A chat and a cuppa

Written By: - Date published: 9:41 am, December 10th, 2007 - 47 comments
Categories: International - Tags:

n_rudd_clark_wideweb__470Ãâ€'2560.jpg

From Scoop:

“Clark first in Rudd queue”

Kevin Rudd has pledged to broaden relations with New Zealand after a flying visit by Helen Clark to put “Kiwi issues” on the new Australian prime minister’s radar.

In a sign of the importance placed on relations with the new Australian government, the New Zealand prime minister flew to Brisbane yesterday for a working lunch with Mr Rudd, the first foreign leader to meet him since he was sworn in.

Climate change dominated their talks, deliberately low-key, with few officials present for the meeting at Mr Rudd’s Brisbane home.

While National would like everyone to believe that they’d have just as fraternal a relationship with Kevin and Aussie Labor, I’m not so sure.
(Photo from The Age)

47 comments on “A chat and a cuppa ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Insolent Prick 1
    10 December 2007 at 10:09 am

    Who said National would like “everybody to believe that they’d have just as fraternal a relationship with Kevin and Aussie Labor”? What a ridiculous statement. Nobody seriously says that.

    What a lot of people do say is that the mood for change that saw Kevin Rudd elected, after eleven years of government by John Howard, are present in New Zealand after eight years of government by Helen Clark. John Howard was the Liberals’ greatest asset. It didn’t stop him getting trounced by a young, energetic new leader who capitalised on the mood for change.

    A lot of parallels with the mood for change in New Zealand, and the reason why people are flocking to John Key. A thirteen point lead in the polls, with both the Greens and New Zealand First–Labour’s preferred coalition partners–struggling to make the thresh-hold, and Labour’s claims that it’s the only party with coalition options begins to ring very hollow.

  2. Phil 2
    10 December 2007 at 10:10 am

    Any particular reason, other than usual bias, why John (Nat) would not get on with Kevin, in the way John (Lib-Cltn) did with Helen?

    Political leaders generally have the soundness of mind to work on the international stage with their peers, regardless of domestic background, rather than fall into the factionalized dementia many of their supporters suffer from.

  3. redbus 3
    10 December 2007 at 10:12 am

    Excellent picture.

  4. Mike 4
    10 December 2007 at 10:12 am

    Holy crap, Clark’s the NZ Prime Minister? From the number of posts about him here I’d assumed it was John Key.

  5. Insolent Prick 5
    10 December 2007 at 10:22 am

    I’m very surprised that The Standard omitted this quote from the Scoop article:

    “New Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said that he hoped New Zealand continued to vote for a socialist government, and suggested that Miss Clark take any reasonable and unreasonable steps to maintain power. Rudd said that he hoped never to see John Key as Prime Minister. “If the Electoral Finance Bill is not sufficient to keep the New Zealand Labour Party in power, then Australia would favourably consider sending frigates and strike aircraft at Miss Clark’s request.”

  6. James Kearney 6
    10 December 2007 at 10:26 am

    Prick you’re lying again.

  7. Billy 7
    10 December 2007 at 10:29 am

    Well spotted, James.

  8. Robinsod 8
    10 December 2007 at 10:41 am

    Prick – you’re back, brother! You’re comments seem to be getting a bit random again though, and you’d been doing so well…

  9. Insolent Prick 9
    10 December 2007 at 10:42 am

    Didn’t you read that quote in the scoop article, James? Crikey. Scoop must have deleted it. Do Scoop censor stuff now?

  10. PhilBest 10
    10 December 2007 at 10:43 am

    Hey, I think the Insolent one was being S-A-R-C-A-S-T-I-C, guys. Think about it long and hard and see if you can get your heads around this.

  11. Insolent Prick 11
    10 December 2007 at 10:45 am

    That surely isn’t the real Robinsod. The real Robinsod wouldn’t make those sorts of grammatical mistakes.

    Robinsod, I see you appear to have ceased threatening to stalk people, since somebody outed you on another blog. Try not to bring down the tone of the Standard. Tane has enough on her plate without having to deal with trolls like you.

  12. Robinsod 12
    10 December 2007 at 10:50 am

    Prick – I don’t need to stalk you any more because I know who you are (thanks to all of you who send me info). But guess what? Now everyone knows who I am I’ve got nothing to lose. I’m not gonna out you though bro. Just like your not gonna out anyone else, eh?

  13. Tane 13
    10 December 2007 at 10:53 am

    Robinsod, I’ve told you before, this game of threatening to out people is unhelpful. Please stick to the topic at hand and take your personal feud elsewhere.

  14. Robinsod 14
    10 December 2007 at 10:56 am

    Tane – I’ve said all I need to on this issue, Prick knows where I stand. As for an on-topic comment? Well, I agree with redbus – it’s a nice picture (good shot composition).

  15. redbus 15
    10 December 2007 at 11:01 am

    Prick, excellent FANTABULOUS comment at 10.22am!!

  16. Insolent Prick 16
    10 December 2007 at 11:05 am

    Tane,

    Don’t you agree that it’s hard to take the Standard seriously, when, apart from having such a bilious person as Robinsod batting for your team, the entire blog is obsessed with John Key? How much credibility do you think the Standard has, when even a nice photo-shoot with the New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers can’t get away with mentioning Key?

    Your category count has John Key with 54 articles at the Standard. Helen Clark is mentioned so rarely at the Standard that she doesn’t even have a category.

    From a purely strategic point of view, this seems very puzzling. Isn’t she supposed to be the Left’s greatest asset? Why aren’t you trumpeting her achievements? Or have you been privy to some focus group data, Tane, that suggests that people are just as sick and tired of her as Australians became of John Howard?

  17. The Double Standard 17
    10 December 2007 at 11:20 am

    Yeah, Kevin Rudd probably wouldn’t meet with a rich prick (except Evan Thornley of course)

  18. Billy 18
    10 December 2007 at 11:36 am

    TDS, Kevin Rudd is married to a rich prick.

  19. The Double Standard 19
    10 December 2007 at 11:40 am

    Billy – that doesn’t compute!

    Maybe Rudd would consider Key to be a class traitor, given that they both started off in single-parent homes on welfare.

  20. Insolent Prick 20
    10 December 2007 at 11:47 am

    When Kevin Rudd’s wife makes $100 million on setting up a company based on the contracting out of job placements by Australia’s welfare agencies, the Standard cheers. When John Key makes $100 million by creating wealth for exactly the economies that Michael Cullen lauds–Singapore–The Standard repeats Cullen’s smear of Key being a “rich prick”.

    What a hollow world these socialists live in.

  21. Tane 21
    10 December 2007 at 11:52 am

    When Kevin Rudd’s wife makes $100 million on setting up a company based on the contracting out of job placements by Australia’s welfare agencies, the Standard cheers.

    Prick, stop lying. Show me where The Standard has said this.

    When John Key makes $100 million by creating wealth for exactly the economies that Michael Cullen lauds

    John Key has never created wealth, he’s speculated on currency. That’s a crucial distinction there.

  22. Insolent Prick 22
    10 December 2007 at 12:03 pm

    Tane,

    The Singapore Government doesn’t hand over its international currency portfolio to Merrill Lynch to give John Key a fat margin. They do it to create wealth for the Singapore pension funds. It seems to be working, since Michael Cullen modelled the NZ Super Fund on the Singapore Government model.

    Your obsession with how John Key made his money, and constant sneering denigration of him, is out of whack with how ordinary voters see him. Most New Zealanders don’t begrudge the fact that John Key came from a poor family, educated himself, and then built a stellar career in international finance. Becoming a global managing director of the world’s largest and most competitive capital markets, wealth management, and investment banking firm has nothing to do with luck. Achieving that before the age of 40, when you’ve had the sort of disadvantaged background that John Key has had, is even less to do with luck.

    It says a lot more about you, and the rest of the Labour Party, Tane, that you are so resentful and snide towards success.

  23. Robinsod 23
    10 December 2007 at 12:16 pm

    IP – This time you are lying. John Key did not come from a poor background. He came from a state house background as did many other New Zealanders. This “rags to riches” story is just that – a story. Plenty of middle and working class people grew up in state housing. My family did so, was sustained comfortably on one professional income and had every opportunity available to them including overseas travel. Every child in that house came out with a degree or a post graduate degree and have subsequently had successful careers in business and/or government.

    Your problem Prick, is that because you are only 31 you have no idea of what pre-84 New Zealand was actually like. Key may be able to pull the wool over your eyes but any voter over the age of 40 is going to look at his background and say “so what?”.

    The irony is that that “society of opportunity” he has benefited from is anathema to his political beliefs.

  24. PhilBest 24
    10 December 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Actually, seeing Rudd has had to position himself so close to Howard on so many issues (tax cuts, alliance with the US, Christianity) before the Aussie electorate would trust him, and John Key has had to position himself so close to Clark for the same reason, it wouldn’t be difficult to see Rudd and Key getting on better than Rudd and Clark.

  25. the sprout 25
    10 December 2007 at 12:20 pm

    and less face it, anyone with a personal fortune of at least 50 million and 7 houses in nz alone, anyone who’s spent most of their life abroad until they got bored with just being rich and decided to buy thier way into politics, is bound to be totally in touch with everyday kiwis’ realities and concerns.

    not like the labour party, whose membership is mostly everyday kiwis who aren’t millionaires, whose politicians have spend their lives working with communities, even living in the electorates they represent.

  26. Insolent Prick 26
    10 December 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Robinsod,

    Tane’s already told you off today once for stalking. Getting creepy, buddy.

  27. Tamaki Resident 27
    10 December 2007 at 12:33 pm

    Impotent Dick – Didn’t John Key say right after the election of Rudd that NZ will have a challenge getting time with him because “Rudd will be focussed more on Asia, rather than NZ” or words to that effect? Perhaps that’s why John Key was mentioned? btw, how do you find the time to make so many comments on so many posts? Haven’t you got a proper job?

  28. the sprout 28
    10 December 2007 at 12:37 pm

    TR, this is his proper job, pretending to be a grassroots commentator.

  29. Robinsod 29
    10 December 2007 at 12:38 pm

    Tane’s already told you off today once for stalking. Getting creepy, buddy.

    What do you mean IP? I’m only explaining the dissembling nature of National’s spin vis-a-vis the “rags to richs” bullshit. Have you no answer for that?

  30. the sprout 30
    10 December 2007 at 12:39 pm

    on the night of the last reading of the EFB he posted 4000 words.

    i guess like those everyday mums and dads who can spend 100s of thousands on a third party lobbying campaign, he’s just really “passionate about the issues”.

  31. Insolent Prick 31
    10 December 2007 at 12:55 pm

    My apologies, Robinsod. You’re quite right. I momentarily forgot that Helen Clark also grew up in a state house, and that she attended that famous decile 1 school, Epsom Girls’ Grammar, and that her parents were peasant dairy-farmers. I also momentarily forgot that Michael Cullen also grew up in a state house, and attended that other celebrated decile 1 school, Christ’s College.

    I also momentarily forgot that every Labour front-bencher similarly grew up in state houses, and they all came from single-parent families with mothers struggling on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. I further forgot that there were far more single-parent families in the late 1960s and early 1970s dependent on benefits than there are today.

    I also stand corrected on your reference to large numbers of New Zealanders living in state houses when John Key grew up. In 1973, half the New Zealand population lived in state houses, and nobody was poor.

  32. r0b 32
    10 December 2007 at 1:04 pm

    “Don’t you agree that it’s hard to take the Standard seriously, when, apart from having such a bilious person as Robinsod batting for your team, the entire blog is obsessed with John Key?”

    Well IP, if you don’t like The Standard, you could always start your own blog…

  33. lemsip 33
    10 December 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Yes what a great picture. Helen looks so happy and Kevin looks so bemused…

  34. Robinsod 34
    10 December 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Jeez IP – you seem a little tense. I have no idea of how many of Labour’s MPs grew up in state houses but I know a lot of successful people who did and they certainly didn’t come from poverty. As for John? Well it’s just as well he had access to free university education (he spoke out against interest-free student loans) that he had access to free health care (“go down the road”) that he got to live in subsidised housing (sounds good unless it’s in Hobsonville), I’d imagine his mother would have had a widow’s pension, child support payments the whole shooting match… I could go on but the truth is Key and his success are a product of a welfare society he and his supporters would attack if they got into power. This self-made man shtick is just a useful tool to give rightwing house-slaves like yourself hope. You’re being used, Prick.

  35. the sprout 35
    10 December 2007 at 1:51 pm

    well put robinsod.
    Key’s postion seems to be prosper from the benefits of a welfare state then slam the door firmly behind you.

  36. The Double Standard 36
    10 December 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Robbo

    It’s a pity you didn’t take advantage of that free education too. It would have helped the language in your book about the privileged early life of John Key, and lies about his views on life. Didn’t you watch the DVD?

    BTW I dunno how you get child support from a dead man – must be a socialist resurrection trick?

  37. Gruela 37
    10 December 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Cheers Robinsod

    I think you’ve hit a raw nerve for the Right, there, (and hit it righteously). John Key would never have suffered in that state house, and it’s the very definition of hypocrisy to continue to use the fact of his state-supported upbringing in an attempt to gain power so that he can deny so many of the same benefits to those who need them today.

  38. the sprout 38
    10 December 2007 at 2:10 pm

    hear hear g

  39. Insolent Prick 39
    10 December 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Gruela,

    That analysis is flawed. Have you actually watched the Key DVD? He’s said quite clearly that he supports the welfare state. In fact, despite the Standard’s best efforts, nobody can find anything that Key’s said to suggest he doesn’t support the welfare state. His position has actually been very clear: he wants the welfare state to give under-privileged people the same opportunities he had. He wants people to aspire to achieve and get a better life.

    That’s a much more optimistic message than Michael Cullen calling Key a “rich prick”, and a “working class scab”, for no other reason than that Key lifted himself out of a poor family and into international success.

  40. the sprout 40
    10 December 2007 at 2:13 pm

    wow, is there a soundtrack that comes with that line IP?

  41. The Double Standard 41
    10 December 2007 at 2:18 pm

    What, the line where the standardistas claim that Key wants to slash the welfare state? How about “pack of lies”?

    IP – I don’t think Cullen hates all rich pricks, only the ones who don’t donate to Teh Party. After all, they had that mega-rich Oz Labor dude Evan Thornley speaking at teh conference a few weeks ago.

  42. Gruela 42
    10 December 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Insolent

    Key can say what he likes. It’s the National Party policies that speak volumes about what’s in store for those currently in state houses if they win power, and, if we DO ever find out what those policies are, I bet they won’t be helpful.

    Anyway, here’s 2:
    (1) Doctor’s fees too high? Tough, go down the road. (What, can’t afford a car? Got 2 sick kids? Not our problem.)
    (2) Like living in your state house in an affluent suburb? Tough, we’re selling it so we can buy two new ones in a poor neighbourhood. That way all you people with no money will be safely tucked away where decent people don’t have to look at you. That’s right, folks, we’re gonna build us some SLUMS!

  43. Robinsod 43
    10 December 2007 at 2:28 pm

    sprout – there used to be a soundtrack but he had to give it back.

    TDS: I dunno how you get child support from a dead man

    You fool, child support used to be money paid by the state for people who had children – it continued up until the late 80’s. You’ve got no idea about the social history of this country have you? You must be one of Roger’s children too. It’s no wonder you’re so bitter.

  44. The Double Standard 44
    10 December 2007 at 2:29 pm

    As opposed to Teh Parties policies where you can’t even get in to see a GP?

    Oh right, Teh Party is going to fix that one by importing more docs from RSA. Unfortunately that’s not really a realistic long-term solution.

    Perhaps they should pass a law banning medical graduates from leaving the country? That seemed to work for the DDR.

    G – is that really the best you can dredge up?

  45. Gruela 45
    10 December 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Double

    Who can’t get in to see a GP? Let’s have a bit of evidence here.

  46. The Double Standard 46
    10 December 2007 at 2:58 pm

    You fool, child support used to be money paid by the state for people who had children

    Do you mean the family benefit? I suggest you do a little research before calling others fools. Back to the kindergarten for Robbo I’m afraid.

  47. Robinsod 47
    10 December 2007 at 3:15 pm

    Ah DPFDblStdClaws – so what, I forgot what it was called, you’re not doing too well today are you? Never mind mate I’m sure mocking me will help you feel better. Perhaps you should go over to the bog and make a few comments there (I’ve noticed they’re in need of them).

    Oh, and why aren’t you calling me Robespierre anymore? I so used to like that.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.