Comments on: The joy of tory trolls

By: Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Great prospects

Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Great prospects — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:21:06 +0000

[...] Hat tipped to Paul McBeth for this one. As one side engages in some tentative but hugely premature triumphalism, and the other side points the accusatory finger, a sleeping giant awakes. This man — our [...]

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:51:14 +0000

A speech like this shouldn’t just be dreary to people like Andrei â€” it should infuriate and offend and anger them, and cause wailing and gnashing of teeth among their ranks.

It probably doers Lew but, considering the topic of the post, do you really think he’ll admit that?

By: randal

randal — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:43:44 +0000

how about calling for nationwide broadband so all the dweebs can stay home and thieve off the internet?

By: Zetetic

Zetetic — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:37:58 +0000

yeah a complete distinction. One is like calling for a maximum income. The other is like calling for no more jobs.

By: Danyl Mclauchlan

Danyl Mclauchlan — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:34:10 +0000

Perhaps some examples would help?

Key campaigned on capping the public service during the last election (obviously there’s a distinction between capping CEO salaries and the whole service, but the sentiment is the same).

By: randal

randal — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:33:22 +0000

felix it is near impossible to get a reply from a computer designed to look like a real person.
anyway the point is that Phil Goff has made it clear which side he is on and it is not the overprivileged over wealthy over stuffed bunchof geeks who believe that they are entitled to everything.

By: felix

felix — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:18:58 +0000

Yet the headline stuff could easily have been Key

I keep hearing this but I don’t get it. Perhaps some examples would help?

By: Lew

Lew — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:16:29 +0000

Zorr, possible, but I don’t see much to get angry about in that speech, even for wingnuts. Even David is only one notch above “mock” and the KBR aren’t out of second gear.

By: Zorr

Zorr — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:11:38 +0000

In this case Lew, it is every possibility that Andrei is here using terms like “dreary” in the effort to downplay the speech as much as possible. From what I have heard (because I don’t visit), Kiwiblog is more than up in arms enough over this so as to make up for the rest of the internet…

By: Daveski

Daveski — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:36:58 +0000

Whatever Goff said would have been trumpeted here simply because it wasn’t Key.

Yet the headline stuff could easily have been Key.

I’ve stated before that Labour has a fundamental challenge on many fronts. Nats won the election because they won the centre. Many here want Labour to focus on policies that appeal more to the left, not the centre. Likewise, Labour has challenges with core constituencies with Maori and the watermelon Greens.

As an aside, I’d love to see the cost benefit analysis of Goff’s plan to cap Govt CEO’s – that ain’t going to fund $15hr min wage.

By: gingercrush

gingercrush — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:59:38 +0000

This speech is the most clever single piece of politics since Orewa. Now, they’ve got to stick to it.

Stick to what? There were so many separate pieces to the speech that overall the message wasn’t coherent. Goff also seems confused as to what economy is doing.

By: Brett Dale

Brett Dale — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:41:48 +0000

Of course itr was the same old labour speech.

Rich people are mean, and poor people are nice.

I saw on the news a couple of nights ago, the media was interviewing this woman, who
was complaining the minunum wage raise wasnt enough, strangly the reporter did ask her, when she left school, what grades she got, and what career choices she made.

But I guess labur has never been about personal responsibility.

By: Danyl Mclauchlan

Danyl Mclauchlan — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:45:22 +0000

My reaction at 12:33 yesterday:

Update: The subject and themes of the speech are fine but the policies seem like a random grab-bag; it’s hard to imagine who they’re supposed to win over and I think they’ll be easy for Key to swat away: â€˜we need to attract high calibre leaders to run the public service and so we pay them accordingly’, â€˜a drastic rise in the minimum wage will cripple small and medium businesses and put countless struggling New Zealanders out of work’.

By: Bright Red

Bright Red — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:20:16 +0000

all politics is about the division of power – and from that resources, wealth etc – between competing classes in society. It’s always about us and them, that’s why we have political parties and not just a giant love-in.

the trick is to show or, in the case of the Nats, trick most people into thinking your party stands for them – the everyday good person – against ‘them’ – in this case the bludgers, rich and poor.

By: Lew

Lew — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:12:16 +0000

At a demographic level all two-party politics (and ours remains predominantly a two-party system) is about defining us and them. There are many ways of doing that. Iwi/Kiwi was a particularly deleterious way. What Goff’s doing isn’t the tenth part as bad.