Compassionate conservatism

Written By: - Date published: 12:30 pm, August 13th, 2011 - 12 comments
Categories: benefits, class war - Tags:

Fran O’Sullivan reveals her softer side today. No, she’s not against National’s benefit cuts for the unemployed, the sick, and invalids. Nor against cutting the wages of the 103,000 working 15-19 year olds on the half-baked premise that will create more jobs. But leave single mums alone, she says, because she had one. It reminds me of something I saw on the Daily Show.

[hmm, we see to have lost our ability to embed from the Daily Show but click the link]

“They’re only really entitlements [benefits] when they’re something that other people want. When they’re something you want, they’re the hallmark of a civilised society, the foundation of a great people. I just had a baby and found out that maternity leave strengthens society. But, since I still have a job, unemployment benefits are clearly socialism”

This really exposes the self-centredness of Torism. It’s like David Farrar supporting public money subsidising the wanky plays he likes to watch and Cameron Slater going silent on sickness beneficiaries ever since he became one after his insurance company stopped letting him rip them off. Or Paul Holmes who …. um … well even Paul Holmes doesn’t really know what he supports from one paragraph to the next but it generally involves violence against others challenging the system or saying it is failing them while bleating loudly for more support from the system for himself and those he care about. In talkback land, they’re always wanting more public money for sports and decrying the ‘bludgers’ who want ‘us’ to support their ‘lifestyle choice’ of being unemployed during the worst recession in generations.

The conflict expresses itself in the government’s rhetoric when they preen about any supposed spending increase on helath or edcuation, or infrastructure, while loudly decrying the fact that spending rose on exactly those things under Labour, when it didn’t benefit the Nats politically.

They’re all for government spending and rights but only if it directly supports them and their interests. And that is one of the fundamental differences between Left and Right. We give a shit about others.

12 comments on “Compassionate conservatism ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    13 August 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Fran O’Sullivan and the rest of her smarmy self satisfied cadre are leaving a shit hole for young New Zealanders to reside in.

    Let’s see how much fight the younger generation have. Many have none, but I know quite a few who do not like what they are seeing. And once they get politicised, it’s all on Francesca.

    • Craig Glen Eden 1.1
      13 August 2011 at 1:31 pm

      Yup the next generation are starting to wise up, its not that certain social services cant be afforded its that this Government dosnt give a shit they would rather give the money to their mates and a few state assets for desert. I remember having a conversation with a bloke who was bagging Labour he was self employed and really didnt think he should pay the amount he was for ACC. Sadly literally weeks later his wife had a bad accident ended up paralyzed. I can tell he changed his tune pretty bloody quick.

      I know its said often but there for the grace of God and the social consciousness of my fellow NZERs go I. Most of us are only one accident/ serious illness from poverty.

  2. jackal 2
    13 August 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Making the poorest in our communities bear the brunt of the downturn all the while campaigning for increased benefits for themselves is the epitome of conceitedness in my opinion. You’re right to highlight Fran O’Sullivan for her hypocrisy. Here she is advocating for cuts to student loans and WFF.

    “Key should do the same. This is the opportune time for him to review the extent of his Government’s tax-cuts, which are being funded through borrowing and not healthy surpluses, and the extent of the interest-free student loans and Working for Families tax credits bequeathed by the previous Government.”

    She believes anyone but the rich should pay for the tax cuts, which after you factor in the rising cost of living mean nothing to the poor. It’s a form of greed that is bordering on complete insanity, especially for those of us who understand the implications to such idiotic policy.

    The social cost to such a selfish ideology should not be underestimated. The effect of giving somebody funds that they effectively will not use and do not need and taking those funds away from somebody who requires them to survive and directly supports their communities, has far reaching consequences.

    Firstly it limits the ability of those affected to maintain themselves and therefore be able to be productive and contribute positively to society, and secondly it removes funds from the economy and adds to the economic downturn.

    It certainly is a negative mentality that seems to pervade the political right and I really do wish my taxes weren’t paying for the Tories to train in ways to promote their bigotries.

  3. randal 3
    13 August 2011 at 2:24 pm

    thats the essence of conservatism. throw a shitload of money at one small thing and think you got the whole thing covered because the press came round and took ya piksha. nada.

  4. the pink postman 4
    13 August 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Well its up to us Labour people to get these young people out to vote Labour . However it’s very hard Last election I asked a young man who he would vote for ,? Im voting National because they believe in full employment and they are going to give me a job . Then my wife explained Labour’s policy on rent to a young single mum..Wonderfull she replied if that happened it would make life a lot better.Good !says my wife so now you will vote Labour.?
    Oh no she says I will give National one more chance . Bloody Hell !what does one do? This is what were up against plus a right-wing media plus teflon John . Happy days.

  5. deemac 5
    13 August 2011 at 3:12 pm

    voters are still usure what Labour would do because unlike us political geeks they don’t read the blogs etc. That is why Labour is only bringing out one policy at a time and beating it to death – that’s frustrating for us but the only way to get traction when the media continue to ignore the party and belittle Goff.

  6. Nick C 6
    13 August 2011 at 3:16 pm

    “It’s like David Farrar supporting public money subsidising the wanky plays he likes to watch”

    Is Farrar on record as supporting public funding for the arts? If someone made an equivilent claim about an author here without any evidence they would probably be banned for a week.

    • rd 6.1
      13 August 2011 at 3:33 pm

      ” If someone made an equivilent claim about an author here without any evidence they would probably be banned for a week.”

      Where is your evidence for that statement?

      • jackal 6.1.1
        13 August 2011 at 4:50 pm

        The best the DF can do is lament the loss of the Court Report when TV 7 closes because of a lack of funding. However he is not outspoken against the closure, which is another hypocritical decision if you ask me. He is however outspoken against the welfare dependent and often promotes beneficiary bashing. Farrar allows comments that are so obviously hate speech, I often wonder why Kiwibog doesn’t get closed down. That will be my focus when the new rules are implemented. So in my mind Eddies statement is correct. It’s also not wise to make statements on how The Standard is administered… Especially when you’re wrong Nick C.

  7. tc 7
    13 August 2011 at 10:15 pm

    I’m sure some of the crap being written by the Brit media about the riots will give Fran, John and all the other members of the nat fan club more ideas to bring out the redneck in folk. Timed to follow the bene bashing policies being rolled out nicely.

  8. Vicky32 8
    14 August 2011 at 12:19 am

    In talkback land, they’re always wanting more public money for sports and decrying the ‘bludgers’ who want ‘us’ to support their ‘lifestyle choice’ of being unemployed during the worst recession in generations.

    Exactly! Danny Watson said back in the 90s, that he’d decided that there was one, and one only tax he would support – a compulsory tax on everyone in order to support rugby. WTF????

Links to post