Weekend selection meetings

40 comments on “Weekend selection meetings ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Santi 1

   9 December 2007 at 8:05 pm

   I can’t hardly wait for biographical details of these luminaries of the left. Are they teachers, unionists, academics?
2. Tane 2

   9 December 2007 at 8:16 pm

   No, I hear they’re currency speculators, bankers and corporate lawyers. Or was that the National Party? I forget.
3. James Sleep 3

   9 December 2007 at 8:49 pm

   Interesting stuff,

   Burns got selected for Chch central.

   We have our candidate confirmation meeting on Tues – Denise Mackenzie has been selection.
4. Santi 4

   9 December 2007 at 9:07 pm

   I doubt it Tane. Nobody with a bit of business sense would stand for the socialists.

   Knowing your aversion to money, business, capitalism and progress in general, your comments were predictable. Mediocrity will always rule in your book.
5. Gruela 5

   9 December 2007 at 9:12 pm

   Ever been to a party where you thought you were the funniest and most erudite one in the room, when in actual fact no-one could stand you and people were rolling their eyes behind your back?

   No? Santi probably has.
6. Santi 6

   9 December 2007 at 9:16 pm

   Ah, the witty Gruela and the wisdom of the luddite. Back to the Stone Age where you and the Greens would take us in no time.
7. Gruela 7

   9 December 2007 at 9:21 pm

   Nothing you write is of any interest to me, Santi. There is never any insight, wisdom or wit in any of your posts. You are an empty person.
8. Robinsod 8

   9 December 2007 at 10:04 pm

   Santi – I’m always interested to see those who are most scathing about teachers are often those most in need of them. The lack of wit or insight (not to mention the god-awful style) you show with your comments does nothing to disprove that analysis.
9. dad4justice 9

   9 December 2007 at 10:05 pm

   “Burns got selected for Chch central ” says J S lee p

   Great stuff, my cousin Brendan Burns got Ch Ch Central .

   The Burns lads are on a red carpet roll .
10. the sprout 10

    9 December 2007 at 10:42 pm

    and how many have you rolled up in a carpet FailedDad?
11. Tane 11

    9 December 2007 at 10:48 pm

    Hey Sprout, as fun as it is to bait Dad I think it’s best not to engage or provoke him.

    We’ve all seen what D4J has done to Kiwiblog, and I’d rather not see the same thing happen here.
12. the sprout 12

    9 December 2007 at 10:51 pm

    ok
13. illuminatedtiger 13

    9 December 2007 at 11:01 pm

    Tane, why should allowances be made for someone who comes in and makes postings like this? :-

    “Hi you scumbag lefties communist pc spittles – ready to go a few rounds you fucked up wankers ?”
14. illuminatedtiger 14

    9 December 2007 at 11:05 pm

    James it’s always nice to see your posts. I was saddened to see your blog has been closed. I hope to see you back blogging again in the near future!
15. the sprout 15

    9 December 2007 at 11:18 pm

    IT, well i did wonder that
16. illuminatedtiger 16

    9 December 2007 at 11:30 pm

    If it were up to me I would IP block the poster in question. Having a differing opinion is fine, there wouldn’t be any debate without it. However a line must be drawn and you have to question whether this poster is contributing anything and from what I’ve seen they are not and in recent days have been highly disruptive.
17. IrishBill 17

    9 December 2007 at 11:33 pm

    IT – Check your email.
18. Tane 18

    9 December 2007 at 11:34 pm

    Tane, why should allowances be made for someone who comes in and makes postings like this? …

    Hi illuminatedtiger, it’s not about making allowances for Dad, it’s about making the site pleasant for those of us who want to have a decent conversation.

    Dad is an attention-seeker and appears to be mentally unwell. I’ve seen what he’s done to other sites and I’m determined to not let it happen here. Indulging his illness only encourages him and drags down the level of debate for everyone.
19. illuminatedtiger 19

    9 December 2007 at 11:54 pm

    Fair enough Tane.

    On the subject of Christchurch Central it will be sad to see Tim Barnett go but I’m sure his replacement is equally competent.
20. Santi 20

    10 December 2007 at 6:33 am

    The democratic republic of Christchurch has always been a socialist bastion. Even a donkey in Labour colours could win that seat.

    A few kilometers away is Wigram, home of the agile, dynamic and profoundly intelligent Jim Anderton, nowadays minion of Helen Clark. His ought to be a constituency of morons, in my view.
21. Craig 21

    10 December 2007 at 9:59 am

    Well Labour’s cocked this one up – Rimutaka is a solid blue collar social conservative electorate and they’re running a 27 year-old career politician with no kids and no wife.

    From what I hear the floor, the delegate from the floor and one of the LEC voted against him so party HQ pushed him over the line.

    Oh he’ll get the seat alright – stick a red ribbon on a meat-pie and it’ll win in Rimutaka – but I suspect we’ll see the party vote slide next year. Good one guys…
22. PhilBest 22

    10 December 2007 at 10:40 am

    Might there not be a whole lot of highly able, pissed-off candidates whose selection has been blocked by the sisterhood in the beehive who hijacked the Labour Party years ago? These people should run under a “Real Labour” ticket, with Mike Moore and John Tamihere as leaders, with policies that actually stand for the workers rather than for social engineering. I personally might even prefer such a party to the Nats.
23. Tane 23

    10 December 2007 at 10:55 am

    Phil, John Tamihere and Mike Moore aren’t ‘real labour’, not even close. Real labour values are about fairness and social justice, values neither Moore nor Tamihere appear to have any affinity with judging by their incredibly right-wing economic views. They’re not working class heroes, they’re ignorant bigots who somehow ended up in the wrong party.
24. PhilBest 24

    10 December 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Tane, neither are YOU a working-class hero if you think the lowest-paid guys should keep on get 19.5% taken off them to help subsidise middle class families and to subsidise rich kids through uni.

    Notice that those capitalist dystopias, Ireland and Australia, that have shot up the OECD tables in the last decade or two, charge NO TAX AT ALL on the first few tens of thousands of income. Note that NO-ONE has MORE to gain by moving from NZ to Aussie, than the LOWEST PAID.
25. Tane 25

    10 December 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Phil, you’re making stuff up and starting to sound incoherent. I’d be quite happy to see a more progressive scale of taxation with lower taxes for people on low incomes and higher taxes for those who can afford it.

    But the point you miss entirely is that tax cuts will not solve the problem of low wages, they will merely mask the problem while reducing the ability of government to provide decent public services for all.

    To raise wages you need stronger industrial legislation and low unemployment – an area in which National has failed utterly.
26. Robinsod 26

    10 December 2007 at 12:35 pm

    They’re not working class heroes, they’re ignorant bigots who somehow ended up in the wrong party.

    No Tane, it was the right party for ignorant bigots in the years between Rowling and Clark.

    PhilBest – stop bleating on about workers you fool. Cutting the bottom tax rate like that would destroy revenues and result in huge damage to public services thus harming the must vulnerable of New Zealand’s workers. Unless it was coupled with a more progressive tax system that took up that slack at the top end (the Alliance had a very good 8 tier tax policy like this). I see you give teh example of Ireland – I’m assuming you would also endorse their top tax rate of 41% and their capital gains tax?
27. r0b 27

    10 December 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Might there not be a whole lot of highly able, pissed-off candidates whose selection has been blocked by the sisterhood in the beehive who hijacked the Labour Party years ago? […] I personally might even prefer such a party to the Nats.

    Well – Phil reveals his true colours. Plain old fashioned sexist. Disappointing Phil…
28. the sprout 28

    10 December 2007 at 1:53 pm

    not to mention (after all, none of the Ireland’s Economic Miracle brigade ever do) the billions of dollars of EU aid that went into Ireland, or the fact that the very affluent market of Europe is right on Ireland’s doorstep.
29. Eddie 29

    10 December 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Might there not be a whole lot of highly able, pissed-off candidates whose selection has been blocked by the sisterhood in the beehive who hijacked the Labour Party years ago?

    Come again? Let’s see….of the Labour selections so far:
    Napier – Russell Fairbrother (bloke)
    Rimutaka – Chris Hipkins (bloke)
    Christchurch Central – Brendon Burns (bloke)

    Jeeze, as far as I can tell none of them are even gay. I bet the sisterhood ain’t best pleased with its efforts to get more good women into parliament so far.
30. James Sleep 30

    10 December 2007 at 2:16 pm

    So when are we going to see d4j running for the family party?

    Or didn’t he pass their mental stability test?
31. The Double Standard 31

    10 December 2007 at 2:22 pm

    When are we going to see you working in Helen Clarks’ office James – it looks like the road to electoral heaven requires penance there.

    Actually, the way things are going a job in Phil Goff’s office might be a career enhancing move for a young fellow.

    BTW, do you think Mallard would pass the family parties mental stability test? After all, he’s the one that’s been punching folks in the real world.
32. PhilBest 32

    10 December 2007 at 2:26 pm

    And this is the “sexist” that said a couple of days ago that I was deeply sorry that the Nats didn’t keep Jenny Shipley as leader…..
33. PhilBest 33

    10 December 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Of course, we have to go to Farrarland to find out what IS the link between all these fresh-faced blokes getting all the nominations.
34. The Double Standard 34

    10 December 2007 at 2:32 pm

    “it was the right party for ignorant bigots in the years between Rowling and Clark.”

    And when did Clark join the party, enter government, and become minister exactly?
35. the bean 35

    10 December 2007 at 2:33 pm

    ahhh yes phil…let me guess. you can’t be sexist cos some of your best friends are women?
36. PhilBest 36

    10 December 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Robinsod
    Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    “…..Ireland – I’m assuming you would also endorse their top tax rate of 41% and their capital gains tax?”

    Do you NOT?

    What I’M saying is that you guys do NOT look to me like you truly represent the “workers”, and it’s time someone started a party that DID.

    Now Tane joins the ranks of the ECONOMIC GENIUSES that tell us that collective prosperity is all about minimum wage laws. Well, well, well. There’s NO LONGER ANY NEED for nations like Bangladesh and Somalia to remain in poverty. Just appoint Mr Tane from NZ as your economic advisor, and RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE, hallelujah! So SIMPLE, why EVER didn’t we SEE it before. All that stuff from Friedman, Greenspan, Roger Douglas, etc about economic growth, wealth creation, investment climate, was just bourgeois smokescreen. It’s ALL ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE LAWS!!!!!!!

    BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
37. the bean 37

    10 December 2007 at 2:38 pm

    “Of course, we have to go to Farrarland to find out what IS the link between all these fresh-faced blokes getting all the nominations.”

    well hang on phil… i am confused. i went to farrarland *shudder* and as far as i can make out he is saying the head honcho helen is responsible for these appointments of “fresh faced” blokes. so how does that fit in with the whole ‘sister hood’ chip you’ve got going? i thought helen was the head of the lesbian cabal? at least get your unfounded claims to match up
38. Tane 38

    10 December 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Now Tane joins the ranks of the ECONOMIC GENIUSES that tell us that collective prosperity is all about minimum wage laws.

    Phil, you’re increasingly incoherent. I never said the key to collective prosperity is “all about minimum wage laws”. I said:

    To raise wages you need stronger industrial legislation and low unemployment – an area in which National has failed utterly.

    If you think ‘stronger industrial legislation’ is limited to minimum wage laws then you honestly have no clue.

    It’s also a given that sustainable wage growth requires economic growth. What we were talking about was how to make sure low income workers aren’t left behind, and the best way to do that is through collective bargaining and strong public services, not tax cuts.

    Talking about Bangladesh and writing in CAPSLOCK just makes you look like a fool.
39. PhilBest 39

    11 December 2007 at 11:31 am

    Actually Tane in the REAL world nothing ensures that the most disadvantaged are more left behind than punitive industrial legislation.

    Contrast the US and France. Both wealthy nations. France has punitive industrial legislation and lavish social welfare provisions.

    The US has a HUGE sector of immigrants and illegal immigrants who are fighting to be allowed to stay in the US and keep their low-paying McJobs. FRANCE has a permanently unemployed underclass of immigrants that periodically riots and sets fire to things.

    Note that NZ is only about HALF as wealthy as the US or France.

    What this is all about is the extent to which a nation is “CAPITALISED”. I still stand by the point I am trying to make even if my comment above was a simplistic bit of mockery.

    A nation has to be able to afford the welfare and the generous conditions for workers. It has to have the wealth in the first place before it can share it around.

    NZ only has about HALF what a REAL first world nation has to share around. Then, even in those real first world nations there is a BALANCE that has to be achieved because of the power of INCENTIVES on human behaviour that flow on from certain political directions.

    Nations like France and Sweden that have gone down the path of cozy socialisation, even though they are much more wealthy than we are, have discovered that a point can be reached where they are in fact starting to destroy their own inheritance, and that they will have to raise the retirement age and things like that, because the rate at which economic activity is generating government revenue is falling behind their committals to programs of expenditure.

    Even Karl Marx never advocated socialism as an engine of economic GROWTH. He envisaged that the GROWTH of CAPITALISM would ultimately leave it in a position where it could be taken over.

    This is why full-on socialism has failed miserably in places like the former USSR, Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea. Actually, NO Capitalist economy has ever YET reached the point of “vanishing investment opportunity” envisaged by Marx as the appropriate time for the proletariat takeover.

    What has happened is that subscribers to his theories have been too impatient and by insisting on policies that restrain the engine of capitalism, leave themselves forever stranded in a kind of equilibrium whereby their preferred policies remain ever unsustainable.

    Schumpeter in “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy”, however, advanced the theory that Marx was wrong about “vanishing investment opportunity”. Schumpeter argued that Capitalism involved “creative destruction” so that there was ALWAYS fresh investment opportunity.

    Schumpeter DID argue though that Socialism WOULD triumph once the engine of capitalism had made enough people well off, and that these well-off people would succumb to socialist IDEOLOGY in a certain fashionable sense.

    George Soros? Ted Turner? Richard Branson? Al Gore? The Rockefellers? The Kennedys? The Chardonnay Socialists?

    Am I making sense, Tane?

    Love the opportunity for a proper intellectual discussion. You’ve probably been around and around these issues before and I’m probably wasting my time. I suspect that some people were born with some brain defect that prevents them from grasping certain realities.

    Or there’s the following assessment:

    “I conclude that reason, supported by evidence, is insufficient to dislodge from the human heart, a lie grounded in desire” – David Horowitz.

    Now THERE’S a guy who’s books you should read, Tane.

Links to post

1. Kiwiblog » Blog Archive » Brendon Burns wins Christchurch Central: posted on 9 December 2007 at 9:28 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS