Dispatches from the parallel universe, John Key 1940

Written By: - Date published: 12:07 pm, September 28th, 2009 - 21 comments
Categories: climate change, humour, john key - Tags:

The Standard, 12 June 1940
WELLINGTON

johnnyfraser150Prime Ministerial candidate for the Nationalists, Mr John Key, today laid out his party’s policy regarding New Zealand’s participation in the current War.

“Let me state clearly and unequivocally that, despite our past position, my Party now believes wholeheartedly that the War must be fought. It is undeniably a serious issue.

“However, I do not credit the extreme claims of certain extremists as to the outcome if this war should be lost. The current Labour government’s policy has gone too far” said Mr Key, addressing a meeting of businessmen.

“In responding to this threat, we must balance our defence of freedom responsibilities with our economic opportunities”

“Whereas Labour has committed to open-ended expenditure in the conduct of the War, which has already totalled many millions of pounds, the National Party believes that New Zealand would be better placed if it were to slash this spending and, instead, cut taxes on Kiwi families by north of five shillings a week for a man on the average wage”

“Furthermore, what is the point in New Zealand doing its utmost when major powers such as the United States of America and the Soviet Union will not do their part? New Zealand should not be out in front on these matters while far larger countries remain uninvolved. Under my government, rather than being a world leader in participation in this war, New Zealand will be a fast follower.

“I know that leading generals have said that each Allied nation must increase its contribution to the war effort by 40% if we are to prevail but I think that too costly. Instead, I am willing to commit to an aspirational 10-20% increase in our armed forces.”

“On the Home Front, I know that many Kiwi families are tired of Labour’s ‘Father State’ telling them how to live their lives. If I am Prime Minister, my government will end conscription and rationing. We in the National Party trust that New Zealanders will be able to make their own rational decisions and the operation of the market will ensure a fair distribution of food and adequate contribution to the War without the need for regulation.”

Mr Key will next week be appearing on the Aunt Daisy’s popular morning radio programme on the ZB network to read a list of the Top Ten things to do with one’s lard ration.

21 comments on “Dispatches from the parallel universe, John Key 1940 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Nick C 1
    28 September 2009 at 12:11 pm

    How ironic given Labours position on the War in Afghanistan.

  2. snoozer 2
    28 September 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Very funny, well done.

    Climate change is the great battle of our times, and under Key we have deserted.

  3. wtl 3
    28 September 2009 at 12:37 pm

    NickC: Indeed, we should blindly support our ‘allies’ in all wars, regardless of the circumstances.

  4. MikeE 4
    28 September 2009 at 1:06 pm

    I just think you Godwined climate change.

    • Eddie 4.1
      28 September 2009 at 1:14 pm

      Pathetic MikeE. But I guess it was only a matter of time before some dumb righty jumped in to accuse the post of breaching godwin because they couldn’t handle the message. I’d picked Tim Ellis, but I guess he’s busy auditing for a change.

      You know perfectly well the post isn’t about comparing National to Nazis, it’s about comparing National’s weak response to the great threat to civilization in the 21st century, climate change, to the kind of action that was needed to overcome the great threat of the 20th, fascism.

    • RedLogix 4.2
      28 September 2009 at 1:22 pm

      OK so now you know the word ‘Godwinned’. Now try and find out what it means.

      Clue… it’s not ‘any mention of or comparison with WW2’.

  5. Rich 5
    28 September 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Of course, it would have made no difference to the outcome of WW2 if Fraser *had* taken that approach.

    • wtl 5.1
      28 September 2009 at 1:41 pm

      You can’t be sure about that. Regardless, I’m sure it would have affected the rest of the world’s opinion about NZ, and not in a good way.

      And ultimately, it is about doing the right thing, something you seem to fail to understand.

    • snoozer 5.2
      28 September 2009 at 2:15 pm

      yeah, we all get that Rich. The point is we still did our part.

    • Pascal's bookie 5.3
      28 September 2009 at 2:44 pm

      Thank Christ for Soviets eh Rich?

      • Rich 5.3.1
        28 September 2009 at 6:44 pm

        Indeed. Had Hitler not invaded Russia when he did, the chances are that Germany would have eventually worn Britain down to the point where either an invasion succeeded or the government accepted German hegemony.

        Soviet casualties of around 24 million were around 2,000 times NZ and 50 times UK. In turn, a very large proportion (over 90%) of German losses were on the Eastern front.

        WW2 was a war of production and force mobilisation. As a tiny country remote from the battlefronts, however brave NZ troops may have been, they could never have made other than a minor impact on the course of the war.

        Arguably, the New Zealander who had the biggest impact on WW2 died nearly two years before the war started. I think you can guess who?

        [BTW, I don’t suggest that NZ shouldn’t have got involved, merely that our intervention was not material on an objective basis. Germany and Japan had to be defeated, and everything helped in some way. I don’t believe we gained anything material from it, though – the European neutrals suffered virtually no opprobrium for their stance – even Spain, which came as close as any nation could to joining the Axis.]

        • Pascal's bookie 5.3.1.1
          28 September 2009 at 7:16 pm

          Well I’d argue maybe David Low, but it ain’t him you’re thinking of.

          But if you aren’t suggesting we shouldn’t have been involved, what were you suggesting, if I might ask?

          I only ask, because that exact argument is used as to why we shouldn’t bother doing anything about our emissions, and that being the obvious topic of the post, your comment seems to suggest the same parallel. But I’m glad that wasn’t your intent.

          • Rich 5.3.1.1.1
            29 September 2009 at 2:50 pm

            [Rutherford, of course. His discoveries paved the way for the atomic bomb, which ended the Pacific war many months earlier, and on different terms, than would otherwise have happened.]

            In terms of the validity of a WW2/climate change comparison, I would argue that in the case of WW2, whilst it was obviously right for NZ to participate, we gained no tangible post-war security or economic benefit from doing so, nor did we influence the course of the war.

            With climate change, there are a number of very valid reasons for NZ to be a leader in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
            1. By taking a lead, we are able to take measures that suit our circumstances rather than having such measures imposed on us, for instance through carbon taxes on our exports

            2. Adapting to a low carbon economy at a fast pace improves our competitiveness against less prepared economies and leverages our strong natural position in renewables

            3. By offering an example, we can (to a limited extent) encourage others to take appropriate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

        • So Bored 5.3.1.2
          28 September 2009 at 7:52 pm

          Old battles, oh how are the mighty fallen? Rutherford and the atom, Keith Park in the Battle of Britain, colossi…..now Jonkey on Letterman. Lamentations, great gnashing of teeth….