Dead cats and silly sausages

Written By: - Date published: 8:15 pm, February 14th, 2019 - 125 comments
Categories: labour, national, trevor mallard - Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Gosh, what a busy two days. We get one day for political pundits and other commentators to talk about National’s disastrous polling, and then suddenly a lot of weird behaviour happens from the Nats, almost like they have been instructed to generate political headlines that don’t deal with Bridges’ and National’s descent into opposition fever.

Firstly, David Carter, infamous former speaker who once ejected the majority of the collective female caucus of the Greens and Labour, threw a dead cat onto the table by denying a quorum to the finance and expenditure committee for the day. If you haven’t read Russel Brown’s excellent article on why this is constitutionally dangerous, you should. Even granting Carter having a point about Labour MPs being constantly late or sick, this is not a proportionate response, and it’s actually really dangerous and a step towards American-style democracy where the assumption of nonpartisan scrutiny of legislation is gone and it’s all about who can make numbers and abuse procedure to get things done. This is a new sort of low for Carter, who while blindly partisan as a Speaker, never tried to pretend that the committees whose whole purpose is to scrutinize government ideas and improve, amend, or defeat them are somehow on the government to run- rather, it is every party’s duty to ensure that there is a quorum.

It must be absolutely devastating to people who traveled to be heard by Parliament, who are frequently experts or stakeholders.

Secondly, National posted a new 30 second ad spot online, and as you may have seen elsewhere, boy is it a sausagefest. I have, in a fit of pique, offered my strategic advice to the submissives at the National Party Communications team for free, but in the future they will need to pay me at least $75 an hour for public humiliation. Professional doms and dommes are welcome to advise if my rates should be adjusted. (I am confident in offering this advice knowing the National Party is too dumb to pull it off anyway)

https://twitter.com/MJWhitehead/status/1095836973535653888

(Also, could someone please let Hamish Price know I actually currently work for a former National Minister, and not the Green Party? Thanks. I’d love to be a Green strategist, but sadly party funding is mostly through donations rather than funding, and they can’t afford enough that I’d be anywhere near the top of their list)

https://twitter.com/hamishpricenz/status/1095831742873710592

So, to advice for Hamish: The optics are disturbing. A young woman, who is a strawperson for Labour, has some vague enthusiasm for kiwibuild at a barbecue where literally everyone else is a man drinking beer, but unlike any woman I’ve ever known interested in politics, she doesn’t know any of the details. They, being unable to get numbers into their poor testosterone-filled heads, say that kiwibuild must build 33 houses every day for ten years- that’s not actually true, it has to average 27 per day since the inception of the policy, according to that bastion of progressivism, NBR. This being an attack ad, they fail to mention any alternatives, anything positive done by National in Government on housing, (good fucking luck) or generally discuss the issue in any actual depth. It’s just basic nitpicking and mansplaining.

Now, as any media studies 101 student will be able to tell you, in a political ad we recognize people and things as symbols and stand-ins. Our young woman is both a stand-in for the Labour Party, and for Ms Ardern. The problem is… she’s nothing like Ardern. She is Jacinda Derangement Syndrome parody of a capable Prime Minister who politely but firmly would shut down this kind of arrogant nonsense, and would point out that the outcome of making houses easier to get is the real point of kiwibuild, not whether it hits an arbitrary target. For a party whose best leadership prospects are both female, you would also think that one of the two people arguing their side would be a woman. With its focus on kiwi barbecues, phallic imagery through only cooking sausages for some reason, (throw a bloody steak on, jeez. And maybe some zucchini, or whitebait, or something other than just sausages) the only people this ad spot is really talking to symbolically are the feral men who are already National’s base.

When you’re doing an ad that puts your ideas up against someone else’s, you want to take their best points there and refute them. If anything, National has instead implied by critiquing the delivery rate of homes that Labour needs to be doing bigger and better public spending on solving the housing crisis, which is the criticism Greens like me have on it, that we should be investing far more capital in expanding the local construction industry to allow for construction of otherwise fiscally unviable smaller units or larger apartment complexes, and drastically extending state housing stock with affordable medium-to-high density housing  in places accessible to people’s existing jobs and lives.

Centrists like Ardern- even 27% of people who didn’t vote for her think she’s doing a good job. National needs to avoid having anyone in their ads who represent her, because they’re not going to succeed in tarnishing her image this way, and trying to will turn off voters.

I also disagree with Danyl, who believes this is somehow ten-dimensional chess. Have you met anyone from National? They’re too risk-averse and not smart enough to pull off getting the libs to own themselves.

National honestly needs to just get an intern with a lick of sense in the room when they plan these things out and tell them their job is to tear the whole thing down as much as possible with every reasonable criticism, and then give them veto power if an idea’s too fucking stupid. For a party wanting to win at least 47% and knock out NZF, alienating women by portraying them as gullible know-nothings and using straw-women to stand in for a leader they largely like is an abysmal idea. I know women who vote National who will be appalled at this ad, and at the fact that their party can’t divide. Next time instead of a scoffing beer hipster correcting people, maybe have a smart blonde, perhaps named Amy, giving the lines. It won’t be that much better, but it will at least imply you value women rather than looking like sexism in action.

This is every bit National’s Asian-sounding names moment, and should be used against them again and again in the same fashion.

And finally, in news that is related to government dumbfuckery this time, Mallard has rightly lost patience with his own government stuffing around on written questions. This has been one of the worst governments for answering written questions, (like bad OIA responses, this has been a bipartisan trend over time for both Labour and National governments) with deliberately opaque answers the norm, and it has made National’s dumb dragnetting look somewhat reasonable by baiting them into asking hundreds of near-identical questions to “be specific” in their trawls for info from Labour and New Zealand First ministers.

The Speaker has put his own government on blast, awarding ten additional questions to the opposition per day until the situation is resolved, giving them an alternative way to hold the government to account. This should, I think, be viewed as a good move by the Speaker, and is every bit in line with Ardern insisting relating to our first piece of news that her own people do show up to committees on time so as to run a small target. The public has every right to have the answers to questions about what Ministers are doing, and written questions allow less sensational accountability from ministers outside of the performance that is Question Time.

125 comments on “Dead cats and silly sausages ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ovid 1
    14 February 2019 at 8:26 pm

    Minor correction – your third link is a piece by Andrew Geddis, not Russell Brown.

  2. JustMe 2
    14 February 2019 at 8:41 pm

    Some years ago whilst on the express bus from home to downtown Auckland I was sitting next to a young woman called Katie. Katie(yes that is her real name)worked part-time as a receptionist for a company near to the CBD. She earned more working part-time than I and so many other low income NZers could ever earn working full-time. Meaning Katie earned over $52k for a part-time job of say 20 hours a week.

    She was totally and utterly brainwashed with ALL THINGS NATIONAL government at the time. And she wasn’t even a blonde whereas the ‘National Party advert'(please someone tell me the Chinese paid for this advert and NOT the NZ taxpayers)has the young woman as a blonde(and no it’s not Sarah Dowie).

    Katie took everything the National government said as absolute unquestioned Gospel according to Saint John Key and Saint Bill English(the Double Dipping MP for Dipton). When English said there is a surplus then Katie believed it was a Biblical Proclamation.

    Gawd Katie was so naive and gullible. I haven’t seen her since 2017 but would not be at all surprised if she still believes every word a National MP says in front of the camera, in the main stream and biased towards National NZ media or on the radio.

    Amazing how many Katies there are in NZ that take everything National and their media supporters tell them with absolute devotion.

    And so could it well be the sausages shown in the National Party advert are the suppositories National needs nowadays to keep the Shit Within Itself and not let anyone else hear or find out what has truly been happening behind the closed doors of the NZ National Party????????!!!!!

    • tc 2.1
      15 February 2019 at 6:32 am

      The 80/20 rule. There goes one in the 80 not the 20 and that’s why we keep getting the asset strippers being voted back in.

      The 80% also has an incredibly short selective memory to align with its media fed beliefs. Key fronted the bs slogans in 08 to get in and it worked a treat.

    • left_forward 2.2
      15 February 2019 at 6:58 am

      I like the suppository theory.
      Mind you it doesn’t matter which end, if you don’t eat greens with your barbie, then the resulting constipation will do a similar trick.

    • James 2.3
      15 February 2019 at 8:48 am

      If you earn less than a part time receptionist- I suggest you look for a new job.

      • Adrian 2.3.1
        15 February 2019 at 11:28 am

        I would bet that if you’re dopey and naive and pretty and earning more than 100k as a receptionist anywhere there’s a lot more than answering phones involved. Especially if the place is run by right wing arseholes.

      • Brigid 2.3.2
        15 February 2019 at 2:42 pm

        In your gormless inimitable way James you have missed the point. Again.

        I suggest, as Gosman has obviously done, you go outside and play and leave the discussion to the adults.

  3. ken 3
    14 February 2019 at 9:55 pm

    How far off are they from bringing an actual dead cat along?

    • Incognito 3.1
      14 February 2019 at 10:27 pm

      Once they have found Schrödinger’s cat but every time they open the cat’s cage, it’s gone!? Simon’s went on a wild goose chase to find the one who let the cat escape but JLR denies he’s the scapegoat and hit back that National is Cuckoo land. The moral of this story is that when you play too much with your sausage you get myopia.

    • marty mars 3.2
      15 February 2019 at 10:20 am

      Lol true Ken – God knows what sizzleless Simon will do with that!!!

    • Shadrach 3.3
      15 February 2019 at 10:31 am

      Or two dead fish??

  4. In Vino 4
    14 February 2019 at 10:04 pm

    In your 4th or 5th paragraph (hard to tell), why is the young lady’s head filled with testosterone? I thought that was for males, and young ladies were fired by oestrogen.
    Oh God, is that why my love-life went wrong so often?

  5. Dan 5
    15 February 2019 at 12:04 am

    Lovely calming sausages with a reactionary message.

  6. vto 6
    15 February 2019 at 8:26 am

    So if the sausage ad is sexist, wtf is this?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCWVOit7sRY

    Hypocrisy of the left leaves it in tatters at times.

    • arkie 6.1
      15 February 2019 at 8:49 am

      So if the sausage ad is sexist, wtf is this??

      Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

      • vto 6.1.1
        15 February 2019 at 9:00 am

        Of course

        argument valid

        both sexist

        inconsistency of approach weakens point and pointer-outerers

        voters notice

        • arkie 6.1.1.1
          15 February 2019 at 9:09 am

          I didn’t even know Webjet Australia was an agent of the Left, so I’m guessing voters probably won’t notice.

    • ankerawsharkP 6.2
      15 February 2019 at 9:24 am

      VTO clearly you are bothered by sexism………..good for you. Don’t use Webjet and dont vote National.
      And yes as Arkie says didn’t realize Webjet a left wing company.Ha ha ha

    • Naki man 6.3
      15 February 2019 at 5:45 pm

      “So if the sausage ad is sexist, wtf is this?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCWVOit7sRY

      Hypocrisy of the left leaves it in tatters at times.”

      Clearly a sexist Labour add with a brunette called Cindy.
      It is funny watching the left get all bent out of shape over this, the longer its in the media the better.

    • Jess NZ 6.4
      15 February 2019 at 7:18 pm

      Ignorance of the right leaves you voting National against your best interests, time and time again…

      It might seem convenient to ‘borrow’ sexism to protect men, but it’s not a good look.

      Women have been, and still are, discriminated against as a group and individuals, There is no society wide dogma or discrimination against men as a group resulting in lower achievement at all levels. So having the dirty done to a man is not simply the latest in the historical series of actions to keep all men down, so NOT sexism. Same thing for white people claiming racism.

      ‘Our “-isms” require a rich, ugly history to precede them. They require marginalization en masse. They require everything spoken about above, including the institutionalization of bias.’

      https://www.bustle.com/articles/71400-6-reasons-men-can-literally-never-be-victims-of-sexism-and-those-who-think-they

  7. James 7
    15 February 2019 at 8:52 am

    I do laugh about the outrage – outrage I tell you.

    It shows a couple talking. Then there is the older guy in the grill.

    As for the woman being a bit on the wide eyed and thick side. – she’s actually how I picture some of the commenters on here. (Intellectuality i mean).

    As Barry Soper pointed out – it’s at least got people talking (wether that was their intent or not) and the more people that are aware what a disaster kiwi build is the better.
    And yes they are talking about the content.

    • marty mars 7.1
      15 February 2019 at 9:03 am

      Delusional. Great to see the floundering gnats get shown for the losers they are. This will drop them even further lol – what a fail for the dickheads lol – don’t worry scum jordon will be here soon to say how naughty everyone is for attacking the stupid ad full of stupid men. I am loving this gnat fail and so good you love it too jamesy haha

    • vto 7.2
      15 February 2019 at 9:03 am

      yes the outrage is funny

      as is the identity politics and prejudice plastered across every single aspect – all based on gender age appearance

      identity politics – so many in’s and out’s and twists and turns that it has finally tied itself into an impossible knot.

    • WeTheBleeple 7.3
      15 February 2019 at 9:10 am

      Are you thinking you are of the intelligent type James?

      I’ve yet to see any proof. Try harder.

    • ankerawsharkP 7.4
      15 February 2019 at 9:13 am

      James, James, James…………I am not outraged by the sexism in the ad. Seriously I am not…….I accept some people on TS are and I respect their sentiment. I am seriously enjoying the monumental f up this ad is on so many levels……………….If this is what they have spent the $100000 on, then that’s there arh sausage……………

      Not all publicity is good. David Cunliffe got the headlines with “I am sorry for being a man” and it did him no good at all.

      Labour have built 1000 state houses and however many (not many) Kiwibuild.
      National built 0, homelessness worse, houses more unaffordable, prices ridiculous rents up, bogus P testing kicking vulnerable people out of their homes…………….So I think shove your criticism of Kiwibuild. National didn’t give a flying f about housing, that sat on their arse and let it happen.

      Now that I have got that off my chest I can go back to laughing my head off about Nationals fing useless ad.

  8. rata 8
    15 February 2019 at 9:06 am

    The barbeque add should portray the men
    with huge beer guts reaching the ground.
    Women should also be fat and be looking stressed.
    Kids should be sitting round looking at their mobile phones ignoring every one.

  9. Shadrach 9
    15 February 2019 at 10:38 am

    Great piece Matt – can we have more of your contributions?

    “National needs to avoid having anyone in their ads who represent her, because they’re not going to succeed in tarnishing her image this way, and trying to will turn off voters.”

    Bang on. Labour tried this with Key for years, and it never worked. There is enough material for National to work with without falling into the same trap.

  10. Stuart Munro 10
    15 February 2019 at 10:53 am

    The real joke is that with their record on housing the Gnats want to do anything other than hide their faces in shame. It’s not as if they’re fooling anyone.

    • Chris T 10.1
      15 February 2019 at 11:09 am

      That is a fair point, but then they didn’t promise this as their flagship election policy

      “KiwiBuild is aiming to build 1,000 homes in the year to June 2019, 5,000 by June 2020, 10,000 by June 2021, and 12,000 every year after that. We’re working with iwi, councils, and the private sector to transform the building and housing sector and help hardworking Kiwis get their foot on the property ladder.”

      • arkie 10.1.1
        15 February 2019 at 11:40 am

        Your counterpoint would be fair if you think that someone not achieving their stated goals is a legitimate criticism of their goal in general.

        Because that’s what it is; own it! National don’t want this Government to try to rein in the housing crisis, it’s a good earner for their voters, and this is obvious to most.

        • Chris T 10.1.1.1
          15 February 2019 at 11:53 am

          They don’t have a goal anymore

          They have an impossible number they no they can’t get and won’t need to worry about, as they will all not be there.

          If they had a goal they would not be refusing again to be “the most open and transparent government ever” and would just give us new yearly targets.

          • peterh 10.1.1.1.1
            15 February 2019 at 2:47 pm

            Yes they do have goals. to build houses and If they build one a year it would be 100% more than the Nats

            • alwyn 10.1.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2019 at 5:46 pm

              I’m afraid you probably need to do a revision course in simple arithmetic.
              You could mean what you say of course.
              Before you go on please tell us what you seem to think was the number of houses the National Government built?

        • AB 10.1.1.2
          15 February 2019 at 2:52 pm

          “National don’t want this Government to try to rein in the housing crisis, it’s a good earner for their voters”
          Quite right – arsonists have no right to abuse the firefighters.

  11. Drowsy M. Kram 11
    15 February 2019 at 2:04 pm

    A delightful 30-second glimpse into the ‘values’ and ‘thought’ processes of the sensitive wee sausages in the National party (still in denial), ‘working’ for all New Zealanders.

    Such originality, such wit, such ‘sizzle‘ – just a joy. Can’t wait for their nek desperate offering – maybe a bit of ‘black face’, or is spaghetti pizza still a thing?

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/food/14-11-2018/onions-on-top-or-underneath-a-desperate-search-for-the-sausage-sizzling-truth/

    • Chris T 11.1
      15 February 2019 at 2:28 pm

      Was it funny when Twyford said it in Parliament?

      “PHIL TWYFORD: The so-called long tail of underachievement is indeed a very serious problem, and it is one that I do not doubt that every member of this House, on both sides of the aisle, cares about. But this bill has nothing to offer. It is all sizzle and no sausage. It does not introduce anything new—actually, it recognises explicitly that effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools.”

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/49HansS_20081212_00001972/twyford-phil-education-national-standards-amendment

      Or Ron Mark

      “What have we found? What did we see? This is a party that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The National Party is a party that is all sizzle, and at the end of the barbie there is no sausage. It’s a party that talks big on the games, talks big about its Budgets, talks big about the money that’s allocated, two, three, four, five years out, and when we get into Government, what do we find? Absolutely nothing.”

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180404_20180404_16

      Or Annette King

      “There was a time when the old National Party stood by its word. Its leaders stood by their principles—people like Sir Keith Holyoake, Sir Jack Marshall, and Jim McLay, and perhaps even somebody like Don Brash. They were real leaders and their words were their bond. But then came the new breed, aptly named the brat pack. They were bold, brassy, and belligerent; they are all sizzle and no sausage, and they have no principles, either—they could not even spell “principle”. Today I want to give just one example to illustrate why the National Party will never again be in Government. I will give the House one example of how it sold out its principles for 400 votes, not once, not twice, but three times.”

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/47HansD_20030903_00000883/general-debates

      • left_forward 11.1.1
        15 February 2019 at 2:43 pm

        Wow, that would’ve taken a bit of research. Impressive.

        So it seems the sizzle / sausage expression has been used by Labour and NZ First MPs in the past and in parliament what’s more. Definitely not as funny though.

        I guess its all in the timing and style that makes the Gnats so much funnier and more offensive – that clever juxtaposition of misogyny and sausage – sheer genius.

        • SHG 11.1.1.1
          15 February 2019 at 3:28 pm

          Wow, that would’ve taken a bit of research. Impressive.

          Nope, people who work in speechwriting and marketing copy notice those metaphorical flourishes and they get logged.

        • Chris T 11.1.1.2
          15 February 2019 at 6:52 pm

          Nah

          Google is your friend

          🙂

          Does appear to be an in joke rather than a swipe at Ardern not having a willy though.

        • Dan 11.1.1.3
          16 February 2019 at 2:09 am

          the genius of a calming sausage! Just look at them.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 11.1.2
        15 February 2019 at 2:47 pm

        Saying ‘it’ in Parliament is one thing – hugely amused that this ‘ad’ is the best the National party wallahs can come up with to reverse their flagging fortunes. Straight from the “Joe the Plumber” playbook – honestly, if it wasn’t National I’d be embarrassed.

        Your support for the opposition is admirable – have you considered seeking selection as a National party candidate in the 2020 general election?

  12. SHG 12
    15 February 2019 at 2:10 pm

    Why the hell would anyone take parliamentary-procedure advice from Russell Brown the music critic?

    • Drowsy M. Kram 12.1
      15 February 2019 at 2:29 pm

      From Ovid (@1):

      “Minor correction – your third link is a piece by Andrew Geddis, not Russell Brown.“

  13. McFlock 13
    15 February 2019 at 2:50 pm

    reading the post, I initially felt bad because I hadn’t noticed the dead cat distractions for what they were.

    But that just means that it didn’t occur to me that somoene might decide to distract people from observing a fashion faux pas by deliberately pissing their pants.

    On the Questions question, fair call by Mallard: if the government are being dicks, have at them.

  14. DJ Ward 14
    15 February 2019 at 2:51 pm

    A very good example of an add without sexism or racism that triggers many on the left, but especially hate men feminists.

    The add must have cost stuff all to make but like click bait in reverse, sucked the media into exposing there own warped thinking. Even a lead story in prime time news so 10/10 for those who made the add.

    The use of the term mansplianing is disturbing. The female makes a statement, the male laughs, the female asks a question, the male answers. So there was no mansplianing. So what does the left present to the public as there point of veiw here. It’s saying than men are not permitted to speak. That only a women’s opinion is permitted. It’s identicle to the bigotry that women faced 150 years ago, and that’s how normal people see this add and the hate men feminists response to that part of the add.

    Racism was also presented as an argument regards the presenting of a dumb blond. That’s of course imagined and exposes the desperation of the left to denigrate the add. The vast majority of people will have never noticed racism and are probably bewildered at the ability of the triggered left to go PC even on something that didn’t even exist in the add.

    No sizzle, no sausage due to the response of the left, and its supporters in the media has now been seen and entered the minds of significant numbers of people. It’s a childish joke but it’s in the minds of the audience to its meaning. In my mind the female actor is Jacinda, but to a greater extent the narrative is Labour/coalition itself with its, as Tamahere put it, it’s cackle. As stated in 11.1 the phrase is a Labour term not a National one.

    The real tell as to the reason I give this add 10/10 is by Paula Bennet. “I think people are reading to much into it” which is exactly what happened and without doubt the intent all along.

    Sometimes it’s best to ignore things and give your opposition no oxygen.

    Nope, triggered, hook line and sinker, dumb.
    The left just exposed how fringe lunatic it can be.

    • veutoviper 14.1
      15 February 2019 at 3:13 pm

      Well i am going to ignore most of what you have said because .. On second thoughts, I’ll leave the ‘because’ other than saying that we are all entitled to our own opinion.

      But you have made one point on which I totally agree with you – and that is:

      ” Sometimes it’s best to ignore things and give your opposition no oxygen.”

      I have watched this whole thing from the sidelines because it appears to have achieved exactly what it was set out to do – which is to get air time with people talking about the ad all over the media, blogs, social media etc – and diverting from other issues such as the latest poll results, Bridges’ performance as National leader, Jami-Lee Ross’ return to Parliament etc. Objective achieved, LOL.

      My immediate reaction to the ad (and I have only watched it once and don’t intend doing so again) is cheap, weak, thrown together in a hurry – yet another case of:

      “BtB – Bound to Boomerang” – just like the rowing boat ad a few years ago, and the 2017 runners ad. I still laugh when I remember both of those ads, as the 2017 election results ended up exactly the opposite.

    • left_forward 14.2
      15 February 2019 at 3:16 pm

      Para 3, sentence 2:
      … ‘and the male answers’ …in a condescending and patronising manner.
      You seem a tad sensitive to people objecting to the ad’s (one d) mansplaining. Calling them ‘hate men feminists’ suggests you might need to do some work on your deeper self.

      • DJ Ward 14.2.1
        15 February 2019 at 3:39 pm

        That’s the point. There is no mansplianing in the add. It’s just a normal conversation. He doesn’t stop her talking, talk over her, or steal her opinion making it his. Yes he has a laugh at what she said, but if it’s laughable then its legitimate. It wasn’t a woman spoke so he laughed.

        If you don’t think there is no hate men feminists in this world you probably think ‘old white men’ isn’t racist or sexist.

        • Shadrach 14.2.1.1
          15 February 2019 at 3:44 pm

          I’ve just figured it out. I’ve been watching some video’s of Alexandria Orcasio-Cortez being fact checked, and I now see that the blond in the Nat video is actually a caricature of her!

        • left_forward 14.2.1.2
          15 February 2019 at 4:04 pm

          Well clearly some people see it differently DJ Ward.
          Can you accept that girls and women who may have far-too-often been on the receiving end of condescending put-downs are likely to have developed a more finely tuned sensitivity than you to verbal, and non-verbal mansplaining?

          I don’t not think that there are no hate men feminists (if I get your od turn of phrase), or not think that there are no ‘old white men’ (but I haven’t got a clue what you mean), I think it is not as relevant to my life as you obviously do for yours.

          • DJ Ward 14.2.1.2.1
            15 February 2019 at 5:24 pm

            That’s because as a man that’s experienced actual sexism (not from an imaginary veiw of a conversation) and see actual anti male sexism normalised in the media, and put downs, and social constructs, and have read submissions by groups like the Backbone Collective to the family court revue, and human rights rulings, the law commissions veiw on matrimonial property etc etc that I have a good understanding of the subject of sexism. Women have some issues but nothing compared to the normalised descrimination and bigotry men experience.

            What mansplaining?

            Are you saying that if a male says something silly or dumb that any female is required to shut her mouth and say nothing? In case she womansplains.

            That’s what your saying isn’t it. That men are no longer permitted to speek.

            • Cinny 14.2.1.2.1.1
              15 February 2019 at 6:02 pm

              Here’s a cool little clip, I quite like her outlook, she suggests that mansplaining should be replaced with other words such as condescending, arrogant etc.

              Let me know what you think about the clip DJ, am interested in your perspective.

              • Chris T …
                15 February 2019 at 6:59 pm

                Cool

                A video of a woman preaching in a condescending and arrogant way

              • Jess NZ …
                15 February 2019 at 7:04 pm

                No – popular or not, the term mansplaining is not sexist. It is stereotypical, and represents a really common behaviour done mostly by men. (When my husband does it to me, it is so obviously because he has been trained to block out a woman’s voice and repeat an idea in his own to be comfortable that it cannot be called mere ‘arrogance’. It’s a thing that needs a name). Men may honestly point to times they’ve lost out because they are men, but this is not sexism either.

                Women have been, and still are, discriminated against as a group and individuals, There is no society wide dogma or discrimination against men as a group resulting in lower achievement at all levels. So having the dirty done to a man is not simply the latest in the historical series of actions to keep all men down, so NOT sexism. Same thing for white people claiming racism.

                And of course everyone has a right to their own opinions, but we also have a right to judge how valid and supported and researched those opinions are. A personal anecdote doesn’t make anyone an expert on gender relations and sexism.

                ‘Our “-isms” require a rich, ugly history to precede them. They require marginalization en masse. They require everything spoken about above, including the institutionalization of bias.’

                https://www.bustle.com/articles/71400-6-reasons-men-can-literally-never-be-victims-of-sexism-and-those-who-think-they

                • DJ Ward …
                  15 February 2019 at 7:37 pm

                  You should email the Minister for Men for a list of all the statistics where men are disadvantaged.

                  Do you have a size limit on you email account?

                  • Jess NZ …
                    15 February 2019 at 7:46 pm

                    Men are running the show and have been for a long time. If you seriously think men are systematically disadvantaged compared to women, then men had better sort out their system, or perhaps elect more women who are less likely to support patriarchal habits like war and violent crime (areas where men are particularly damaged).

                    But in fact, those statistics aren’t sexism. Men run a society where some men get really shafted.

                    ‘There are 46 women in the 52nd Parliament of New Zealand, the highest level of representation for women in its history. Women make up 38.4 percent of the total 120 MPs in the new Parliament, a boost of 7 percent on the previous Parliament which was 31.4 percent women.’

                    MRAs really need to pay more attention to the history and writings of feminism, instead of claiming victimhood based on lack of analysis.

                    And I confidently expect you haven’t absorbed any of this, but there might be others reading.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 February 2019 at 7:51 pm

                      Might have been DJW who posted a supposed list of oppression of men a while back.

                      The list was… odd, to say the least.

                    • Chris T …
                      15 February 2019 at 7:51 pm

                      Genuine question.

                      Does anyone know the number of females who put their name forward?

                      Because that I would think would need to be ascertained first before conclusions

                    • McFlock …
                      15 February 2019 at 9:05 pm

                      I don’t really see how the number really matters in either direction. Either way it gets cut, it comes down to removing barriers to female participation boosting the success rate for women.

                      If we go binary just for the sake of the math, if 38% of the people going throught the candidate selection process are women vs 62% men, something about the process or politics alienates women, even if the selection process seems evenhanded (but it might just be evenhanded for women not alienated by the process, rather than all women). Removing barriers to female participation would be needed, as well as still boosting the success rate for women until equity in representation occurs.

                      If 19% of the candidates are women but women have a higher success rate, the alienation problem is worse and the selection issues not much better. Removing barriers to female participation would be needed, as well as boosting the success rate for women until equity in representation occurs.

                      If there is no bias in alienation so the applicant gender ratio matches the population (roughly 50/50), then the selection process is biased in favour of men. Removing barriers to female participation would still be needed until equity in representation occurs, as well as boosting the success rate for women.

                  • McFlock …
                    15 February 2019 at 7:49 pm

                    Nah, try the Minister of Statistics. He can help you out. It’s actually a pretty short list, even in NZ.

                    • DJ Ward …
                      15 February 2019 at 8:34 pm

                      Really. Wrong person.

                      The Ministry of Statistics in the census asks women how many children they have had. Every other statistic can be cross referenced with that response.

                      Men are not permitted to answer that question.

                      They can measure how children affect women.

                      They don’t give a fuck about men.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 February 2019 at 9:10 pm

                      jeez, maybe you someone reasonable should make a submission about it for the next census. This oppression needs to stop!

                    • DJ Ward …
                      16 February 2019 at 9:28 am

                      You meen this Human Rights Act violation needs to stop.

                      As I’ve pointed out before, there is no point making a compliant to them as they hate men.

                      I wonder why the government intentionaly wants to avoid creating any statistics on the father child relationship. Someone had to intentionaly decide to add in the male exclusion to a question both sexs can answer.

                      As corrupt and bigoted as it gets.

                      Imagine if they went men, what is your education. Women fuck off we are not interested. Imagine the endless media outcry and women’s marches in the streets. Our sexist media is silent on this bigotry and our male politicians are just useless cowards.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 February 2019 at 8:28 pm

                      take them to court. It’s been done before

                • Chris T …
                  15 February 2019 at 7:47 pm

                  Think that might be

                  Yourhusbandplaining, rather than mansplaining

                  • DJ Ward …
                    15 February 2019 at 8:28 pm

                    I have to admit, I’m not the boss.

                    • Sabine …
                      15 February 2019 at 9:03 pm

                      how many children have ‘you had’ DJ? How many children have you birthed? Cause that is what this relates to. How many children have you had, been pregnant with, birthed, miscarried, still birthed, aborted, given up for adoption.

                      so how many children ‘have you had’ DJ? how many times have you pushed out a baby or had a cesarean? how many times did someone induce labour? how many times did you birth a baby not at full term?

                      How many children have you had? DJ?
                      Not how many children do you have. Not how many children have you raised. Not how many children do you have, but how many children have you had.

                      And please tell us again, how it is sexist from women to be the ones having had all the children ever born on this planet, and please tell us how it is sexists that women will continue to have all the children born on this planet.

                    • DJ Ward …
                      16 February 2019 at 9:35 am

                      If men have never had children I suggest you ring the IRD child support because they are making a terrible mistake.

                      The answer for me is 3 and 1 miscarriage. Unless of course I have been lied to about paternity. Oh I was at a girlfriends birth but it wasn’t mine (I met her when she was already pregnant so no fraud) so does that count.

                      So who knows. With all this government supported female sex crimes against men it’s hard to answer.

            • Jess NZ 14.2.1.2.1.2
              15 February 2019 at 7:25 pm

              A man telling a woman what sexism is because he ‘knows actual sexism), incorrectly, is mansplaining.

              • Chris T …
                15 February 2019 at 7:49 pm

                Does it work the same way when women tell men what masculinity is?

                • Jess NZ …
                  15 February 2019 at 9:03 pm

                  Nope because:
                  1) both men and women are trained to listen to men.
                  2) masculinity is subjective (unlike sexism)

                  Nice attempt at a gotcha, but reversing rarely bears scrutiny because of the long history of one-sided imbalance.

                  • Chris T …
                    15 February 2019 at 9:06 pm

                    Are you saying sexism isn’t subjective?

                    This is new.

                    All women agree on what is sexist?

                    • Jess NZ …
                      15 February 2019 at 9:40 pm

                      I’m saying you need to read more.

                      There is literally nothing I could say that hasn’t already been said better in print decades ago by feminist scholars. If I could, I wouldn’t waste it here on men who simply try to co-opt the language and invert it. Sexism isn’t commutative, like a mathematical operation with simple numbers on each side.

                  • Chris T …
                    15 February 2019 at 9:44 pm

                    If you think that is a good answer, fine

                  • DJ Ward …
                    16 February 2019 at 10:15 am

                    Great. Next war we will send the women to war using the draft.
                    Men and children first.
                    Lighter sentences for men.
                    Men automatically get custody, and women must prove themselves worthy in the courts.
                    Women must open doors for men.
                    Women must do all the dangerous and dirty jobs.
                    Women must be punched in the face if they disrespect a man.
                    Only men get flowers on Valentine’s Day.
                    Only boys get to go to teenage parent schools.
                    Only male suicide issues can be addressed.
                    School will be designed in a male learning style, so girls fail.

                    You are clearly blind to the normalised bigotry men experience.

                    When did this training to listen to men occur. Did I miss the class at school or did you just make that bullshit up.

              • DJ Ward …
                15 February 2019 at 8:06 pm

                I do know sexism.

                That was womansplianing. You denigrated my statement because, and only because I’m a man. I experienced and see sexism but you decided to negate my experience because I am a man.

                The person who burnt himself to death at parliament did so because he is a man. He did so because he was told he would never see his kids again when he did nothing to deserve that treatment. Something routinely done to men, and often done for months and years automatically to men and rarely to women. He was illegally imprisoned for a month in an action that the courts only do to men.

                What do you meen incorectly?

                The Backbone Collective want men banned from having a relationship with there children simply at the request of the mother. They want interviews with children to only be conducted in the presence of the mother, never alone and never with the father. IE the child can only say bad things about the father.
                The Law Commision, virtually all women, want 50% assets, plus extra for time off work, plus extra if they make a DV allegation (ie 100% as a reward), plus child support, plus alimony (ie the man might as well suicide). Even the intended suicide mental health spend is bigoted as its for self harm which is a female issue. Men suiciding remains OK and subject to forced silence on why.
                The Human Rights Commision to protect females committing crimes involving sex, money, and children (paternity fraud) refused to help men stating doing so would interfere in women’s right to have affairs. The help men wanted did no such thing. This sex crime against men continues and alone totals more than the sex crimes women experience.

                Then there is prolific lying about being in the pill. Men can’t do that.

                See what happens when a man has an opinion. No wonder you want men banned with a social construct from speaking.

                • Cinny …
                  15 February 2019 at 8:44 pm

                  Did you watch the short clip DJ?

                  • DJ Ward …
                    16 February 2019 at 10:33 am

                    Yes I did. Typical feminist approach to these arguments as the lady points out doesn’t justify the use or the term. IE the Pay Gap, Director Gap, the Education Gap is ignored as its anti male. Parenting is included but it excludes all the bigoted anti male reasons why. Mansplianing is an all encompassing term used by people, similar to swearing, without the intelligence to use the other terms as the lady gave examples.

                    In the add there is no mansplianing, but it’s used in an attempt to denigrate the conversation because the left has no argument to counter it. As I pointed out to say it’s mansplianing implies in the portrayed event that men are no longer permitted to speek.

                    Similar sexist terms denigrating opinion include nagging and bitching so its not just men who experience use of terms to create silence from a person.

                    • Cinny …
                      16 February 2019 at 11:40 am

                      Thanks for watching the clip.

                      I doubt any info will change your views on said topic.

                      Change is a good thing, some like to call it growth.

                • Jess NZ …
                  15 February 2019 at 8:59 pm

                  Start from a time (not lost in history) when women were said to have no souls and were literally property owned by a father and then a husband to physically use any way legally and let’s look at how many rulers were women and how even today it is men who decide on reproductive rights for women.

                  Then tell me again how ‘sexist’ modern society is because you have a few examples where women may get the better deal in legal protection.

                  Not. Sexism. Calling it sexism doesn’t make it sexism.

                • Sabine …
                  15 February 2019 at 9:11 pm

                  so you are still pretending that women lie about the pill, while at the same time you refuse to acknowledge taht men are responsible for their own fertility and the children they father by having sex without using any of the birth control methods available to men? I.e. pull out method, condoms, vasectomies, any other sexual activity that does not involve ejaculation in to the vagina. Men can lie about vasectomies. And it would not matter shit, because the same goes for the ladies. Your body, your responsibility. And men have been known to prick condoms.

                  As for wanting 50% of assets, you are in a Partnership with your wife/partner and if she contributes to the household, i.e. adds money, washing your clothes, cooks your food, raises your children, plants your garden and does all the stuff that is done in the lives of people then she has helped build that house as much as you and is thus entitled to 50%. If you don’t like that, you need to sign an agreement that everyone only gets what they came with, what they earned etc etc and you involve a laywer. IF you do not do that, then see above the thing about personal responsability. It applies here too. You are to protect your property, your income and its no ones business but yours. If you don’t, that yes, your partner is entitled to 50% of the goods.

                  No idea who the back bone society is, but i guess it depends really what type of man you are and what type of father you are.

                  Thirdly, you are doing an awesome job at painting yourself as some dude who does not want a partner, or a ‘family’ in the modern sense but rather a chattel that breeds you property. And besides you are never at fault, arent you?

                  • DJ Ward …
                    16 February 2019 at 10:00 am

                    You refuse to acknowledge women lie.

                    The backbone of society is honesty and integrity.

                    Does not want a partner? No, just not one that is violent and lies.
                    Making conception more consential increases the stability of the family.
                    Chattel that breeds me property. That is just deluded nonsense. It’s men that are the financial slaves to women. Ask the Law Commision on that one.
                    Never at fault? I have made significant mistakes, and have openly expressed those, even in a court of law. One of my biggest mistakes was to remain in a relationship with a violent partner then got sucked into believing my partner was on the pill after agreeing due to the DV that we should delay having kids.

                    My mistakes, or the mistakes of any man, does not absolve women of there dirty deeds done to men.

                    • Cinny …
                      16 February 2019 at 10:11 am

                      DJ, A person who is an arsehole can be either gender, it’s not a competition.

                      You say ‘men are the financial slaves of women’ and then go on to say ‘ask the law commission on that one’

                      So I’m asking… where is your proof to back up that statement?

                    • DJ Ward …
                      16 February 2019 at 10:56 am

                      Read the Law Commissions intent on Matrimonial Property. It includes “Everyone thinks this is fantastic, except men”. Read there lies on Paternity Fraud.

                      A women who lies to the male about being a father fraudulently takes his money to support her, and the child. He is her financial slave.

                      A woman who lies about being on contraception resulting in pregnancy can. 1: force the male into a relationship where he financially supports her. 2: use threats to the father child relationship to force the male into marriage, resulting in the forced financial support of her. 3: act to exclude the male from the father child relationship maximising the forced financial support she receives.
                      These men are just the personal slaves of these sex offenders.

                    • Cinny …
                      16 February 2019 at 11:41 am

                      Ok since you feel like that DJ, what steps are you taking to change the system that you feel is unfair?

                      PS do you have a link for the document?

                      Edit… found some info here, but nothing about everyone thinking it’s fantastic except men…

                      http://www.mondaq.com/NewZealand/x/758258/divorce/Review+of+the+Property+Relationships+Act+1976+for+a+just+division+of+family+property

                      Edit again… did you make a submission DJ, sub’s closed in December last year?

                    • DJ Ward …
                      16 February 2019 at 1:15 pm

                      I haven’t made a submission for a few years after a bad experience so I’m taking time out. I was aware they were doing a review but only to the extent of changing to pre existing property remaining in the original owners hands. I wasn’t aware they were adding Best Interests of the Child which meens mum and is shown by who supports that. National Council for Women etc. nor did I know they were adding this.

                      5.73 The amount and duration of a FISA will be determined by a statutory formula. The objective of the statutory formula is to equalise the partners’ incomes following separation for a period of time that is approximately half the length of the relationship, up to a maximum of five years.

                      Which is what they are celebrating. A formulae alimony. Which isn’t matrimonial property but they will sneek it in so nobody notices.
                      The document I referred to, the post first stage no longer exists.

                      So income is split 50:50 then tax is paid by the male on his full income, not split, then he pays child support of up to 27% of the full pre tax amount. Plus student loan. Technically men can end up with 0% of there income. Enough to add to the homeless and suicide rate anyway. Not that they care, it’s only men.

                      The Human Rights Violation is the Crown funds a contributor who reviews the law, and is often referenced. The Ministry For Women. The Crown made no effort to fund a contributor who reviews the law from a men’s perspective, and no male group is referenced in the document.

                      I was in contact for another individual making a submission in the second stage so I am aware my concerns were raised, and completely ignored in a submission.

                    • Cinny …
                      16 February 2019 at 1:40 pm

                      Thanks for replying.

                      “I was in contact for another individual making a submission in the second stage so I am aware my concerns were raised, and completely ignored in a submission”

                      Did you ask why?

                    • DJ Ward …
                      16 February 2019 at 2:40 pm

                      Well it’s not my submission so I can’t ask, and I don’t think that’s part of the process. A submission isn’t a document from dictators, just opinion. Before commenting before I read the final report that’s on there site and no comments exist in it that could be associated with that submission.

                      The submission process can be just a box ticking exercise if the lawmakers have a predetermined outcome.

                      A good indication in this case regarding the alimony is no investigation of risks, consequences or harm is in the report. Because it will be in the vast majority of cases men that have the negative experience.

                    • Cinny …
                      18 February 2019 at 7:36 pm

                      OK, so it appears your opinion was not shared by those on the committee. If that is the case I doubt it would have been shared with MP’s of any party.

                      And… if that is the case, maybe what you are advocating for is not as common as you want to think it is.

                      Do let us know if you make any head way, should you decide to actively engage in creating change via the parliamentary system etc.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 14.3
      15 February 2019 at 3:16 pm

      IF this ‘ad’ is an attempt to mount a serious political argument, then it’s an embarassment (IMHO), and (from my partisan political viewpoint) funny as heck.

      I enjoyed many of the responses to the recent Gillette ad too – very revealing.

      I find this opposition National party ad funny – end of.

      http://digg.com/video/funny-political-ad-stock-footage

      • DJ Ward 14.3.1
        15 February 2019 at 3:55 pm

        I think you correct in the aim was to take the piss. As many have stated National can’t actually debate housing so I don’t think that was the intent. Taking the piss out of Kiwi Built and blind followers of Jacinda was. They didn’t fail in doing that.

        Yes the Gillette was filled with the same complexities of gender issues as this add, but is clearly steriotype anti male. Gillette was more in you face and has no humour. This is intended to take the piss and creates a narrative for the easily triggered. Gillette is a fail as it insults its customers while this add was a win for the add creator and National as it shifts debate from its bad issues.

        • Jess NZ 14.3.1.1
          15 February 2019 at 7:14 pm

          According to their own Twitter feed, they lost voters who weren’t already lost, even though they were clearly aiming the ad at their base of people who would mindlessly enjoy any joke on Ardern, Labour, and women without actually being based on fact.

  15. SHG 15
    15 February 2019 at 3:17 pm

    danylmc’s take at The Spinoff:

    Progressives are actually the primary target for this ad and it is designed to offend them. Offense and controversy makes things newsworthy and earns you coverage in the mainstream media, thus potentially reaching a far greater number of viewers than National would get through making a non-controversial, non-mansplaining ad. The way you communicate the KiwiBuild critique to the wider public – who are never going to watch a political ad in their feed, even if you boost it – is by breaching progressive rules of etiquette and provoking a controversy. This is Trump’s great innovation in political marketing: you don’t need to pay for advertising you just repeatedly outrage progressives, especially those who work in the media, and they’ll give you all the free coverage you could hope for.

    And, predictably, there are now stories about the controversy up on TVNZ and NewsHub with embeds of National’s ad.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/14-02-2019/notes-towards-a-grand-unified-theory-of-the-terrible-national-party-sausage-ad/

  16. veutoviper 16
    15 February 2019 at 3:31 pm

    Just for people’s information re the 172 outstanding Written Questions Matt covers in the last two paragraphs of his post, a remarkable thing happened.

    Having been blasted on Tuesday by Mallard as Speaker for the number of outstanding Written Questions, in the opening Business Statement on Wednesday before Question Time Chis Hipkins, Gerry Brownlee and Mallard briefly discussed the fact that all of these outstanding questions had miraculously been answered in just 24 hours and there were no outstanding Written Questions at all left – probably a record.

    Here is the short (less than 2 min) video!

    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=204953

    Here is the draft Hansard transcript – love Mallard’s comment!
    ”
    BUSINESS STATEMENT

    Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The debate on the Prime Minister’s statement will conclude on Wednesday 20 February. Legislation to be considered next week will include the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. At 5.45 p.m. on Wednesday, Agnes Loheni will make her maiden statement.

    Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of work ahead. Can I just take this opportunity to thank the Government for the rapid answering of questions that were outstanding. That’s been most helpful—thank you. But I would like to know if the Government, given the current state of foreign relations, has any intention to pass the Autonomous Sanctions Bill in the near future.

    Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): With regard to the first part of the member’s comment, can I thank him for that. Can I note that I’ve been advised this morning that this may be the first time ever that there have been no overdue written parliamentary questions in the system. With regard to the second part of his statement, we don’t intend to progress that next week.

    SPEAKER: Well, I want to add my thanks to the members for discovering that they can do what was regarded as impossible.”

    • alwyn 16.1
      15 February 2019 at 6:14 pm

      Amazingly effective wasn’t it?
      I wonder if Trevor might extend to other business of the house?
      Perhaps he could try it on the Select Committee meetings.
      !0 questions would be a bit extreme but he might want to award one extra question to the Opposition every time a Government member is late for the meeting, or doesn’t stay throughout and he could deduct one question from the Opposition when one of their members offends in a similar way?
      Probably a bit too difficult to judge though. The Opposition members of these Committees are usually much more senior, and busier, than the low ranked Government MPs on the Committees and are likely to be called away on more occasions. Still it might have an effect on the waking habits of the MPs.

      • Ad 16.1.1
        15 February 2019 at 7:55 pm

        What’s the bet Ardern’s Chief of Staff pulled Chippie in on Wednesday, stood on his throat, and told him to sort his shit out, whip MPs to turn up to their Select Committees on time every morning, answer the questions, order the damn legislative order the way we need it before Budget, and generally stop enabling the opposition to keep scoring easy hits every fucking day … and nod yes before you black out.

        • alwyn 16.1.1.1
          15 February 2019 at 11:56 pm

          I never bet against someone who is holding a Royal Flush.
          H2 is as tough as she was in Helen’s day.
          Someone else may hold the title but I am assured it is Heather Simpson who still rules the roost in the PM’s Office.

          • veutoviper 16.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2019 at 12:03 pm

            What actual evidence do you have that Heather Simpson aka H2 still rules the roost in the PM’s office?

            Yes, she did return in Oct/Nov 2017 to help set up Ardern’s office and the staffing of minister’s offices and with ‘reviewing the review’ of the election campaign.

            https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/10/h2-helen-clark-s-top-advisor-returns-to-labour-party.html

            However, in May 2018 Ms Simpson was appointed to head a panel tasked with:

            “A wide-sweeping review of New Zealand’s public health system will consider new funding arrangements and whether the District Health Board system “helps or hinders” the provision of healthcare.

            Health Minister David Clark announced the review and the appointment of long-time Labour operative and former Helen Clark confidant, Helen Simpson, to spearhead it.

            The terms of reference outline a mandate to look at “the current geographic distribution of services help or hinder the system as a whole”, as well as “how financial resources applied to health funding could be altered to provide greater flexibility in allocation” transparency and “reduce inequities through targeting those in need”.

            The panel is due to provide an interim report by the end of July 2019 and a final report by January 2020.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104290108/dhbs-in-for-shakeup-as-public-health-system-goes-under-the-microscope-in-major-review

            https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/05/29/112103/former-clark-staffer-returns-for-health-review

            With that on her plate, I very much doubt that Simpson is in any way still involved in “ruling the roost in the PM’s office”.

            • alwyn 16.1.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2019 at 3:59 pm

              I shall to enquire further as to what my friend meant.
              He seemed to me to be saying she still has direct influence in the office but perhaps all he meant was that the ethos she inspired simply took so deeply that the attitude became totally ingrained in the place.
              That is possible I suppose but with the unusual degree of turnover in the staff it wouldn’t seem likely that it would still be apparent. There wouldn’t be many left who were there a year ago would there?
              I shall enquire further when next I see him.

  17. Jum 17
    15 February 2019 at 9:01 pm

    I’m disgusted with your cynical exploitation picture of a dead cat. It’s bad enough having to read about the monied and influential scum that continue to damage our country through their greed. I don’t need to be forced to view a dead animal that has more value in nature and in the scheme of life than the crap that passes for national, that you’re now exploiting that animal for.

    • Cinny 17.1
      15 February 2019 at 9:37 pm

      A friend has a dead cat and wears it as a shoulder brace type accessory at times.

      It’s a tabby, full skin including head and tail. And it’s so very soft, one can’t help but touch it, really tactile, infused with loving energy.

      He loved that cat, continues to love that cat, the man has an absolute gift with animals. True story.

      Dead cats usually have their tongue hanging all the way out of their mouths, Cat’s also poke out their tongue just a little bit when they are feeling happy and relaxed, much like the photo.

      However can understand your offense, perhaps the author of the post can shed more light on the cat’s consciousness.

      • Jum 17.1.1
        15 February 2019 at 10:21 pm

        Cats are their own masters and mistresses. People that respect that, like your friend, recognise that and love that. That respect raises people to be better human beings.

        Linking them, or any animal, in any way with the dross that passes for nat mps these days is the insult.

      • Sabine 17.1.2
        15 February 2019 at 10:23 pm

        my cat, very much alive, does that sometimes. it is very cute.

        • alwyn 17.1.2.1
          16 February 2019 at 4:03 pm

          Are you quite sure?
          Have you observed it in a living state recently?
          After all it could be Schrodinger’s cat and simply be in a state that is a superposition of living and dead.

          • Sabine 17.1.2.1.1
            18 February 2019 at 7:48 pm

            i can assure you that my cat is very much alive inside and outside the box.
            In fact true to her real name, Accusatory she yells err meows at me several times a day in order to compel me to feed her.
            Yes, she is somewhat fat, but that is not because i over feed her, but because she steals dog food. secretly, when she looks in the mirror she sees a golden retriever and you know, my dog, the golden retriever (named hopeful daisy) is nice enough to not shatter her species confusion.
            But in saying that, should i fix a camera to the inside of the box just to be on the safe side?

  18. Sabine 18
    15 February 2019 at 9:14 pm

    so all you guys are saying that those of us who did not watch that tripe missed nothing?

    Ahhh, National, no mates, no voters, no ideas, fucked up beyond believe.

  19. Sacha 19
    16 February 2019 at 8:59 am

    Young elected representative explains calmly why what Carter and chums did matters: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/382603/another-reason-to-lose-faith-in-democracy