Cullen leaving Parliament

67 comments on “Cullen leaving Parliament ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pat 1

   7 April 2009 at 2:08 pm

   “He will be missed, and probably not just by members of the Labour Party.”

   He will probably also be missed by members of the Green Party.

   Outside of those two groups, you might be hard pressed to find anyone else who will miss him.

   He was a polarising figure in NZ politics. Amongst the public he is probably well respected, but not well liked. Labour needed both him and Helen gone so they can move the party forward.
2. IrishBill 2

   7 April 2009 at 2:17 pm

   While I think Cullen was a good finance minister, I think he pissed away opportunities including the chance to reform the reserve bank act. Paying down debt etc was good but the failure to rein in monetarism left us with the housing bubble and an appalling private savings record as well limiting our ability to respond to the credit crunch.

   I also am uncomfortable with The Standard re-publishing Labour party press releases. I will remove it and replace it with a link.
   • lprent 2.1

     7 April 2009 at 2:24 pm

     No problem… I couldn’t find it on google when I wrote the post
3. mickysavage 3

   7 April 2009 at 2:20 pm

   Pat

   He is someone the right wing have demonised because they realise that he is so talented. He did polarise but only between reasonable kiwis and the loud but small group of people who insist on a tax cut no matter what the repercussions.

   He has been an exceptional Minister of Finance and under his stewardship the books have never looked better.

   When people retire in 15 years time they should take the opportunity to thank him for the Cullen fund and for Kiwisaver, presuming that they are not gutted in the meantime.
   • The Baron 3.1

     7 April 2009 at 3:07 pm

     Yes, well your opinion is evidently equally biased. Being a fan of Labour’s policies does not excuse you from looking objectively at the evidence there, my man.

     One can argue that it would have been difficult for the books NOT to look good given the economic times we had during the first 8 years of the 5th labour govt. Did he make the most of the fair weather? OECD comparisons say otherwise; interest rates grew high due to the fiscal stimulus he pumped into the economy, which lead to increased currency inflows, strangling out export growth as the dollar got higher.

     I think that the role of a finance minister is the most difficult to judge objectively – and I don’t think I will try… (though, I evidently lean to the right, but I’m not really too impressed by Billy either).

     What I do think is evident though is that Cullen misread the public’s mood quite disasterously towards the end. Surely his personal dogged refusal of tax cuts played a large part in Labour’s demise in 2008. I think there are lessons in that for Labour, even if you don’t want to go down the tax cut route.
     • lprent 3.1.1

       7 April 2009 at 3:15 pm

       I agree that he was mistaken about tax-cuts. He shouldn’t have put them in. We weren’t in a position that the fiscal position into the future was covered for all liabilities. In particular the liabilities for increased superannuation with only about a third covered.

       They were a beat-up from the right selectively using the wrong fiscal statements that looked only at the current fiscal statement rather than one including forward liabilities.

       The May 27th budget will highlight this, because Billy has to give taxcuts AND to account for forward liabilities under the Fiscal responsibility Act.

       Basically you’re wrong for the wrong reasons.
       • The Baron 3.1.1.1

         7 April 2009 at 3:21 pm

         Good points, though I’m not so interested in the rights or wrongs of tax cuts (at least in this thread) – the point was more one of PR, and how I think Cullen ended up with a shitty image by the end of that process…
         • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1.1

           7 April 2009 at 3:32 pm

           Fair enough, and you’re probably right on the politics of it.

           The Nat’s and the media ran with tax cuts for years and years as a story. Cullen’s job as minister wasn’t to win elections though it was to look after the government’s books.

           I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the problem with the boom times was that we didn’t inflate the bubble enough… 😉
       • ripp0 3.1.1.2

         7 April 2009 at 6:20 pm

         LP,

         The May 27th budget will highlight this, because Billy has to give taxcuts AND to account for forward liabilities under the Fiscal responsibility Act.

         How very interesting… AND… (for turned on monetarists along the treasury benches) a huge impediment to government economic/financial strategy. Basically in the current crisis with assets ‘locked’ and/or declining data relating forward liabilities (likely increasing).. puts the wrong folks in any PPIPs (public private investment partnerships) out front..
4. Tim Ellis 4

   7 April 2009 at 2:20 pm

   I wonder how Labour Party supporters feel about Cullen swallowing a few dead rats to do National’s bidding in those SOEs.
   • lprent 4.1

     7 April 2009 at 2:28 pm

     I thought that was the whole point of the SOE’s. That the government acted as a shareholder with an ability to appoint directors. The government didn’t act as managers or even have that much of a role in governance apart from that. The issue shouldn’t arise.

     It certainly hasn’t been an issue for Bolger doing the same under a Labour-led government.

     If you know of plans to change this separation of governance and ownership, I’d be fascinated to find out….
     • Tim Ellis 4.1.1

       7 April 2009 at 2:31 pm

       LP, Bolger’s appointment enraged many National Party supporters who saw the move as a sell-out on his part. Likewise I suspect many Labour supporters will be enraged with Michael Cullen.

       Yes, there is a separation of governance, ownership, and operational management through the SOE model. Yet SOEs are supposed to follow government policy–otherwise you wouldn’t have political appointments and “no surprises” policies with SOE boards.
       • lprent 4.1.1.1

         7 April 2009 at 2:39 pm

         No surprises generally means that the board keeps the shareholder(s) informed on policies.

         They follow policy in the same way that the police do. If there are funds put in to help with a particular purpose, then that is what those funds are used for. Of course the shareholder can stop putting funds in for those (usually social) purposes. That however is less of a governance issue than a political one.

         The biggest area of conflict is in the shareholders ability to define the dividend from the SOE. That is something that looks like it is being abused in the case of TVNZ at present with the ridiculous dividend that Bill English is expecting when there is falling revenue. That should be looked at in the next review.
       • Felix 4.1.1.2

         7 April 2009 at 3:33 pm

         Tim,

         That may well be true (about the enraged Nat supporters and equally enraged Labour supporters) but I don’t think it makes a blind bit of difference to the actual running of the SOEs, either by Sir Jim or Dr Mike.

         Hilariously, over at the bog they think Key’s master plan is to appoint Cullen because he’s a terrible economic manager, knowing that he’ll destroy Kiwibank in his ineptitude and fall right into Key’s cunning trap.
         • Tim Ellis 4.1.1.2.1

           7 April 2009 at 4:22 pm

           I agree Felix… I think I agree at least. Are you saying that it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to the operational management of SOEs who the directors of SOEs are? Because if you are saying that then yes I agree.

           The Cullen-destroying-Kiwibank theory is quite far-fetched. Mind you, if the National Government does have major plans to reform Kiwibank, it will be very hard for Labour to whack the Board about if Cullen is the Chairman.

           That’s why I think Cullen will have enraged many Labour supporters.

           Personally I think Cullen has a range of very useful skills, as Bolger did, which will serve him well as an SOE chairman. But I can’t help but think that many Labour supporters will think of him as selling out.
         • lprent 4.1.1.2.2

           7 April 2009 at 7:37 pm

           TE: getting back to this discussion…

           I don’t think that many labour supporters are going to have a big issue with Cullen on those boards.

           Personally I think that the sewer rats are pretty much falling into the trap of believing their own rhetoric. Given what Cullen intended to do with the economy (rather than what the sewer thinks that he should have done), he did a amazingly good job at balancing out the competing demands. After all Cullen had as his primary tasks something like this..

           1. to get rid of the systematic unemployment we suffered
           from the 70’s onwards. Thereby freeing up revenue.

           2. to get rid of the accumulated debt that was chewing up about
           a third of the fiscal revenue.

           3. start to deal with the forward liabilities of an aging
           population.

           4. start working towards a greater equality of opportunity
           – ie reduce the effect that the accident of your parents
           had on your opportunities

           5. make sure there was time to do these, ie get elected.

           Generally as far as I understand the arguments used in the sewer over the years, they evaluate down to
           “Me and people like me should get more because we are lucky”.

           The rule of finance ministers is that they have to make the hard choices for the whole of society both now and into the future – not just for the self-promoted cretins who think that they should be privileged than they already are.
         • archdupe 4.1.1.2.3

           7 April 2009 at 7:58 pm

           1. to get rid of the systematic unemployment we suffered
           from the 70’s onwards. Thereby freeing up revenue.

           MC had little to do with reducing unemployment – he can be congratulated however for not making it worse and taking advantage of favourable economic conditions.

           2. to get rid of the accumulated debt that was chewing up about
           a third of the fiscal revenue.

           Here he did well and used the favouable economic conditions to goood effect in reducing debt.

           3. start to deal with the forward liabilities of an aging
           population.

           Kiwisaver, Cullen fund will be remembered as his greatest achievement while finance minister – even Ket has remarked on this.

           4. start working towards a greater equality of opportunity
           – ie reduce the effect that the accident of your parents
           had on your opportunities

           Meh

           5. make sure there was time to do these, ie get elected.

           Meh

           Generally as far as I understand the arguments used in the sewer over the years, they evaluate down to
           “Me and people like me should get more because we are lucky’.

           Your understanding seems to be limited to bitter political claptrap and a view that people who earn a better than average wage do so because they’re lucky.
           • lprent 4.1.1.2.3.1

             8 April 2009 at 5:56 am

             archdupe: Your understanding seems to be limited to bitter political claptrap and a view that people who earn a better than average wage do so because they’re lucky.
             
             As a gentle warning. You’re probably just a simple idiot with the usual set of unthinking preconceptions of a wingnut about who votes and argues left. That is, I suspect that you consult the lint in your navel for guidance rather than using your brains (or doing a google search).

             Just for your information (if you can find space in that pealike thing you call a brain to store it in).. I’ve been in the top five percent of taxpayers since I left uni 28 years ago, except when I went back to university to get an MBA in Dunedin.

             Just to remove the other standard blinders that unthinking wingnuts like you use. I’ve also worked almost entirely in private industry as a manager and as a tech, helped set up a successful businesses exporting what is now known as SAAS, and spent a lot of the time at the bleeding edge of programming – because I like programming. I’m almost 50 years old, I’m not gay (for some reason wingnuts are obsessed by sexuality – I think they spend too much time massaging themselves), and I like the opportunities to be nasty to people who waste my time (so they don’t do it again).

             In various areas there are a lot of left (and right) commentators here with similar levels or better skills and life-skills. You learn whose opinions to respect. Your ones currently look like those of a voluble idiot.

             Now the probability is that you are just another low-skill (by my standards) wannbe. Is there any reason that I should consider your opinion as being anything apart from another foolish wingnut? I’d suggest that writing comments that show some use of intelligence or skills would be a start.

             In the meantime I’ll call social trends as I see them – without your idiotlogical blinkers.

             {now if this guy follows the usual form, he’ll start muttering about defensiveness or something similar. Where do they stamp these idiots out from ? Clay from Mordor?}
             • archdupe …

               8 April 2009 at 6:58 am

               Lprent

               “Generally as far as I understand the arguments used in the sewer over the years, they evaluate down to
               “Me and people like me should get more because we are lucky’.

               The rule of finance ministers is that they have to make the hard choices for the whole of society both now and into the future – not just for the self-promoted cretins who think that they should be privileged than they already are.”

               “Just for your information (if you can find space in that pealike thing you call a brain to store it in).. I’ve been in the top five percent of taxpayers since I left uni 28 years ago, except when I went back to university to get an MBA in Dunedin.”

               Guess you’re just lucky eh ?
               • lprent …

                 8 April 2009 at 7:09 am

                 Yes I was lucky. My genetics, early health care, parents, public services like water and sewers, and schools contributed an enormous amount. I’d like that everyone had at least those opportunities.

                 Then I did some hard work. It is a pity about you though… such a waste of effort by society and your parents.

                 We write the posts, you’re welcome to argue with them. However if you want to argue climate change here, then you have to know something about the science of the topic and be prepared to defend your assertions with linkages to something that also relies on science. Simple faith isn’t sufficient, because I don’t value it and nor do most of the commentators.
                 • archdupe …

                   8 April 2009 at 9:09 am

                   “Yes I was lucky. My genetics, early health care, parents, public services like water and sewers, and schools contributed an enormous amount. I’d like that everyone had at least those opportunities.”

                   “Then I did some hard work.”

                   Congratulation on your hard work and the efforts of your parents as early health care, public services are a freeish education are reasonably uniform across NZ I’m sure you can admit the level of bombast in your comments regarding people who do well just being lucky.

                   “It is a pity about you though such a waste of effort by society and your parents.”

                   Not sure what you’re on about IMO I contribute to society rather a lot both in my professional and personal life not to mention my taxes.

                   “However if you want to argue climate change here, then you have to know something about the science of the topic and be prepared to defend your assertions with linkages to something that also relies on science. Simple faith isn’t sufficient, because I don’t value it and nor do most of the commentators.”

                   Yet people here will still argue that NZ should proceed with a local carbon neutral policy which would have a sever impact on our main export earner and would do close to nothing in relation to global climate change.
                   • lprent …

                     8 April 2009 at 12:04 pm

                     …early health care, public services are a freeish education are reasonably uniform across NZ…

                     Bullshit. If you think that then you are severely mistaken and completely out of touch. For instance just look at the ERO rankings for schools and ask any teacher.

                     Yet people here will still argue that NZ should proceed with a local carbon neutral policy…

                     Yeah – point to one – I’ll bet that you cannot.

                     What we’re concerned about is that NZ is currently doing absolutely nothing effective to reduce emissions. Consequently our emissions keep rising. Each time a proposal is brought forward, narrow vested interests block it. The latest is the stopping of the ETS stopped by those morons in ACT.
                   • archdupe []

                     8 April 2009 at 6:33 pm

                     [Tane: Higherstandard, you’re still banned under this handle and every other handle you’ve posted under.]
               • Kevin Welsh …

                 8 April 2009 at 10:19 am

                 You’re my hero Archdupe.
             • Chris G …

               8 April 2009 at 4:53 pm

               archdupe just got owned.
         • Felix 4.1.1.2.4

           7 April 2009 at 10:59 pm

           Ah no Tim, I meant the insane baying of fringe nutters like your mates over at the bog have no impact on the likes of Bolger and Cullen.

           So far it’s all Nact supporters who seem to be throwing their toys out of the cot – haven’t seen any lefties annoyed at this and I can’t really see why they would be.
       • r0b 4.1.1.3

         7 April 2009 at 8:17 pm

         I suspect many Labour supporters will be enraged with Michael Cullen.

         Not this Labour supporter. Cullen is a good man who will work hard to serve this country in whatever he does. Thanks for everything Michael!
         • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.3.1

           7 April 2009 at 8:29 pm

           I’m pretty much of the same view. Absolutely no bad feelings about this appointment, and think it’s a good call on the part of the Nat’s.

           The reaction from starboard is hilarious.
         • r0b 4.1.1.3.2

           7 April 2009 at 8:45 pm

           The reaction from starboard is hilarious

           It certainly is. My god they’re a hateful bunch of little weenies.

           I was amused to see our own Tim Ellis posting over there: I think it’s a good move. Replace that traitor Jim Bolger who swallowed so many dead rats to do Labour’s bidding, with Michael Cullen, who will be seen as a traitor by the Labour Party for having to swallow dead rats to do National’s bidding.

           So sorry to disappoint you Tim!
           • lprent 4.1.1.3.2.1

             8 April 2009 at 5:36 am

             rOb and others looking at that extraordinary whining at the sewer:
             Generally voters on the left tend to be more rational than those on the right (in my experience). It comes from having a wider range of opinion to deal with as far as I can see.

             The voluble ‘right’ has been collapsing into a sort of a black hole of required shared opinion for decades. Rather than embracing diversity, they keep trying for extreme conformity. They huddle together like sheep on a cold night for comfort against the diversity of ideas in the world. I keep expecting them to start instituting the use of thought police (or karma points).
             • archdupe …

               8 April 2009 at 7:01 am

               “I keep expecting them to start instituting the use of thought police (or karma points).”

               mmmmm bit like the climate change posts on this site ?
         • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.3.3

           7 April 2009 at 9:54 pm

           That’s delicious.

           Everything seems to be so personal. It’s all betrayals, treachery, dirty rotten bastards and revenge.

           How exactly is Cullen needing to swallow dead rats do you think? Or Bolger for that matter? Isn’t it just a matter of having to work with people that you don’t agree with politically?

           oh noes! and. cooties!!

           Tim: Dead rats is what you swallow when you do things you hate, for the higher aim of getting power to do other things.

           Like supporting kiwisaver, the Cullen fund, wff etc and promising not to privatise stuff, all to get part one of a tax cut package. That’s a dead rat feast.

           Cullen isn’t doing anything like that.
         • r0b 4.1.1.3.4

           7 April 2009 at 10:14 pm

           Everything seems to be so personal. It’s all betrayals, treachery, dirty rotten bastards and revenge.

           Well after all, it was one of the Nats own insiders (Keenan) who refered to the rank and file of National Party supporters as “barking mad”. Welcome to Kiwiblog – woof woof. Even so I’m a bit surprised to see that DPF himself brought in to the whole personal hatred thing completely. I thought he was smarter than that. Guess not.
         • BLiP 4.1.1.3.5

           8 April 2009 at 8:58 am

           Yeah – they really are a barbarous bunch of babbling baboons over there. I seldom bother with the sewer but your comments piqued my interest – far out – they really are quite rabid on this one.

           And I thought my comments were sometimes a little harsh . . .
5. Pat 5

   7 April 2009 at 2:33 pm

   Looking back at his legacy as Finance Minister there are a few bouquets and brickbats:

   The Cullen Fund and KiwiSaver. These will be his biggest legacies.. Both were far-sighted proposals which were needed and will be proven correct in the long term. Although I agree that contributions to the Cullen fund should be suspended until we can have some confidence that the investment markets have returned to some stability. Cullen should have allowed 2% contributions to KiwiSaver from the get-go. Once 50% to 70% of Kiwis have joined KiwiSaver, it needs to become compulsory and employee contributions stepped up gradually until they reach minimum 8% to 10%.

   For me his biggest disappointments as Finance Minister were his inaction and inability to intervene when the first finance companies started to collapse. Secondly he effectively engineered a recession by keeping the Reserve Bank focused on an inflation target instead of a growth target. 9 years focusing on a growth target may have seen NZ businesses profits and workers wages increase, thereby reducing reliance on supplementary benefits such as WFF. Thirdly he could have called the Banks to task to maintain a large proportion of lending to businesses instead of letting them just focus on the easy stuff e.g. housing sector.

   If he had done these, then he would truly have been the greatest finance minister. Alas, for me, he was far from it.
6. BLiP 6

   7 April 2009 at 2:38 pm

   Its reassuring to see Cullen heading to KiwiBank in that I suspect he would fight tooth and nail any privatisation maneouvering John Key and his mates may have in mind.

   Thanks to Michael, he’s done a good job. And good luck to him. He’ll need it.
7. Brett Dale 7

   7 April 2009 at 2:55 pm

   His wit??? He came off as childish, almost mocking people who thought different than him. It was extremely embarrassing the way he use to laugh off serious questions by members of the public, he was a jackass if you ask me, poor NZ post.

   Oh well at least he didn’t lie about his sexuality because he doesn’t have one.
   • Pascal's bookie 7.1

     7 April 2009 at 3:06 pm

     wtf?
     • lprent 7.1.1

       7 April 2009 at 3:18 pm

       I think Brett has a strange obsession that erects itself on occasions. It hasn’t been enough of an issue to warrant a striking off of the offending behavior. Although I have had to do it once recently like this for something that was even further out of context.
   • Chris G 7.2

     7 April 2009 at 4:00 pm

     Gee Brett settle down

     Are you alright after hearing this news? Couple a panadol and a lie down perhaps?
8. vto 8

   7 April 2009 at 3:24 pm

   I wont miss him. At all. As someone said above his wit was a caustic type that made nasty fun of people.

