When one points out to would-be National voters all the dead rats John Key is making them swallow, they suck it up, wipe off their chin, and talk with glazed-over enthusiasm about the new age that Flip Flop Boy is going to usher in once the present dishonest corrupt government is replaced with another one of different hue, but similar policy outlook.
The dead rats are worth it, say the strategists. If we don't frighten the horses, then we'll come stampeding home come November. The dead rats are worth it, agree the poll respondents -- just as long as the dishonest corrupt government is our dishonest corrupt government.
As a strategy it's barmy, and just crying out to be sucker punched.
You see, it's not just the dead rats of the past that you and John Boy are going to swallow -- and here I'm talking to those of you dopey enough to swallow this 'appeasement as election strategy' strategy -- you need to think about all the dead rats to come.
Yes, you've sucked up all the dead rats served up so far when you thought you had to, and you've even swallowed on occasions. You've said to yourself, "I can accept this," while holding your nose and swallowing ... but smart Labour Labour strategists will already be drawing up lists to try and see if you'll also swallow this, once John Boy plants his 'me too' kiss upon it.
If you were a smart Labour strategist (and in this context 'smart' only means 'smarter than Murray McCully, so we're not talking rocket scientists here), you wouldn't be complaining that Key's "innoculation" of National's "scarier" policy positions makes it hard to paint them in the privatising, Roundtable-hugging way you'd like to be able to, instead you'd be observing the me-tooing with glee, and looking for a chance to use it.
How? By making nanny state bigger one dead rat at a time.
The smart Labour strategist would already be drawing up a list of election bribes so rat-like in their cunning, so obviously socialist in their aim, that John Boy and his supporters will be left with splinters on both cheeks as they try to perch on both sides of an irreconcilable fence in response.
Labour can't lose here, if they do it right: if John Boy and the Flip Flop Team do keep signing up to the dead rats -- and the latest student election bribe may be just a trial balloon in this respect -- then the election agenda for the next three months and the policy agenda for the next three years will both be set by Labour strategists, with all the growth in nanny government that will ensue, and all the election bribes that implies -- and all the drop in support for the Flip Flop Boys that can be predicted as even the blindest blue-tinged supporter realises that the effect of his party's strategy is that his party's leaders are in reality batting for the other team.
Socialism to the left of me, socialism from the right -- how could a Laborite really lose?
The job of the smart Labour strategist will be to find that 'equilibrium' point at which the dead rats being swallowed by the Blue Team start to choke their blue-tinged support, and then just go a little bit more. 'More,' in this case, meaning more bribes, more nannying, more socialism.
The job of the smart National strategist -- if such a person actually exists in their 'zero from three' strategy team -- should be to realise this now, several weeks before the election, while there's still time to promote a vision in which National actually represents a significant policy alternative.
And the smart National voter? That's another oxymoron. If more bribes, more nannying and more socialism is what you want, then keep right on supporting the Blue Team's 'me too' strategy. As long as you do, they'll keep right on offering it, as indigestible as that will eventually prove to be.
UPDATE: Another dead rat has just washed up on the electoral beach: Liberty Scott reports "Labour has now pledged over $400 million of your taxes (not petrol tax but general tax) to pay for the frightfully expensive Transmission Gully motorway. This doesn't even cover half the cost."
And John Boy's response? "Me too."
26 comments:
And the smart National voter? That's another oxymoron. If more bribes, more nannying and more socialism is what you want, then keep right on supporting the Blue Team's 'me too' strategy.
the "smart" human voter - human not socialist - will be voting National in the electorate and ACT on the list (except in Epsom where they do the opposite). To do otherwise is basically treason.
The "smart" National strategist - and they are actually pretty damn smart - wants to keep National+ACT's vote at 60% and then ideally grow it from there - but there isn't really that much further it can grow.
As for dead rats: with inflation at 7%, and the cupboard bare, National will be able to do everything it needs to do after the election
but first National must destroy Helen, and somehow win against the Maorimander and the moneymander.
For now, winning is everything, and policy announcements are absolutely nothing except the means to that end. When government is gained - the socialists and their unionist and civil service allies can be jailed, can be executed if necessary =
then we can do what is necessary. Until then, and Key, English, and Brownlee are absolutely doing the right things, we swallow whatever we must.
we will govern. We will destroy socialism in NZ for ever. but first we must win.
What's ACT?
anon2: that's getting quite old.
anon1: I cannot say I have the same amount of antipathy for National and ACT as most here do, but you are extraordinarily naïve if you truly believe what you say.
What makes you think National wants to do anything?
Hanso,
Since when was old a function of truth?
Sean
....but first National must destroy Helen, and somehow win against the Maorimander and the moneymander.
For now, winning is everything, and policy announcements are absolutely nothing except the means to that end. When government is gained - the socialists and their unionist and civil service allies can be jailed, can be executed if necessary =
then we can do what is necessary. Until then, and Key, English, and Brownlee are absolutely doing the right things, we swallow whatever we must.
we will govern. We will destroy socialism in NZ for ever. but first we must win.
Then we can rule. Then we can march and unleash the power. Only then can we commence the glorious executions for the greater good of the future of the state.
When we stoke up the ovens and lock the showers, yea, you doubters of our cause will be amongst the first to see what we mean is BUSINESS. real business. But first we must win. And win big.
Then we can do what is NECESSARY. Socialism of the type we do not like as well as the people we do not like will be eliminated. Only the party will remain.
Winning is everything and the party must win to obtain everything.
Collective everything.
One party! One state! One leader!
PC labors under the delusion that his party of creeps presents an alternative, like any extremist (and make no mistake, that's is what he is) he can't see the forest for the trees. You can't win the war if you can't even get to the battlefield.
As such Libz will be shouting from the sidelines (very principled sidelines of course) until the end of time, one can't help think that subconsciously this is where they actually want to be.
Anon,
Your mistake is thinking that the battlefield is electoral success. It isn't. It is a battle of ideas, of culture of public opinion. If you are not working to change those, then you are pissing in your own tent.
"The lesson of creative extremism is that extremity in the name of justice is a greater virtue than silence in the name of tranquility"
Martin Luther King
What makes you think National wants to do anything?
History. I am old enough to remember 1990.
Your mistake is thinking that the battlefield is electoral success. It isn't. It is a battle of ideas, of culture of public opinion. If you are not working to change those, then you are pissing in your own tent.
And your naivety is thinking that advertising, blogging, campaigning, and announcing policies before an election can change anything. it cannot. Change in ideas and public opinion is effected only as a result of governing, only as a result of having power, and of making changes.
Again, I remember 1990. People still think NZ changed with labour in 1984: well it didn't. The biggest changes, the actual "intellectual" formation of ACT, of the Libz, the idea that NZ could be a free country --- almost all of those are the result of the actions of Ruth Richardson (not fucking Douglas!) in her first - really her only - reforming budget; really the only truly reforming budget NZ ever had. (the rest of the idea of NZ being an independent country really comes from Lange's actions in turning the US Navy away)
From actions.
Not from words.
And - thankfully - the National party elections team shows a very well judged appreciation of this simple fact.
"The lesson of creative extremism is that extremity in the name of justice is a greater virtue than silence in the name of tranquility"
precisely.
but in the situation where labour may still govern on current polling; when the civil service and electoral bureaucracy are stacked against change; when the left holds an institutionalised advantage via the Maorimander; when the Labour will outspend the other parties by about 10:1 when their whole spend is included
announcing policies is the very last thing National should do.
power is all
people are changed as a result of power
Anon,
1) You have misrepresented my first paragraph--so no need to respond to that.
2) I do remember the Last National Govts. I particularly remember they enacted the RMA. That thing is evil.
3)"people are changed as a result of power". This is not true. Power requires the sanction of the victim. Public opinion must allow for its use. If the army and the police and the people choose to ignore the state, then they have no power. People are changed via public opinion. You have the causation confused.
Anon,
I think you are wrong in terms of the influence even senior polititians have on political and social change. The reality is that the politicians are hamstrung by the beauracrats. The reason there was a general worldwide 'rightward' shift from the early 1980s to the early 1990s is not a function of the various political stooges who happened to be elected in western countries, it is a function of the prevailing thought in the various Treasury departments etc. It was ideas sown years or decades earlier that finally came to fruition. It wasn't Reagan, Thatcher, Douglas/Richardson, Keating etc who caused the change. It was the prevailing schools of thought of those that advised them.
Libz will probably never hold elected office in our lifetime, but the more important point is whether the Libz ideas are sown into the minds of those coming through "the system" in the coming decades. The first hurdle is getting people to stop seeing the state as the panacea for all that is wrong.
Anyone who thinks that any of the "players" in the forthcoming election will actually change anything is, frankly, deluded.
"The first hurdle is getting people to stop seeing the state as the panacea for all that is wrong."
Exactly, which brings us neatly back to the point of the post.
Sean: I don't quite understand what you mean.
Justin: I think you have a point. Perhaps the battle for freedom would be better fought in universities, the spawning ground of bureaucrats, than in elections.
Hanso:
Yes ... Minister.
Power requires the sanction of the victim.
yeah. right. or rather: yeah, lefty!
Public opinion must allow for its use.
Utter crap. Our police are, today, to pick one example, throwing perfectly good fathers in jailed for maintain family discipline and self-reliance in exactly the same way it has been done over the last 200 year's of NZ's history. Helen has neither public opinion behind her, nor cares.
If the army and the police and the people choose to ignore the state, then they have no power.
??? If the army and police act, they then have power. If they act against the state, then then state changes.
People are changed via public opinion.
People are changed at the point of a gun. Try smoking inside a pub, or smacking a child running onto a road in front of one f Helen's CCTV cameras and then refuse to go quietly.
Then you will understand where power comes from.
The reason there was a general worldwide 'rightward' shift from the early 1980s to the early 1990s .. those who advised them
more middle-class rubbish. It was, first, because of the oil crisi and the cold war (sound familiar)
which had to be paid for - and in the UK, because of the complete domination of bludgiung unions which had to be broken. Reagan and Thatcher knew what had to be done, and then acted on it - sure they reached for a political philosophy to help them do what needed to be done - but the actal facts demonstrate that provided rational for their actions --- no the other way around.
what we do is always ahead of waht we think
power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Anon,
"What we do is ahead of what we think"
err ... like when you open your mouth?
Perhaps the battle for freedom would be better fought in universities, the spawning ground of bureaucrats, than in elections.
The ideas of the age are the ideas of the rulers of the age.
Want to change the university? change their paymaster (in this case, Helen).
"What we do is ahead of what we think"
Socialist school, socialist "job", there really is no place for scum like you in NZ. None at all.
I'd list the full quote, but figured you were too socialist to parse it:
men, developing their material production..., alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking
Anonymous is what is known as a useful idiot. He supports unthinking obedient mass action rather than carefully evaluated independent action. He promotes the acquisition of power without thought as to what will be done with it. He lusts to see other people yoked and controlled by his "party" and his ideology. Scratch the surface and you'll find an inferior creature which is ready to justify violence against anything it disagrees with. Hence to this entity power is all. Power is necessary to undertake the violence and get away with it.
BTW if you have any doubts about what he'd do with power read the bit about mass jailings and executions again. Remember the justification is that whatever is necessary is necessary.
What I laughed about the most is the assertions about how "we" will destroy socialism in NZ. That's rich coming from a national socialist.
The guy is yet another national socialist fuckwit.
LGM
And, what do you propose to do to change NZ.
carefully evaluated individual action
well gee, I hope you've got a LOT of semtex.
Other than that, I propose voting for the party that is most likely to gain government (although even on 52%, that is looking dodgy because of the Maorimander)[ and most likely, when in government, to do what needs to be done.
without thought as to what will be done with it.
Where did that come from? Since when did announcing policies before an election count as though?. if any party stood up and explained what needs to be done, now, well they'd have the libz share of the vote :-) John Key is simply not that stupid.
The ex-socialist Douglas - really, more of a competitive provision socialist - in spite of all the ACT propaganda, did not change NZ. Ruth Richardson's single real budget achieved more than every reforming budget in NZ's history put together!
And the only leader in the West to have successfully changed a country for the better was of course Maggie: and that took armed police, 10 minders killed by them, and lots more starved, and entire towns basically destroyed
Do you think we can break the unions in NZ for less? Do you think we can set schools and hospitals free to truly serve their customers without that sort of action in NZ? Do you think we can abolish the Dole and the DBP and National super without a fight?
carefully evaluated independent action
Yeah Right.
Unless you can cause an earthquake in the wellington fault.
Anon,
You don't actually address the points being made. For example, instead of disproving that the current system that exploits the productive for the benefit of the tax-consumer is based on public opinion, you merely point out (correctly) that public opinion favours such exploitation currently. Saying that the Police will currently do X does not prove that they have will always be inclined to do X.
Its worse than that Sean. Anon doesn't seem to realise that Ruth Richardson isn't actually standing in the upcoming election!!
Yup. In the end this guy is a deluded and violent criminal. His answer to everything is destructive (jailings, executions and now blowing things up with semtex). He has his godhead figures (in this case Ruth Richardson and Margaret Thatcher) whom he lionises and uses to justify his lust for violent action. He has his party, although no coherent ideology other than a wish to see his mobsters above all. He has blind faith that once his mobsters are powerful enough they will do great things, necessary things (although what those may be, he does not know- he just hopes to see some violence unleashed aginst those he dislikes). He considers dishonesty, deception and trickery acceptible in the quest for ultimate power (unless, of course, it is his opponent doing the deceiving). The guy is deluded and violent and exactly as previously characterised, a useful idiot. He is the complete socialist.
Waste no more time on the likes of him.
LGM
Ruth Richardson for the good she brought (she pushed education vouchers as National policy in 1987 for example as a step forward), was crucified by Bolger after the 1993 election, and has since been aligned to ACT.
Changing to a National government that will at best simply stop making things worse is pandering to an utterly simpering low goal. Imagine the Labour Party EVER campaigning against National saying "me too" on its policies.
It wouldn't dare, the left for all that is evil aims higher than so many of the hand-wringing wimps lon the right. This is why with the exception of 1990-1993, every single National government that has existed has done virtually nothing to wind back the growth of the state that Labour implemented before it. All the 1935-1949 Labour government set up was kept, the tax increases of 1957-1960 were kept, the nationalisations and new welfare benefits from 1972-1975 were kept. The Tories in the UK were the same until Thatcher.
I'm frankly sick of it.
Anon doesn't seem to realise that Ruth Richardson isn't actually standing in the upcoming election!!
Yeah. Right. That's not the point.
He has blind faith that once his mobsters are powerful enough they will do great things, necessary things (although what those may be, he does not know
Again, rubbish. I know perfectly well what is required - I even list some of them above: the removal of unions, the pruning back of the civil service, the ending of the Dole and DBP, freeing up hospitals and schools to serve their customers.
Things I think we all agree on.
The point I am making - for those of you who attended state schools and consequently do not understand politics - is that if a political party campaigns on such policies it will poll like the LIbz.. National is doing just the right things to get into as good a position as they can to implement those policies with a minimum of violence.
Ruth Richardson for the good she brought ... was crucified by Bolger after the 1993 election, and has since been aligned to ACT.
So? Who cares? If she'd started out aligned to ACT or whatever there was in the late 1980s she would have got precisely nowhere. In 1990, National campaigned just as they are doing now: no change to benefits, no change to super, etc etc etc. And, in Ruth's single budget, she changed the country
The point is not to govern in perpetuity: the point is to change the county so that no other policies can be accepted.
He considers dishonesty, deception and trickery acceptible in the quest for ultimate power
Of course. It is called politics. Labour does it all the time.
The Tories in the UK were the same until Thatcher.
Right. Now please explain how anything other than a tactical ACT/National vote split will achieve what you want.
Please explain what your stupid "carefully evaluated individual action" is.
Please explain what will happen to you, if you give your child a light smack in Cashel mall, and when the cops come, you get a shotgun out of your bag to defend your family.
"... just as long as the dishonest corrupt government is our dishonest corrupt government."
Here we go again. Unsubstantiated accusations about National Party corruption. We've been over this before, and none of you were able to cite a case where National has been corrupt - and I mean steal an election, bully the judiciary and rewrite the law, Mugabe corrupt.
Yes, National is just as guilty of socialism as Labour - apart from the charge of outright corruption.
PC, if you're going to take haymaker swings you might want to work on your accuracy. Your hyperbole is making you look silly.
Well hold on, Ruth Richardson acted in a world of First Past the Post, where in fact a vote for the New Zealand Party in 1984 INSTEAD of National, DID change things, it shocked National out of nine years of seriously socialist Muldoonist state planning. Had that NOT happened, Labour would have had a tenuous victory and Muldoon et al may well have fought on the same basis in 1987. The NZP destroyed that hope. We are in the MMP world, not the FPP world of the early 90s (let's not forget National gave us MMP).
National in 1990 actually campaigned on a number of relatively bold things (some to agree with, some not). Getting rid of the super surtax, which it didn't. Abolishing compulsory unionism, which it did. Selective privatisation, which it did (and more). A referendum on the death penalty, which it didn't. Abolishing university student surtax which it did, but replaced with fees. Choice in education and confronting teachers' unions, which it didn't. Referendum on electoral reform, which it did. I have a copy of the National 1990 manifesto. Now more happened because the economic situation was too dire for anything else, Richardson captured the government because Labour hid the state of the BNZ among other things.
National got hammered for two policies more than others - the super surtax betrayal, which more than anything spawned Winston Peters going on his own, and the student fees issue, which was a stupid promise. It also had a large caucus which including some lowly rated leftwing halfwits who shit stirred.
Much of what was achieved then has been reversed - telecommunications deregulation, rail privatisation, Employment Contracts Act, commercialising hospitals. The main thing that wasn't is the welfare cuts.
Oh and to pretend that National would have done this had Labour and Roger Douglas not slashed virtually all agricultural and manufacturing subsidies and created SOEs and privatised Telecom, PostBank and Air NZ is being disingenuous.
National is a conservative party, today is it reverting to form. A vote for National will achieve virtually nothing, a vote for ACT and Libertarianz is a vote for smaller government in a small or great extent. National, after all, will sellout everything to Winston, Pita Sharples, Peter Dunne and even Jeanette Fitzsimons to get "power" - and for what? Baubles?
Post a Comment