National MPs lambasted for being too successful
January 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm by David FarrarAnita at Kiwipolitico writes:
In early December two new National MPs were welcomed as heralds of the new multi-ethnic National Party. The maiden speeches of Sam Lotu-Iiga and Melissa Lee were the perfect showcases of a new look party: ethnic heritage, community languages, younger faces, respect for the tangata whenua. Yet despite the effort National has put into the semblence, today’s party is no more more inclusive than it was under Brash or English, it’s just a little less out-dated in its conservatism.
Lotu-Iiga, with his Auckland Grammar schooling, his Cambridge MBA and his career in Finance and Law is not typical of New Zealand Samoans. Lee’s career as a TV journalist is far from the experience of most Asian immigrants. They are as unrepresentative of their communities as Key is of state house kids.
This is unbelievable. Anita says while it is good they have achieved, it means they are not a sign of social inclusion, because they are now sucessful.
Sam was born in Samoa, grew up in South Auckland and went to Mangere Central Primary School. But hey that does not count towards social inclusion because he has dared to do well. Never mind he grew up with up to 16 people sharing a three bedroom house – he is not declared to be unrepresentative of his community.
Likewise Melissa Lee was born in Korea, grew up in Malaysia. To help support her family once they moved to NZ, she would work during the day as a reporter for Sunday News, and then work in the family dairy until 11 pm. But again she is declared unrepresentative of her community because she has done well.
I guess Anita saw Taito Philip Field as a better sign of social inclusion.
But more of a concern, is how many on the left might share this viewpoint – that no matter what your background is, if you do well, then you no longer represent “mainstream New Zealand”.
Related posts:
- Lee selected for National
- Another question
- National announces two list only candidates
- The Press on National Benefits Policy
January 5th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Tall poppy syndrome
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I wonder if Anita recognises how racist her remarks are. Sadly, probably not.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
sigh.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
“They are as unrepresentative of their communities as Key is of state house kids.”
How dare those brown people decide to lives of self-determination and self-reliance and not wanting to rely on white, pseudo-liberal leftist paternalism.
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
How did Anita feel about Clarke and Cullen – they were hardly representative of Labour’s support base?
Vote:January 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
This type of thinking is exactly why the left lost last year. They celebrate people like Edmund Hillary (and rightly so) but when it comes to business success they mock them as been “rich-pricks” and out off touch. Go live in Cuba!
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Has she denounced the new US President Elect?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 2:41 am
I’ve tried making the point over there that it’s a red herring anyway. There’s no MP that’s “representative” of me – even though I’m that much-maligned species the white middle aged male – because none comes close to having had the life experience I’ve had – just as Sam and Melissa and many others have had equally valid experiences which have shaped their lives and attitudes.
This “look, we have a more representative line-up than them” BS is exactly that. I’m all for as wide a mix of experience in Parliament as possible, but what concerns me is how representative an MP is after he or she is elected – i.e. how willing they are to accept that my attitudes and experiences are as valid as theirs and my opinion is not only just as valid but that they have a duty to consider it before acting, along with the opinions of everyone else in whose place they stand in the House of Representatives.
In that respect I must acknowledge the Green Party, in that they at least make the effort to consult their members, but that narrow sector of society can hardly be held to be representative of NZ.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am
The premise of social inclusion is ludicrous. Any ideology of an adversarial system will exclude someone. The Left exclude the rich pricks, conservatives et al, and the right exclude communists, socialists and anyone else not interested in economic growth. All the while, each side claim to include everyone… as long as they join their political club.
Anita at Kiwipolitico is merely stating that National are not Labour and she doesn’t like it. Wow, what an amazing insightful comment.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Well MonkeysWithTypewriters welcomes them to the fold:
Vote:http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/
Lee MWT
January 6th, 2009 at 8:04 am
This only confirms my view on several fronts. There are those who can only see the actions of any political party in it’s most negative. For example, If the National Party has racial diversity, then it is tokenism or not truly representative. Or if the Greens have a Rastafarian in the party, then they are just dope smoking hippies, or the Maori party must be a radical group because they have a Harawira in their midst.
Personally, I have a great respect for Hone Harawira, much to my great surprise! Yes, he is a loose cannon, but his passion and his moral compass are both worthy. Nandor was a good advocate for youth issues.
Now we have two worthy parliamentarians in Sam and Melissa. Anita would have you think that National Values are not those of the communities that they represent, especially in Sam’s case. Anita would have you think that the natural political leanings of this group is socialist. Is Anita seriously espousing the notion that if you are from the pacifica population, and support National, you are not representative of your community?
Is she not aware of the implied racism of this thinking?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am
I don’t see much way around this for the National Party. Useless unsuccessful people become Labour MP’s….
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 8:23 am
And if Anita thinks being a freelance journalist working for a minority magazine show consigned to the graveyard ghetto is the path to a life of wealth and privilege… Well, I’ll have a thousands tabs of what what she’s having before its banned.
I’m sure Melissa Lee would be pissing her pants laughing, if she didn’t have better things to do.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 8:30 am
The Left hate success. Success in others, especially when it is a minority that succeeds, shows up their own inadequacies.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 8:32 am
We should elect “typical” slect ethnic people now? WTF????
How about we go out and select people who are closest to being statistically “average”.
How DARE people seek to better themselves!
What is this magical search engine that DPF has that automatically seeks out the stupidest configeration of words each day?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I very much like how you cut off the critical part of the post, David
She’s criticising the Party, not either of the new MPs.
When National starts recognising that New Zealanders that aren’t relatively wealthy can effectively represent us, then we can talk about whether it’s unfair to discount, to some degree, the experiences of more successful members of ethnic minorities. But that really does have to wait until National starts recruiting outside the wealthy elite.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am
“But more of a concern, is how many on the left might share this viewpoint ”
Vote:I notice you put “might”
nice generalisation!
January 6th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Anita needs to “get a life”.
Isnt it sad when the great benefits of role models is not only not acknowledged but is
disregarded, and even criticised.
The vast majority of us will never be as great as our role models but at least we have
Vote:something to aim for.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I’m not quite sure what Anita is actually getting at here with her smug, superior tone.
Is she saying that people who come from ethnic minorities and become “successful” by some measure or another and wish to enter politics must represent a party other than National in order to be categorised as representative of social diversity?
or is she saying:
Only people of ethnic minorities who become financially successful can join National because they would otherwise be unnacceptable to the party? – Other forms of success (eg in sports or civil service) will not be recognised, celebrated or accepted by the Nats?
or is she implying that:
Melissa Lee is a member of the “wealthy elite”? – I’m sure Melissa would be pleased to hear that even though Helen Clark or Michael Cullen would probably be able to buy and sell her total assets many times over if they cashed in their multiple extensive international property portfolios or secret trust assets.
Perhaps Anita is telling us that she simply cannot get her head around the fact that the National Party represents anyone who chooses to join, welcomes those with diverse ideas and beliefs and is founded on the principles of good governance and electoral honesty. Dressing the post up with faint praise for the two individuals does nothing to disguise the contempt she holds for a political party that she doesn’t support. I would posit that it is possible to hold opposing views and still having some respect for your opponent – that does not appear to be the case here in which case the validity of her views is seriously degraded IMVHO.
For my part she is welcome to her shallow bias and certainly has not shown thus far to offer any intellectual challenge to the status quo.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:18 am
In the comments that follow, Anita comments on “financial success”. I have countered that Sam Lotu-Iiga has actually achieved EDUCATIONAL success, and that anything he has achieved follows from that. As such, he should be a role model to ALL our young people, regardless of gender or hue.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Ah! The Politics of Envy. When will we ever learn to celebrate success and move on. We don’t need negative attitudes to win the current battles in the economy and our infrastructure
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I just read the company she keeps. Pablo “involved in anti-authoritarian politics beginning in his early teens” ( Read does not matter what authority,just authority) , “combined a career in academia with episodic forays into the US security and defence apparatus (Read a cause a cause, my kingdom..and I can make it sound intellectual, but deep down I am just a sad arse.)”,”his policy interests are in comparative labour politics, regime dynamics, strategic thought, intelligence analysis, threat (net) assessment and unconventional warfare.” (Read suicide bombings, IEDs, flying planes into buildings and using woman and children as human shields, churches and mosques as armories)
Does any-one here thinks some-one is pissed off that he was not living in Germany in the late sixties or Italy in the seventies? Sitting around a table drinking cheap wine planning the next bank robbery to “fund the struggle” Bader-Meinhoff, Black September etc,etc,etc.
No wonder she is such a sniveling racist.
[DPF: Heh you are somewhat wrong on Pablo, whose opinions I have a lot of time for. I would also appreciate less inflammatory language on Anita. While I think her post was woeful, attack the post, not her please]
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Good background research/enlightening DPF! Anita went too far in her analysis here. I find this type of critique pointless and counterproductive.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Who would want to “represent “mainstream New Zealand” ‘ currently? Mainstream New Zealand voted in National. The damage has already begun.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Ari: Cash the reality check, darling — I don’t think Labour would be selecting any candidates who couldn’t afford (at the very least) to take six weeks off to campaign full-time. Regardless of ethnicity, that’s just not possible if you’re quite literally living fron one pay day to the next. One might be snarky as say it’s much easier for Labour — the party of “unrepresentative” union officials, civil servants and academics who have no problem getting leave to pursue their political aspiractions and will have jobs to go back to, but that’s not particularly constructive or thoughtful either.
But let’s remember until recently, Labour was lead by a wealthy farmer’s daughter and an old boy of the most expensive private school in New Zealand. How “representative” is that of the experience of most New Zealanders. Not very, if any.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Still, don’t be too hard on Anita folks. It’s always fun listening to the mouthpieces of middle-class white privilege scolding the cheeky darkies and uppity yellow peril for not knowing their place.
And I’m sure the Samoan and Korean communities will love to know that valuing education and professional success isn’t a “representative” value for them.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Spot on Craig. What the dreadful Anita wrote is the embodiment of the “noble savage” school of thought.
The notion that dark-skinned and coloured people can succeed annoys her as much as her ilk of Chardonnay-sipping “writers” denies it. Leave her alone: Anita is raving mad.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Lefties seem to block out the fact that it is financially successful people that create jobs and tax revenue, without which not a lot happens. Why do they have to knock such success at near every opportunity?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am
National’s political candidates are wealthy even by the standards of politicians, Craig. Pull the other one.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Ari says:
“I very much like how you cut off the critical part of the post, David.”
Well sorry old thing, but I don’t. This is outrageous. Some might suggest this was just good editing and that the succeeding comments add nothing in terms of substance, but Farrar knows very well that we all need a point to be repeated before we get the message. I just hope that all these cynical righties don’t interpret your additional, CRITICAL and ELLUCIDATING quote as being Anita’s lame and self-serving attempt to justify a blatantly rascist comment.
“But that really does have to wait until National starts recruiting outside the wealthy elite.”
Yes, jolly good point. But herein lies the problem: BY DEFINITION, anyone selected by National IS a member of that secret society of the wealthy elite. So how do we make National more inclusive? Oh dear, this is very hard. Should National change it’s name? “Not the Labour Party”? Should National have its MP candidates subject to some sort of legislated formula? For example, be compelled to select at least one of each from: an illegal migrant, a homeless person, a woman denied a full course of herceptin (whoops, probably no longer a relevant selection criteria), a leaky home-owner, a convicted armed robber that is a drug addict and doesn’t work, a fitter and turner, someone with a bit of a limp and terminal BO? Let’s see; that adds 7 to the mix, excluding the herceptin lady. Is that enough or should we have two of each? But then we come back to same problem in that those candidates are immediately and by definition, members of the hated wealthy elite. Help me through this Ari.
I suppose the only positive aspect is that all those National candidates that would never have dreamed that they were members of the wealthly elite prior to the election have effectively just won the Powerball. I guess they are all out there spending up large, which must in turn mean that the more National MPs we have, the better the economy. Maybe we should all be National MPs.
I2
I think the point that is being made by Anita and that is implicitly supported by her acolyte Ari is that when you land on “educational success” you must immediately go to “social and economic failure” (without passing “GO”) in order to be adequately represent “mainstream New Zealand”.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I’m buggered if I can think of anything more terrifying than having a group of people ‘representing” the not-so-great unwashed running the country.
At least National has targeted largely successful people with experience to man it’s team while attempting to show a legitimate racial mix.
The other lot did it the other way around.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
The socialists despise success – how can they entrench someone in the welfare state if they are making it on their own. Personal success is only selfish greed.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
David you supprise me! Dont you know that ALL Pacific people are stupid (According to the Left) and cannot do anything to educate themselves (According to the Left) and need handouts (Benefits) always (according to the Left).
Me Im with the right and I believe that all of our polenesian brothers and sisters are just as smart as us, that want the same things that we do, (a good life for us and ours) and…………… are WILLING AND ABLE TO WORK for it!
But then according to the left “I dont understand the ‘special needs” of our polenesian cousins!”
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 11:11 am
fishe says:
“Anita went too far in her analysis here.”
Er … sorry Fishey old thing, but just which part of this weary old dogma passes muster as “analysis”?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
DPF I realize that I am allowed here by your good grace, and that i am bound by your rules, however a bit of consistancy. i call Anita a racist which is what she is effectively, and i am warned, yet you call some-one a bigot for writing admittedly stupid but hardly as an insulting statement about John Key. I am happy to apologize if you can explain the difference.
[Consistency is the disease of those without imagination
. I think the letter writer's comments were clearly bigoted and designed to generate hostility on the basis of Key's bloodline. I don't see anything racist about what Anita wrote - just a depressingly bad outlook at to who qualifies for social inclusion]
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Unpack the racism for me please. I’d love to see it.
Regardless of whether you think the wider quote is worthwhile, it adds important context to the earlier comments, which are in fact simply a preface to the latter, omitted part of the post.
If anyone is defining National that way, it’s National themselves. I’d be quite happy for them to accept other metrics of success than wealth, in fact I would consider it a great victory and a jump over one of the big hurdles that divides our nation politically- the fact that the right tends to define success as mainly economic, while the labour and some elements of the left tend to define it as mainly social. Pushing for both at once wouldn’t be bad.
I’ll drop the criticism of National as soon as they change their ways. I just don’t see it to be likely. It’s great they’ve realised that Pacific and Asian New Zealanders can be economically successful, but this isn’t the same thing as broad inclusiveness, which means weighing lots of different value metrics and picking multiple ones aligned with your principles.
You know, even exaggeration can be taken too far
No, I don’t have the mistaken impression that every National MP is winning powerball, but by my own metrics, I’m pretty rich- mainly because I have low expenses. The National Party is full of the economically successful- who, for a variety of reasons, do not have to worry about putting food on the table. Personally speaking this is great for them, and they do lend an important perspective that can be useful in policy development and government in general- but there is no inclusion of the academically successful, the socially successful, the organisationally successful. Diversity and inclusion is about more than demographics. 
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Any argument that is based on a trade certed, disabled, employed person who rents but has no medical insurance being the very definition of mainstream NZ is flawed from the get go.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
@thedavincimode…come on, in the more general sense of the term
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Ari.
Your prejudicial opinion of those in the National Party do you no justice and is demonstrably false. For example, Labour MP Marian Hobbs, prior to entering parliament, was a secondary school principal. So was Allan Peachey, a National MP.
Prior to Parliament, Labour MP Charles Chauvell was a successful lawyer, as was National MP Simon Power. Within Nationals ranks are solo parents, doctors, soldiers, teachers, and but for 700 votes in rimutaka, publicans! Nationals ranks are full of those who have made their careers in fields outside politics prior to entering it, be that in education, health, business, law, agriculture, international relations, engineering, dairy farming, exporting, the arts, television, the environment, shearing, forestry, police, retail, real estate and sport.
But hey, some on the left say that this is not representative, and who am I to argue?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
So DPF (And I am not really wanting to get into a dogmatic argument here, however just need this clarified)
Person one says that a person will be influenced by their religious ancestry (one they might or might not practice.) in their decision making. You say that it is bigoted. Okay i’ll buy that. It was also a reflection of his dislike for both Key and Jews, but that is by the by.)
The second person says that although of ethnic decent, the two candidates no longer represent their ethnicity because of their success. Or that their success removes them from the role of representing their ethnic groups (slightly different emphasis) This assumes that all people of those ethnic groups are unable to be successful, or at best that they pursue other life experiences rather than achieving (neither candidate is particularly rich, simply excellently educated.) How in gods name can it not be racist to say that as soon as some-one becomes successful, they no longer represent an ethnicity? You are not just implying that because some-one is a certain race they cannot be successful, you are saying if any of them dare to strive for something better, that hey lose their ethnic connection. WTF? (I know you not saying that , Anita was) Mate dont dress a lamb up as cow and try and sell it for milk. It was a statement demeaning people of different race. As a test I showed it to three friends here in Sydney. 1 Maori, a Tongan and a Greek. All took offence on racial grounds. Sorry. Your explination does not wash.
I realize that you have to take a moderate approach, but don’t ping others who have listened to ‘goodspeak” for the last 9 years and with the majority of the country said JK and national, we trust you to get NZ back to where we don’t call corruption “misguidedly trying to help his constituents” , Theft ” a mistake made by a junior office person” and racism an unbridled hatred “a depressingly bad outlook” My god man. That is like saying traveling to Melbourne to dig dirt is just having something fall in your lap.
[DPF: Wel argued. Maybe I just don't like the racist tag as it is so often used. It is also how it is used and the tone. You just labelled her a snivelling racist. That is different to your later arguments where you lay out the foundations for your assertion. If you had said "Her assumptions of lack of sucess for certain races suggests subconscious racism on her part" then that would be treated different to just saying she is a snivelling racist. One can lead to further useful debate, while the other is unlikely to
And the reason I called the letter write a bigot isn't just that he raised Key's bloodline, but that with no proof at all he assumed it was influencing the govt's response, and it is all part of that old Jews are controlling everything meme]
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Ari
What a crock:
“If anyone is defining National that way, it’s National themselves. I’d be quite happy for them to accept other metrics of success than wealth, in fact I would consider it a great victory and a jump over one of the big hurdles that divides our nation politically- the fact that the right tends to define success as mainly economic, while the labour and some elements of the left tend to define it as mainly social. Pushing for both at once wouldn’t be bad.”
Worldwide the socialist or left leaning peoples have less real social conscience than the right. Have a look at what labour has achieved in the last 9 years socially. Their record speaks for itself. left-leaning politics is in fact authoritarianism at it’s worst. It is destructive, it is envious, and it believes that the state knows best, yet show me a left leaning government where the leader is not filthy rich. And bar the US the left leaning leaders invariably comes from academia, unions or the civil service. So how do they all end up so rich?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Ari says:
“Unpack the racism for me please. I’d love to see it”
Okey dokey, here it is. Asians and Samoans are, by deduction, failures by any measure of success that might be applied to Lotu-liga and Lee.
As for the rest …
“I’ll drop the criticism of National as soon as they change their ways.”
Great. I’ll just dash off a note to John Key now and let him know. He’ll be thrilled.
Ari, its jolly good that you reflect upon the multitude of available value metrics and then identify those that are most closely aligned with your principles. Goodness me, it sounds very complicated and you must be very clever. But your selected values metrics set appears to have excluded the avoidance of the metrics value “the avoidance of sweeping generalisations”; a subset of the metrics value set “intellectual honesty”, that is in turn a subset of the metrics value “honesty”. Instead you seem to have zeroed in on the metrics value “misinformation”; a subset of the metrics value “disingenuous bullshit”, that intersects with the sets “winning arguments by ignoring reality” and “advancing a political perspective based on pseudo-intellectual dogma”.
Oh yes, of course; you want some examples.
the missing quote:
“National has not started representing mainstream New Zealand – with our working class jobs, our trades qualifications, our disabilities, our rented cold damp homes and our struggle to access health services and education.”
That’s opinion and a load of bollocks to boot; not context.
“All that has happened is that National – traditionally the party of the wealthy, of business connections, of the 5% – has finally realised that, despite the policies of the right, a handful of Pacific and Asian immigrants have clawed their way into that privileged few.”
That’s not context. Its drivel. “Despite the policies of the right … clawed their way … privileged few.” Which “right”? Which “few”? For heaven’s sake, do you actually believe that crap?
“I’d be quite happy for them to accept other metrics of success than wealth”.
You mean like health, education, and everything else they were banging on about during the election and prior?
“the fact that the right tends to define success as mainly economic, while the labour and some elements of the left tend to define it as mainly social. Pushing for both at once wouldn’t be bad.”
Heads up! No economic success in a national (NZ) context equals no taxes equals no money to implement social policy. Tax the rich instead – no, that didn’t work because most of them and a good chunk of people that wouldn’t describe themselves as rich just left the country in response. This is dreamboat stuff. This country is in the crap. Have you heard? Its been in all the papers. As for pushing for both, see comment in previous paragraph.
“It’s great they’ve realised that Pacific and Asian New Zealanders can be economically successful”
Where does that come from? How does the selection of those ethnic minority candidates constitute any such “realisation”. Is it not just possible the only thing National “realised” was two candidates it judged to be competent, and who provided ethnic diversity and positive role models in their ethnic communities? Is there something wrong with that? Should they have selected killers of a liquor store proprietor? P addicts? The comment smacks of nothing more sour grapes at the changing of the guard.
“The National Party is full of the economically successful- who, for a variety of reasons, do not have to worry about putting food on the table.”
Well, just how “full”? This seems drawn from the value metrics set “misinformation”. You imply it is dominated by a bunch of fat cats, when that is simply not the case. They don’t have to worry about putting food on the table?? Why, does it just turn up? Do they just sit at home waiting for it? Have they not ever had to educate themselves, get a job, HOLD a job, pay a mortgage, feed their kids, subsidise our so-called free schooling? Has National got some kind of mega meals on wheels deal going for its supporters? Or do you mean that National isn’t dominated by people that sleep under the Fanshawe Street bridge in Auckland? I certainly hope not, but then perhaps you feel that that particular demographic should be represented in government to provide valuable input on the social policy front.
“but there is no inclusion of the academically successful”
Well, the temptation is to respond “good”, but was there any particular field of endeavour that you had in mind? Perhaps another Cullen, Wilson or 2 jobs Maharey? In absolute terms, what value will a person selected purely on the basis of being a career academic with no other work or life experience add to the mix? I’ll take Sam, Melissa, Hekia, thanks very much. Or were they selected ONLY on the basis of ethnicity.
“no inclusion of … the socially successful …”
WHAT???
“Diversity and inclusion is about more than demographics”
Double WHAT??? Do you actually think that running a government is no different from getting all hugga mugga on the bowling club committee? The very fact that we have a number of parties in parliament evidences the existence of divergent views and vested interests. This is called R..E..A..L..I..T..Y.
The fact of the matter Ari, is that we all intuitively evaluate our own little “value metrics sets”, although most of us just refer to them as “values” because we’ve never heard of values metrics. When we don’t like the values demonstrated by our governments (eg dealing with Peters, legitimising the theft of public money, banning free speech and so on and on and on) we eventually vote them out. That’s how we are all ultimately included.
Ari, you need to check into the real world and spend a little less time postulating and hypothising the ultimate values metrics set that suits your personal political outlook. Stop re-inventing NZ in your own image and accept that not everyone wants what you want. Don’t assume that your measure of wealth equates to everyone elses. If you actually want to be taken seriously, then at least be honest and throw away that tired old mantra and rhetoric, the sweeping generalisation and the deliberate misinformation.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
and speaking of rich national mps..
..didyasee where john key goes to fret about the underclass..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/wot-john-key-is-doing-for-his-holsnohe-isnt-banged-up-in-a-caravantentsitting-out-any-bad-weather/
phil(whoar.co,nz)..a.k.a..’the lone voice at the back of the blogosphere’..
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I love the thought that Key’s wealth pisses off losers like Phool.
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
philu
Back from holiday? Good to recharge the batteries for the year ahead?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
large sibling..
..it is more hypocrisy/cant that ‘pisses’ me off..
..and..
..over the years..i have seen a variety of ‘rich’ people at fairly close quarters..
..like the poor..and all inbetween..
..they range from cool to arseholes..
..and wealth is no guarantee of much else..
..and some of the most miserable/neurotic people i have met..
..have come from/been owned by..money’..
..being born into it often seems a curse of sorts..
..still locked into materialism there..?
..eh large sibling..?
..that was then..
..this is now..
..eh..?
..(listen..!..those fading footfalls are the sounds of yesterdays’ men..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)//a.k.a..’the lone voice at the back of the blogosphere’..
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“..philu
Back from holiday? Good to recharge the batteries for the year ahead?..”
whoar never closes/holidays..
twenty-eight stories/links today..
http://whoar.co.nz/
..phil(whoar.co.nz)..a.k.a..’the lone voice at the back of the blogosphere’..
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
DPF:
“……I guess Anita saw Taito Philip Field as a better sign of social inclusion…..”
Aw, DPF, have you forgotten that OUTSTANDING exemplar, Alamein Kopu?
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Brian Smaller (616) Vote: 9 0 Says:
January 6th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“The Left hate success. Success in others, especially when it is a minority that succeeds, shows up their own inadequacies.”
Hear, hear; and another point that the hate-America-First Left is in denial about, is that African-Americans are FAR MORE SUCCESSFUL than any other significant coloured minority group in the world. The North African minority in France? The West Indian or Pakistani minorities in England? Coloured minorities in ANY soft Eurosocialist nanny State? BAH. NOWHERE. Next to NO Uni graduates, next to NO successful businessmen or professionals.
OK, there is a serious problem with an African-American underbelly; it is just that in those Eurosocialist nanny states, the underbelly is about IT for the coloured minority; wheras in the USA, the numbers of African-American Uni graduates, Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, Businessmen, Mayors, etc, etc, etc; is a heart-warming success story that gets not an ounce of the credit it deserves from the hate-America first crowd. Of course, it is AMERICA that has atoned for its racist past by electing its first ever African-American President, and hey, it was ONLY America that was EXPECTED to do that. Meanwhile, the chances of a coloured face at the helm of any soft Eurosocialist country………? BAH.
You think it out for yourself where NZ’s record fits……
Vote:January 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I wonder if this is the same Samoan Sam who used to get under John Banks skin on radio talk back.
He used to have some sound dialogue but Banksey thought he was an utter nutter. Used to tolerate Sams entire dialogues though.
Vote:January 7th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Anita just gives the truth to the epathet ‘Chardonnay Socialist’. All for the poor and downtrodden but the have to remain poor and downtrodden and ever grateful from the crumbs of largesse dished out to them by caring white liberals as they sit around the poolside sipping wine and make occasional forays to Rugby League matches just to convince themselves they are true working class.
Anita, your patronising crap makes me puke but then so does your politics.
Vote:January 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Really? I must admit I’ve got better things to do with my time that do my own Rich List of every incumbent MP and candidate — and I suspect most would tell be to frak off and MYOB if I tried. But I suspect Miss Clark and her husband (who happen to be a senior academic with a personal chair at Auckland University) are a damn sight better off than my partner and I, I just don’t have a chip on my shoulder about it. Oh, and I understand the current President of the Labour Party is a multi-millionaire due to the very successful marketing company he used to own unlike his equivalent in Team Tory. So what?
My point, which you unsurprisingly failed to rebut, is that you’ve got to be fairly well off to stand for Parliament full stop — Alamein Koopu was very much the exception that proves the rule because seeking selection and campaigning is enormously time consuming and costly. You may think that’s a terrible thing. Or just a fact of life, regrettable or not. But it is reality, and no about of huffing and puffing is going to change that.
Vote:January 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
This sort of stuff is sadly typical of the political Left- minorities are supported only when they vote the way they are supposed to. Minority MPs who dare to support the Right are branded ‘unrepresentative’, ‘self-hating…’, ‘token’, etc. Often they are openly insulted with the very terms that the Left are supposed to be against, as if the normal rules of racism/sexism magically don’t apply if you’re conservative. We’ve seen this particularly in US politics; conservatives like Powell or Rice were never given the racial espect shown to Obama, for example.
Vote:January 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
If Anita was right for the sake of argument, then people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin should never have been elected and began democracy and formed the only democratic country in the world at that time, the United States. Unfortunately those that do not want to work hard to achieve and want to stay in the clouds of ignorance will believe Anita’s rubbish. I am finding more and more in New Zealand that “arrogance is bliss” instead of “ignorance is bliss.”
Vote:January 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
There are two ways the word represent can be used of MPs, represent as in “represent in Parliament” and represent as in “be a representative example of the population.” The former is their job and one wants them to be pretty talented in order to do it. The latter may provide insight/contacts/experience which are useful for the job.
Most MPs have probably been on rather more than the NZ median income before first being elected and have probably also had a certain amount of status in whatever field they were in. I don’t think a school teacher, for example, by virtue of income alone, has that much more of a clue what it is like day to day for a beneficiary than a successful lawyer would. It is not just a matter of whether one earns four times the income or ten times. John Key gave a definition of wealth as being able to financially help out a family member after having taken care of one’s own needs; and teacher and lawyer are both in another league entirely.
A lot of people who are financially successful were not so for significant parts of their lives. By the time someone has been an MP for a couple of years they are on another planet financially speaking compared to most New Zealanders, so whatever insights and empathy they have with those on the bones of their backside will be an act of memory or due to conatacts they have.
Vote: