Labour on Dunne and Nazis

June 27th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A Labour MP drew parallels between the National Party and as controversial legislation allowing partial passed by a single vote.

The Opposition benches cried “Shame!” yesterday as National’s junior whip Louise Upston cast the decisive proxy vote of UnitedFuture MP , which saw the legislation pass by 61 votes to 60.

Mr Dunne was not at Parliament for the vote because he was attending the funeral of his son’s girlfriend’s mother.

In a statement, he said he had intended to speak in favour of the bill at its final reading, which was in the “best long-term interests of the country”.

Opposition MPs continued to insist Mr Dunne had misled voters over his views on the partial asset sales plan.

Labour’s state-owned enterprises spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said Mr Dunne’s vote was “a travesty of democracy” because he had said he was against the sale of water resources before last year’s election.

Labour are trying to rewrite history. Not a single voter in Ohariu thought a vote for Peter Dunne was a vote to stop asset sales. Dunne’s reference to water resources was about water supply companies, not about power companies that use water.

Check  this thread out from May, where you have quotes from leftie activists before the election about how they need to stop Dunne as he is a vote for asset sales, plus this explicit quote from Peter Dunne:

in the event National puts up its mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand we would be prepared to support that, provided the maximum was 49%, with a cap of 15% on any indivudual’s holdings

So Labour is clearly lying when they say Dunne misled voters. In fact that is exactly what they are doing, and are masters of.

Some believe the Government has no mandate for the sales because several polls have shown a majority of voters are against the policy.

Labour’s Wigram MP, , said yesterday: “Hitler had a pretty clear manifesto that he campaigned and won on … does this make what he did OK?”

Oh dear, where do we start with Dr Godwin.

Let’s even put aside the implicit comparison of partial asset sales (a policy scores of left wing governments around the world has also implemented) to the Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust. Frankly if Dr Woods want to make such stupid comparisons, I urge her to carry on doing so. They reflect far more on her and Labour, than anyone else.

But what really annoys me is her woeful knowledge of history. Only those with a superficial scraping of history repeat the line that Hitler was democratically elected, as if he won a majority of seats. He was and did not.

In July 1932 the Nazis got 37.3% of the vote and just 230 out of 608 seats. In November 1932 the Nazis got fewer votes at 33.1% and 196 seats only. They made up only three of the 12 Cabinet members. He then seized power through various ways.

Also the assertion that Hitler had a clear manifesto he implemented is also woefully ignorant of history. Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party campaigned as an anti-big business and anti-capitalist party, with a later focus on anti-semitism and anti-marxism. Their 25 point plan did say Jews can not be citizens, and would be foreign guests who could be expelled. But that is a long way from saying “Oh yeah, we will exterminate them also”. People may be interested in some of their other policies:

  • We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
  • We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
  • We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
  • We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

UPDATE: Dr Woods has apologised.

Tags: , , ,

76 Responses to “Labour on Dunne and Nazis”

  1. tvb (4,425 comments) says:

    If you keep your promises you are accused of being a nazi. This woman is plain stupid and she deserves to be reminded of this idiotic speech for the remainder of her career.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    Your resorting to arguing about the arguments. A sure sign that the battle is lost. In practical measures there is no real mandate for asset sales, partial or otherwise. The public are very very clear on this every time the correct questions are asked.

    All asset sale proponents can point to is the result of an election in which National received a lower quantum of vote compared to four years earlier and have ended up with a lower, razor thin one seat majority. That’s not a mandate. It’s a bad joke.

    [DPF: You are wrong. National received both more votes, and a higher percentage of the votes than in 2008]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Comparisons with Hitler are always helpful in any discussion.

    http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/RRM22/TheHitlerCard.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    “The public are very very clear on this every time the correct questions are asked.” – Yes – it’s easy to get the answer you want if you frame the question to get it – reminds me of a “Yes, Minister” episode.

    edit: Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Talking of nasty strategies ,this is from the front page of todays’ ODT. You’d wonder if they want “unrest”.
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/214733/unrest-predicted-petition-grows-and-asset-sale-moves-proceed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    DPF: We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

    What party in parliament expresses the same sentiments these days?

    Hmmm.

    But let’s not be too harsh on Megan Woods, these are the kinds of MPs we want to keep on parliament for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    kowtow – David Clark is continuing David Shearer’s strategy of trying to talk up unrest.

    Labour have run two majoe campaigns against asset sales, Both failed. SO they crank up another go at it. This is their third strike.

    I have to ask – David Clark: assets or a liability?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    m@tt ” A sure sign that the battle is lost.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7175222/Dunnes-vote-seals-asset-sales

    Lay off the drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tas (625 comments) says:

    This would be offensive if it weren’t so ridiculous. You have to have a very very perverse view on asset sales to compare them to the holocaust. The lost dividends is less than 1% of the budget; that doesn’t even cover the interest we pay on our government debt. Even if the govt were giving the assets away for free it would only be a minor loss in the grand scheme of things.

    I find the hysteria over asset sales nauseating. It’s a joke how upset these people are.

    She supposedly has a PhD in history too…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    m@tt –“Your resorting to arguing about the arguments. A sure sign that the battle is lost”

    If you think Wood’s comment was an argument then I don’t think DPF has a problem.

    The thread is about Wood’s stupid comment and her lack of knowledge of history , not about the pro’s and cons of partial asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    the loud violent left will try and stir this up as much as possible, while the rest of the country gets on with life.

    yesterday a few left groups were calling for the ‘arrest of the dictator key’ and are apparently happy to break any and all laws so they can get to him.

    you would have to wonder how their heads would cope when they were shown the MOM models that labour have introduced, the asset sales labour have made. because its clear they are only against this becuase its national doing it, and they dont want to lose any more votes to the greens whose supporters are rabid (in more ways than one) against anything private.

    hell one of my friends FB friends commented on FB that this was the action of a govt owned by soulless corporate drones. she did this with no sense of irony, on facebook, via her internet connection, from her computer, none of which is apparently supplied by a corporation. sign…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    That’s almost as silly as suggesting someone is a paedophile and comparing such a suggestion with the possible sale of Kiwibank. Let me think, who made that comparison?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Had an interesting debate with a left wing friend of mine – yes, I know, I should know better :)

    When confronted with “labour sold our assets, and got a shit price for some crown jewels” I was told, in no uncertain terms, it wasnt labour, it was Act. To say I was gobsmacked at this rewrite of history is the understatement of the decade.

    But, perfectly sums up their mindset. We might have done it, but it wasnt really us, and now that the evil key is doing it, we can say and do what we like to fight this evil.

    The debate is over, was over the day after the election. Yes, people might oppose it if they think ‘sale’ as opposed to partial ownership – but as noted yesterday, I think a lot of people really actually dont care that much at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mark Hubbard (7 comments) says:

    Cosgrove is not the only one emoting a lot of nonsense on this. Indeed, asset sales is one of those issues where both the patriotic Left (an oxymoron, or it should be) and nationalistic Right, show why you’d want neither of them running your life for you. You may be interested in my analysis here: http://tinyurl.com/7udhxyq I’d especially be interested if anyone can spot a flaw in the ‘dividend outflow’ example; which is not an outflow at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    The debate is over, was over the day after the election.

    Try telling that to Labour. They seem to think they have another term to kill, so they’re going to keep flogging a dead horse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > National received both more votes, and a higher percentage of the votes than in 2008

    You forget that voter turnout was abysmal, and only a third of eligible voters voted National. And I’m sure if you polled National voters, the majority or large minorty would say that they voted for various reasons, not because National promised to sell off assets. But hey, if can convince yourself of your own rhetoric, go ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nookin (3,345 comments) says:

    “That’s almost as silly as suggesting someone is a paedophile and comparing such a suggestion with the possible sale of Kiwibank. Let me think, who made that comparison?”

    Can you provide the link, Ross, because my recollection is that the comment was shown to illustrate how ludicrous the comparison was and it was also implicit that the paedophile comment was seen (and intended to be seen) to be equally ludicrous.

    [DPF: It was an example, not a comparison. The example was a deliberately extreme one that it is not okay to lie but say it is okay to lie so long as you a question mark at the end]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    And yet so many of those who say they are against asset sales would still rather vote for National knowing they are implementing the MOM, rather than vote Labour/Greens. A clear case of voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Labour: less popular than asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Good to see that a Labour MP (hell, any MP) can actually admit they made a mistake.

    “MP apologises over Hitler comparison”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815793

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > And yet so many of those who say they are against asset sales would still rather vote for National

    Which just proves the point I made above, that many issues other than asset sales influenced voters’ decisions on election day. But John Key (and DPF) have this little fantasy going on that the election was a referendum on asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    It’s good to see that Megan Woods has apologised for a “heat of the moment” comment. There were a lot of “heat of the moment” comments being made yesterday, hopefully most of the heat has dissipated.

    I’ve usually been critical of Zetetic at The Standard, as have others here, but he/she deserves a pat on the back for this post:

    Facepalm

    There ought to be a question asked of all prospective candidates: ‘when is it OK to compare a political opponent to Hitler’. The only acceptable answers: ‘when they start killing Jews’ or ‘when they invade Poland’. Anything else and they don’t get to be a candidate. Basic litmus test of political nous. All you do is taint your own side.

    I can’t comment there (Eddie used another excuse for a ban) so here will have to do.

    It would be good if some of the moderators at The Standard could apply some of the same facepalming about some of the comments on their own blog though. There was some nasty stuff yesterday directed at Peter Dunne, but that was just more extreme versions of a Labour strategy of criticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Positan (390 comments) says:

    I must be one of many who have, at some time in their lives, voted Labour. But today’s Labour is not the party of the past which, if it lacked the economic competence and understanding of some National members, at least attempted mostly to be honorable in its undertakings.

    As has been demonstrated so many times of late, today’s Labour is a party of political vermin who will say or do anything – who will corrupt the recall of any historic event – who will twist the intent of words spoken – and who will portray the substance of matters under discussion in any light, true or false, depending on the possible advantage to be obtained.

    That the country pays for them to behave as they do – for their perks and privileges – and for not the slightest, faintest or remotest possibility of benefit to the country is utterly appalling.

    Let these self-posturing blowhards so full of their own self-perceived importance be made well aware that I and many others will never, never vote Labour again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    [DPF: You are wrong. National received both more votes, and a higher percentage of the votes than in 2008]

    Depends how you interpret the numbers doesn’t it.

    The votes they got came from their support party on the right.

    Another way of looking at it is, the National lead administration sneaked home with a reduced majority. It (Nat + ACT) got less of a vote share and seats (48.58% and 63 seats in 2008 vs 48.38% and 60 seats in 2011).

    I really struggle with the narrative that 2011 was a good election and a comfortable win for National because it wasn’t. I really don’t see how they can win again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    It’s a sad commentary on historic understanding via the mass media of the last 50 years, that there is no equivalent accusation against the left that carries the same emotional weight. In other words, accusing some Labour member of acting just like Beria, Yagoda or Blokhin, let alone Stalin or Mao, would not carry any emotional juice at all.

    Obviously such accusations would be just as hysterical and over-the-top as the regular accusations of Nazism hurled at the right, but the gap in both time and philosophy does not seem to stop left-wingers from constantly making this knee jerk association.

    On the bright side it may be that it’s becoming more laughable and powerless now, witness the invention of Godwin’s law for the blogosphere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    It has been many years since I studied history at school, but I’m pretty sure that the Nazis received by far the most support out of all the German political parties in the 1932 federal election.

    Because the Nazis couldn’t form a coalotion government with any of the other parties a second election was held later that year – with a similar result. So a third election was held in 1933 and again there was a similar result.

    After three deadlocked elections, Hitler managed to get the Enabling Act passed which effectively set him up as a dictator.

    Please correct me if this is wrong. I’m a big hazy on the details after so many years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    Alan — ” I really struggle with the narrative that 2011 was a good election and a comfortable win for National because it wasn’t. ”

    I agree with you on this point. Steven Joyce said in the days following the election that there was only a few thousand votes in it. But that is MMP and it will be the same all the time no matter who wins in future elections.
    Those that saw it as a huge win for National are still thinking in FPP terms because all they were looking at was a comparison of Nat v Labour. As a straight comparison between the two it was huge for National but making the comparison is a waste of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “But John Key (and DPF) have this little fantasy going on that the election was a referendum on asset sales.”

    No, that’s a delusion you’re trying to maintain. It was Labour mostly trying to make the election a ‘referendum’ on asset sales, what with them standing by roadsides with imitation stop signs and stuff. I doubt you’ll find any reference to John Key saying the election was a ‘referendum’ on asset sales.

    What you will find is that the government has a mandate for asset sales due to the election results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    On the other hand, Key did say
    ““The Government has spelt out its position. It’s had a referendum – it’s called the general election.”

