A late link to TGIF

August 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am by David Farrar

has released the first edition of his new weekly e-newspaper – . The first edition is available for free. As web designer Dennis Smith has noted, it is quite large (8.5 MB), but probably hard to have it much smaller and retain the quality.

The lead story focuses on this quote from :

“Shifting the focus from social welfare to social development is about considering the wellbeing of the whole population, and communities within that population, rather than solely focusing on the traditional family group. We must cater for the diversity, we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on. That’s where we’re going with social policy.”

Now this is not just something Dyson blurted out, or was secretly taped saying in a sting operation. This was in her speech notes on the Beehive website. They have since taken it down, which suggests the Government knows it is embarrassing. That is in itself worthy of questions as the Beehive website is meant to be a record of all Ministerial speeches, and not just selected ones.

Now I’m a fan of the TV series Big Love, but really I don’t think the Government needs to be catering for the polygamists. In fact in most countries they actually tend to discourage , while Ruth seems to want the NZ Government to cater for it.

Tags: , , , ,

46 Responses to “A late link to TGIF”

  1. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    And following the usual communist palybook of pulling the speech and denying it ever happened.

    Shame about cache assholes.

    Shit that looks like a secret agenda.

    Smell like a secret agenda.

    And quacks like a secret agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ghostwhowalks2 (118 comments) says:

    You mean Labour Ministers actually make speches where they lay out policy and then those speeches can be accessed online!!
    obviously an area of waste that will be targeted by a national government

    next Labour will be having press conferences rather than guided chats with only a small number of tame interviewers.

    How dare they let the wider public know what they are thinking rather than just quiet chats at cocktail parties

    But I suppose it saves having to spend hours going through video tapes like some Stasi functionary.

    But dont forget there was someone who got a newspaper to white out some words of a taped interview

    [DPF: And none of that at all related to TGIF or polygamy, so 10 demerits for off topic]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    NZ Labour Party’s own Secret Agenda is revealed: ….more social engineering, but rebranded/disguised as “social development”. That’ll fool the punters.

    Labour’s “honest” election slogan would be: SOCIAL ENGINEERING – IT’S WHAT WE DO BEST!

    At least now, every voter looking at Labour (except only the most wilfully ignorant of the far left) will know more accurately what they are considering voting for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Seán (397 comments) says:

    Maybe by “triples” she means two dads and a mum or two mums and a dad. ie a homosexual couple with the third person donating sperm/egg yet retaining a presence in the child’s life….or maybe even a heterosexual couple where they split and she means the addition of step-parents….who knows. Maybe that’s “blended”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Zippy Gonzales (485 comments) says:

    And I take it that ‘blended’ is partner swapping (go the swinging vote!). Working For Family Orgies, eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    And then they pull those speeches and claim they were never made you complete dipshit gwts.

    Go ahead and actually read what the fuck you’re stroking yourself about before mouth off with the 9th floor talking points.

    Jesus this nob is just chum in the shark tank today.

    Socialist revisionism and the interweeby are natural enemies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ghostwhowalks2 (118 comments) says:

    THis was in also in the speech

    “Distinguished guests, greetings to you gathered here for this purpose today. Greetings once, twice, three times to you all.”

    Thats right 3 times greetings
    and this

    “The Working for Families package has been key ( how did THAT word sneak in here)in making it easier to work and raise a family. Over 370,000 families have received assistance from Working for Families. It’s designed to make work pay for families, and to lift their incomes. Paid parental leave is also supporting working families with their new babies.”

    Imagine that !!
    For the first time in 25 years extra money for those working couples with families.

    Surely everyone is for that…. eventually

    “the numbers of people on a DPB for example have dropped some 13,000 since the introduction of the in work tax credit, the largest drop in numbers since the benefit was introduced in 1973.”

    You mean there is a way of reducing absolute numbers on the DPB ,not just in proportion to the population, without having spies counting if they have a late night boyfriend

    I see the word Key is used 5 times !!!

    Quick pull it from website before anyone notices

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (13,935 comments) says:

    Ghost

    Even a moron such as yourself would understand that very few here are against people getting more money.

    The problem with communists like you is that you are stupid enough to think that the only way this can happen is if the govt handles it through some huge govt agency.

    The same thing would be achieved through tax cuts, however you would never agree with that because in your fucked up world govt is all about having control.

    Now how about you give the trolling a rest and get back on topic, what does the drunk (aka Ruth Dyson) mean when she says “triples”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (16,519 comments) says:

    Sean a blended family is the PC term from the UK meaning two divorced people with kids becoming a couple.

    Maybe the triplet in the triple is the govt-appointed social worker who will be legally required to become involved in parenting lest the poor children aren’t brought up in a sufficiently conflict-free tolerant muslim-friendly environment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..what does the drunk (aka Ruth Dyson) mean when she says “triples”?..

    who fucken cares..?

    except lascivious rightwing control-freaks..

    ..salivaiting/obsessing over the sexual practises of other (consenting) adults..

    oh..!..hello b.b..!

    ..fancy finding you here..doing just that..!

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Obviously Labour and their Social Dvelopment policy wonks care quite a bit Phil, don’t get all steamy on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Where are the MSM? This is to the piddling story of what Bill and Lockwood did or did not say as the Avon is to Niagra Falls. Meanwhile Hagar tries to make up shit about National and Dr Brash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..just so i’m clear on this adolf..

    ..some think-piece on exceptions to your judeo-christian model/ideal of ‘marriage’..

    ..far outweighs the news/proof/evidence the nattys are trying on a hollow-men re-run of their 2005 lying/bullshitting/secret agenda-ridden election campaign..?

    ..some of us would ‘weigh’ that differently..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. samv (22 comments) says:

    Take your mind out of the gutter! It doesn’t mean there’s a ménage-à-trois in progress. There are plenty of ways that you can have a family unit with three parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. LabourMustBeLiquidated (290 comments) says:

    I would have thought that all the liberals on this site would have applauded this, if only for the sake of consistency. I am interested to know why polygamy is “wrong” and homosexuality is “right”. I use the inverted commas so as not to offend any sensibilities, I know that liberals don’t think anything is objectively right or wrong…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    I don’t think the Government needs to be catering for the polygamists

    I’m not sure why not. Not that polygamy is for me or anyone I know, but I really don’t think it’s any government’s place to pick winners in relationship types between consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Madeleine (230 comments) says:

    If you legislate on the concept that what consenting adults do in their own homes is ok then you are committed to putting in place policies that endorse polygamy, adult to adult incest, necrophilia, etc..

    Why is anyone surpised? Matt and I have been saying this for years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Exclamation Mark (85 comments) says:

    Take your mind out of the gutter! It doesn’t mean there’s a ménage-à-trois in progress. There are plenty of ways that you can have a family unit with three parents.
    Why take it off the site if that’s the case?

    “plenty of ways”? Name a 3 or four for us please.

    Would an ex husband or wife really consider themselves to be part of a “triple” along with their ex spouse and their new partner?
    What the fuck is “Blended”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    And it is expected that from next year teachers of all grades (primary and secondary) will have to be certified bilingual before being able to become officially registered.

    So we have 20 to 30 % of kids leave school with the academic ability of a normal 10 year old and we should be focusing all the resource on speaking Maori?

    FFS who sets these priorities. This would be fine if everyone passed NCEA Level 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    May blended is like my colleague who adopted a baby girl because the mother was a complete drop kick and yet still has to allow visits from the birth mother which fucks up the child.

    Labour has taken away all the rights of normal functioning people and given them to people who if they were in the animal kingdom would have been made extinct or put down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    “Blended”…

    take cordless drill

    drill hole in gib board

    start humping the wall

    pump till well “blended”

    apply to WINZ for “lifestyle” benefit.

    Isn’t it beautiful? All those Labour supporters who fit into or onto anything will now be complete in their lives. Just imagine the streetside lefty action on inorganic rubbish collection week! oooooooh yeah all those old radiator hoses! oooooooh yeah baby, and those broom handles! ooooooh yeah. Cats, dogs, children on the way to school, trees, old floor boards, old exhaust pipes, it doesn’t matter to liberals or Labour supporters.

    Vote Labour and get NZ PUMPIN’!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. samv (22 comments) says:

    “plenty of ways”? Name a 3 or four for us please.

    Use your own imagination, it’s not particularly challenging. Hint: don’t assume that couples that split want to separate when there are children involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bustedblonde (138 comments) says:

    TGIF looks good but it lacks much substence… Dyson was a plonker for taking the speech down as it made it look worse than it was .. as for triples – maybe lesbo couples with a homosexual sperm donor who still wants to play a part in the rug rats upbringing.

    shame about TGIF because I think the time has come for an online paper that looks like the tactile ones we all love and know….. Suppose we will just have to feed the poor boy some decent yarns to liven it up a bit.

    I know I’ve got a few …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    “…as for triples – maybe lesbo couples with a homosexual sperm donor who still wants to play a part in the rug rats upbringing…”

    Urban dictionary informs me that the correct modern colloquialism for children born to lesbians is “carpet beetles”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    The reference to “triple” actually means Dyson, Steve Chadwick, and Maryan Street bursting in to song at the Labour Party conference. They put the alternative back in to alternative lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ghostwhowalks2 (118 comments) says:

    lesbians arent the only ones who need a sperm donor, in fact any couple where the male is infertile needs a sperm donor.

    So you could have a donor father and the family mother and father, or very rare cases where there is a surrogate mother.

    Who knew there where so many ways to be ‘triples’.

    But wait theres more…..
    Adopted children who are close to their birth mother as well as their other two parents.

    So many families where there are three parents… and you lot thought it only meant three in a bed.!!!

    But thats the sort of twisted thinking you get from that w….. Wishart

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. baxter (893 comments) says:

    I thought the first issue was very good especially for the price and I have signed up for the first month at least. The lead story showing one of Liabour’s hidden agendas was revealing though it is really just a continuation of their previous hidden agendas which they use dupes in puppy parties to advance in return for diverted patrimony from their big business sponsers. I can’t understand how an ace reporter like GARNER or a news leader like TV3 with such a zealous interest in hidden agendas could have failed to act on such a story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ruth (178 comments) says:

    Where are all the feminists opposing polygamy? Nowhere to be seen because they are either too busy blowing off about capitalism, or talking about shooz and manicures and how much it costs to attract men so on.

    This is appalling and shows how a lot of men and women who are much further to the right than I am are actually more in tune with *real* feminism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Penelope (69 comments) says:

    Hey, Ruth, if two women freely choose (not because they were brainwashed as children – that doesn’t count) to share a man, then they’re welcome to do that by me. Not my scene, and I’m convinced it’ll all end in tears, but I’m not going to stop them.

    But I note (while acknowledging the sensible posts about how more than two adults might be involved in a family) how everyone’s gone “Polygamy! Polygamy!” and not one of you has shouted “Polyandry! Polyandry!”

    It happens you know – some women do have two lovers, some children do have two “fathers”.

    I mean, for heaven’s sake, haven’t any of you seen Mama Mia? ;->

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ruth (178 comments) says:

    Oh indeed – I suggest you read Muslim Hedonist – a TRUE feminist who escaped polygamy and other patriarchal conventions.

    No doubt you are one of the ‘feminists’ who think blow jobs and botox are empowering, while dangling Manolos from your manicured toes.

    And you wonder why no one takes you seriously in the real world.

    Here’s a test for you –

    Why don’t you write about political participation and universal suffrage for women in Africa and the Middle East?

    How about legal, political and institutional reforms to protect women with regards to property rights in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East?

    Or legal, political and institutional reforms to protect women from domestic and workplace exploitation and/or violence in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East ?

    Or legal, political and institutional reforms to guarantee women’s right to reproductive and sexual health in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East?

    How about political and cultural reforms in the Middle East to end arranged marriages and child brides?

    How about political and cultural reforms in the Middle East and Africa to end female genital mutilation?

    Human trafficking in Asia?

    Rape of women in Africa?

    Didn’t think so eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Penelope (69 comments) says:

    Sigh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. radvad (767 comments) says:

    This post is not about the merits or otherwise of polygamy (who wants 2 or more mothers in law anyway?), it is about a secret agenda. Why are we not allowed to know about Labour’s secret social engineering agenda. We even had Helen Clark llying about banning smacking before the last election to hide her real agenda.

    IMHO I agree govt should not be involved in relationships, either at the beginning or at the end. It fascinates how trendy liberal types say govt should stay out of the bedroom until there are some unintended consequences and suddenly those same trendies drag us all into that bedroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Penelope (69 comments) says:

    WTF is secret about Labour saying it wants its legislation to be inclusive, to not unintentionally exclude those with lifestyles outside the supposed “norm” (though I would venture that the “traditional” nuclear family is no longer the norm in terms of being dominant – cue another thread about how right or wrong that is)? This is a well-known Labour stance, there is absolutely nothing secret about it.

    This thread is all about the “shock, horror, Ruth is accepting polygamy” spin.

    As I’ve said on other threads, I’m not voting Labour this election and whatever party I give my vote to will, on a simplistic monodimensional spectrum, be to the right of Labour.

    But for heaven’s sake, save your indignation for things that are a genuine surprise and that have been genuinely hidden. Lord knows there’s enough of them from all parties, without having to make-up non-existant “secrets”.

    After all if this supposed “social-engineering agenda” is so secret, how come everyone here knows about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Dyson really fucked up on this one.

    As well as encouraging the limpo social devlopment policy wonks (no doubt it took a jolly to the UK to come up with policy including blended) she has admitted its an election issue by pulling the documentation.

    Wait for the expended defn of family so that more non-nuclear family units can get WFF benefit handouts just prior to elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Penelope if there is no shock horror then why has it been removed from the Labour Party website?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Penelope (69 comments) says:

    Because too many people pay absolutely no attention to any politics at all, other than to shock horror headlines, which it appears a few posters to this thread are trying to create.

    I expected posters to this blog to be slightly (just slightly) more sophisticated than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    This statement is very important!.

    Everything Labour has legislated in the last 9 years and would do for future terms can be summed up in this statement from Dyson.

    Apart from banning smoking inside I believe anyone would struggle to find a law passed in the last 9 years that doesn’t align with the purpose of this statement.

    Labour (and their running dogs like Bradford) are fundamentally opposed to anything that strengthens the family unit and its values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Your ecalling the posters unsophisticated Pennie, and you admit to having seen Mama Mia.

    ’nuff said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Interesting nothing to see here from the socialist tag team of spittle licking but sorry boys. Your teams secret agenda has been exposed.

    So now we get to choose between making phool get a job and polygomy for labours selected group of religious fanatics whoever they may be.

    Hmmm. Thats a HARD one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Ruth, well said. Hey, some of you people who don’t show up here very often, like Ruth, keep it up, please.

    Ruth, that was well said about “empowering” women. And ultimately, when a civilised culture collapses in favour of a barbaric one, are the women “empowered”? In what culture are women BETTER off than in the “patriarchical” Judeo-Christian one? I suspect that many feminists are nothing more than “useful idiots”. But SOME “feminists” are knowingly working to political ends of a different nature to the single issue of “womens empowerment”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    Southern Raider, would you kindly email me at chuckbird@hotmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. convicted radical (65 comments) says:

    My take on it is that if the current oligarch would have it so that you can eventually have a civil union AND a marriage.
    Sort of “having your cake and eating too.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wake up (3 comments) says:

    Today (Tuesday 12th)’s Herald has a small paragraph that says: the speech was never delivered; it was posted on the website in error; it was written for Dyson; and she rejected it. Apart from the “Yeah right!” factor attending on all of that, it still begs the questions: Who did write it? Why? And at whose request?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wake up (3 comments) says:

    ps -I see that Penelope has discovered another blog that she thinks she can obfuscate. The connivance of Western feminists, in their blind pursuit of self-gratification (supported by the basic generosity of the democratic mainstream – including ultimately making wartime sacrifices to protect these self-obssessed freeloading minority manipulators), is the most disgusting aspect of any of the Left’s collaboration with distasteful introduced cultural activities. I await that day that these chickens come home to roost, and the squawking of these selfish women as their next generation is dragged off to female slavery. Muslims and polygamists, like rust, never sleep. We’re on to you, Penelope, and the day is coming when you’re going to wish you had understood sooner the foolish game you are playing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote