Tuesday, 11 November 2008

Questions to ponder [updated]


John KeySince Phil Goff is from the "right wing" of the Labour Party, and on most things John Boy is somewhat to the left of Helen Clark, then if Phil Goff is elected Labour leader today will that make Labour the "right-wing" party?

How long before people who voted for "change" realise that "what she said" still goes?

Matthew Hooton's been arguing that the measure of Helen's success is that she changed the National Party just as Margaret Thatcher reshaped the British Labour Party.  But is that really a measure of Helen's success, or is it more a reflection of her erstwhile opponent's lack of spine?

So in a National/ACT/Maori Party coalition/arrangement/agreement, who do you think will be swallowing the dead rats?

Do you think all those people insisting that people be "gracious" about Helen and Michael's retirement be anything like gracious about the retirement of George W. Bush?

UPDATE 1: Labour and Green supporters are wandering the streets looking lost:

    Some voters distraught by election night results resorted to calling police, with one man ringing a counselling hotline and then 111.
    Spooked beneficiaries also rang a Government family helpline because they were "stressed" their payments would change.

I assume counsellors simply told them that they have been twice-deluded, and reassured them that they will see no change under John Boy.  Unfortunately.

UPDATE 2: More on those lost lefties wandering the streets and ringingt counsellors for help: What excatly DID leftwing campaigners tell some people? asks Liberty Scott.  "Sorry folks," says Madeleine Flannagan, "it's when the word Libertarianz replaces National that you might be worried, but by then the culture would have to have changed so radically that you wouldn't be scared anymore."


  1. Before talking about swallowing dead rats, I would wait a bit PC.

    I mean, life must be bitter after the Libertarianz result, but if you want to do better in 3 years time, maybe we can see some honest self analysis here.

    A holier than thou attitude doesn't change anything in this country.

    Maybe I suggest you guys fuse with the Bill and Ben Party? Together you will be worth almost 1 seat. You will be the junior party in such a coalition, but that might lead to some healthy infusion of reality.

  2. Oh dear, are you still going on about that, Berend, old sock? Ah well, good luck trying to make the state work, then. You'll need it! :)

    PC: don't be so damned rational! Allow us the courtesy of enjoying a bit of Labour/Green voter misery for the hell of it!! Even though the parasites have nothing to *technically* worry about, I love that they believe they do! ;)

  3. enjoying a bit of Labour/Green voter misery

    The truly bizarre thing Sus, is that there seem to be a lot of Labour supporters who aren't actually that miserable! Partly it's due to the fact that there won't be a hell of a lot of change (as the topic of this post infers), and partly because they were frustrated by the coalition with the stupid hippies.

    That godawful anti-smacking bill only came into existence because Labour needed the greens support. Obviously, people here are virulently anti-Helen, and many would happily paint her as evil incarnate but I really doubt there's any way she'd have supported such a fucked up piece of legislation if the greens hadn't used it as a non-negotiable bargaining chip when they formed the coalition.

    To my way of thinking, the nanny-state isn't so much a Labour thing, as a sad indictment of MMP. The entire country ends up with legislation that it objects to, simply because of coalition obligations. Labour should have told them to fuck off though - they were wrong, and now they're paying the price for it.

    By and large Labour supporters were as sick of the nanny-state as anybody else, and were more than happy vote against their own party in an effort to lessen the hold of the greens on government. I base this on conversations with friends who are usually Labour voters.

  4. Hi Ann .. you raise some good points. I'd agree with your last para in particular. I should have clearly differentiated between workers & parasites!

    However I do think the Labour party itself, the hierarchy in particular, is very pro-Nanny State .. MMP adds even more weight, unfortunately.

    I think of the odious Steve Chadwick, architect of the anti-smoking bill. An out-and-out zealot, that one. I'm told she was a Rotorua city councillor prior to being MP, and was every bit as busybodyish in that local capacity, as she was in Wgtn. There was old Marian Hobbes who was desperate to plaster the sopping wet charter all over TVNZ, God help us. And then there was the now-seldom-mentioned Margaret Wilson who stamped her authority over every piece of serious legislation in Clark's first term before being quietly sidelined. She was in & out to get the hard jobs done quickly, while keeping Clark's nose conveniently clean.

    Basically, the tired old feminazis - the old bra-burners - personify the Nanny State for me, godawful creatures that they are. :)

    No argument re deals over Bradford's anti-smacking bill, although that was a private member's bill, wasn't it, as opposed to it being Green policy, in 2005. So it was only a player once it was selected. It said more about Sue Bradford herself, than the Green party as a whole.

    So yes, there're obviously a lot of ex-Labour voters who went with the Nats on Saturday. The comment has been made several times that we all wish the National party really *was* the party that Labour warns of!


  5. Well said on the feminazis! I went through an ultra-feminist stage ages ago... started to burn my bra, but my nipples got too hot, so I stopped. To tell the truth, the other ultra-fems just fucked me off! Then I kind of figured the best way to be a feminist is to just be a decent, successful chick.

    I realise the anti-smacking bill wasn't officially Green policy, but if EVER there was a secret agenda, that was it. Not even their own supporters would have voted for them if they were up front about that.

    When you make me look at it, there are far too many Nanny-staters in Labour, a fact I've bitched about to friends in the past, but I do tend to let my hatred of the Greens and Jim Anderton cloud my comments sometimes.

    Jim Anderton... what kind of clown can't even spell Anderson correctly? ;)

  6. PC, I'm liking the sound of this woman very much! Anybody who uses "clown" to describe socialist politicians is a friend of mine! :)

    A word to the wise, though Ann; never think of loathing the Greens & Jim Anderton as "clouding" comment. On the contrary, it shows healthy logic! I think I can safely say that there's not a single issue on which I would agree with Big Jim. If he's in favour of something, it's a pretty safe bet that I'll be 100% opposed!

    And on the occasion I happened to agree with Keith Locke (abolishing sedition), I felt distinctly uncomfortable! :)

  7. Yes, it is always a strange moment when you find the left talking sense but then uncomfortable as the sentence "I agree with Keith Locke" might be we must remember to judge on the validity of the argument and not the person uttering it (even if the latter is oft a fairly accurate guide).

    For the record PC, as much as I appreciate hat tips, thankyou very much, I did not deserve the one above. The words you attributed to me were not mine, I was merely quoting Liberty Scott.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.