Dead rats

45 comments on “Dead rats ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sam Dixon 1

   4 February 2008 at 12:08 pm

   National needs to win for their own survival, and Key needs to win to continue as leader. Simple as that. To get there, they’ll adopt as many of Labour’s flagship policies as tehy need to, and if they makes them hollow and unprincplied, wel that’s the price of vicoty. But I reckon they’re still the same underneath, and once they’ve got power they can gradaully start to unreveal labour’s work and mvoe us back to that neoliberal idelogy.
2. r0b 2

   4 February 2008 at 12:49 pm

   Quick threadjack – hello Standard Admins. Following downtime earlier today, weekend content has disappeared from recent threads. Will it be restored? And – keep up the good work – thanks!

   [lprent – I was out of commission yesterday. There was an index problem that I fixed by checking the tables, looks like it dropped some records. I’ll have a look at the hourly backups]
3. East Wellington Superhero 3

   4 February 2008 at 1:10 pm

   Note that in the last 20 years Labour has moved more than National.
4. Santi 4

   4 February 2008 at 1:20 pm

   “..start to unreveal labour’s work and mvoe us back to that neoliberal idelogy.”

   Too many mistakes in a single sentence, Sam. Is the sun too strong in Hawkes Bay or what?

   The idea of implement more market policies sound wonderful to me, although will be hard to bear for many recalcitrant socialists.

   Lets start by dismantling the welfare state, which has condemned many people to dependence, too many able bodies sucking off the state’s teat as a way of life.
   Lets give benefits to the citizens that really need them and cut the other ones off.
5. Mike Moore 5

   4 February 2008 at 1:38 pm

   Dad, try harder.

   [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
6. Monty 6

   4 February 2008 at 2:16 pm

   I do not think Kiwisaver is a dead rat – As a National supporter I think that kiwisaver is long overdue and should have been implemented back in 1996/97 at the time of Winston’s referendum.

   Kiwibank – well who cares – I fail to understand why the Government should own a bank (or many other SOEs for that matter) but unlike 18 years ago, NZ is on a much more financial foundation – thanks to the reforms of Ruth in the 1990s ironically enough)

   Interest free loans – well no a major issue – good on Key for bing pragmatic and full credit for developing a scheme that will offer an incentive for students to payback the money – I guess that the incentive to payback may mean there will be fewer defaulters.

   I suggest that Labour are just pissed because they have been trumped by National yet again.
7. Sam Dixon 7

   4 February 2008 at 2:27 pm

   Monty – National voted against Kiwisaver at each step. to now adopt it, it could only be because they are forced into it by poltiical realities – hence ‘swallowing a dead rat’.
8. RANDAL 8

   4 February 2008 at 2:33 pm

   NATIONAL SWALLOWING A DEAD RAT IS VERY CLOSE TO CANNIBALISM!
9. Historian 9

   4 February 2008 at 2:35 pm

   Pay attention students, I’ve drawn a graph on the whiteboard. Wake up at the back there.

   There’s National’s Policy Trajectory. What they now, officially, publicly, stand for. And also where they’re heading, with future rat-consumption.

   And there’s the National party caucus and candidates. What they actually believe. The people who will be putting the policy in place, if they win the election.

   As you can see from the graph, on current projections, this will be the first time in the history of New Zealand that a party takes office without a single member of the government actually supporting the policy programme they are elected to implement.

   Go figure.
10. outofbed 10

    4 February 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Thats the key point isn’t it
    “And there’s the National party caucus and candidates. What they actually believe. ”

    Do you join or support the Nats because you are centerist ?

    And aren’t the people who thoght Brash and his far right agenda was the best thing since slice bread only 2 years ago ?
11. outofbed 11

    4 February 2008 at 2:44 pm

    And aren’t these the people who thoght Brash and his far right agenda was the best thing since slice bread only 2 years ago ?
12. Monty 12

    4 February 2008 at 4:32 pm

    so can you lefties tell me if Clark approved of the very necessary benefit cuts in 1991 because she never has reversed them, or did she reverse several other policies that National enacted such as the fiscal responsibility Act, and even the Employment Contracts Act was not done away with – but just timkered around the edges, renamed and repackaged as something different.

    The reality is that to move forward some policies have to be retained – especially those which deliver something rather than take away something.

    In the meantime if Labour policies are so great and helping so many people, why is the highest number of people in 20 years packing up and re-locating to Australia. But I do not suppose we will see a post on that sensitive subject.
13. Monty 13

    4 February 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Out-of Bed – Us righties still believe that Brash was correct – after all Brash nearly doubled National support from the 2002 election to the 2005 election and that was in spite of Labour stealing $800k, telling lies (Americans under the bed) and Brash himself being a somewhat fumbling guy. For all that National support was nearly 40% in the last election.

    However to win the additional 10% a degree of pragmatism is needed. Enter John Key (Labour’s worst nightmare.

    John key of course has enabled national to Substantially increase that lead so now National are sitting comfortably around 50% support while Labour continue to trend down
14. Simeon 14

    4 February 2008 at 4:47 pm

    And the Govt does nothing to try and stop the record numbers leaving for Australia.

    “Please join them” was Michael Cullen’s response when John Middleton expressed his concern about the exodus of young Kiwis to Australia. John Middleton speaks out exclusively to http://www.nzdebate.blogspot.com
15. RANDAL 15

    4 February 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Its a free world and people can go where ever they like. stop confusing personal decision with governments abiltiy to coerce. the reason that Labour never reversed the benefit cuts is that it is in coalition with others so it does not have a free hand to do what it likes. the real nub is what is National going to do enlarge the economy instead of just hogging the existing pie!
16. Historian 16

    4 February 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Monty

    If you believe that Brash’s policy platform was correct in 2005, then either:

    a) you do not support the National policy changes in 2007/ 2008, or

    b) you have not bothered finding out what they are

    PS More rats to come soon, I hear. Watch this space.
17. Monty 17

    4 February 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Randal – I think you miss the point – over 800 per week are leaving largely because tey see a better future in Australia than in NZ. Lower Taxes, more pay, more freedom, less interferring nanny government. Labour has been the government for over 8 years and in that time the number of people going has significantly increased while this pathetic and soon to be evicted government sits around in denial with their thumb up their very large and fat arse.

    And you are wrong abour benefit cuts – don’t go blaming the co-alition parties – I am sure Labour could have made it an election promise if they wanted to – but they realise that the parasites on a benefit do not deserve anything more than a subsistance level of income (although they would not put it quite so bluntly)

    There are good reasons not to increase the benefit – ad strongest is that people need a good incentive to go out and work – if the dole more then the parasites on beenfits will do all they can to avoid work. (By Parasites I mean people who are capable and able to work – not for example someone who is genuinely unable to work).

    John Key’s and National’s policies will stimulate growth and self responsibility – Labour have done nothing but sink NZ further down all the significant OECD ratings.
18. Historian 18

    4 February 2008 at 6:12 pm

    “John Key’s and National’s policies will stimulate growth and self responsibility”

    Which policies?

    They voted against cutting business tax, is that the one you mean?
19. Historian 19

    4 February 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Oh, this is brilliant!

    What happens when you try and ask a National spokesman for a policy:

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/02/whats-nationals-policy.html
20. Psycho Milt 20

    4 February 2008 at 6:46 pm

    …over 800 per week are leaving largely because tey see a better future in Australia than in NZ. Lower Taxes, more pay, more freedom, less interferring nanny government.

    You asked them? Or you’re making shit up? I’m going with “making shit up.”

    Assuming people are moving over there because it pays more (and frankly, if people are doing that they’re not very bright – I got a shitload more in Kuwait than I would have got in Aus), your answer apparently is to put back into govt a party that did its best to drive wages down the last time it was in govt. If there is any kind of logic in there whatsoever, you’re going to have to explain it.
21. outofbed 21

    4 February 2008 at 6:51 pm

    MOnty I think that you will find there are many less people on the dole now under this Labour Gov
    So you supported Brash and the Nats policies in 2005 well done you obviously have priciples .
    But strangely you still support the Nats who have done a complete about face on many of those things that you supported Brash for.
    Thats a bit strange don’t you think? There must be a line that you would not cross
    Nationalising telecom perhaps ? increasing housing subsidies ?

    What is the line Monty ? because you are now supporting a party of the centre and two years ago you supported a party of the right
    what changed Monty?

    I used to always vote Labour I now do not because there are several policy position of theirs that I don’t like.
    You see I have a set of principles that I believe in and would not be dishonest enough to betray them just for the lust of power

    You on the other hand Monty …
22. andy 22

    4 February 2008 at 7:05 pm

    its difficult for monty because he is blinded by his ‘hatred of the left’.

    Out of bed, I have principles but am pragmatic too. The other team which ever it may be, can have great ideas.

    Monty can’t let a leftie be correct so twists and turns just to win an argument.

    Monty world:

    Labour = bad
    National = good

    Monty, the world is not doctrinaire, its as Rumsfeld said ‘its messy’, try taking your blinders off.

    Also you will get a sort of critical mass of people leaving NZ, as family members go to Aussie, others will follow and so on. Same with immigrants to NZ. Its not as simple as the grass is greener, the calculation is much more complicated for most.
23. Union Funds 23

    4 February 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Hi

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
24. Pascal's bookie 24

    4 February 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Monty I hate to pile on, but I’ll try not to repeat questions raised by others.

    What specifically did you mean by ‘more freedom’ in Australia?

    I think you’ll find that election promises are made by all parties, and that those they keep are a subset of those promises they can get through coalition negotiations.

    Parasites who would rather take the dole than work are in all likelyhood supplementing their income with crime. Cancel their benefit, higher crime. Think of it as insurance if it helps. Also cutting benefits also hits those that do need support as well as the parasites. It’s really really hard to identify parasites and not get false positives.

    What specific policies of the National party do you think will ‘stimulate growth and self responsibility’? Tax cuts seems to be the magical answer to everything, tied to a ‘continuing programme of reform’ which doesn’t mean anything really.

    Bush has tried the ‘tax cuts are the answer to every issue’ policy, and wage growth has been sluggish, bancruptcies and debts are soaring and it’s all generally turning to shit. Why do you think that is? Overall what do you think of Bush’s economic management? Clearly the results are a failure and one could argue that he didn’t cut enough expenditure to pay for his tax cuts. Do you think Key would be any better once in power, given the flipflops he has already made to gain political support?

    Given Australia took a much slower and less extreme approach to reform than we did and have seen a much better results, what lessons do you learn, particularly with regard to employment law and wages, given that is what you see as a driver of emmigration?
25. outofbed 25

    4 February 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Monty’s gone to read up on National’s policies.. he won’t be long
26. Robinsod 26

    4 February 2008 at 8:45 pm

    I see dad is trying again as “union funds” – here’s a hint dad if you open every new persona with a toe-in-the-water “hi” you’ll get rumbled.

    Oh and yes no right turn has shown that indeed McCully is a live rat. Let’s hope Key swallows him…
27. RANDAL 27

    4 February 2008 at 9:01 pm

    NO MONTY..I DONT MISS THE POINT. THE ECONOMY IS WORKING TO CAPACITY AND PEOPLE COME AND GO BUT YOU ARE STILL REPEATING THE NEO CON MANTRA WHICH IS CODE FOR THE MORE PEOPLE OUT THERE ASKING FOR WORK THEN THERE WILL BE DOWNWARDS PRESSURE ON WAGFES IN GENERAL.. STOP HIDING BEHIND SLOGANS AND SAY WHAT YOU REALLY THINK INSTEAD OF LOADING MORAL IMPERATIVES ONTO STRUGGLING PEOPLE
28. outofbed 28

    4 February 2008 at 9:05 pm

    there’s no need to shout
29. burt 29

    4 February 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Robinsod

    I think the best thing Key could possibly do if what you say is correct is fire him immediately. In any other democratic country when ministers are embroiled in scandal they either resign or are fired. Here in little ol NZ they deny the allegations, delay inquiries as long as possible while they denigrate the accuser(s). Almost invariably reports come back ‘nothing to see – move on’ and normally we do.

    How is that court case for Field coming along? He should never had said he was considering standing against Labour, he had toughed out two years on gardening leave then he blew it.
30. RANDAL 30

    4 February 2008 at 9:57 pm

    I’LL DO WHAT I LIKE THANKS out of bed..ok wif you?
31. Silent Night 31

    4 February 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Get a handle on the noise randal.

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
32. outofbed 32

    4 February 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Ok Randall i just wanna be loved
33. RANDAL 33

    4 February 2008 at 10:23 pm

    I can’t hear anything….oob…start loving yourself…but if you are in politics..then as Harold Lasswell said its imposing your view onto the world with societal sanction so I guess here is a good a place to start as any BOOOOO!
34. Robinsod 34

    4 February 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Randal – are you dad?
35. outofbed 35

    4 February 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Rob sometimes We are all Dad
36. Murray 36

    4 February 2008 at 10:51 pm

    I wonder what Helen will swallow from the Greens, Maori Party, etc to remain Prime Minister. Airlines better schedule additional flights the fuck out of here if such an unholy coalition is the outcome later this year.
37. outofbed 37

    4 February 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Bye Murray I hear there is a river named after you in OZ
38. burt 38

    4 February 2008 at 11:04 pm

    Murray

    Helen’s already swallowed the Green’s smacking policy and it’s pegged her down a bit in the polls, FTA with China will probably enable us to sell a shit load more coal though, so there may be some hard yards ahead there anyway.

    Are foreshore and seabed like Mussel’s, if you have much all at once you can develop an allergic reaction?
39. Aj 39

    4 February 2008 at 11:04 pm

    National has been sitting pretty in the polls now for the best part of a year – on current results it has the election in the bag and may even govern alone.
    Why on earth then would they think they have to keep adopting Labours policies. Make one wonder, they may know just how fragile their support is.
40. outofbed 40

    4 February 2008 at 11:10 pm

    I think the Nats have seen the light and have realised that there is no future in the politics of selfishness and greed and have become progressives . I and I for one applaud them for that.
41. outofbed 41

    4 February 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Ot its because all their supporters have fucked off to Australia
42. Phil 42

    5 February 2008 at 8:53 am

    “Or its because all their supporters have fucked off to Australia”

    Yep, tradesmen/women and recently graduated students… not exactly the National party demographic.
43. outofbed 43

    5 February 2008 at 8:58 am

    Phil Ok point taken, it was the seeing of the light then
44. Geoff Hayward 44

    5 February 2008 at 10:01 am

    I note that the Dom has also brought this issue of dead rats in today’s editorial:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4387232a6483.html
45. Draco TB 45

    5 February 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Lower Taxes,

    Well, no, as a matter of fact they don’t have lower taxes once you take into effect their SS. And you have to do that otherwise you cannot compare the two as our SS is bound up in our taxes.

    more pay,

    Yes, definately – but that isn’t something the government can do anything about. It’s a free market and the employers make the decision on how much to pay. If they continue to pay less than Australia it appears that they will eventually run out of labour.

    more freedom, less interferring nanny government.

    So that sending in the troops to sort out the natives wasn’t in any way interfering then?

    I think you will find, once you get right down to it, that the Australian government interferes as much as our/any government does. This is because they actually have to to keep society functioning and to do that you need to stop people from performing actions that are detrimental to society.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS