Life under Labour’s Lianne
April 28th, 2009 at 10:01 am by David FarrarLook at what fun we have to look forward to if Labour gets back into office. This is what Lianne Dalziel wants:
- Increased tax on alcohol
- Ban supermarkets and grocery stores from selling alcohol
- Increase purchase age to 20 for off licenses
- Most bars and nightclubs to be forced to close at 1 am
- Bottle stores to close at 8 pm
Lianne forgot the one about needing your parent’s permission to be out after 9 pm if you are aged under 30.
Related posts:
- Wine sales in supermarkets
- Labour pledges wine to cost at least $16 a bottle
- The Alcohol Reform Bill
- Coro Street shocks Lianne
April 28th, 2009 at 10:08 am
anyone would think she’s a teetotaller. Maybe she’s seen the damage alcohol has done to her colleagues, like Ruth Dyson and Alec Roy.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am
When oh when are these dimbulbs gonna figure that punishing the good people for the sins of the bad people is no longer acceptable.
that Socialist disaster Geoffrey Palmer and his law Commission were banging on the same one dimensional mis guided crapola.
Its about education education education if that dont work then its about punishment punishment punishment.
Even the neanderthals who are the cause of the drinking problems will eventually make the connection if they punished long and severely enough for their brains to make the connection.
But DONT even think about punishing the innocent Lianne thats the lazy arsehole way to deal with the problem.
Its also just more window dressing a concept that you and the other lazy Socialists and Communists are experts at doing.
Pretending to fix the problem whilst doing nothing effective.
get off you butt and start getting creative for once in your sad sorry life
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
What an idiot.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Why should we punish the majority for the actions of the few?
Vote:Surely, given that some of the most educated are the greatest offenders, the simple answer is to bring the laws against being drunk in a public place and arrest the buggers for being a public nuisance and in particular for carrying on in a way which threatens the freedoms of the majority.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Lianne’s electorate is in a sad state. She must wear Liarbour blinkers.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’m all for binge drinking and stuff but truth be told if these policies were implemented we’d probably see a reduction in crime. Good thing I’m not a victim and live in a relatively rich area so don’t have to give a shit about changing the law.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:22 am
The off license increase to 20 makes sense, I’d ban the sale of single bottles of bear off license, 6 pack minimum.
Last thought, I agree with Owen McS regarding drunk in public, maybe a 300mg limit
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Is she Amish?
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am
DPF:
“….Lianne forgot the one about needing your parent’s permission to be out after 9 pm if you are aged under 30…..”
PARENTS permission, DPF…….?
You’ve got to be joking. After 9 years of Labour Nanny State, you should be a bit clearer about where these people think all the control over young lives has got to come from; and it sure ain’t from the parents / family.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Tried to give you double good Karma gd, but DPF is too smart!!
Why punish those of us responsible enough to ‘know when’.
I trust the LCD (lowest common denominator) way will go the same way PC
is heading – Down the gurgler.
When will these ‘do-good’ no-good folk recognise their total ineffectiveness.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Let’s look at the benefits of this “bill”:
Increased tax take means more “government intiatives” and less pesky coin jars by the phone.
Supermarket/grocery ban means you avoid impulse buys and a repeat of that unfortunate dinner party incident when you served Cab Sav with the shrimp cocktails.
Increase in age for off licences mean that the sales assistant will never again have to open the front door to her dad at 3am and explain how he was sure she was 18.
Bars and nightclubs forced to close at 1am means patrons get to hit the sheets sooner, eliminating alcohol induced poor performance and encouraging a happier female population. Still plenty of time to make the neighbour’s party before 1:30am – strengthens the community and supports NZ music.
Bottle stores to close at 8pm means people will stock up for the after 1am party, teaching important planning techniques and life skills.
Seems all good to me. Since Labour want to do this, National will take it on board by Christmas. Utopia here we come!
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:46 am
“Is she Amish?” No.
She’s another busybody, control-freak, Labour-knows-best, overbearing socialist with an overwhelming desire to tell me how to run my life.
F..k off is the only appropriate answer to Dalziel.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Alqways the fucken same. Collectivism is such a damn curse, and there are so many afflicted with the disease. Dalzeil is just the tip of the iceberg.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Relax, Dalziel is just taking the piss.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Oh go easy on Lianne guys she has an extreme case of “Liarbore disease” otherwise known as the disease of irrelevance. She is begging for recognition, don’t give her the joy, the fools deserve extinction.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 11:20 am
When even the Sallies recommend that your bill should be dropped, you know it is in deep trouble.
The Salvation Army is calling on the Government to abandon the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill.
Vote:…
“The Bill is merely tinkering with the problems associated with what is a highly dangerous and addictive drug which contributes directly to family violence, road fatalities and increasing youth offending,” Salvation Army social policy spokesman Major Campbell Roberts says.
…
Another flaw is that the Bill’s focus on youth drinking appears to be something of a distraction and a case of moral panic in that it ignores the problem drinking of older New Zealanders.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I predict these changes would lead to a massive increase in students and other financially-less-able persons taking up homebrewing of beer and spirits. I heard homebrew beer starts at about $1 per litre, and homebrew vodka costs less than $5 per bottle to make.
Note to self: Invest in a homebrew shop!
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I’d like to know if Meg Bates, age 23, endorses this policy of forcing bars and clubs to close at 1am. The voters of Mt Albert have a right to know.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Has Dalzell forgotten what happened on 8/11/2008?
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Ridiculous!
Let the market sort out society’s problems.
If people are getting assaulted or killed by drunken f*ckwits, that is the market sending them a message…
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
# Most bars and nightclubs to be forced to close at 1 am
She can fuck right off with that one.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
FFS Ratbiter Liannes proposals ahve been tried and failed. Until we get individuals to take responsibility for their actions and take the punishment consequent upon their actions nothing will change.
She like you is a one dimensional brain challenged pygmie who believes its all ‘societies” problem
Well its aint sunshine Its the fault of the PC anal retentives who refuse to insist on every citizens responsibility to conduct themselves within the bounds abd rules set by the majority
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
gd – so, are you proposing that outgoing governments be locked up or shot by the election winners? How exactly do you propose to attract candidates to future parliaments??
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Remember – she voted to lower the drinking age, a pity she didn’t do something when she was in power!
Easy to talk tough when you will never have to carry it out.
Perhaps she was so busy shafting Peter Ellis that she never had time to realise what her “sisterhood” were up to.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“How exactly do you propose to attract candidates to future parliaments??”
Well, going by the calibre we’ve had to put up with over the last twenty years, whatever “we’ve” been doing, its been attracting the completely wrong people. Perhaps it would be better to shoot them after they were elected, but before they take their seats in the house.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Obviously the proposals put forward by Lianne Dalziel are not very popular with my fellow bloggers. However I would say this. At the moment we have a binge drinking culture. Our teenagers are out of control and regularly getting drunk. We have problems with intoxicated young woman being raped and molested. We have huge problems with family violence driven by alcohol. We have big problems with drink driving and the carnage that is still causing on our roads.
So what is the answer? People say — education! But some of our most well-educated people — for example university students — are our worst offenders with regard to binge drinking. So we can expect to see more of this kind of thinking coming from Parliament. If we do not have control from within, if we do not have self-control, then it will be imposed from without. We cannot continue as we are.
I would like to see the drinking age go back to 20. I appreciate there are problems of consistency — but I am unconvinced that 18-year-olds are showing sufficient maturity with regard to drinking. I would like to see a reduction in alcohol outlets because that will lower the alcohol consumption in New Zealand. I also think that our nightclubs could close way earlier. At the moment the police have huge problems with drunken behaviour at five o’clock in the morning.
Either we show maturity and responsibility ourselves or it will be imposed on us. If people want freedom then they need to show moral restraint and virtue. Otherwise we have anarchy. And that’s where the call will come up from the electorate for a strong government to step in and impose order. I think the ball is back in our court to behave ourselves a lot better than what we are doing currently with regard to alcohol consumption.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hmmmmmmmm remind me, is this the same ‘Lianne’ who was fired as a Minister for telling porkies?
And now she lets the cat out of the bag by articulating what we can expect if ever Labour is returned.
Goff may want to fire her again, this time for telling the truth.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
When I started University way back in the mid 80s, I (and many others) were purchasing and drinking alcohol underage (18 or 19 years) at local bars. A number regularly aspired to get on the local ‘roll of honour’ by drinking to the point where throwing-up was inevitable. Binge drinking isn’t new.
OTOH, most of us were sensible, enjoyed the sociability and wind-down that a beer (or 2) afforded. And I preferred beer to pot anyway.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Hear, hear. Bring back the 6 o’clock swill.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Owen McShane in his 10.17 am post says:”Why should we punish the majority for the actions of the few?”….
Regardless of how liquor controls affect drinking, this argument can be challenged by analogy.
If research were to show only one incident of drunk driving in 100 incidences of drunk driving causes an accident, would we then abandon laws against drunk driving? Perhaps the majority of soaks enjoy driving while over the alcohol limit and are unlikely to have an accident?
Could you also use Owen’s argument in favour of legalising cocaine snuffing, or P, and (certainly) cannabis? Perhaps Owen’s argument could be used to say why should these be illegal when only a minority destroy their own lives and devastate the lives around them and increase incidents of burglary as they finance their addiction.
What of ownership of pistols? Most would not kill people or hold up businesses or strangers, so does this mean we should punish them by taking away the enjoyment they might get from owning a Smith and Wesson or a Glock?
Alcohol, which opponents describe as being the country’s worst problem drug, does come at considerable public cost in hospital admissions, alcoholism treatment, family break-ups, violence, etc. Therefore it is legitimate for politicians to discuss levels of control on alcohol sales to limit its damage while permitting the majority to enjoy their ancient social drug.
The best goal surely is to steer a moderate and responsible course between teetotal puritanism and the open slather in alcohol and drugs that fukwitted libertarians would allow.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Reinstate incentives into the issue.Bill people who turn up at A&E drunk.,Arrest those who are ACTUALLY causing problems,hold responsible those who do supply piss to underages and the intoxicated….etc etc…..thats how you change attitudes.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
And I thought she was one of the saner members of the Labour caucus.
However as I recall back in the mid 90′s her husband/partner got some publicity for being a stroppy bugger. I wonder if there is a degree of `self interest’ in her statement.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Wouldn’t bother me any of those suggestions since I’m in bed by 2300hrs and 77yo
James has the right idea … user pays!
Like Jack5 too ….
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I think the law does need to be changed, but not to the idiotic extent of this proposal. Most of the people I see causing trouble in town are in their 30′s and 40′s and still think they can handle drinking as much as they did when they were in their 20′s. i.e the people that haven’t grown up, and usually work in less skilled jobs. So raising the drinking age will do nothing to fix this.
I’d propose:
* leaving the on licence drinking age at 18, raising the off licence to 20
* Increasing the sales tax in off licences, but decreasing the sales tax in on licences by the same amount.
* Leaving the drink drive limits as is, but making 3rd offence or more have huge sentences of jail time, fines and loss of licence for a long period of 1 year increasing as number of offences get higher, and after the 5th or 6th, then permanent loss of licence, and random police checks of that person for 5 years, after the end of their jail term.
* Banning any sort of blanket closing time, it just creates a situation where a whole heap of drunk people end up in the same area with nothing to do, and getting cold and angry while they wait for their taxi’s, which leads to fights, and property damage.
* upping the fines for sale of alcohol to minors, and loss of licence if caught more than twice.
Everyone goes out and has a big night every now and then, its when it happens all the time that we need to stand up and say to our friends, hey maybe you need to go see someone about this. And we need to get rid of the stupid idea that if you have more than 8 drinks in a sitting your drinking to excess, its not the prohibition era any more, more than 8 drinks every now and then isn’t bad, it’s only bad if you do it every day, or every weekend.
Common Sense needs to be brought back into the New Zealand vocabulary
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Ban supermarkets and grocery stores from selling alcohol??!?!
NZ Foodstuffs would go bankrupt in 1 month! Goodbye PaknSave, New World, 4 square etc.
Only Aussie giant progressives with their Aussie billions from the parent company could hope to survive losing alcohol sales.
I assume Ms Dalziel would prefer all our supermarket retailers foreign owed and a monopoly?
Oh..I see.. then Labour can push the idea of state owned ‘Kiwi-supermarket’ to go with ‘Kiwi-bank’ and ‘Kiwi-rail’.
Vote:Shudder.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“etc etc…..thats how you change attitudes.”
Not up to the gummint to do anything about ‘attitudes’ Jimmy. It just needs to enforce the law.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Cant see a problem with what she proposes. It would stop the damage immediately and as for me I have no need to buy alcohol even close to the times shes proposing.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Inventory2 says:
“Has Dalzell forgotten what happened on 8/11/2008?”
No I2, she hasn’t. She is simply trying to address the 6 month celebratory drinking spree that followed.
Hic
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The Labour Party are running a pincer movement with dear old Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission booming in with all sorts of punitive laws on alcohol purchase and sale.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I’d ban the sale of single bottles of bear off license, 6 pack minimum.
That’s just retarded. Nobody gets drunk off a single bottle of beer, and they don’t sell for cheaper than buying a six pack. Single bottle sales are mostly boutique beers drunk by adults with good taste, and I’ll be damned if anyone penalises that!
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
# Scott (267) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 4 Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Obviously the proposals put forward by Lianne Dalziel are not very popular with my fellow bloggers. However I would say this. At the moment we have a binge drinking culture. Our teenagers are out of control and regularly getting drunk. We have problems with intoxicated young woman being raped and molested. We have huge problems with family violence driven by alcohol. We have big problems with drink driving and the carnage that is still causing on our roads.
So what is the answer? People say — education! But some of our most well-educated people — for example university students — are our worst offenders with regard to binge drinking. So we can expect to see more of this kind of thinking coming from Parliament. If we do not have control from within, if we do not have self-control, then it will be imposed from without. We cannot continue as we are.
I would like to see the drinking age go back to 20. I appreciate there are problems of consistency — but I am unconvinced that 18-year-olds are showing sufficient maturity with regard to drinking. I would like to see a reduction in alcohol outlets because that will lower the alcohol consumption in New Zealand. I also think that our nightclubs could close way earlier. At the moment the police have huge problems with drunken behaviour at five o’clock in the morning.
Either we show maturity and responsibility ourselves or it will be imposed on us. If people want freedom then they need to show moral restraint and virtue. Otherwise we have anarchy. And that’s where the call will come up from the electorate for a strong government to step in and impose order. I think the ball is back in our court to behave ourselves a lot better than what we are doing currently with regard to alcohol consumption.
Man, you know what else they ought to ban Scott – Church. You should read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a deluded belief in God is also a social harm.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Rebel Heart- what are you talking about? Thanking you for reposting my entire comment on his issue. However having had the opportunity to read it again I still cannot find any mention of ‘Church’ or ‘God’ in my post.
And in passing I will mention that I have read Richard Dawkins, though not his latest offering admittedly. However I find myself singularly lacking in motivation when it comes to reading another book by him,particularly on religion, a subject on which he has no qualifications whatsoever.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Translations:
“Most bars and nightclubs to be forced to close at 1 am” = “Legless inside: bad. Legless outside: good”
“Bottle stores to close at 8 pm” = “We couldn’t bring back the 6pm swill ’cause some people work a bit later”
“Ban supermarkets and grocery stores from selling alcohol” = “All of NZ should be like Waitakere City, where there are hardly any problems with drunks/drunk driving/etc”
The whole matter has less to do with social goods and more to do with capturing ex-NZ First voters and other moral conservatives, lest National show that 2008 wasn’t just a fluke.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:53 am
James – if you bill people for showing up in an emergency department drunk, what do you think will change? People will still get drunk. But if they need emergency medical care at the time, they won’t go and get it. Which will risk lives in the short term and potentially increase the health bill down the track.
What about drunk rape victims. Should we discourage women who have been drinking AND brutally assaulted from seeking medical care and forensic testing?
We, and politicians, have to think deeply and broadly about these sorts of issues, and consider the actual likely effects of our proposals. Complex problems are not solved with simplistic solutions.
Vote: