A left critique of the 5th Labour Government
Anita at Kiwipolitico says that as a leftie, she does not mourn the passing of the 5th Labour Government, because they:
- put a refugee in solitary confinement for 10 months, despite never telling him what he was accused of
- employed a senior police officer for nearly four years despite him admitting to the sexual exploitation of vulnerable teenagers and publicly supporting convicted rapists
- put in place financial support for the children of workers, but ignored the plight of our poorest and most vulnerable children
- drove a 50% increase in the prison population
- failed to bring stability to our abortion rules; leaving our bodies to the whim of the next government
- did not give workers back the right to strike
- drafted and passed amendments to the Immigration Act removing rights of appeal and allowing the use of secret evidence
- drafted and passed the Terrorism Suppression Act, a piece of legislation which cuts deeply into our fundamental rights
- condoned and supported the October 15 raids in which the Police invaded and harassed innocent communities
- passed legislation preventing courts deciding who should own the seabed and foreshore
- put NZ troops into Afghanistan and Iraq
- released an wonderful disability strategy, and completely failed to implement it
- failed to address climate change in any meaningful way
I am a bit surprised she doesn’t mention the tolerating Peters and/or the EFA, but anyway this is her list. So what do I agree with her on:
- Zaoui – I actually think the law rather than the Govt is to balem for this shambles. I do think there were legitimate security concerns based on his convictions in France and Belgium, but it should never have led to him being kept in jail for as long as he did.
- Clint Rickards – well to be fair to Helen Clark she personally vetoed him becoming Deputy Commissioner. I’m not sure if employment laws would allow any other outcome than keeping him employed uring the trials.
- WFF being more generous towards those in work than on benefits. I disagree this is a bad thing – those on benefits with children did get heaps more assistance, but you do want incentives for work.
- increased prison population – yep violent crime and hence prisonesr increased.
- abortion laws – yep this could have been addressed as the laws do not reflect practice.
- did not give workers back the right to strike – I disagree with the wording here. Anita is advocating the right for a worker to not turn up to work for whatever reseason they decide (unhappy over climate change) and the employer being unable to do anything about it. Why should employers be held hostage like that?
- drafted and passed amendments to the Immigration Act removing rights of appeal and allowing the use of secret evidence – partly agree. Some parts of new Act went far too far, but other parts will help solve the massive delays we see in the system.
- drafted and passed the Terrorism Suppression Act, a piece of legislation which cuts deeply into our fundamental rights – I support the Act in principle (we live in a post 9/11 world) but the way it was used in the Urerewas has left me unconvinced.
- condoned and supported the October 15 raids in which the Police invaded and harassed innocent communities – let’s just wait for the trials before we determine innocence.
- passed legislation preventing courts deciding who should own the seabed and foreshore – agree there – a massive blunder.
- put NZ troops into Afghanistan and Iraq – Afghanistan was 100% the right thing to do. Iraq is ironic considering how often Clark tries and have people forget she sent troops in.
- released an wonderful disability strategy, and completely failed to implement it – don’t know enough on this area to comment. I should.
- failed to address climate change in any meaningful way – basically correct – larger percentage growth in emissions than the USA and Australia.
Kiwipolitico is fast becoming a must read blog, even though I disagree with much of it.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Kiwipolitico, Labour
January 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
How was the TSA used in the Ureweras? The police obtained search, interception and arrest warrants under the Crimes Act and Summary Proceedings Act. The TSA gives no additional powers to police that they don’t have for any other mildly serious crime.
There are communities on trial? How did I miss that?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
That little list of horrors should send a shiver down the spine of all Kiwi’s
January 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
DPF said “Kiwipolitico is fast becoming a must read blog, even though I disagree with much of it.”
Agreed DPF – however, they’ve just added a certain Roger Nome to their stable of commentators, so the balanced approach may not last long
January 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“I am a bit surprised she doesn’t mention the tolerating Peters and/or the EFA”
Why would you be surprised, DPF? These bleeding-heart lefties are very choosy in selecting the causes they support.
Bugger the principles, what’s wrong with protesting against Clint Rickards, while at the same time the biggest crook and liar on the land is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the government you support.
Convenience and political expediency are trademarks of the Left. The “forgetful” Anita is no different.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Who is the nutter “Anita”?
January 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I am a little puzzled at the way DPF has taken this analysis from the Left; as if they are criticising the Heleban from the same position as he is. My impression of Anita is that she is so far over to the leftwing fringe, that the Heleban was actually too “right wing” or “too conservative” for her; a bit like the Trotskyites are for the Stalinists………
For example, the increase in prison population that she condemns, DPF agrees with, on the right wing grounds that the Heleban’s approach to social breakdown and crime, is responsible for more crime and hence increasing prison population. But Anita, it is clear to me, is one of these nutters who follow the neo-Marxist theories that criminals are actually “victims” of oppressive social structures in the first place and should not be in jail, regardless of the suffering that they cause to innocent members of society, the old ladies and children they batter, etc.
And on her scale of values, Che Guevara was a hero, and Tainui terrorists who one day turn out just as successful as Che and kill a few hundred people, will be “oppressed freedom fighters” and any authorities that act against them will be ‘fascists”.
I really thought DPF was learning better about the true nature of the extreme left enemy. DPF, the one serious omission from your list of “must read” blogs, is Trevor Loudon’s “New Zeal”. You really must get up to speed and stop being ever the gentleman to the people who least deserve being credited with any honourable intentions at all, and ostracising people who DO the work to alert us about them as conspiracy theorists and “right wing fringe”.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Oh, and Anita’s idea of “addressing climate change in a meaningful way” is of course the whole POINT of the whole AGW lie; it is economic collapse and the end of free markets and human freedom; which just happens to dovetail nicely with the main objective of bringing Stalinist-style totalitarianism to the free Western world…
January 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“WFF being more generous towards those in work than on benefits. I disagree this is a bad thing – those on benefits with children did get heaps more assistance, but you do want incentives for work.”
But beneficiaries lost about $20 per week off their benefits due to not being compensated for inflation. That forced many of them onto other forms of assistance such as housing subsidies and welfare loans (which many have no hope of repaying), so they became worse off as a group and more dependent on handout.
Also, by forcing more “assistance” the Govt simply made them more dependent and prone to see children as a meal ticket.
Although there were static or falling numbers of beneficiaries in some areas, stuff like income related rent subsidies rose 69% 2001-2008 and family support 133% over the same period. (Core Crown Expenditure Tables 2007).
I also think WFF was a con because the jobs that attracted the most subsidy were low paying and of questionable worth in terms of productivity. We would be better off with higher unemployment and more capital and innovation in the workplace.
JC
January 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Title should read- “An Extreme Left Critique of the Far Left 5th Labour Government”.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“the whole POINT… …is economic collapse and the end of free markets and human freedom;”
NO Phil. That is in your head, she doesn’t say anything like this. I think we are getting a bit silly now.
Unless I have it all wrong and you are, in fact, able to read her mind?
January 13th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“released an wonderful disability strategy, and completely failed to implement it – don’t know enough on this area to comment. I should.”
Our charity looked at this some years ago and concluded it’s mostly waffle with no hard edges to it. Internationally we are woeful in the treatment of the disabled.
JC
January 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Anita’s list of points are typical of the self-aggrandizing horseshit all trendy lefties spout off … all designed to demonstrate such virtue and compassion, giving her a huge sense of moral superiority and ego boost. *yawn*
PhilBest said –
“DPF, the one serious omission from your list of “must read” blogs, is Trevor Loudon’s “New Zeal”.
Agreed.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
PhilBest said -
“DPF, the one serious omission from your list of “must read” blogs, is Trevor Loudon’s “New Zeal”.
LOL.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
A right critique of the 5th Labour Government: They’re a bunch of lying thieving corrupt bastards who can consider themselves lucky not to already be in jail.
We’re working on it.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Surely the point of DPF’s raising this is to illustrate that part of the left and part of the right can reach the same conclusion – i.e. Clark’s Labour government was very, very wrong on a whole raft of issues – though they arrived there from totally opposing starting points?
To cite but one example. I assume Anita would want to see a quite intensive legislative and policy program to address climate change whereas DPF is much more conservative in his approach and some commenters would argue absolutely nothing should be done. However the one thing all can agree on is that the worst thing one can do on the issue is spout rhetoric, run round interfering in what sort of lightbulbs people are allowed to buy, and yet achieve absolutely nothing – aka hypocrisy.
That there can be agreement from opposite sides of politics, and without in any way accepting the other’s route to the conclusion as correct, shows just how dire has been the political management of the past nine years.
Yet this is a PM some on the left will still claim, straight faced, as “the best in recent history” and other such nonsense.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Go and check it out….usual economically illiterate Lefties regurgitating bullshit…its like shooting retarded fish in a barrel.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Angus – you’re not willing to entertain the notion that Anita might actually be MOTIVATED by compassion, then?
PS: Hey, maybe that’s why righties hate lefties so much – they can’t help but assign the lefties their own selfish motivations and lust for wealth and power accumulation?
(Jokes, peeps. Take it easy… )
January 13th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Anita left numerous other issues out:
#Excessive taxation
#Now more managers than beds in our hospitals
#Ministry of Ed numbers from 450 to 2500 in five years with what real improvement in education outcomes?
#Politicised civil service
#Interesting relationship between government and police
#Lack of accountability regarding government contracts (HBDHB)
#Marginal improvement (if any) in NZ infrastructure…. electricity, roads although we now have an obsolete train set
#2002 Local Government Act … enough said
#No constitutional movement regarding the safe guarding of peoples rights i.e. govt can do anything they want without consequence e.g. retrospective legislation after tax theft for reelection.
Although they did stuff up the AGW issue which will be of benefit once the warmists are sorted
Shouldn’t do this just get angry all over again. Still have serious doubts JK & Team will do much rectifying though?
January 13th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
southtop – whoa there! Thank Saint Shipley for the more-managers-than-beds-in-our-hospitals thing. How many CHEs and HFAs did they create again?
January 13th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
put NZ troops into Afghanistan and Iraq – Afghanistan was 100% the right thing to do.
100 percent better for the Heroin trade, thats right!
January 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The 5th Labour Govt is dead and buried. Thank God.
Why would anyone choose to waste seconds of joyful life exhuming it and doing an autopsy on its foul reeking liquid corpse?
January 13th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Flashman … because that’s what died in the wool, believing lefties like to do while opening another bottle of Chardonnay and toasting the revolution.
Oh, and never never never mention the EFA. It was all a mistake and as Phil Goof said so it must be true.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I suppose all the government employees have to have somewhere to go and play while we pay them.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
What about house prices spiraling out of control? The 5th Labour government was too weak kneed to even tinker with hugely flawed tax legislation!
January 14th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Thanks for the vote, DPF.
Edgeler: “There are communities on trial? How did I miss that?” Anita didn’t say on trial. She said “invaded and harrassed” That’s what you missed.
I2: If you look at Roger Nome’s own blog, you’ll see that he has a very serious side. I guess he just found kiwiblog an outlet for his other side.
Manolo: ““I am a bit surprised she doesn’t mention the tolerating Peters and/or the EFA” “Why would you be surprised, DPF? These bleeding-heart lefties are very choosy in selecting the causes they support.” Note that I discussed this in my comment on Anita’s post.
Big bruv: Nutter? Not everyone who you disagree with is a nutter. More likely not, in fact.
And for all those who think that we are “far left”, visit socialistaotearoa.blogspot.com and then you’ll know what far left looks like.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am
What a left wing loony that Anita is. Surprised DPF agreed with as much as he did. After reading that list of concerns which have obviously riled the left, I´m half tempted to vote Labour!!
January 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Serously ratdick are you STILL blaming the last National government? What are you Irish and still blaming Cromwell for being a dickhead now?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Yes, that’s right……it should have led to him being deported! Where? Anywhere!!!
January 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
He should never have touched our soil. Same plane back to where he came from.