Does Cunliffe stick by shoes claim?

February 1st, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

When tried to hit home the message that many Kiwis were struggling this week, he chose a simple, heartbreaking example.

Not only was one in four living below the line ‘‘one in five don’t even have two pairs of shoes to wear to school’’ the Labour leader said in his state of the nation speech in Auckland.

Later in the week Cunliffe was challenged by Prime Minister John Key in Parliament to quote the source of the claim (as had Right wing commentators), but he did not do so.

His office is now ignoring questions on whether he sticks by it, but the foundations are shaky.

Staff confirmed that it was based on the report last year of Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills, which said 17 per cent of children (which is one in six, not one in five) were exposed to ‘‘a range of economising behaviours’’.

These included having at least two pairs of shoes in good repair, but could also mean parents cut back on fresh fruit, limit heating or avoid going to the doctor to save cash.

The report this all comes from I blogged on last week. It clearly states that only one in 20 families can;t afford two pairs of shoes. Cunliffe’s figure was 400% higher.

Tags: , ,

71 Responses to “Does Cunliffe stick by shoes claim?”

  1. dog_eat_dog (762 comments) says:

    Breaking News: Labour’s Trinity of Davids are all full of shit.

    E: Do people still refer to Cunliffe supporters within Labour as ‘Camp Cunliffe’? As time goes by, the more I think ‘Branch Davidians’ might be more appropriate.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Give him a break he’ll get something right….soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tas (596 comments) says:

    “one in five don’t even have two pairs of shoes to wear to school”

    I didn’t have two pairs of shoes to wear to school when I was a kid. Not because my parents couldn’t afford them, but because one pair is sufficient. My parents didn’t spend money on unnecessary things. What a stupid statistic to quote, even if it was correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    The man comes from another planet.

    When I was a kid my shoes generally were donated from families who had boys who had “out grown them”.

    When they got worn they went to the cobblers and got fixed and when I had out grown them my brother got them because he had grown into them.

    FFS you can buy shoes in the warehouse for $20 or so which is a lot cheaper than fixing the old ones which is what everyone used to do

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    …could also mean parents cut back on fresh fruit, limit heating or avoid going to the doctor to save cash.

    Thank Labour for putting power prices through the roof so families can’t afford to heat their homes.

    And don’t forget that fuel poverty is official Green policy.

    I didn’t have two pairs of shoes to wear to school when I was a kid

    Neither did I.

    Buying a new pair of shoes was a big deal back then.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    At this rate it will only be a few week before the Labour caucus start referring to him as the stone in theirs. [shoes]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    If Stuff like the rest of the MSM wasn’t so infected with lefty delusionism it would have referred in that article to Banks’ speech which was made in response to Hone’s lefty delusion. If the nation started demanding politicians address poverty along those two dimensions which Banks enunciated, finally but finally, some real differences might actually start appearing. But no, the MSM doesn’t get poverty, just like half the country and 99% of the useless and appallingly shallow MSM.

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/unconditional-love-education-emotional-brilliant-speech/

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

    Further to tas and Andreis comments you can pop down to the local second hand store and pick up perfectly good shoes for the kids for less than $20 a pair. The kids dont have shoes for lack of money, the kids dont have shoes because their parents priorities are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. radvad (704 comments) says:

    I only ever had 1 pair at a time and when I outgrew them they were handed down. The irony is as soon as I was out of sight of my parents I would take them off and put them back on just before getting home. Back then shoes were sissy.

    However, thanks to Cunliffe, I now know I was a deprived child and I should be exhibiting all sorts of social pathologies. There must be somebody I can sue.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. WineOh (608 comments) says:

    I am looking forward to the new “Shoes in Schools” campaign, where every child in decile 1-8 is given a crappy pair of shoes each year courtesy of the taxpayer.

    FFS a kid only needs 2 pairs or 3 at the very most. One pair of tidy school-shoes, and one pair of sport shoes. Perhaps one pair of formal shoes for attending labour party functions, though gumboots will suffice for union/PPTA/protest meetings.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. peterwn (3,215 comments) says:

    All party leaders should be fair game at Question Time. Key (holding up two shoes) to Cunliffe – ‘Does he stand behind all his statements?’.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    WineOh: Don’t denounce gumboots, they are used by hard working farmers and others in agricultural based employment. Union/PPTA rubbish would not know how to put a pair of gumboots on, they are too well entrenched in designer shoes and suits paid for by fools thinking they are being represented.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. duggledog (1,439 comments) says:

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    All through my primary school days hardly any of us went to school with shoes on anyway because we were KIWI KIDS.

    Kiwi kids prefer to blast around barefoot. And they still do, thank god. makes for healthy feet I reckon.

    On any given day especially in summer I’d say as many as 25 or 30% of the kids at my kids’ Decile 9 school go to school barefoot especially the boys.

    Come on National make some hay out of this, reach out to KIWIS

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Psycho Milt (2,368 comments) says:

    So, given the unreliability of Cunliffe’s statements about this, we should stick with the more trustworthy pronouncements of our Prime Minister, John Key. Let’s have a look…

    Hmm, that’s funny – there doesn’t seem to be anything from the PM on either the extent of child poverty or what the goverment intends to do about it. How odd….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. johnwellingtonwells (134 comments) says:

    KiwiShoe

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Cunliffe is not doing his homework. It shows. And it’s making him look stupid.

    This could be called the first week of campaigning for the year. Turei calls comments racist when they aren’t. Cunliffe assumes journalists/commentators are stupid and won’t challenge what he says. Clark threatens to ban Facebook.

    Oh joy – what will the rest of 2014 bring.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Paulus (2,565 comments) says:

    Living next door to a primary school I often see a number the children going to school with no shoes on.

    I used to think how sad – no shoes, but then it is a Decile 9 and they are dropped of from big Remmers Tractors.

    New KiwiShoes policy

    Goody No Shoes ! – or just being kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    I often went to school barefoot. The only problem was we had assembly on the tennis court and it could get too hot to stand on comfortably.

    And I certainly only had one pair of shoes at a time until they were well worn out. I used to get holes in the toes, I can remember in the winter getting wet socks from playing on frosty playgrounds.

    A school in Dunedin has purchased pairs of 50 gumboots, provided to kids who want to play outside when it’s wet at splash in puddles. It’s part of a study to see what happens when you let kids play like kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Psycho: Your nom de plume is apt. There is no poverty, only that promoted by the leeching left. There is bad parenting, yes, but that is a result of Labour welfare wastage. Stop WFF, DPB breeders for income, and any other attributable handouts and we will see a rise in performances all round.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RightNow (6,844 comments) says:

    Time to nationalise the Bata factory and give free shoes to any kid whose parent(s) earn less than a million a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Psycho Milt (2,368 comments) says:

    There is no poverty, only that promoted by the leeching left.

    Gosh, really? Then why doesn’t the PM just come out and say so, instead of distracting people with flag stories or having his minions distribute talking points about shoes? Surely this important information should be brought to the voters’ attention?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    I only have one pair of work shoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    It’s part of a study to see what happens when you let kids play like kids.

    Amazing isn’t it that educational “science” is so astute it needs a study to find the answer to that question.

    Too bad they don’t do a study on what happens when kids get exposed to PC psychobabble bullshit on a year-in, year-out basis. Oh wait, we already know that answer too. Just look at the twenty-somethings and what they think and do.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Yep, most kids only had one pair of shoes in the 1980s.
    I remember all the guys at my high school used to wear these black leather shoes. I don’t remember what they were called now, but they were the “in thing”. They used to have flat sides and a kind of rim on the top (like a pie crust?)

    Does that make any sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Psycho: Crawl back under your over protected left-wing log. Taxpayers are sick of your kind, those that produce nothing, want everything, and live in envy of those that get off their arses and achieve. Too much money is wasted on slack lazy welfare recipients at the expense of those who want to get on, work, and be successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. NK (1,138 comments) says:

    If Stuff like the rest of the MSM wasn’t so infected with lefty delusionism it would have referred in that article to Banks’ speech which was made in response to Hone’s lefty delusion. If the nation started demanding politicians address poverty along those two dimensions which Banks enunciated, finally but finally, some real differences might actually start appearing. But no, the MSM doesn’t get poverty, just like half the country and 99% of the useless and appallingly shallow MSM.

    During the week, Campbell Live DID demand that the government do something about poverty, by featuring a family from the West Coast who supposedly had no money. The implication was that the government had to give them some. Of course there was no balance to the story from someone who could have argued the solution is not giving them more money, but actually not taking as much from them in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Cunliffe uses statistics the way a drunk man uses a lamp-post. For support and not illumination.

    Oh, and Fletch, the word you are looking for is Nomads.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. duggledog (1,439 comments) says:

    Yep there is poverty in New Zealand especially amongst Maori. Go to the Far North any day you like and have a good look around the back blocks. I can tell you exactly where if you want Psycho; generally the western side, think Dargaville, Hokianga, Herekino, all the way up including Okaihau, Kawakawa etc some parts are beyond belief and getting worse.

    The eastern side is where the money is and one of the starkest contrasts in the country is to be found around Kerikeri and Kaikohe – only 20 minutes apart but different worlds entirely. Keri is prosperous and Kaik is dying.

    The poorer parts of Northland and also the East Cape are like Tonga or Fiji. People practically living in shacks, driving cars which are not legal, health issues etc

    Where you and I differ though is that I think this poverty is due to utter laziness on the part of so many of the ‘grown ups’ in these areas. Not lack of jobs; they would never do a day’s work if they could avoid it anyway, and they are still able to do this even after all these years. They are quite content to let the welfare state do the heavy lifting and top it up with a bit of weed growing, low level crime like pinching someone’s veg while they’re away and a spot of fishing when they feel like it, undersize paua no problem etc. Their vast tracts of land are often communally owned so no need to pay rates, chuck a few pigs on there and she’s all good.

    There is poverty all right, but it’s poverty of any kind of aspiration or desire to move up in the world; many many kids are pretty much left to their own devices and that’s why they run wild and become ferals and cause massive problems.

    Whenever I go up North I always think of Apirana Ngata’s famous assertion that welfare would destroy his people and he was so right. In some areas of NZ, obviously not all, they are utterly derelict.

    Fletch: you are thinking of Nomads. I had Treks with the seam running down the middle. Some guys used to keep the leather tag and put metal studs in them, awesome

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Bad__Cat (140 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,712 comments) says:
    February 1st, 2014 at 10:54 am
    So, given the unreliability of Cunliffe’s statements about this, we should stick with the more trustworthy pronouncements of our Prime Minister, John Key. Let’s have a look…

    Hmm, that’s funny – there doesn’t seem to be anything from the PM on either the extent of child poverty or what the goverment intends to do about it. How odd….

    No, nothing about chemtrails, AGW, fairies, 911 conspiracies either. How odd……

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Oh, and Fletch, the word you are looking for is Nomads.

    Yessssssssssssssssss…….
    That’s what they were called!
    Nomads. They were the in thing :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    When I was a child in UK, my parents who were not poor nor wealthy did not provide me with more than one pair of shoes at a time as I was a growing child and often grew out of my shoes in a relatively short space of time. Therefore, multiple pairs would have been wasteful. Indeed throughout my school years I recall only having one pair at a time, with perhaps a second casual pair in my later teens. So if pairs of shoes are a measure of poverty then I was a poor child.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. projectman (206 comments) says:

    Having two, ore more, pairs of shoes is a poor measure of poverty. In reality, it’s not a measure at all.

    While kids are still growing it makes sense, no matter what the economic status of families, to minimise the number of pairs of shoes they have – otherwise they simply don’t get value from them – and it’s even more important when there are not others to hand them on to.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Peter (1,673 comments) says:

    I had one pair of school shoes. I grew out of them too quickly, meaning more than one pair was a waste of money.

    That’s when I wore them. Most of the time I went barefoot. That Cunliffe does not seem to understand these basic facts about NZ kids is astonishing.

    Did he give away his too-posh-by-far bias?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. smttc (711 comments) says:

    igm, give poor Psycho a break FFS. For his sins, he works in a library in Palmerston North. Poor bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Fletch: you are thinking of Nomads. I had Treks with the seam running down the middle. Some guys used to keep the leather tag and put metal studs in them, awesome

    Yep, I had the treks with the seam down the middle too. I really wanted some Nomads though, but never managed to get any.
    It was a lucky escape though getting the Treks. I remember I went into the shoe store with my mother and my sister to get me some new shoes and my mother went straight to the table in the middle of the store and pointed to some formal looking shoes and said, “oh, these look nice”. My sister and I just looked at each other and I felt very worried.

    The sales lady, however (on finding out we were looking for school shoes), was a bit more turned on and produced the Treks. Lucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Sofia (830 comments) says:

    The other big lie

    The underprivileged barefoot group Cunliffe publicises for his campaign is 50,000 under three.
    Figures that around 16,666 are born into this group each year.

    The big fucking lie is Labour’s BEST START [BS] policy doesn’t kick in until 1 April 2016.

    So it does nothing for the 50,000
    Nor anything for about 30,000 who will be born into this situation the 2year 2 month interim period.

    4 times this has been mentioned – but National may notice after a while :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. smttc (711 comments) says:

    This whole shoe thing just demonstrates how useless the Cunliffe is at elucidating the issues around topics like poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. hmmokrightitis (1,572 comments) says:

    Dear ross69,

    Without deflecting, tell us all how you support politicians that make shit up for ‘the cause’.

    Go.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Anthony (785 comments) says:

    I just splashed out and bought a second pair of dress shoes while on holiday – but only because I left my other pair at home and looked silly wearing my one pair of good sneakers with my suit to formal night!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Southern Raider (1,754 comments) says:

    Standard routine was down to the shoe shop at the start of the school year for the one pair of Nomads that had to last you all year. By the of the school year they looked more like Jandals than shoes with all the holes in them. Plus you weren’t allowed to clean them as that wasn’t cool. If the parents made you clean then the you just walked through some mud and scuffed them on the way to school.

    Real poverty was having to bike to school in shorts during a frosty Invercargill winter :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Sofia (830 comments) says:

    It is likely Labour’s information comes from 2013 Child Poverty Monitor Technical Report Master pdf.

    That their graphs show everything turned to krap 1986 – 1994 obviously suggests Rogernomics originated the problem, so as a sideline, Labour should morally be doing more to fucking fix it.

    But as there are 50,000 children in this group now, how will doing nothing for them and allowing 30,000 more to be added before 1 April 2016, solve the situation?

    It would be smarter to spend money to have ‘monitors’ in school who established what children arrive ill-clothed and under fed, then trace those back to families and ensure that they have all the welfare they are entitled to, examine their budgeting, housing circumstances and other factors that put them where they are.

    A baby bonus $60 might be worthy of a second child’s support
    Reduce it to $30 for a third child
    and nothing for subsequent children. Why fucking incentivize the problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sponge (156 comments) says:

    Cunliff is an utter cock. I went to a pretty exclusive private school. I only ever had one pair of school shoes and as far as I recall no one would have had two pairs. Were all us College boys in “poverty”?

    Moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. alloytoo (468 comments) says:

    @ Sofia

    As you’ve pointed out, even if Labour’s poverty narrative were valid, labour’s solution is to do NOTHING for TWO years

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. kiwi in america (2,477 comments) says:

    Yep Nomads ruled – they were tough shoes and usually lasted me the year – I also wore their forerunner Treks that had a ridge that ran vertically down the shoe. I had 3 pairs of shoes as a teenager – school/doubled as formal, casual/sports and then a pair of 2nd hand rugby boots. In the summer bare feet was the norm like many have stated. In the upper North Island my mates and siblings kids’ still try to get away with bare feet at school by choice not necessity.

    Why are we all surprised that Cunliffe is exaggerating stuff as Labour Leader when he claimed to be part of the set up of Fonterra. His CV exaggerations were a taste of what was and is to come. He can’t help himself. What is interesting is that the media are pinging him on this stuff. Shearer may lack Cunliffe’s raw rhetorical talent but at least he came across as honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. duggledog (1,439 comments) says:

    Can’t wait for the election debates. Key is going to boil Cunliffe, like all the others before him. Cunliffe is his fourth leader remember.

    In fact, why why why doesn’t John Key just call a snap debate, on television with say two days’ notice. It’d be awesome.

    I’d bet my own money Cunliffe (and Labour) would shit themselves and find some excuse not to be able to do it.

    KIA – there was always some poor bastard whose parents (read: Mum) refused to pay for Treks or Nomads because they were… seventy dollars or something not when there were perfectly good CHARLIE BLACKS FOR ABOUT HALF THE PRICE.

    Shouldn’t have been allowed. Those kids were ruined on Day One at high school

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Camryn (551 comments) says:

    I had shoes but didn’t regularly wear them until I was 11. No need in Northland, never gets cold enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Staff confirmed that it was based on the report last year of Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills, which said 17 per cent of children (which is one in six, not one in five) were exposed to ‘‘a range of economising behaviours’’.

    If you’ve ever read “By Fear and Fallacy” by Michael Drake, there’s plenty of examples there of dubious social science claims. Even the ones made directly by the researchers frequently aren’t supported by their own data.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    There are plenty of kids in poverty stricken areas who are short of this or that. I’ve seen for myself that much of the problem is that kids just don’t look after their stuff. So a pair of shoes that should last 3 siblings are completely shot in 3 months.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rightandleft (656 comments) says:

    Just ridiculous that Cunliffe is pushing this rubbish. I know plenty of primary school teachers and they all say many kids just prefer to go barefoot even in the cooler weather and that’s just the way it is. They don’t fret about the kids being impoverished, they know it’s just a normal part of being a Kiwi kid. They have shoes if they want them, but they don’t. I grew up in the US in a middle class suburb and while we weren’t allowed to be barefoot in school over there I don’t recall any boys having two pairs of shoes either. We wore the pair of sneakers we had till there was holes in the toes before we got new ones. And that wasn’t way back in the day, this was the 90s.

    Evidently Cunliffe has spent too much time in Herne Bay and now thinks anyone making under $150k is impoverished. I wonder if he’s ever heard of Number 1 Shoes or this mythical place called the Warehouse?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. annie (540 comments) says:

    Mr Cunliffe, like a lot of the supposedly educated left, is confused about the distinction between correlation and causality.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. nickb (3,675 comments) says:

    Cry me a river. What kind of young kid has a walk-in wardrobe full of shoes anyway?

    Just more utter bullshit designed to make the poor and middle class families think they deserve a bigger pound of my flesh. Reminds me of those glossy WFF brochures where the families were living in new townhouses with Apple electronics strewn everywhere lol

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Not only was one in four living below the poverty line ‘‘one in five don’t even have two pairs of shoes to wear to school’’ the Labour leader said in his state of the nation speech in Auckland.

    I never wanted for anything I needed as a child and I only ever had one pair of shoes for school. Having more would have been wasteful as I’d likely grow out of them before wearing them. It’s a silly metric to insist people should waste resources on the unnecessary to prove wealth – much more sensible to keep the resources for buying replacements as needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    so who thinks J Key will accept the challenge to live some time at the minimum wage level?

    The last person to asy she would try this was also a National MP and she backed out and lost her Tauranga seat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘Real poverty was having to bike to school in shorts during a frosty Invercargill winter’

    School kids are made to wear shorts regardless of weather conditions.

    Curious since kids are protected from any kind of roughness in schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    So we can deduce from this the junior Cunners have at least two pairs of shoes to wear to school. Which is one pair more than I had.

    Big fucking deal.

    The fact that the junior Cunners are shod at least twice over and that Cunners thinks this some how the norm or necessary just goes to underscore the fact that Cunners exists in his own little leafy Herne Bay bubble completely out of touch with reality.

    My own stunning ensemble was completed with two pairs of socks, (winter), 1 pair shorts (winter), 1 pair shorts (summer), 2 shirts each for summer & winter, one jersey, one pair sandals (summer) and a partridge in a pear tree. Sheer luxury.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    I still go bare footed as much as I can. When at work I wear shoes in the office. When I am on my working from home week I never put a pair on. I remember going around to visit a mate whose mother in law from Russia was visiting. After I left she said I must be so poor because I was in bare feet. I had to laugh.

    Whenever I do have to buy shoes – it is always No1 Shoe Warehouse and the cheapest ones I can find. It is not like I need good treads for fast cornering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    Does anybody remember those shoes that had animal foot prints on the soles and a compass inside. I think they were made by Bata. I had a pair and I was the envy of all my classmates.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. NK (1,138 comments) says:

    Not me, Muzza. But what about those black Kung Fu shoes that looked like slippers or boat shoes (when they were in fashion).

    The best shoes I’ve ever owned though were Doc Martins. I had many pairs in my youth. When in London I visited the shop in Covent Garden which had three levels of Doc Martins! My life was virtually complete then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. MH (693 comments) says:

    i believe the Euro foot is not designed for going bare,something to do with arches,still the hospitals are filled with problem feet in the years ahead,Cunliffe’s no problem as he can walk on water.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Southern Raider (1,754 comments) says:

    My mother did teach at a low decile school in Invercargill where some kids had no shoes and did need them in winter. One pair would have been more than sufficient.

    Cunliffes views though to highlight a major discount on what is actually poverty.

    I’m only 40 but when we grew up we never had a VCR for years or new TV etc, plus only drove very modest second hand cars. Going to a finance company to buy these “luxury items” was unheard of.

    Do an audit of the average south Auckland house in “poverty” and I’m sure we would be surprised by the large SUV in the drive and modern gadgets like Xbox all on tick.

    Maybe selling the XBOX would buy 20 pairs of shoes and you would solve two problems at once.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Viking2 (11,283 comments) says:

    another sad fuck. Remove his funding.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    So after this week we know that the poverty line for NZ is $150,000, and as many shoes as Imelda Marcos!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. KathyS (17 comments) says:

    My kids don’t have two pairs of shoes to wear to school. They have one. But I don’t consider myself or my kids in poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Recidivist_offender (27 comments) says:

    I usually had atleast 5 pairs of shoes as a kid. I was raised spoilt in a middle class family.

    Hence i dont care about anyone less well off than me.

    I hate the poor and beneficiaries.

    I get so tired of ‘sick’ people not working hard. Illness is an excuse. Mind over matter. Even Quadriplegics can work. If you can think and are capable of talking or making some facial expression you can work, NO EXCUSE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    Why do kids even need two pairs of shoes to wear to school?
    I am reasonably well off and only have one pair of shoes I wear to work (not counting the sneakers I wear on casual Friday)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Where I went to school, Nomads were the go. I got Treks the first year, and was the butt of many jokes. Next year I convinced Mum to spring for Nomads. We had to polish them once in a while – you’d get detention for poor polishing, or for not wearing your socks pulled up. Some of you will know exactly where that means I went to school….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    @recidivist_offender: troll, and not even a good one. You need to at least come up with a good parody if you want a bite.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Recidivist_offender (27 comments) says:

    @Paul But ive got 5 thumbs down and you spent atleast 10 seconds reading and replying. Thats a bite by any trolls standards.

    Never feed the monster. Never. NOTHING.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Recidivist_offender (27 comments) says:

    I only grow stronger with every thumbs down! Muhahahaha

    Gay rights and generous welfare forever.

    Vote greens!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. LesleyNZ (20 comments) says:

    Now why would Cunliffe say that children needed two pairs of shoes? My kids only ever had one pair.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    @recidivist_offender_troll: I’m waiting for servers to restart after a migration. It only counts if you waste time that I wasn’t already wasting. Isn’t it past your bedtime?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.