    But as you said above ross69, “many issues other than asset sales influenced voters’ decisions on election day” so it’s a referendum on overall preferences including (as I said above) that Labour is less popular than asset sales.

    It’s also a clear sign that Key will ignore the results of a CIR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    tom
    I’m not sure that many people became as emotionally engaged in the ‘cold’ wars against communisim as they were is the ‘hot’ war against nazism. For most, the nazis have become elevated to an almost unique standard of evil, although they should share that podium with many, many other dictators and mass murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Just like the Fenton debacle, the evidence by the stream of tweets showed she didn’t want to back down, then she… backed down.
    I think the girls let the side down on this one:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/06/credit-for-labour-gals.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    “Peter Dunne is a political cadaver over this issue as we speak. The walking, the crawling dead. The body bags will be out for that member as the man who gave this Government the power, the vote they need to sell out ordinary New Zealanders.”

    Now who would talk like that.

    Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove

    If anybody is a cadaver its Cosgrove. Tell us how many votes he won his seat by. Living dead indeed. List filth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    tas @926

    phd in history. These days phds are in my humble opinion as dumbed down as the rest of the education industry. They seem to be a dime a dozen and as far as I’m concerned carry litle weight until I know what they’re for..

    Let’s see what type of “historian” ze gut Heren Voods es……oh ja zis es verrrrry interestink….

    “In 2002 I completed a PhD thesis that looked at the Maori trade-training scheme of the 1950s and 1960s.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Tautaioleua (307 comments) says:

    Hitler was all about big government and imposing on the liberties of the private sector. How on earth do you confuse him as even “remotely” conservative?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > I doubt you’ll find any reference to John Key saying the election was a ‘referendum’ on asset sales.

    Oh please, you have a shocking memory, he’s said it several times. He said it again last night on Campbell Live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Let’s not let David Clark off the hook either for his criticism of Peter Dunne’s absence from the debate. Dr Clark’s profile on his website identifies him as a Presbyterian minister, and a marriage, civil union and funeral celebrant. Dunne was absent from the House yesterday at a family funeral, and for Dr Clark, given his role as a celebrant to snipe at him in that way was unbecoming, especially as Dunne had given notice of the reason for his absence from the House.

    Obviously Trevor Mallard and Clare Curran ran a session in social media for Labour’s small 2011 intake. The benefits of that session are already apparent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    When confronted with “labour sold our assets, and got a shit price for some crown jewels” I was told, in no uncertain terms, it wasnt labour, it was Act. To say I was gobsmacked at this rewrite of history is the understatement of the decade.

    I have had the same experience. When I pointed out all the “assets” that Labour sold with no reference to sales of said “assets” in any of their election campaigning, there was a moments pause and then comments like “John Key is selling us out” and “John Key should be sold overseas”. There is some sort of cognitive dissonance going on in the brains of Labour supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    from the same item that V2 quoted Cosgrove:

    Labour MP David Clark says Mr Dunne has a lot to answer for.

    “And I want to say that it’s more than just a Dunne deal, it’s a dunny deal. This is a deal which flushes a big chunk of New Zealand’s economic sovereignty down the toilet. This is a dunny deal for New Zealanders.”

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/804778270-Dunne-in-spotlight-over-crucial-swing-vote

    That’s from his speech in the debate in parliament yesterday.

    Who’s the one playing shitty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    John Campbell “..and you’re perfectly correct, you did go to the country a year before the election and say ‘this is what we’re going to do'”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Cant-stop-asset-shares-being-sold-overseas—John-Key/tabid/367/articleID/259174/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    When Key was asked on tv last night what was to stop shareholders selling their shares to foreigners, the PM looked most uncomfortable and kept evading the question. Why is Key so nervous about foreigners buying shares? Not for the first time, he’s being deceptive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Tautaioleua,

    Hitler wasn’t a conservative. He was left wing. He led the National Socialist German Workers Party. They were committed to a centralised, planned and state controlled economy, just like the communists. The difference was that Hitler was happy to have private ownership of assets so long as you followed the states programme, whereas the Soviet Union nationalised everything. The Nazis hated the communists not because they opposed their socialism, but because they were the competition when it came to votes. One of the main reasons that Hitler was more successful was because he was not committed to class warfare, unlike the communists, and so he wasn’t committed to physically wiping out the rich. Much like today’s socialists.

    Today’s left wing paints the Nazis as being on the right because of the nationalism and anti-semitism. However, anti-semitism is in fact a hallmark of much of today’s left wing, especially in Europe but even in NZ, and two of the more prominent nationalist parties, the Scottish National Party and Sinn Fein, are both left wing. Indeed, so is the other well known nationalist party, the British National Party.

    More on-topic, however, any politician who brings up the Nazis as a comparison is just being stupid. It really is one of those ‘no-go’ areas that all politicians should stay away from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    I would have thought that if Labour and others had any brains at all, they would be extremely bloody careful about claiming that the National lacks the mandate from the election to carry out its policies. What if as seems entirely possible in the 2014 elections National wins 49% of the vote but Labour on only 27% forms the (coalition) government. Given their rhetoric what possible mandate could they claim?

    Indeed what democratic legitimacy could such a small minority government claim against the massive majority? Have they seen what’s happening (and going to happen) to the neighbouring ALP which would have had almost double their support? And that also extends to the minor parties going against the clearly expressed will of the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    She should have done the decent, honest thing and put up billboards comparing the Prime Minister to Robert Mugabe instead – that’s how principled people would have approached it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Joseph,

    what it means is that Labour will need to get 50% of the vote to claim any legitimacy for its policies. If they implement any of the Greens policies under a coalition agreement then they will have to accept that they have no mandate whatsoever to do so, but are simply engaging in the politics of staying in power.

    This argument that they are running can only hurt Labour in the long run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. grumpy (261 comments) says:

    “Also the assertion that Hitler had a clear manifesto he implemented is alaso woefully ignorant of history. Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party campaigned as an anti-big business and anti-capitalist party, with a later focus on antisemitism and anti-marxism…..”

    Now, what party(s) do we know of that is(are) anti big business, anti capitalist and anti Israel?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    FES,

    Banging on about mandates has all the characterstics of becoming one of those “be careful what you wish for” scenarios.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Independent energy analyst Molly Melhuish attributes lower than usual electricity price rises over last two quarters to Mixed Ownership Model:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/State-owned-assets-bill-already-impacting-households—expert/tabid/423/articleID/259218/Default.aspx#ixzz1ywnvaqLq

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Independent energy analyst Molly Melhuish

    Which word in that phrase is the odd one out? Hint: It’s not one of the last four…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > what it means is that Labour will need to get 50% of the vote to claim any legitimacy for its policies

    Not at all. That would only be true if voters voted on the basis of one policy. That seems highly unlikely. As I’ve repeatedly said, few voters would’ve voted for National solely on the basis of their assets sales policy. And you’re ignoring the fact that it was John Key who said the election was a referendum on asset sales, when it was no such thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    @ ross69,

    so you are saying that they do have a mandate? Or are we then able to say that a Labour government would have no mandate to do anything because few voters would have voted for them solely on the basis of any one of the policies that they campaigned on?

    What you are really saying is that Labour had no mandate whatsoever to change s59 Crimes Act, no mandate to legalise soliciting for prostitution, and no mandate to abolish the Privy Council?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    For all that it’s pretty foolish of politicians to compare their opponents to Hitler, they can at least claim “heat of the moment” as the cause of their idiotic outburst. How different and how much worse is the foolishness of someone who sits calmly at his computer and declares in all seriousness:

    Hitler … was left wing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    Thanks Psycho, I’d forgotten about old Bob as the modern gargoyle of leftist thinking. What’s even better is the number of leftists in NZ who praised him to the skies in the 1980’s as an exemplar of the modern African socialist.

    However, covering all those Leninist ideas with the fig leaves of restorative justice, Post-Colonial and Post-Imperialist theory helped considerably – not just then, but to this day as well, when leftists can hand-wave away in any association between Bob and what they “really” believe.

    As a result he still does not carry the weight of calling someone a Nazi – despite his best efforts with those North Korean goons and the Zimbabwean Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Attacking poor old Molly Melhuish, ‘Hitler left wing’, praise for Mugabe, it’s all coming out today!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    I like simple concepts, so lets see if I can make this simple enough…

    Pre election: National: partial privatisation of some assets. Dunne: we / I support that, with these protocols in place. Labour: we oppose all asset sales (ignoring history and the fact that its not a ‘sale’

    Post election: National changes legislation to allow partial privitisation. Opposition fails to stop that. National uses votes based on outcome of election.

    Mandate. Simple really.

    As for when labour and the greens get back in power, their mandate – careful NZ – will be whatever policy the greens bring to the table. End of story. Delahunty with power. If that thought doesnt run a chill down your spine, youve not got a brain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    Something else John Campbell needs a lesson on Most (prudent) investors won’t buy shares in companies like Mighty River Power to “make a profit”. They should be buying for medium to long term earnings, the power companies are not growth orientated. Any capital gain when you eventually sell is a bonus.

    And John Key needs some help too, in explaining more ways of keeping shares in New Zealand Ownership. I’ve started with some ways:

    How John Key can keep assets NZ owned

    1. Make the inital share sales as easy to access as possible for New Zealand buyers.
    2. Ensure ACC, NZ Super and Kiwisaver funds can buy shares.
    (that will repesent ownership by many or all New Zealanders).
    3. Buy up to 10% of the shares himself.

    Any more suggestions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    mm: “Attacking poor old Molly Melhuish”. What a fevered imagination you have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    it’s all coming out today!

    The challenging of cosy, comfortable myths, mm. Rather like analysing Dreams From My Composite Narratives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Paulus (2,628 comments) says:

    Obviously Megan Wood is an excellent Labour MP – stupid too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    tom
    Next you’ll be banging on about Keith Locke and dear old Pol Pot or the Russians in Afghanistan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Chuck Bird (4,890 comments) says:

    “In 2002 I completed a PhD thesis that looked at the Maori trade-training scheme of the 1950s and 1960s.”

    This is what her PhD is on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    This is the same canditate who put stickers on all her election posters saying “Keep Wigram Local”.

    I’ve no idea what that means, but whatever it’s supposed to be appealing to, I don’t want.

    (I’ll post the photo tonight if I remember)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > so you are saying that they do have a mandate?

    If you accept that a third of voters voted National (ie, two-thirds of voters didn’t vote National) and you’re happy with that as a “mandate”, then yes. Personally, I wouldn’t be so inclined to use the word. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. E. Campbell (91 comments) says:

    Sad that she resorted to that, especially as she has a doctorate in History. However, at least she apologised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Lol. A nazi comparison. What a fuckface. It was only a matter of time of course.

    Still can’t wait for Labour to say they will buy the assets back. Which they won’t. because of course they are hypocritical liars who sold assets when they were in government. They would rather borrow money from stinking big corporations and take away Kiwi’s dividends then even make a partial float that makes complete economic sense.

    National cannot let the lying hypocrites from Labour win this debate, and actually, they won’t – because most NZ’ers aren’t retarded and don’t fall for dog whistle envy politics ‘oh, but someone richer then you might buy the shares’ – fuck off.

    And actually dickhead leftists on this site, when you win an election, when the policy in question was essentially the sole focus of the opposition platform for months and months, with the highest ever majority under a political system, that is a ‘MANDATE’. And lol that Labour cannot say like NZ first that they will buy them back, because a shadow of a doubt has entered their hypocrite devious little minds – they will have to take property off NZ’ers and borrow money from shadowy big private corporations, probably Chinese!

    Lol if National is ever in opposition they can now spend taxpayers money on a referendum to increase welfare reform, and lower taxes, and the Greens can’t say shit. Further, if Labour/Greens do anything without 51 percent total support, they have NO MANDATE. According to that logic all the middle class welfare wasteful bonanzas under the lying devious nasty hypocrites had no mandate lol. That whole argument is a piece of shit that anyone with half a brain can destroy, as is the argument against ‘partial’ asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    ross69:

    If you accept that a third of voters voted National (ie, two-thirds of voters didn’t vote National) and you’re happy with that as a “mandate”, then yes. Personally, I wouldn’t be so inclined to use the word.

    If National (plus coalition partners) didn’t have a sufficient mandate to pass the MOM Bill how do you suggest the country was run?

    What you seem to be implying is that virtually all New Zealand governments have never had a mandate to do anything.

    You seem to be confusing it with “what Labour/Greens don’t want to happen dosn’t have a mandate”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    ross69, you seem to be averse to an MMP system of government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pete George (23,576 comments) says:

    RN – it’s not just MMP, we didn’t get 50% of actual voters let alone 50% of registered voters under FPP either.

    ross69 seems to prefer a system of government where the opposition hissy fits with any numbers they can dredge up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    I see that Frau Woods has a classic case of foot and mouth disease. She would not have rolled over unless she was forced to by Shearer. I hear that she was not a popular choice for the seat and was jumping all over the place trying to get selected. I think Lord Jim took pity on her in the finish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ed Snack (1,873 comments) says:

    So Ross, on what “mandate” basis did Labour abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and what mandate did Helen Clark ever, ever have, as the cadaverous raddled old crone never won 50% of the vote let alone 50% of the potential voters. Labour are simply acting as they naturally do, as bottom feeding gutter minded fuckwits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. tom hunter (4,863 comments) says:

    Next you’ll be banging on about Keith Locke and dear old Pol Pot or the Russians in Afghanistan.

    As usual you’re missing the point. If Keith Locke ever again ventures out in public to lecture people about their geopolitical knowledge, their assessment of some such situation and their decisions on it – all applied with a rich layer of Chomsky-style implications about their levels of amorality and IQ – then I will most certainly bring up his Pol Pot past and Afghanistan-1979.

    I can forgive people from the 1930′s and 40′s who bought into the whole communist line at a time when capitalism seemed to be going down the toilet and the truth about the great Soviet experiment was being buried by the likes of Walter Duranty – but Keith fell into that in the 1970′s when there was more than enough testimony around to show how insane it would be.

    So I was never interested in his apologies: anybody can apologise for a “mistake”. I was interested in whether there had ever been any significant change in his historical knowledge or the political theories he applied or the overweening sense of moral smugness that had led to such cretinous, immoral decisions in the first place – and I never saw any beyond his new thoughts that perhaps some forms of socialism are very bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    I love how Laborite nationalistic socialists use the economically similar Nazis as an insulting reference to their opponents……clueless irony.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Leaping Jimmy (16,473 comments) says:

    As usual the well meaning but hopelessly naive conservatives flail around in the dark, tilting at windmills and completely missing the whole point of what’s just happened round this issue.

    I refer to anyone above at all who has said anything in response to Liarbore’s Hitler analogy. Yes you. Duh. Woosh. Missed the point completely. Just like the rest of the Nats.

    I warned the Nats months ago when this issue first happened that what they needed to do was fight fire with fire: i.e. use the propaganda vigorously and constantly against the lefties on this where-ever and whenever the issue came up and even when a minister was speaking on anything, to drop it into the speech, all the time, everywhere. Instead the poor innocent and most importantly, desparately naive Nats allowed Liarbore and the insidious lefty journos to get a march into the national sub-conscious by allowing this meme (no mandate) to be inculcated into the national psyche for months and months before finally, when it was all too late, saying something about it. Like they did in the final debate on it. Waiting until the 11th hour. Talk about horse bolting stable door closing fucking doh.

    And now all of you people who think that the relevant point is the awful Liarbore people are entirely inaccurate in using a Hitler analogy and how amusing that all is because she doesn’t understand history. I mean, crikey.

    Don’t any of you have any fucking idea how propaganda works? THE TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER, D’OH. NO. WHAT MATTERS IS, REPETITION, REPETITION, REPETITION. GET IT?

    It’s not rocket science is it. Except apparently to the entire National parliamentary wing, DPF, every single conservative who’s commented above and the 90% of the population whom are the unaware targets of said propaganda.

    For fuck’s sake. At least when we lose this next election, it would be good if we put up at least a bit of a fight. I just hope Key doesn’t go all teary-eyed when he realises how many people don’t like him anymore and he’s not going to be Mr Popular. That’s the Nat’s next big test and its coming soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    hey, ross69,

    c’mon, Ed Snack asked you some questions. Going on your own principles, as announced by you during the dock workers issue when you demanded that the POA woman answer your questions as posted on this blog, you are obligated to answer him.

    So, mate, pony up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy “I warned the Nats months ago when this issue first happened…”

    Did it ever occur to you that you’re full of yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Leaping Jimmy (16,473 comments) says:

    Did it ever occur to you that you’re full of yourself?

    Sometimes RightNow, but assuming that’s precisely what I did do, then how else should I have phrased that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Depends on your audience, but I doubt you’re going to get much traction here. Frankly I’m fine with Labour being dicks, the Greens too. Despite this not being a popular policy it’s not denting National’s polling at all, so I think the poo-flinging from Greens and Labour types is only hitting themselves.

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