   He also had envy bones – witness his maiden speech and his ‘rich prick’ comment to name but two.

   In addition his approach and words reflected a belief that people’s own money (read: working lives) was not their own but rather the govt’s, for taking and spreading around to his own whims. Proven by his constant reference to tax cuts as a ‘spend’. Nobody else in the world refers to a drop in income as a spend.

   On top of that Cullen, and the entire govt, rode the riches wave that resulted from 80s and 90s reforms and from world growth. I cannot see any measure of growth NZ experienced that is a result of his actions. In fact the reverse occurred – dropping down the OECD ladder, contrary to his own aspirations and endeavours.

   Time must pass before he can be judged objectively. Imo he will end up being assessed in the same light as Clark – didn’t really do much at all during a time of golden weather.

   I know many will rate him very highly. I would suggest tho that this adulation is similar to that which shone around Muldoon when he first left office – such was his similar band of blinkered fans.

   captcha: prime credit. ffs!
   • Kevin Welsh 8.1

     7 April 2009 at 3:55 pm

     “I wont miss him. At all. As someone said above his wit was a caustic type that made nasty fun of people.”

     Better make sure you steer clear of KiwiBlog then vto.
   • aj 8.2

     7 April 2009 at 4:23 pm

     Muldoon? adulation? were you around then?
   • George Darroch 8.3

     7 April 2009 at 5:51 pm

     Yeah, he was smart, witty, and often nasty. He certainly wasn’t alone in that regard.

     I was hoping the departure of his generation would see an improvement in the institutional culture of Parliament, but looking at the frontbenches I think I was wrong.

     Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the best people in Parliament are those that are quiet and polite, and work well with others.
9. Brett Dale 9

   7 April 2009 at 3:27 pm

   Just trying to stoop to his level, its not wit if your not being nice.
   • lprent 9.1

     7 April 2009 at 3:35 pm

     Like your writing that I struck off the other day? It was out of context, unfunny, and not nice… I was not amused, more appalled at the level of inherent stupidity displayed.

     But I have noticed that you expect a different standard to be applied to you than you apply to others.
   • Felix 9.2

     7 April 2009 at 3:35 pm

     Um, I don’t think you’ve quite found his level just yet. You may be looking the wrong way.
10. barnsleybill 10

    7 April 2009 at 3:36 pm

    I could not be more angry about this appointment.
    While I agree that kiwisaver, the cullen fund and kiwibank have been good decisions almost everything else this man has done has been catastrophic for this country. Starting with the 39c tax rate. The increase in personal tax was the single biggest factor in creating the environment that caused the housing bubble. There is little point re litigating the railways, auckland airport and wellington lines company decisions because this is probably not a forum where I will get any purchase on those issues.. So let me say. This is not why I voted National. I shall never vote for them again.
    It really is a little club our parliament. My hopes that the new face of John Key would see an end to the theatre of partisanship while they are all feeding in the background.
    My contempt for John key is now as total as it already was for Michael Cullen.
    • Chris G 10.1

      7 April 2009 at 4:03 pm

      My contempt for John key is now as total as it already was for Michael Cullen

      Hahahahah this is just fantastic.

      Maybe hes a mole in the National party! haha! Whats the bet thats the next thing you lot will say?

      CAPTCHA (I HAD TO CLICK REFRESH UNFORTUNATELY):

      – – – Unstable voters

      You know it Mr. C!
    • archdupe 10.2

      7 April 2009 at 8:00 pm

      BB you should know that parliamentarians all have one thing in common – glee at gorging in the taxpayers trough.
    • r0b 10.3

      7 April 2009 at 8:21 pm

      My contempt for John key is now as total as it already was for Michael Cullen.

      Don’t cry barnsey, you’ll still have your nice big tax cuts to keep you warm at night. Oh no – wait…
11. Pat 11

    7 April 2009 at 3:57 pm

    BB your contempt is ill-founded. Key has helped to engineer the swift departure of Labours two biggest political figures. Goff is a nice guy but he is as inspiring as a grapefruit in the morning, and Key will back himself to beat Goff any day of the week. Labours next cab off the rank Cunliffe is a pompous “vainglorious” twat, and by comparison Goff looks like Dan Carter. So Key has secured Labours impotence as a political force for at least the next 2 terms.

    Long term savior for Labour will be Jacinda Ardern. No-one else in their ranks comes close, but she needs time to develop her political experience and profile, and for others further up the pecking order to expend their leadership ambitions.
12. gingercrush 12

    7 April 2009 at 4:00 pm

    And just who are you going to vote for Barnsley Bill? Since if you support Kiwibank, Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund its hard to see a party you could vote for. You couldn’t vote Act since they would love to see the Cullen Fund ripped to shreds. It couldn’t possibly be Labour etc since they put in Michael Cullen as Finance Minister in the first place. So you’re going to vote for some party that isn’t even represented in politics? Get real. That is the problem with bloggers. You’re so completely out of touch with anything of relevance that you just spout out bullshit.

    Oh and I also don’t buy into bullshit that this is some great political move by John Key either.
    • Chris G 12.1

      7 April 2009 at 4:05 pm

      Bill and Ben, theres your new home disillusioned National (?) bloggers

      Embrace the anarchism?
13. Brett Dale 13

    7 April 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Cullen has a history of cruel behavior towards others that disagree with him, Im guessing he was a bully at high school and would mock anyway that came from a different view.

    People were hurting under hie reign, and he would just laugh at thier concerns.
    • gingercrush 13.1

      7 April 2009 at 4:35 pm

      Brett you’re sounding like an idiot.
      • George Darroch 13.1.1

        7 April 2009 at 5:54 pm

        Brett is sounding quite sane. Although there are plenty of filthy bullies in National too.
    • Chris G 13.2

      7 April 2009 at 8:01 pm

      i dont know if rash speculation counts as being sane
14. Brett Dale 14

    7 April 2009 at 4:29 pm

    I cant remember writing anything about you being struck off????
15. Brett Dale 15

    7 April 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Your sounding like Cullen.
    • rainman 15.1

      7 April 2009 at 8:43 pm

      Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh!!! It’s “you’re”, as in “you are” with the “a” removed and an apostrophe inserted. How hard can it be to get this right?

      Sorry, as you were.
      • Felix 15.1.1

        7 April 2009 at 9:50 pm

        Our Brett has quite a few things to learn about the use of the language before he gets to contractions, frustrating as it may be. It’s easier to read him if you imagine he’s rolling drunk and typing with bloodied stumps. I’m serious, try it.
16. mike 16

    7 April 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Cullen is lucky rich pricks in high places can rise above petty name calling.

    An extremely intelligent man who soiled his reputation with too much arrogance and bitterness.
17. Chris G 17

    7 April 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Gee all you righties seem to know Cullen so well.. Must have had a lot of chats over beers?

    What with: – Brett ‘knowing’ that he was a bully in highschool.
    – Mike ‘knowing’ he had too much arrogance and bitterness.
    …
    • mickysavage 17.1

      7 April 2009 at 10:24 pm

      I agree with Chris G

      Name the incident rather than come out with the sweeping generalisation.

      When has Cullen exhibited cruel behaviour? You mean when he said “We won, you lost, eat that”?

      It was 9 years ago. They are 6 words. We should not judge the quality of the man by 6 words out of millions that he has said over the past 9 years.
18. Irascible 18

    8 April 2009 at 5:58 am

    Congratulations on Michael Cullen’s talents as a strong fiscal manager being recognised. I’m sure that his time as Minister of Finance will be recorded as being one of the more successful and responsible periods of management in recent NZ history. It is a pity that the Engkeylish regime are busy dismantling the foundations in as they prepare to sell off the nation’s assets.
19. Brett Dale 19

    8 April 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Chris

    Leopards don’t change their spots.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS