claim an out-of-town allowance even though she lived in Thorndon? The Corngate saga? The dithering about whether to accept Singapore Air’s offer to buy Air New Zealand with the end result that we ended up having to buy the company ourselves? George Hawkins doing complete stuff-all about Weathertightness on the grounds that he hadn’t been formally informed? I would also add Clark’s looseness with the truth namely the signing of paintings and her fibbing over the Doone incident.
I think the 2002 election result demonstrates that it was not considered a bad government.
It only maintained the share of the vote because 9/11 took immense attention away from the government, which happened to all western governments everywhere.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Philu
Vote:The only arse kicked by the next government of new zealand will be the likes of yours.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I don’t know why there is a conventional wisdom that the polls will tighten before the election
Vote:Sure that may have happened in 2005 but what is the other history of this?
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
The polls will tighten because Labour will pull the same shit they did last time.. Like sending fake eviction notices to state house tenants, the massively expensive wff top ups and the student loan bribe.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:35 am
DPF: “Clark’s strategic nous (which I agree used to be very good) seemed to have deserted her in 2006″
I agree, the question is, why?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Craig Ranapia:
Normally I’d be inclined to agree with you on this, Craig, but it’s so much fun watching Labour and Left-of-Labour floundering like headless chooks! Even Philu is resigned to quoting an imaginary poll for his “lab/grn/mp coalition” prediction! Still, if it’s any comfort for Helen Clark, the low-point of her political career was definitely her 2% preferred PM rating when in political opposition. A repeated (and fairly decisive) thrashing in the polls in 2008, while sitting on 27% preferred PM (on the latest Roy Morgan poll), must seem tame by comparison.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Well, I’d rather defer today’s scadenfreude for an earned — and I fully expect, fought for tooth and nail — victory party when a National-lead Government is done, dusted and sworn in.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Espener made an interesting observation when he said when Clark was down in the polls following Owera she got into gear and worked hard to turn it around. This time she just makes a King Kanute comment stating they are all wrong, I am right, so there. In other words she is in denial. Of course all her personal staff love her and the Labour caucus is tame so she thinks all is well. But who cares really, we are just making time before Labour get chucked out of office in a few short weeks. They will just be a debating society for many many years.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Email I sent to ‘labourmps@parliament.govt.nz’
Dear lesbian or homosexual who reads this email,
Please please please don’t dump Helen nor do we want an early election.
She is providing too much fun as these women from the middle classes who have NEVER been ‘workers’ destroys Labour for their own snotty middle-class ambitions.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
Allan (not voting Labour this election)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:22 am
phil(whoar.co.nz)
“the next government of new zealand will be a lab/grn/mp coalition..
(then we’ll be able to kick some arse..)”
Phil, the left and it’s unbridled passion for spending other peoples money have already given this country a serious kicking.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
“..Even Philu is resigned to quoting an imaginary poll for his “lab/grn/mp coalition” prediction!..”
um..!..i never mentioned any polls..
the reasons for my lab/grn/mp coalition prediction are as follows..
national:..nationals’ supporters are escalating from being poll-drunk..to being on a poll-bender..
..but anyone with half a brain knows they won’t be able to sustain that to the election..
(especially when their policies come out..that’ll be the scary bit..that will drive some support-seepage..
so..national is back to their old problem..(their hang-over..)..namely..coalition partners..
they seem to be trying to kill winston peters..so he’ll lean to labour..(you’d think..?..)
that leaves dunne..(they’re welcome to him..!..eh..?..)
and act..(even if hide holds epsom..)..
..and there..the spectre of roger douglas rising from his political grave will be enough to drive away even more of that ‘soft’ national support..
(you’d think.?..)
which brings us to labour..and potential partners..
and they are spoilt for choice..
even if .as expected..labour don’t do as well as last time..
some of their seeping support will go to the greens..and some to the maori party..
for these reasons i expect both the greens and the maoti party to do notably better than current polling indicates..
which brings us back to peters..
(who must ‘lean’ to labour..given they have already ‘worked’ together..
(then there is that visceral/historical loathing peters has for many in national..eh..?..)
so..you do the math..!
to me it all adds up to a lab/grn/maori party coalition as our next government..
(but you poll-drunk’ nattys..you just carry on with tour bender..just keep on deluding yourselves..eh..?
..you’ll have another three years to nurse your hangover..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
so..???
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Labour are scum: Don’t you think it is a bit below the belt to attack Labour on the sexuality of some of their MPs? There is plenty else in terms of policy to attack them on (although from my point of view, National also deserve to be attacked on exactly the same issues) – most notably their lack of concern for the economic position of ordinary working people (which you mention) and their lack of concern for the environment.
So why stir up the bigoted underbelly of NZ society by plumbing the depths of homophobia?
The Nats have at least one out gay MP too, btw.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Laconic – Meaning: using few words, terse. Originates from Laconia-Spartan territory.
The best example is the reply when Philip of Macedon wrote to Spartan magistrates: “If I enter Laconia, I will level Lacedaemon to the ground “.
The Spartans’ reply was: ” If “.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am
So lets summarize. When helen Clarke refuses toa dmit she might lose the election she has lost her “strategic nous”
Compare and contrast gentle readers what our host had to say when Phil Goff did admit the possibilty
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/audrey_young
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
nice reminder sonic if I were a nervous Labour type I’d be reaching for the pearl-handled revolver about now!
ps there is no ‘e’ on Clark.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Toad
“Labour are scum: Don’t you think it is a bit below the belt to attack Labour on the sexuality of some of their MPs?”
Don’t you think it is a bit rich coming from you given that Comrade Bradford labeled all men who smack their kids as child “bashers” and pedophiles?
Or is it another example of faux outrage from the left?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“So why stir up the bigoted underbelly of NZ society by plumbing the depths of homophobia?”
What is it about you Toad, as you continually play the poor me victimhood card when you joylessly stereotype all critics of this watermelon/freakshow regime of demented nitwits?
Edit ; sonic, great to see the Scottish have banned Fathers Day cards, are we working on that one dear MADam speaker and Sue!!??
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Toad: Ever heard the old saying, “Don’t feed the trolls”? I’m not quite there myself, but do be a good chap and try.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“..Don’t you think it is a bit rich coming from you given that Comrade Bradford labeled all men who smack their kids as child “bashers” and pedophiles?..”
still going with/re-lying on the ‘big lies’..eh bb..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
big bruv said: Don’t you think it is a bit rich coming from you given that Comrade Bradford labeled all men who smack their kids as child “bashers” and pedophiles?
bruv, Sue Bradford did no such thing. I presume you are picking up on something she said in her Alan Nixon Memorial Lecture back in 2006. The exact words in this context from that speech were:
She was referring to matters raised in “a few” submissions, and in the literature put out by a small number of Christian groups that most people would consider extremist.
Somehow, bruv, with you extrapolate that to “all men who smack their kids…”
I’ll give you credit bruv that these days you usually base your arguments on verifiable facts and statements (unlike d4j, whose inane comments I will not even dignify with a reply). Except on this issue, it seems.
If you really do want to claim Sue Bradford said what you claim, produce some evidence!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Surely the bastion rule of electoral politics is never say die? It’s never over till it’s over, despite what the polls say. It’s election year, you can’t really expect Helen to come out and say “yeah, we’re gonna lose, let’s just quit now”
The writing might be on the wall from our end, but we can’t expect her to take it quietly.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Toad, just to refresh your memory didn’t I hear a proposal from the greens to remove Fathers names from birth certificates. I can remember the speech Sue delivered on the matter? Someone will have a link? Surely.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Couldn’t disagree with you more Toad. It is well known that Sue Bradford has been an member of the far left as are many in the Greens. She certainly seems to be linking smacking, child abuse, sexual abuse, paedophilia and Christianity in the paragraphs you have helpfully outlined. I would argue she is an extremist.
Nor do I agree with you that believing in smacking and Christianity is an extremist position. Smacking was completely normal, “Spare the rod and spoil the child” has come down to us from Christianity and it is an established practice in our society and indeed throughout the world. Even today, after almost relentless anti-smacking propaganda, 70 to 80% of parents believe in corporal punishment. And rightly so.
With regard to Christianity it is unquestionably the foundation of Western civilisation. The Liberal freedoms and rights that so many people enjoy today are impossible to conceive of outside of the Christian worldview.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Yeh well toad, I heard her too, can’t remember the date but I can remember the message.. On TV1 so I won’t be the only one..
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Helen, as always, is right – I do not want her to deviate from her current thinking. She is taking the NZ Labour Party to the place they deserve to be. The fridge is well stocked and the election night party will be a huge one ! Go Helen Go.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:55 am
” great to see the Scottish have banned Fathers Day cards”
Well it seems some schoolteachers, who have a large proportion of kids being raised by their mothers only, have declined to include making fathers days cards as a classroom activity as it would exclude a large number of children.
Sorry to interupt you playing the ” the poor me victimhood card” with actual facts.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Yes I agree sonic fatherlessness and family breakdown is responsible for spiraling youth offending and making society a dangerous place for children.
What’s Labour doing about the PROBLEM ?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:05 am
then again..george carlin said..
“..The two big mistakes were the belief in a sky god —
.. that there’s a man in the sky with 10 things he doesn’t want you to do..
..and you’ll burn for a long time if you do them —
– and private property..which I think is at the core of our failure as a species.
That’s the source of my indignations, my dissatisfactions..”,
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Obviously the cannabis vapours has rendered silly philly apathetic and delusional.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Scott said: The Liberal freedoms and rights that so many people enjoy today are impossible to conceive of outside of the Christian worldview.
Scott, the Christians to whom Sue Bradford was referring are not the mainstream Christian churches from whom those liberal freedoms to which you refer have been derived. They are not your run of the mill Anglicans or Catholics or Mormons or Presbyterians. They are fundamentalist extremists who believe in a religious state and who strive to remove those very liberal freedoms we enjoy. They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.
And I fail to see what issues like “smacking, child abuse, sexual abuse, paedophilia and Christianity” have got to do with whether someone is “left” or “right”. “Left” and “right” are economic terms that relate to the extent to which people consider wealth should be redistributed within society. I would suggest that “left” and “right” have nothing to do with issues of children’s rights or parental rights, because these are not economic issues. There are both left and right wing smackers, child abusers, paedophiles, and Christians.
Or is Graham Capill a good wholesome man who has always had the interests of his country and its children foremost in his mind?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Toad.
Did you actually read what you posted? Sue Bradford specifically links physical corporal punishment with sado-masochism. If this is an indicator of the thought processes of this woman then I am very disturbed that our political system has let a person who thinks in these ways have so much sway over how we, as parents, choose to bring up our children.
She appears to be anti-male, anti religion and anti establishment. Now I am sure that she has not had the easiest path through life. But I feel that her experiences have polarised her thinking beyond the point where she can address these issues from an appropriately detached position.
I have also met some who call themselves christian whose own actions have fallen well short of what they themselves would define as decent. Some of these actions involve the worst sort of exploitation of minors and as a parent that sickens me. However I am also aware of some of the great good that religious groups do carry out. I would not tar all of these groups with the same brush based on the actions of a few.
Sue Bradford has had a life in the political spotlight which has been high profile. I do not agree with her extremist views. I do have some level of sympathy for green issues, and some of what has been said by Green MP’s has resonated. Nandor Tancoz, whatever his views, has been a voice for generation y that has been sadly lacking. His views on inter-generational debt resonate closely with my own as I watch the baby boomers, having benefitted from the free tertiary education that we have had to partly pay for, now pull up the ladder of home ownership behind them. But as environmental issues become more mainstream, the efforts of Bradford to set themselves apart from the herd, do a disservice to their beliefs.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
The Scottish Government is not Labour dad.
Do try and keep up.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Forget Scotland sonic says Burns, what is Helen Clark’s government doing about “the causes of crime: drink, drug, FAMILY BREAKDOWN and the emergence of a permanent criminal class” ?
Nothing, as she is focused on losing an election, with great success if the polls are to be believed sonic dear.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Toad
Bradford did say that men who smack their kids are pedophiles, I well remember her doing so in a piece on the television news, it was about that time that she also stated a lie about there being NO deaths of kids via child abuse in some European country because they had introduced similar smacking legislation, again that was proved to be a lie but then the left wing media did not bother following up on it.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“Forget Scotland”
You brought it up not me chuckles.
Now your little story has been shown up as another load of baloney you demand we all forget it?
What a clown you are.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
D4J: “the causes of crime: drink, drug, FAMILY BREAKDOWN and the emergence of a permanent criminal class” ?
Firstly, crime is falling.
Secondly, on “FAMILY BREAKDOWN”, does Working for Families not ring a bell.
And I don’t know why you’re so cock-a-hoop at the prospect of a change of government. You’re going to be the most disappointed person in the country when the family courts et al. just carry on business as usual.
PS Responded to your comment about trolling Big Bruv.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Whatever sonic and Toad. You back who you want, but never in my wildest dreams did I ever think this country would plummet into social chaos.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Many elections ago, Labour was bragging that they would win the Hunua Electorate with the brother of Roger Douglas as candidate. The National Party had the young “I am the greatest” candidate, Winston Peters. National was equally sure that Labour could not win legitimately so made a concerted effort to watch for irregularities. On Election night Douglas did indeed win and took his place in Parliament. The ensuing High Court challenge saw a vast array of “irregularities” exposed and Labour lost the seat as a result.
Helen Clark is also confident. The difference this election is that Labour is in the driving seat, and has all the resources of Government (and the taxpayer) at its finger tips, and is prepared to exhaust them all finding a winning formula.
As the 2005 elections established, legitimacy can be legislated for at a later date.
And Philu, at 8.09am, has a catalogue of difficulties for National that will be ignored at their peril.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Jafa
I agree with D4J, the breakdown of the family unit is one of the major causes of the rising crime rate, it is utter bullshit to say that crime is falling and frankly I did not expect you to parrot that lie.
Most people do not bother to report what you might call minor crime Jafa, we all know that the police will do nothing about it as they are to busy dealing with the rising serious crime rate and following through on the PC crap forced upon them by this communist govt.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
jafapete ” In the past 20 years, the rate of imprisonment has doubled in New Zealand, yet crime has not fallen” ?
Stop living in utopia and face up to the problem.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Big Bruv, I agree that far from all small crime in particular is reported. I couldn’t be bothered once myself when my car was broken into for the nth time.
But I was talking about changes in the rate of reported crime. The figures are available on the Statistics Dept and Police websites. Unless there has been a change in the rate of reporting, then the figures reliably show that reported crime in almost every has fallen over the period of the current government, often very consistently. Violent crime, as you know, has shown an increase, but this is due to an increase in those areas where there has been a campaign to raise awareness and encourage reporting. It would have been surprising and disappointing if the rate of reporting — and hence the rate of reported crime — in this area had not increased.
I am not living in utopia, D4J. Nor am I living in a dystopia created from my own twisted obsessions.
PS Did you see that only six people turned up to hear the Messiah at a meeting in Invercargill yesterday? (Sorry BB, was that trolling?)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
“..it is utter bullshit to say that crime is falling and frankly I did not expect you to parrot that lie..”
you are the one parroting the lies..bb..
crime rates are falling across the board..
..and a lowered societal tolerance to wife-abuse etc..means more reporting of this..
which accounts for any rises in that area..
get back into your cage..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
philu:
“even if .as expected..labour don’t do as well as last time..
some of their seeping support will go to the greens..and some to the maori party..
for these reasons i expect both the greens and the maoti party to do notably better than current polling indicates..”
Ummm……if that seeping support goes from Labour to the Greens or the MP, the net result is still the same in terms of support and seats.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am
no duxton..the ‘seeping support’ currently flowing nationals’ way..the stuff that is sloshing around..
do try to keep up..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Like the legislation they pass, “its symbolic of her struggle against reality!”
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
japete, have you not learned by now that you can prove anything that is even remotely true by relying on facts.
Round here we rely on ranting
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Phil
As you seem to be about as divorced from reality as is humanly possible I will let you know when I think your opinion amounts to more than a bucket of cold sick.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Sonic
“japete, have you not learned by now that you can prove anything that is even remotely true by relying on facts.”
And if the facts do not support our lie we simply change the law.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
sonic said “japete, have you not learned by now that you can prove anything that is even remotely true by relying on facts.
Round here we rely on ranting”
We? Have you seen the light and joined the Kiwiblog Right sonic old bean?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Yes, ‘Pythonesque’ might be a better description than ‘Swiftian’.
ie ‘It’s not dead. it’s just resting’
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Thats right Bruv, the fall in the murder rate is doubtless down to people not bothering to report their relatives deaths.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Sonic
Really?..I must have missed the lie about the fall in serious crime.
Is there any chance in the near future that you might let the truth into your world?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Yes even I have to concede it looks like the Clark era of Labour govt is going to be over, and we can look forward to a fairly standard National party era of state services cutbacks, asset sales and maybe even a tax cut – for those of us who happen to be merchant bankers with the right friends…
(Assuming of course that Key turns out to be a man capable of action and not just talk!)
On the positive side, I presume all of the bitching and hating that takes place here will dry up immediately once a good right government is in place and everything is just dandy…?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
violent crime in on the increase while the absolute number of unresolved cases remains relatively static at ~9-10k p.a.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am
jafapete “Secondly, on “FAMILY BREAKDOWN”, does Working for Families not ring a bell.”
Ah the old “If we chuck a bit of money at it, then its no longer a problem” routine. Cause we all know that money solves all problems and “rich” people don’t suffer any family breakdowns.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
if ‘cutbacks’ refers to a reduction in management layers, admin, social meddling, policy analysis and media staffing then I say cut cut cut. ruthlessly.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
“all of the bitching and hating that takes place here’
Unlike Trevor Mallard RRM at least we don’t step each other outside and punch people in the face in Parliament.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Polls aside and without wishing to debate the pros and cons of the issue, nothing but nothing could demonstrate more graphically the absolute arrogance of Clark than her statement this morning that time contraints made it impossible to run any referendum on the anti-smacking legislation in tandem with the general election.
Give me a break. Give the country a break. Just how much time do you need to print off an xtra voting paper that requires a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer? Answer, days. Real reason, Labour doesn’t want voters reminded with an ‘in your face’ negative when they go into the voting booth.
Guess that’s realpolitik but its also an arrogant manipulation of the democratic process by an arrogant government with the result that in trying to negate a negative she reinforces another.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Remind me, dad, which party John Banks represented that time in the 90s when he got into some fisticuffs with our good mate Winston?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:51 am
RMM – touche!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Forget the 90′s RRM, Mallard’s inexplicable actions should have seen him stood down and facing criminal charges. Try his wee act in any other work environment and too rub salt into the constituents wounds Helen Klark uses the bully boy as the enforcer. If only !!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“..Cause we all know that money solves all problems and “rich” people don’t suffer any family breakdowns..”
hague..there are direct lines between poverty and all those social ills/third world diseases..
..and we have a low-wage economy..with lots of ‘working poor’..
and sub-poverty levels of support for the most vulnerable..
so..duh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Watch out guys, Phil wants a pay rise.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“relatively static”
Is that the new Righty way of saying fallen?
John slipped on the mountain and was relatively static until he hit the ground?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Who can blame John for slipping on Mount Helengrad at this time of year, silly sonic the chronic.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Philu I realise that financial pressures can have an influence in the breakdown of families. But the issue was over the simplistic view of solving the issue of family breakdowns. The question was what has been done about family breakdowns. And the reply was basically “hey we gave out some extra welfare.” Not overly comforting.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Clarks refusal to hold a referendum on the smacking issue is tacitly conceding that such a refernedum would be overwhelming in its oppostion to the Act. Coupled with the size of the defeat the socialists are going to suffer this for her is a bridge too far.
Its rubbing salt into the wound.
Also IMHO she has been totally overrated and propped up the MSM until they wised up that the citizens were turning against her.
Like all despots she has ruled in a halo of her own arrogance and contempt surrounded by syncophats and incompetents all competeing to tell the Emperoress how wonderful she looks in her non existent clothes.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“..Not overly comforting…”
but for those receiving it..(wff)..thoses pressures/causes are eased..
but that the poorest/most vulnerable receive nothing of that wff….and those on $80-90,000+ do..
is one of the obscenities of our times..
(pinch me..!..this has been a ‘labour-led’ government..hasn’t it..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
oh look..!..gd’s ‘going off’..again..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Hagues: “Ah the old “If we chuck a bit of money at it, then its no longer a problem” routine. Cause we all know that money solves all problems and “rich” people don’t suffer any family breakdowns.”
Crime and many other social problems have nothing to do with poverty then? Nothing at all?
Edit: I see Philu already made this point. Nevermind, a little repetition and the point might sink in.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“but that the poorest/most vulnerable receive nothing of that wff….and those on $80-90,000+ do..
is one of the obscenities of our times..”
Whoar, are you suggesting all should be paid the same, regardless of skills, talent, determination or ambition/desire to succeed?
You may want to believe we’re all the same, but you’re delusional, as always.
Move to Cuba or that wonderful paradise on Earth, North Korea. Beware you wouldn’t be drawing the unemployment benefit every month as in NZ (for how many years now?), let alone wasting your life away doing nothing in the Luddite style you appear to adore. Your ideal society would have you working very hard to maintain the Communist elite in power. Second thoughts?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
philu It must be so disappointing coming to the realisation that you have been backing the wrong horse all these years. But like Dearly Beloved leader you are in denial.
Even on election night you and she and the other Socialist losers will be blaming everyone and anyone for deserting the cause.
Face it All you to look forward to is a long slow walk to the gallow.
But cheer up JK and the nats will get the country back on track. Those who wish to contribute to the new society will be welcomed with open arms.
Those like the gangs the criminals the dope heads etc. I hear there are some small islands in the Southern Ocean that would make a nice if chilly home for them.,
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Weirdly poverty is one problem that can be solved by money.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Yeah sonic, just like on Nauru Island
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Reduced poverty is more related to having happiness and being empowered with choice, than it is to having increased money. Now money might help provide choice, so long as one has control of said money- ie (a) it’s not taxed to naught by a socialist govt, or (b) it’s not dished out by a socialist govt in return for ballot support.
Back on topic, Clark and her drones are toast. Excellent.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
gd..have you met manolo..?
philwhoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
GD, why not just have camps where you can concentrate all of the people you see as undesirable?
I can’t think what you would call them though.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Nauru island, you mean the place with
GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate
– Total $36.9 million (192nd)
– Per capita $2,500 (2006 est.) (135th)
Rolling in money over there are they?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
PhilU, you are a complete muppet. Do you really think National’s vote is ‘swinging’ round at the moment and it will fall towards the Maori Party and the Greens? Only a nutter would claim such a thing. If you knew anything about political strategy and how voters vote you would realise that if National loses some of their vote it will go to Winston & Act and United. People want a change in government (that is what the polls are clearly saying (either that or the majority of voters are voting National)). The Maori party will win 6-7 seats anyway and on balance will go with National. IF Winston gets 5%, so will Winston, since National will achieve the biggest vote. Any small party (apart from the Greens) will be dead at the next election if it ignores the wishes of the voters. Winston & the Greens plus the others is not something that is going to work you political fool. Also the Maori party detests Labour even more than Winston detests National.
National would be crazy to release its key policies this far out from the election. Labour has released its budget but not its other election policies yet either. Voters are not going to vote for a party with no policies, but every sane person knows the policies will be released late so they cannot be copied by a desperate Labour goverment. Not long after Labour calls the election, National’s policies will start to roll out. Thus, the ball is in Labour’s court and if its so convinced National has no policies, please Helen call a snap election and National will demolish your rudderless party even more than in October.
If Helen wont snap yet (like she did in 02 a ploy merely to serve Labour’s election interests), then her claims are sheer propaganda.
So can you bring some rationality into your pathetic posts or simply admit your predictions are pissing in the wind. But when push comes to shove you are too gutless to put your money where your mouth is…cmon if you are so sure of your own vexatious claims put $100 on Centrebet for Labour to win. You stand to more than triple your money.
Also, name one successful state where prvate property rights are not respected. You are an dirty smelly bludging wining sycophanting Marxist fool.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Philu will never survive in a Goff led Labour opposition
Vote:Sayoonara.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
jafapete “Crime and many other social problems have nothing to do with poverty then? Nothing at all?
Edit: I see Philu already made this point. Nevermind, a little repetition and the point might sink in.”
My point was to do with family breakdowns not crime, but since you guys have brought it up…
First of all there are many people who you might classify as living in poverty who do not commit crime. They choose to live with what they have or get another job, find another way of bettering their situation etc WITHOUT breaking the law. Breaking the law is a personal choice.
Secondly little crime has to do with true poverty. Take the recent shooting of Navtej Singh. Tell me in what way were these criminals trying to alleviate poverty?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
You’re showing your ignorance again, Sonic. The pity when you’re as ignorant as you are, and you match it with your sneering arrogance, is you come off as a complete twat.
Nauru was an impoverished South Pacific country until it was discovered that millions of years of bird-shit accumulating on the island provided a massive economic resource. For some time it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world on a per capita basis. Between independence in 1970 and 2000, they squandered the proceeds of the phosphate deposits over a period of thirty years. Nauru is now dependent on foreign aid.
Poverty can’t be solved by throwing money at a problem, as Nauru has shown.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
sonic (1702) –1 Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Weirdly poverty is one problem that can be solved by money.
So where are we with poverty in NZ now?
1. There is none. Labour has already solved that with redistribution of income.
2. There is a little still. Just hard to find.
3. There is lots. We need higher taxes for greater redistribution.
4. There will always be an increasing number of new qualifiers. This is socialism at work.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Replying to Toad — sadly we still do not find ourselves in agreement. “They are fundamentalist extremists who believe in a religious state and who strive to remove those very liberal freedoms we enjoy. They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.”
I am unaware of any Christian groups who are striving to bring in a religious state. Even the Exclusive Brethren,the favourite whipping boy of Helen Clark, do not want to bring in a religious state. There is no equivalent of the Taliban in Christianity and I am unaware of any Christian suicide bombers. At most there would be Christians who would like New Zealand to return to the moral consensus based on the 10 Commandments which existed 50 years ago. For myself I think a country where people did not steal, lie, murder or commit adultery would make for a much place to be.
“Left and right have nothing to do with issues of children’s rights or parental rights, because these are not economic issues. There are both left and right wing smackers, child abusers, paedophiles, and Christians”
In a sense this is true — there is a ‘Christian left’ for example. However the far left are not content with redistributing wealth. They want to revolutionise society — economically and socially. They generally dislike parental authority , are more likely to be vociferously anti-Christian, and believe in the power of the state to bring in utopian reform. Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill seems to me to fit this criteria.
That Helen Clark and the Labour party supported this bill, against the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders, explains, at least in part, Labour’s abysmal polling at present.
“Or is Graham Capill a good wholesome man who has always had the interests of his country and its children foremost in his mind?”
Vote:Like many, I must admit I was fooled by Graham Capill, who has turned out to be a liar and a hypocrite and a child molester. Sadly this has done nothing to advance the causes he expounded.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“Weirdly poverty is one problem that can be solved by money.”
Agreed sonic, but it’s never going to happen when Helen Clark is on record as saying kiwi poverty is “extrapolated from an anecdote”.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
So Nauru used to be rich and now it is poor, which proves what? that money is useless?
IP lives up to his name again, perhaps he should change the first part to “total”
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It would help kiwi poverty if the Prime Minister didn’t think it had “extrapolated from an anecdote” dear sonic.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
No, Sonic. It was poor. It then had a massive windfall of money from its phosphate deposits, which it then squandered, and is poor again.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I’m confused.
Their are so many posts from sonic that it is hard to believe he is not being paid by liarbour to constantly post here.
Yet he writes such shite that surely even a liabour official must realise they are not getting any value for their money.
…unless of course he is entirely taxpayer funded in which case of course they care not a jot about value for money.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Scott said: Helen Clark and the Labour party supported this bill
I seem to recall John Key and the National Party did too, Scott.
Are you really suggesting that Richard Lewis, leader of the Family Party, formerly leader of the Destiny Party, and right hand man of “Bishop” Brian Tamaki, is not an extremist?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
well said Scott.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Toad
“Are you really suggesting that Richard Lewis, leader of the Family Party, formerly leader of the Destiny Party, and right hand man of “Bishop” Brian Tamaki, is not an extremist?”
What if he is?…he has a right to believe in what ever he wants, your have your own extremists in Bradford and Locke yet you seem to rush to their defense when ever anybody has a crack at them and while we are on the subject of Tamaki, you and I might agree about the man however we would also both have to admit that he has had a huge amount of success in turning a lot of bad people into law abiding citizens
Normally you are a level headed person Toad but I do find your sneering attacks on those who follow western religion to be beneath you.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“No, Sonic. It was poor. It then had a massive windfall of money from its phosphate deposits, which it then squandered, and is poor again.”
Which proves what exactly total p?
I was poor this week, then I got paid and have money, but I’ll have spent it by next month. Does this mean that my wages are useless?
“labour are Scum” I’m nowhere near the most frequent poster on this blog, I’m glad however that my posts are getting to you enough that you are seing Labour bogeymen everywhere.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Not a valid comparison. Naru squandered a one-time resource… and didn’t use it to create sustainable income. That means the money was potentially useful, but the management of it was useless. A bit like this Labour government really.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Money is not a real solution to problems, as it does not address the root causes. It may help raise people’s standards of living slightly (I say slightly because an increase will necessarily have to be small due to the amount of people the increases will go to), or alleviate the pain of a lack of money, but it is not a solution.
Poverty is caused and expanded by a number of factors. For example, lack of budgeting skills (which the government wants to introduce an initiative to improve through education in schools. I support this.) can lead to a cycle of debt from which one will struggle to, or never, rise; lack of opportunities from either a depressed economy in the area in which one lives, or which can come from poor choices an individual makes, and/or their family allows them to make while they are young enough, during their education, amongst other things; an unsupportive family model in the household (I’m not talking gay/straight, or single-parent, or whatever. I’m talking parents who are abusive or don’t care, etc), which can lead to poor life-choices, and eventually poverty; lack of motivation (depressed outlook on life) for whatever reason can also lead to poverty. Even availaibility of welfare itself can lead to a cycle of poverty: those on welfare can have their self-esteem eroded, lose motivation and give up, while others may have never had motivation and while life isn’t easy on welfare, they find it easier than actually getting a job — welfare complacency, especially if they believe they DESERVE a better job than they actually have the ability to attain (ie, most people would loathe to work in a supermarket (I did), seeing it as beneath them). All these are examples of root causes, which are sufficient for, but do not necessarily lead to, poverty. There are a multitude of other causes, of course. But my point is, transferring more money to people does not solve these problems.
While I support welfare to an extent, it is not a solution to the problem of poverty. That’s what many of those on the left in this country seem to fail to understand. And many of those on the right seem to fail to understand that there is probably a degree of necessity in having a safety net for people, and it’s also probably economically efficient to have one. The extent of the safety net may be a problem, I admit.
Apologies for the messy style of writing, I’m in a hurry.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
JK – good post. re the above, sadly I think it is well understood by most on the left.
Welfare dependency creates a platform for the envy of ‘rich pricks’ and promotes an irrational fear that, by voting for a change in government, those with the least might have even that taken away from them.
My view is that this represents a tragic waste of human potential, an immoral constraining of personal choice and an unethical use of democratic powers.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
As well as this, some people come to believe they are automatically entitled to transfers from the state to themselves. This is wrong. Why should somebody who works pay for someone else to maintain a lifestyle choice of not working? Alright, I can understand helping those who cannot help themselves, such as those too ill to work, or those who do not have the capacity to care for themselves. But paying for somebody to, ahh, for example, raise a child, is patently unfair on all those who work and have children, and those who decide to put their careers ahead of having children. You make a choice. You live with it. Don’t expect others to fund you.
It is perhaps considered a right to have a child, but people should consider their ability to raise one. And you may want to bitch that I have no sympathy for solo parents, but I do consider that many people do not expect to become solo parents, although those whose partners leave them should consider their choice of partner better. Perhaps the state should subsidise them. Note the word subsidy… It means that the whole of their lifestyle is not funded by the state. And the reason I even venture to suggest subsidy is because children need adequate care, and that can require money.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
glubbster..you are wrong on absolutely everything..
but i can’t ‘be bothered’..
i’ll just leave you to your ignorance..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“glubbster..you are wrong on absolutely everything..
but i can’t ‘be bothered’..
i’ll just leave you to your ignorance..”
Translated this means….You are right and I cannot think of a suitable counter argument.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
So if the poll trends are as entrenched as they look after months and months then why are there not more rats jumping off the Titanic ?
Dunnes doing it – Nats should cut him loose he’s untrustworthy
The Poor Old Green Party – They’ve got Battered Wife Syndrome !
I feel half sorry for them and half cynical about it – used and then abused by Helengrad.
They are showing all the signs of battered wife syndrome, so blinded by the tyrannical husband that they are scared stiff to even think of leaving home and going to the women’s refuge. I suggest that the woman’s refuge need to sidle up to Jeanette and quietly point out to her how much she is being shafted by Helen yet cant seem to break away from the shackles of the dragon.
As for the infamous Strutting Grand Peacock Winnie – He needs to be keel hauled for making promises about baubles, promises about repaying money to the crown, etc, etc, he is more unprincipled than Labour is.
Vote:A vote for Winston first is a vote for Labour.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
philu, I know what you mean. I gave up when Hagues came back with the ridiculous line about a lot of people being poor but not committing crime, therefore there isn’t any link between poverty and crime.
Makes one wonder about whether universal suffrage is a good thing when one reads stuff like that.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
A vote for Winston first is WORSE than a vote for liarbour.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“Poverty is caused and expanded by a number of factors”
You missed out low wages on your list.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
There is a link between poverty and crime. It can be a causal condition, but it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for crime to occur.
Just so you know, my sister and aunt are solo mothers. So don’t tell me I have no understanding of the hardships facing solo parents. I may not be one, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of the hardships they endure. But then I also understand that all choices have consequences, and that people should be accountable for their actions.
And Philu, do you ever bother to try to debate anything, or is it just a constant barrage of flippant and inane comments?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
jafapete, are you suggested that the crime / povety relationship is causitive or correlative?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
It’s hard to know just how entrenched the polls are. This far out from the first primary, Obama was getting trounced by Hillary in every state by far larger margins.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Like I said, there are a multitude of other causes (causal factors) for poverty. My list was in no way intended to be complete.
Low wages are a problem, and I do think there needs to be a minimum wage, but I also know that legislation is not the entire answer. If you legislate wages too much, then you will have a problem of contracting demand amongst producers for workers, which in turn means less jobs, and diminished supply of goods and services. There is a fine line. As well as legislating, you need to encourage investment through creation of a good business climate, and even government initiatives, such as some sort of promotion of desired industries in the country. Of course, without minimum wages, you have exploitation problems.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Sonic the tosser wrote:
“labour are Scum” I’m nowhere near the most frequent poster on this blog, I’m glad however that my posts are getting to you enough that you are seing Labour bogeymen everywhere.
1) Your grammar and spelling are appalling.
Vote:2) I’m not seeing liarbour bogeymen everywhere, just you trolling this blog.
3) While I was completing my Master of Commerce degree at Auckland I used to do some marking and tutoring. If you had been one of my students you would have failed every topic due to your inability to rationalize and criticize to the standard of the U of A Commerce Department. By the way the head of the department, Prof. Bruce Tabb, was a socialist. Sorry, but he would have failed you too for you inability to grasp basic concepts quickly!
4) It is possible, looking at your posts, that you are dyslexic. Help is here http://www.dyslexiahelp.co.nz/
June 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
6 minutes until sonic’s knock-off time.
Memo to self: Infuriate sonic sufficiently so he does overtime at our (taxpayer) expense.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Damn Sonics gone home early…Boss must be at Helen’s farewell drinks.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“Master of Commerce degree”
Vote:I just love the way you threw that in there.
You might have an inferiority complex. This might help http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Rid-of-an-Inferiority-Complex
June 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Labour are scum,
So, accounting and finance. That explains a great deal. Not really noted for their critical thinking, or their literacy, that crowd. I’m surprised that you’d own up to the association.
I’m sorry, but you would be graded a ‘C’ at best, after introducing Nauru into the discussion. Relevance is fundamental in constructing an argument.
I trust you find my spelling and punctuation more to your liking.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Guyon Espiner when asked if Helen could do anything to restore labours fortunes he essentially replied no because no one trusted her/their promises, possibly a reference to Cullen reneging on the chewing gum tax cuts. If he is right then there is much infighting in Labour evidenced by the increasing fronting of question in parliament by Cullen and Helen and the likely distrust in/ability of other “ministers” to reflect their views/policies. This bodes well for Labours decimation at election time and perhaps returning to the Beehive in a mini bus although a tandem would be better.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Jafapete wrote:
‘So, accounting and finance. That explains a great deal. Not really noted for their critical thinking, or their literacy that crowd. I’m surprised that you’d own up to the association.’
I’m sorry dude but sneering is not considered to be ‘critical thinking’ at University level. You have failed your paper and must repeat the course.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
jafapete “philu, I know what you mean. I gave up when Hagues came back with the ridiculous line about a lot of people being poor but not committing crime, therefore there isn’t any link between poverty and crime.”
I never said that there was no link. I was pointing out that there was no direct, causitive relationship; ie that just because someone was poor that this would make them committ crime. You have not proved that being poor causes people to commit crime. I’m still open to anyone proving a link between poverty and the robbing and shooting of Navtej Singh.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Is it reasonable to suggest that a vote for Labour is predominantly protective of women (red) as naturally more liberal and a vote for National is predominantly a vote for the natural conservativism of men?
If these generalisations are in any way reasonable and fair, who is then commanding the adult necessity to protect the child? Women in power (Labour) have neglected the social requirement of fathers as a necesserary component in the life of the child and additionally have championed abortions to execute the inacpacitaing effect of pregnancy on equality, men previously, in power (National) have demonstrably neglected women where they should have to demand equality and gain such ground.
In points above the discussion on Sue Bradford on hitting doesn’t put the Greens in a position of protecting the interests of the child and for all its intentions no matter what they could be has more simply given rise to throwing the nation into a complete unprofessional turmoil. At present the issue seems more to be one of incompetance than ever before in New Zealand’s history. The question that I really have to ask though, given that there does not seem to be another political protector of the child from issues such as domestic violence where abortion, (by example) is its most extreme capacity, is who really cares?
The other question secondary to this is that if adults do infact care about the child and want our politicians to protect them as much as we want better standards of living, is which non governmental body has the ability to interfere. To me, there is only one answer – dads. So what are we doing to secure and protect fatherhood in this wonderful country where women finally secured the vote?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Jafapete,
I have not examined many of your posts, but no, I do not have any problem with what I have seen.
Nauru is highly relevant as it is a classic example of the squandering of money.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I know it’s hard not to gloat with polls like these, but remember: “it’s not over till Judith Tizard sings”.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Labour are scum,
The argument was not about squandering money, but about the relationship between poverty and crime.
More on the University of Auckland Business School from the NZ Herald editorial of 21 February:
“But the university’s business school has some way to go before its performance matches its palatial splendour. In national education ratings Auckland trails Waikato and AUT in accounting and finance and is behind Waikato, Victoria and Otago in management, human resources, international business and industrial relations.”
AUT? Perhaps a little more care is in order before you speak so grandly about the “standard of the U of A Commerce Department.”
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
jafapete
“relationship” is a term abused often nowadays. There is a difference between correlation and causative relationships.
All criminals breathe air – there’s a 100% correlation, however noone in their right mind would then propose that breathing air causes people to become criminals. However this is exactly what many in politics do. I’d suggest an entry-level course in logic should be a pre-requisite to representing the people in parliament.
So, noone disagrees that there is a high correlation between poverty and crime, however the fact that many people in poverty do not commit crimes proves that the relationship cannot be causative. This doesn’t mean that poverty should not be an issue to be addressed.
Nauru is a great example of how throwing money at a problem is often not going to work. Giving out more benefits will not solve poverty either. A holistic approach is required which also addresses the root causes. Whatever they are.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
getstaffed asks, “jafapete, are you suggested that the crime / povety relationship is causitive or correlative?”
The determinants of crime (in general) are many and varied, and the precise linkages, to the extent that they are known, are complex. There are many intervening factors acting to moderate the relationship, but I understand that the causal relationship between poverty and crime is well accepted, except by the far right.
I don’t have time for a discussion based on the Heritage Foundation’s rubbish about crime causing poverty. Sorry.
adc: “however the fact that many people in poverty do not commit crimes proves that the relationship cannot be causative.” First, “causal” is the more common word. Secondly, do get someone to explain the null hypothesis to you. You haven’t proved anything accept that many poor people don’t commit crimes.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Postscript That’s “except”, of course
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Political Busker.
I’m going out on a limb, and am going to suggest that you obviously have no children, else it would be clear to you that in (by far) most cases/families, each child has at least 1 full time to-the-death protector. The parent(s). Normal loving parents will go a lot further than any state to protect their children. To these parents, the notion that the state could care more about their children than they do is completely insulting. In a normal functional family, nobody cares more about a child than its parents. Not even the child itself.
So, as a parent – when considering your relationship with your children – viewing the enormous gulf between the reality you live and breathe, and the claims / lies / slander from the government (esp from the childless ones) it makes it clear what the necessary course of action must be at the next election.
We are in another baby boom. Political parties would be wise to keep in mind that during the last 5 years, a large proportion of their electorate have had major changes in their domestic situation – becoming responsible for another human being. I see family issues become bigger and bigger political issues. Something I think the Labour party has lost sight of to its detriment.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“..And Philu, do you ever bother to try to debate anything, or is it just a constant barrage of flippant and inane comments?..”
sometimes..jivekitty..sometimes.
but mainly i stick with the ‘flippant and inane’…
how do you handle being as dazed and confused as your comments indicate….?
it must be a bit of a trial for you,,
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Well I think it’s just incredible that someone who’s done a Masters could remain small-minded enough to maintain the kind of gross homophobia exhibited by “Labour are scum” at 6:42 this morning.
(I wonder if Auckland University Commerce Department’s teaching policy is that Homosexuality is wrong?)
Labour are scum (34) Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Email I sent to ‘labourmps@parliament.govt.nz’
Dear lesbian or homosexual who reads this email,
Please please please don’t dump Helen nor do we want an early election.
She is providing too much fun as these women from the middle classes who have NEVER been ‘workers’ destroys Labour for their own snotty middle-class ambitions.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
Allan (not voting Labour this election)
PS: Clearly Allan was never taught that Lesbians are a subset of Homosexuals!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi – good call on the election night song – Andrea Bocelli “Time to Say Goodbye”.
Anyone prepared to bet what the theme song will be at the National Party Conference this year ??
My vote is Boyzone – You Say It Best (When You Say Nothing At All)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
jafapete
A wide diversity of synonyms is one of the things that makes the English language the wonderful thing it is. So I’ll stick to using causative rather than causal thanks.
I think there is only one cause of crime. The choice made by individuals to perpetrate it. Very simple.
Unfortunately this society (and others) has chosen to follow the school of social scientists (and others poor at statistics and logic). However thankfully our laws are still based on the notion that to commit a crime is a choice (therefore punishable and reformable), and that people actually do have choice over their actions. The fact that people have such choice has been proven innumerable times throughout history.
Apologists may like to think of people (perhaps as a projection of their own feelings of self-worthlessless or weakness) as having a reduced capacity to choose, however that’s their problem. Their self image problems do not others’ make.
P.s. you might want to look up the definition of null hypothesis yourself – you’d see I was not proposing one. But I guess it makes you feel smart hey? Being able to use big words ‘n’ all..
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Fishbowl – something by Coldplay perhaps? John Key will already have a (pirated) copy on his iPod…
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
nattys election song should be ‘slip sliding away’..
“..the nearer your destination..the more you’re slip sliding away..’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
With Labour’s time in power, it has grown more and more distanced in its concern with the issues and views of the average person. When you understand few of your constituents and their views, and make no attempt to rectify this, because you’ve surrounded yourself with sycophants (which has led to extreme arrogance, and a belief in your own political invulnerability), there is no surprise in a lack of political nous.
Add to this, a weak opposition for much of Labour’s time in power, and the insulation becomes even stronger. Who else were the swing voters going to elect? Of course, this time it’s different, the opposition is younger and still hungry. While Brash may have been hungry, he had huge image problems, being viewed as an old right-wing prune. Youth means that Key doesn’t have the negative associations with the past. Helen hasn’t quite cottoned on to the difference in opposition yet, perhaps because she still sees the older faces of National in Parliament. The face National shows the population is different to their Parliamentary face. I suspect she might cotton on nearer to election time, but by then, it will probably (hopefully) be too late. There is a mood for change.
Also, the reason many dislike the anti-smacking bill is quite easily explained. It was a reactionary piece of legislation due to a problem with certain court interpretations of the law, regarding allowed reasonable force, rather than a problem with all odfthe legislation. They could have amended the “reasonable force” provision in the legislation, but they did not. What they did instead was push through a bill which criminalised many good parents. Simply, beating of children was already a criminal offence. The law was there. Smacking of children was not. Many good parents smack. Good parents don’t beat their children. The law targeted those who smacked their children. Those who beat their children were already covered by law. So who was the target of the anti-smacking legislation? Those parents who smack, not those who beat, their children. In other words, many good parents.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
RRM
If Judith Tizard’s Copyright (New Technologies) Bill goes through, then piracy will become legal anyway.
Hate to think what response it will provoke in all our international copyright treaty partners though.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“..dazed and confused’..
q.e.d…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
ps RRM I totally agree re the homophobia. It only detracts from what other potentially valid points may have been made.
although I’m struggling to see any denegrating language associated with the terms which would support an argument that these terms were used in a negative (e.g. phobic) sense.
I personally wouldn’t have addressed the letter that way of course.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Philu, one question for you, have you got any evidence to prove I am dazed and confused? If so, produce it, and if you do produce it, explain why I am dazed and confused with reference to the evidence you produce. Note that there is only one question.
RRM, a question for you, as you don’t appear to be a National supporter, are you suggesting Coldplay because they’re terrible? Now I know taste is subjective, but if you are suggesting they’re terrible, I’d agree with you.
…And sometimes agreement is hard to find around here.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
adc:
not a limb, just a mistake. I have two, I have a son and a daughter. I can appreciate that my comment seems out of context for ordinary family lives, especially that the comments deal with the extreme ends of non political attention and how that neglect would or could damage. I should say does do damage and that is why my comments may appear out of place.
My comments are directed at parent advocacy, not directly though as they may appear centralised on men. That isn’t what I am saying. Nor can I directly challenge a ‘family’ that for some reason ends with one parent, be they loving or be they not. What I do, and for fact with proof, is challenge the system that creates families, where one parent families are a preferential result of policies that are now so slack and complacent that my first post on this thread is particularlty warranted.
Following the posts in the thread I am frustrated that the comments miss the opportunity that the thread and the blog provide. My observation of the thread is that it is about responsibility to the public by an acting administration. I am stating as clearly as I can that that responsibility does not include the child. It caters simply for the adult. Alleged protections for the child under Labour amount as an example to support ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology). Last week this technology has advance (in another thread) to entitle for an ‘ethical’ decision children’s sex to be determined by the adult. The law itself is unlawful, clearly improperly as discriminatory chosing the freedom of choice of the woman (or guardian) to that of the child; outside existing national protections and outside international protection under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. So in debating the performance of Labour (red) I am saying that women are protecting women, they have forgotten about men. This is one very small but important example in an extraordinary range of legislation that empowers ‘a’ parent to protect their most valuable and important ‘posession’ – the child. I can elaborate if you wish for more information.
Dealing with National I can quote directly from the Hansard at the social improvements Labour have brought to families since National (Blue) were in power. National are predominantly interested in money. Their consideration of the needs of the child and the value of family protection for the information I conclude from are just pitifull. While I watch parliament from the gallery I just cringe sometimes when I hear their neglect of families and social necessity as they promote growth and development, greed and the idolism of afforesaid.
This doesn’t look at your point though, or at least from a clear perspective. I think you are suggesting that the role of government is less in the family than the parents. If this is the case I do not think I am saying this. I am saying the policies that are established protect the adult economy and not the childs direct needs. A child’s currency is love and an adult’s currency is money. To counter my point you add that: by far, most families have one full time to the death protector. Given from your presumption that there are seemingly only a small number who appear to be operating under any code of dysfunction your comment would seem fair. Yet that is not how our legislation or the UNCROC protects. Every child is supposed to be protected. Your is then likely that in the ‘real world’ the larger numbers normal loving parents against those who are dysfunctional should predominantly service and dictate social resourcing and function.
So I do have two children. I have never smacked, nor directly hurt either of them. Yet my experiences and substantial evidence does not act consistently with your views. I suggest that the figures you are sold through the media (or lack there responsibly of) on parenting, do not accurately or reasonably reflect how society through government policies are affected or disaffected. This leaves your primary point on single parenting. I am suggesting with legislative fact that single parenting has been encouraged by Labour policies. I am also suggesting that National don’t know how to care: they simply don’t care. I am suggesting that the answer to this dilemma is fatherhood. I am suggesting that no politician in parliament at the moment, with Judy Turner and Gordon Copeland as the most supportive give a toss about dads and how important they are. It’s my sons 17th birthday today. I have had contact with him over approximately 50 hours in going on 8 years. I haven’t seen my daughter in God knows how long.
Politically the protections against these circumstances are either CYFS and the Family Court. Yet these services are inadequate. How could they be expected to be adequate where the politicians who craft the rules establish abortion as a method of birth control when it is the most extreme form of domestic violence: And domestic violence is not OK in New Zealand. Where are the dads? Where have the gone?
I think it is the policies and administrations that are dysfunctional not the minority of abnormal and bad parents whom you have no other reason but to alienate in reply.
Respectfully,
Vote:Benjamin Easton.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
“..Note that there is only one question..”
dazed and confused..
q.e.d…again..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
JiveKitty, the sooner you ignore philu the better
oh yeah.. ! () … der.. again…!eh
leach is as leach does
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Helen Clark doesn’t care about Labour, it was just a vehicle for her time in power.
Now she is done with it she wants Labour to go down with her.
Only the lefties like philu and sonic are to stupid again to see it.
All the while Cullen is trying to fuck the economy to give National a poisoned chalice.
They don’t care they made millions by screwing over the NZ taxpayer.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Would you like me to put the quote back in context Philu? Because I can do that. I’ll even explain it.
Here you go:
“Philu, one question for you, have you got any evidence to prove I am dazed and confused? If so, produce it, and if you do produce it, explain why I am dazed and confused with reference to the evidence you produce. Note that there is only one question.”
The implication from this statement, given that it is before the question in the next paragraph which was clearly not directed at you, and comes at the end of a paragraph beginning with “Philu, one question for you”, is that there is an unspoken “for you” at the end of the sentence, so it is implied by context that the statement is actually “Note that there is only one question for you.” I am sorry you failed to understand this. I will try to be clearer next time. I thought ending the paragraph with “Note that there is only one question.” would be helpful for you, because I wasn’t sure that you would understand the difference between a question and a conditional imperative.
Your use of Q.E.D is incorrect as you have not completed the proof, but have instead demonstrated your own ignorance as to how the English language works, which I will note, to make it clear, is not a proof relating to how “dazed and confused” I am.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Political Busker
apologies for the mistake. I guess the underlying issue is I do often find it difficult to follow the thread of your sentences. I’ve read your post above a couple of times now, and still am not clear on all the points.
I agree that there has been a social swing against fathers, which I think is completely destructive to children. I’m reminded of the male passenger on a plane a while back who was asked to move because he was male sitting next to an unattended child. Institutionalised gender discrimination. I’m also reminded of comments by family members who are teachers – who now won’t see a female student in their office without another staff member present for fear of unjustified allegations. These things are all extra costs we bear in education and other areas of society.
I also am inclined to agree that the policies of the current administration have done little to help single parent families (i.e. trying to force solo mums into the work-force and kids into daycare I see as a big problem), however I see the rise in single-parent families as indicative of a deeper social and moral malaise over a longer period than the current administration. My opinion is that relationships are based on trust and respect. We aren’t taught these things very well any more. When the government continually lies to you, its not setting a very good example.
Add to that the constant imbalanced (IMO therefore dishonest) view of the world perpetrated by the (commercially-driven) media, and our respect for the people around us – society – gets damaged. This affects the way we participate in society. Communities are eroded, and we build fences and put in alarms and buy more locks for the doors. This in turn perpetuates other problems. Increased feelings of isolation and vulnerability increase stress in the home. It’s a vicious cycle. I often have my (journalist) wife on about this fundamental imbalance in the media. The great majority of all reported news items are negative (many highly) – involve someone doing something terrible or something terrible happening. However in reality only a minutely small proportion of all actions taken by all the people on this planet are bad. Therefore there is a huge misrepresentation. IMO watching the news is very bad for your mental health long term. Manipulating public opinion is what the media is best at. Doing so to convince us all that the world is a terrible place seems quite destructive to me.
Don’t be fooled. The media is not here to inform you. The media is here to make money. TV networks (rightly or wrongly) believe their ability to charge for advertising (their life-blood) is based mostly on the ratings of their news shows more than anything else. Therefore the news shows are designed and funded to increase ratings, and only that. Take a look at some of the less obvious practises next time you watch the news – like the teasers, sensationalised headlines, superficial coverage of important issues, and the amount of time devoted to sport and weather (the more “human” wind-down at the end to relieve the taste of the news). All designed for one thing – ratings. Ratings are used to calculate and justify advertising charges.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Just had a look at the sub standard, first time ever.
Vote:Geeze there are some fucked up, discombobulated freaks there.
“Out of touch with reality” is being kind to them.
Unionists and Civil Servants spreading the word.
Sad sad day when so many fuckwits support Helengrad.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Intellegent quote of the day goes to ADC:
‘Don’t be fooled. The media is not here to inform you. The media is here to make money. TV networks (rightly or wrongly) believe their ability to charge for advertising (their life-blood) is based mostly on the ratings of their news shows more than anything else. Therefore the news shows are designed and funded to increase ratings, and only that. Take a look at some of the less obvious practises next time you watch the news – like the teasers, sensationalised headlines, superficial coverage of important issues, and the amount of time devoted to sport and weather (the more “human” wind-down at the end to relieve the taste of the news). All designed for one thing – ratings. Ratings are used to calculate and justify advertising charges.’
ADC is absolutely right.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
ADC – your point about media negativity is the reason my flatmate refuses to watch the news. He does read the newspaper, because he can skip articles, but often finds little that is positive enough to interest him.
It is also of immense annoyance to me that “human-interest” stories are passed off as news. They are not. They are for the tabloids.
I’m sorry, PB. I have the same problem as ADC following the thread of your sentences sometimes.
I agree with you both that there has been a marginalisation of the importance of fathers and their importance to children, and it’s a travesty.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Jivekitty: No, I suggested Coldplay because a piece of National party propaganda famously had to be recalled earlier in the year because the backing track they used sounded uncannily like an unauthorised cover of a Coldplay song!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Media.
Vote:Anyone remember Max Headroom?
Created news?
Happening in a place near you soon.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“..The implication from this statement, given that it is before the question in the next paragraph which was clearly not directed at you, and comes at the end of a paragraph beginning with “Philu, one question for you”, is that there is an unspoken “for you” at the end of the sentence, so it is implied by context that the statement is actually “Note that there is only one question for you.” I am sorry you failed to understand this. I will try to be clearer next time…”
utterly..utterly..brilliant..!
do you write instruction manuals for a living,..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Bad karma my 8:51pm if it makes y’all feel better, but it’s TRUE!!!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“do you write instruction manuals for a living,..?”
silly philly got a new bong and needs help to set it up.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Talking of polls, I see Hels is running scared on the smacking referendum. Looks like she is going to defer the referendum until the next parliament. Another gift for National. National can now go out and campaign that it will combine its MMP referendum with the Smacking Referendum and make them both binding on parliament. A case of letting the people decide. A complete contrast with Hels control freak regime. John Key can also constantly remind the voters that Hels won’t let the voters have their say on a smacking referendum, right up until polling day. It’s all bad news for Labour.
A positive to come out of this whole situation is that the only thing Sue Bradford achieved in this parliament looks like being completely undone in the next parliament. So much for lasting results!
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
adc,
going through your post, there are only a few differences. That’s not bad, I’ll suggest where I am used to folk having trouble with the construction of my sentences. This means I am either being clearer or the audience is spending more time. There is one difference in opinion, which is consistent with both posts. The other is a misunderstanding, in your view of mine.
Yet first, I’m madder than you could possibly be. Way, way madder: and for very good reason I’ll add. This means that I don’t see life in the same way that you are bound so to view. I look at issues and politicians making speeches and I know for my experience what else they may be saying for what they have missed. You see it more with the media. You have a direct access to information I don’t possess. By being madder than you, I am naturally more aggressive. I am not violent and never have been but I am intolrant. My negative comments on a long string of entries of people simply wasting their valuable collective energy simlpy throwing insults at eachother (rather than being constructive) is an example of that frustration.
The difference of opinion between us is that you are nice. I used to be nice. I probably still am if I thought about it, but I’m not going to. Not anymore anyway. I’m not nice because I can calculate why there was a problem with the airoplane policy and the drop to extinction of male teachers. I’m not nice because killing a child seems to be OK as a matter of choice and now people who think about themselves first want to chose the sex of their offspring, and especially those who already believe that men have no rights to exist anywhere in their lives and that is their right to choose. Yet I’m not violent. I think abortion is violent. I think it is directly discriminatory of men and is a demand that marginalises men as they are marginalised. Do I think that men are in danger of being written out of society? Of course I do. You are quoting from small examples on how serious the problem is. Seen the ads? I have numerous complaints in with different bodies on NZ’ largest morning tea. All the hitters on the cake are men. In reply to my first complaint the campaign runner up and says they thought it was good because it described intergenerational violence. Um – what about the fact that apparently only men hit other people. Heard of the male assaults female law in the Crimes Act 1961? Um – how is that not gender discrimniatory in this modern world of equality? Got me beat! That’s the difference. I way madder than you: so while you still think the world is a nice place – hey bro – I don’t have a problem with this but I’m looking at very different figures, I promise.
As for the same opinion, where you may suspect I think differently, I too do not blame Labour and in my first post I hoped to make that clear. National have a lot to answer for. Staying quiet as we go into an election on policy just doesn’t cut it for me, it is reprehensible. If National are waiting for Labour to lose the election then their protection offered to society is without mana – balls – or care.
This is in part why I choose to be the Political Busker, rather than supporting any one party. Before all of this I was traditionally Labour – then to promote Laila Harre into the position of power I want to put her in I supoorted her in her failed bid into Waitakere City. I came late to her campaign and figure there were a couple of things I could have done to support her into a victory. Laila Harre I can hear the body bulk of the blog squirm: Power? I can feel them contort. Laila Harre is probably one of New Zealand’s leading feminists, so it probably makes little sense that I should be making this comment given that it is extreme feminism that I challenge; has caused the most damage. But I make a point, where I think we might eventually agree: whoever was a part of creating this diabolical mess against fatherhood, has the greater responsibility to be a part of cleaning it up.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Couldn’t a National government just repeal the anti-smacking act?
Or would that require Key to actually back himself and make a policy decision?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
political busker..have you met jive-kitty..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Sorry, Philu, my sentence was more convoluted than it should have been. I wanted to cover a few concepts, but I was also trying (and failing) not to procrastinate too much. You can understand it if you try.
And RRM, I remember now. I don’t have a problem with that, so you won’t get bad karma from me.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Hagues suggests:
I see. I guess you’re right, because at one point in my life when I had utterly no money whatsoever and milk and bread were still delivered door to door, I’d pinch a loaf and a bottle each day. Never both from the same house and never from the same house twice in the same week. And I’m truly sorry. But the “choice” I had was steal or starve. The DSW (what we had in the days before being “rebranded” as WINZ at a cost which would have paid for many a meal) were typically useless and one meal a day at a soup kitchen wasn’t going to keep me in one piece.
Perhaps for some – but granted, by no means all – breaking the law is a “choice” they make when they have no other choices left.
I think you’ll find there’s a difference in pathology between the types of people who commit petty crime (stealing, shoplifting, and similar crimes aimed primarily at obtaining goods or money) are vastly different to those who commit crimes of violence. The usually pathetic amounts taken in violent robberies suggest that your theory holds true in those cases – it’s not poverty that’s the driver, it’s violent urges and a crime like robbery is merely the context in which those urges are vented. It could just as easily be a senseless beating in the street.
My point being, I guess, is that sweeping statements like “breaking the law is a personal choice” come off as somewhat unrealistic to anyone of any character at all who’s been put in a position where their options were severely limited.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I suspect he could repeal it, but those who support it seem quite ardent. If there was a referendum on the anti-smacking act, it would avoid much of the whining of the supporters, and would also make Key and National look good by showing they are responsive to what the people want.
Helen’s pre-empted that now, I guess, by scheduling a referendum after the election. If National win, and don’t go through with it (depending on how definite the actual scheduling of the referendum is), they’ll look bad, and if they do go through with it, Labour can take the credit. If Labour win, and go through with it, they’ll look alright, as they can, I guess, blame the Greens for forcing them to pass it in the first place, if a referendum rejects it.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Hey PB
I get pretty mad sometimes too. The constant barrage on the TV of brainwashing propaganda gets to my stomach sometimes. One starts to wonder whether TV is an entertainment medium or a political/state machine. Whether its brainwashing telling us we’re all drunks, or all gamblers or all suffering from mental illness, or all wife or child-abusers, or all reckless drivers, or whatever, it’s in stark contrast to TV of 10 years ago. You start to wonder who is really sponsoring shows like Super Nanny, etc. The word Orwellian comes to mind.
And some of the other (non-government) propaganda is worse still. I still get really irked by the transport ones. They really need to go back to school and do some basic physics.
However I don’t think men are really in danger of being written out of society. If anything, I think the current baby boom will bring back some reality. One thing hasn’t changed. Parents still love their kids more than anything in the world.
As for National staying quiet on policy – well I’m pretty sure it’s just tactical. They have been working on policy formation in many areas for a long time.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m no great fan of National. However too much (not all) of what Labour and the Greens have done these last few terms is despicable and unforgiveable. I wish there was another party I could vote for, but there isn’t, so I’ll choose the one that favours fewer controls over people, more personal accountability for personal actions and choices (rather than punishing us all for the crimes of a few). One that can see a knee jerk for what it is, and one that isn’t based on a culture of negativity, envy and spite.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Philu,
no.
adc,
Then; as the Political Busker, I would suggest that you do have choice. Yet first, there are points in your post that I’d like to point at.
My life changed when I decided I had had a complete gutsful of how I (my son and daughter) and all were being treated. Life was/is a fiction. We are sold truth and as you point out ‘fear’. Fear keeps life moving for those with the greater financial investment in our first world capiltalist democratic society. Fear opens the opportunity of invulnerable advance for those who function in the present political regime of social power. For example, Homophobia: Ordinary heterosexuals are frightened to say ‘I don’t discriminate against people on their sexuality But LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE!’. No one says this because to say it would make anyone a homophobe. If your a homophobe you limited getting a job, or eventually if in employment you would be cut out of the workplace. For example: Paedophilia: Men are frightened to show affection toward children because so to do is to indicate an out of the ordinary sexualised behaviour toward humans/children, instead of saying: “I am male you absolute idiot, just because I engage in social intercourse with other humans/children it doesn’t mean I want to or am going to screw them! For example: Sexism: Men are frightened to look at a woman’s breasts, whether or not they are paraded, easy to see or otherwise attractive, instead of knowing: “I am a red blooded male you idiot, how am I able to produce semen if not entitled an excitement when I see the opposite sex?” These days they sell Everests of viagra: good marketing strategy, make men frightened about getting an erection. Make men frightened, that is how you will take control of society. And make men frightened they have. Have you seen the advertisment: WOMEN’S REPUBLIC OF NEW ZEALAND. In one of those advertisments the males the women kiss when held up by other women are sailors. Then look at the fine print of who is on the board and who is the patron of that fine woman’s product line. This is serious stuff adc.
I say you are nice. That means you are kindly, I can read it in your text. You think well of society and want to work in a positive frame moving forward, advancing positive gender equal, positive social intercourse and expecting that the lower numbers of disaffected people are just that, lower numbers. So why do we have P as such a prolific drug where it is far more corrosive than our previous vices? When I was a dope smoker, so many years ago we used to call it getting stoned. I presume that was because if you got really ‘wasted’ you would just stop. These days they call it getting ‘fried’. I don’t think the kids make up these words because they are short of knowledge of what is happening to their brains. Whether or not you wish to believe that the public in their largest capacity are able to survive an evolving erosion of any particular condition, is secondary to the capacity of marketing to take over. And whether or not you would agree with me, I state that the next problem that the world has is that homosexual people are giving themselves the right to breed. Discipline has completely collapsed. The human requires to be secure, a male and a female to be the cornerstone of a child’s life. I would like not to discriminate against homosexual people and would not: Except where that difference in the most basic realm of function (sexuality) is compromised to disaffect a child. I would like not to be afraid that paedophilia would not spread into pandemic proportion, yet with unbridled as accessible Internet pornography and men driven into fear that they only think about sex and there is no discipline at check. I would like to treat a woman with respect as she walks in the street, yet with a slogan to advance equality such as “wear what we want and when we want to” there is little hope that a male’s sexuality is not under serious threat. Men are demonised. At present there is little we can do about it. Because men when in power and now women as they so advance have concentrated so little on men’s emotional, physical and sexual health we are hardly in any condition to do much about it. In the previous post I suggested you have greater access to information on media manipulation, and you suggest you to get mad… yet I feel alone as I complain to every broadcaster about the crap the I see getting loaded onto us all. People are frightened to complain. Men have become too frightened to complain.
You (and I mean with respect) would like to vote for someone who might do something different. I think the first thing is to measure what the most serious problem might be. Law and Order seems to be being picked at this stage. The answers so far are coming out thick and fast. They are about ‘fear’ and then they are about ‘punishment’. That’s the answer. GREENS:If you smack your child you will be prosecuted because you are a child abuser and violence is not tolerated in our society. How stupid is that? Come on – seriously, how stupid is that? If you smack your child we will smack you harder. NATIONAL: When we get into power we will have to build one more prison. This is saying: we are getting tougher on crime, if you break the law we will punish you harder! Eh? what about discipline at home? Oh – I see, children don’t break the rules at home. So when does National announce prior to the election – well we just did the figures over a few more years – and in fact we’ll be needing to build two. LABOUR: There are more people in prison since we took power and no the statistics of crime are not on the rise! Eh? Miracle workers. NZFIRST: Gangs, we’ll bring them into line. How Winston… Korero te reo Maori?
So your choice? You only have one, as far as I can see if Law and Order is the issue: you have to turn it back to Maori. You have no other choice. If there is to be change. The prisons are full and there is nothing but more of the same from a coloniser who has no real clues that the people who were colonised were never going to like it.
But Law and Order isn’t my choice of political debate. Families come first. They arrive in a society no matter its race, religion or region. It is families that protect society not politicians. Fix the family for pities sake. Stop this marginalisation and demonising of men. Fix men to be strong, confident of who they are and educated so that they can act with that confidence in a fair and civil fashion. So vote first for the public and vote first to say that whoever is voted in will focus on repairing the heterosexual male.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Political Busker –
Please share your thoughts on how the government can “fix” the heterosexual male, and indeed, why the government should have any interest or involvement in one’s sexual preferences. I’m a hell of a lot more worried about the economy and law and order than I am about some bizarre conspiracy of the gays taking over central government as you appear to suggest.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Political Busker why dont you try to make your sentences more precise. They are hard to follow. If you cant make your point quickly the reader switches off. I dont have time to read your bs. At least the rest of us state a clear view. Your views are just bs dressed up – are you getting paid to waste our time on purpose? Or do you lack any sense of reality? You post on Winston the other day was an example of how disorientated your brain is. At least real Buskers have a contribution to make. No one is entertained by your verbal diarrhoea.
PhilU you are a Labour dooshbag. You are all bs and no substance. Goff will kick you out real quick as judging by your pathetic blog and comments on here you are useful to no one and a detriment to Labour. If you still dont believe my arguments above-mentioned then get your betting ticket on the election and post it on your site & tag this on. $100 was my challenge. If you cant take it up, then admit you are all gas and your opinions are not worth the 1 second it takes to read them. And you have no credibility.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Please substitute jusding for judging (typo above)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
m_c,
I don’t believe I stated that government should have an interest in people’s sexual preferences. I believe my focus and examples are centred on how we are damaging the child. I also focus the information to how the present practices are directly and unlawfully discriminatory against the child; see UNCROC (preamble, Article 1 and Article 9) http://www.cyf.govt.nz/432.htm and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (section 17, as well other relevant arguments) and an indirect as unlawful discrimination against sex (against fatherhood). In earlier posts I suggest that most of my submissions are based from objective arguments. I haven’t yet ventured the argument about discrimination against heterosexuality by homosexual people in order to gain what they believe is an equality, yet in order to describe for you the argument so you may pick up what I am saying, the act of sexual intercourse between two women used to produce a child is a full example of such discrimination. I’ll leave your imagination to figure out what I might be saying if my sentences aren’t very clear.
In regards to the conspiracy factor, that is a different story. I do suggest that there is an active engagement with parliament (as different to government) where homosexuality has moved to override the above protections to allow homosexuality to breed. And I am writing on this blog simply because it is real and somebody has to, somewhere challenge what is happening. New Zealand is in shame because we have directly broken the laws that protect children to further the want (and their interests) of other groups in society. A child’s rights have been directly and seriously compromised to permit the advance of other groups who once complained that they were the victims of oppression. To escape previous oppressions women and homosexuality are advancing arguments and compromising existing fundamental legislation that protects the child in order to marginalise their oppressor. The oppressor is the paternalistic heterosexual male.
The economy and law and order for evolution are the constructions of the paternalistic heterosexual male. I haven’t fully discussed or debated these areas yet because they are secondary and not fundamental. Foundation: Is your roots – pun meant. If your piston is broke its probably because the ring has been cracked.
glubbster,
hope that is a bit clearer. I’m right about Winston by the way.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
p.b..s.o.h. byepass..eh..?
(and..can you ‘get something’ for your advanced case of verbal diaorrhea..)
grubbster..i yam neither green party nor labour party..(but i have voted for both..and will probably do that again..)
and..i’m pretty sure phil goff dosen’t lose any sleep over me..eh..?
and hey..!..congrats..!
..in only 19 comments you’ve managed to establish yourself as a neo-dickwad..
(it usually takes longer..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
the dinner-party from hell..
busker/grubbster/d4j/both b.b.’s/man-o-lo/chucky..
..and jive-kitty..(just to bring some ‘clarity’ to the situation)
(heh..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Steve: “Just had a look at the sub standard, first time ever…
Unionists and Civil Servants spreading the word.”
Steve, If you take another visit this morning, you will see a post criticising Helen Clark’s dismissal of recent opinion polls. I’ve also posted to that effect. This is called “independent thought.” You might like to try some sometime.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Subjectively speaking or analysed into the objective Philu?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
however it pours/spurts out of you..busker..
as i said..the dinner-party guest from boredom-hell..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Jafa
“This is called “independent thought”
Who the hell are you trying to kid?, the standard is the mouthpiece of the ninth floor, as you well know it is staffed and funded by tax payer money.
So they post the odd story questioning (the never criticise) Clark, what does that prove?
You can be sure that this and every other story is cleared by either H1 or H2.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Bruv;
It’s a big leap from “The standard is a mouthpiece of the Labour party” (unquestionably true) to “The Standard is publicly funded by the taxpayer” (needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise it is just a nasty insinuation!)
So how might we know that the standard is funded from tax, and not from (say) Labour’s own fundraising activities?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hey PB, I looked up the companies registry for Max Fashions and followed it up a few levels through Ezibuy to Ezibuy holdings. Didn’t see anything sinister about shareholding or directors.
I agree with you about gender selection with IVF though. After reading this herald article, I had to come to the conclusion that Professor Lord Robert Winston is a complete retard.
His comparison between
a) efforts taken in ancient Greek and other civilisations to influence the gender outcome of normal conception
b) choosing which of several living organisms should be allowed to survive based on gender
is the kind of manipulative line-blurring undermining dishonest crap I expect of NZ politicians, not of members of the House of Lords. In case a, there is only one organism. In case b, there are several, some of which are given a chance to live, and others chosen to die. Presumably choice of life or death is a fairly important decision. You can’t choose employees based on gender, so how could life or death based on gender be justifiable? So I’ll generously offer him the excuse of being a retard, in lieu of some worse conclusion.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
adc,
The link is Feature Guest – Robert Winston on nine to noon yesterday. Unfortunately I didn’t get all of the programme but will listen to it later. I was stunned from what I heard through his interpretation of God, where competitive in science and his hiding his belief into an ignorance that bad things don’t really happen. In my book from what I heard (and will listen later to the interview) he is a cheat. He would give away his semen happily making as many offspring as he would with no commitment to that child for its needs to know and associate with their natural biological and genetic hereditry.
Philu is encouraged to disagree but to me this Lord is a better example in the derogatory of being a ‘tosser’.
I went up on the website af Max as well. It has been a while since I went there and it has changed considerably. As I remember Dame Silvia Cartwright is the Patron. I’m not sure what you thought I was stating when I referred to the board. Sorry I was unclear. I meant the trustees and I menat the power and the public profile. These women are claiming to be the owners of the Republic of New Zealand. They are taking control of a power that is rightfully the country’s through democtatic process. That process can never be met until the issue of national identity and indigenous sovereignty are balanced and rationalised. The fact that Republicanism is such a serious issue and there is such a chasm between now and then (now being now and then us being a republic -if ever) is heavily insulting and damaging where one group could have the outright arrogance to lay such an important claim. Yet that is my opinion. I will stand by the objective argument to determine a fair, functional, equal and equitable New Zealand where the issues of sovereignty and colonisation must be sorted out.
UM – the thread: Helen Clark has the indigenous detail of my further argument on these issues and as yet it has not been discounted or disproved – so I wonder if this argument on Maori (sovereignty issues) and the coloniser’s relationship have been factored into her knowledge of the polls?
I apologise if I have got Dame Silvia Cartwright’s Patronage of Max wrong.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
PilU hopefully National & co will sort out the mental health system when it becomes the Government as you need a mental health assessment and some serious psychiatric help. For now, remember to take your medication PilU..
“di*k wads” must be all over the country then since National currently enjoy 50% plus support.
I am looking forward to hearing how your counselling sessions go post-election. Hopefully you dont post them as disengenously as you do your usual posts as that would be a further example of your lack of self-respect.
As for dinner parties, you would ruin them all PilU.
You will be weeping at Labour’s election party (if you are not already banned).
PS: PilU send us your betting receipt re the election….chicken.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
glubb
Please do not encourage that low life to gamble with the money he steals from us every week, it is bad enough that he uses it to purchase his dope.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
RRM
““The Standard is publicly funded by the taxpayer” (needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise it is just a nasty insinuation!)”
Rubbish, the accusation has been there for some time, Labour hosted the site (after initial denials from Labour and the Standard) and the accusation remains that they are funded and staffed via tax payer money, it is the Standard that needs to provide the proof given that they lied about the hosting of their poisonous site.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
awww..!!..teacher..!..grubby called me ‘chicken!’..
(are you very young..?..grubby..?..
or just infantile..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
ok, so I don’t normally post this kinda stuff… but hey while DPF’s away (and the thread is pretty dead in any case…)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:51 am
PilU a chicken is short for the fact that you are a gutless wonder.
Vote:I am neither old nor young, but I can tell you I am no bludger like you PilU.
Probably of all the people who post on blog sites you are the most infantile.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:57 am
aww..!!..grubby..!
how has it come to this..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Tha claim has been made often – most recently in a book by Ian Wishart – that Helen Clark is a lesbian.
It’s true she espouses feminist causes and talks in a deep brown voice. It’s true that she gives off no frisson of feminine intrigue, unlike her predecessor Jenny Shipley, about whom there was always a hint of the playful, if you know what I mean. I used to play tennis with Helen – along with Margaret Shields and Richard Northey (a game at which there is always the opportunity to flirt or flaunt) and there was never a hint of flashing thigh or womanly glow. On the contrary, all very serious.
What I mean is that I don’t see her as a starter in the sex stakes at all, whether homo, hetero or metro. She was and is, in my years of observing her as a young woman on the way up, all business. Politics is what turns her on.
Vote: