Don’t look for help from the bosses’ party

21 comments on “Don’t look for help from the bosses’ party ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gosman 1

   25 August 2009 at 10:57 am

   I’d be curious to know why Phil Goff couldn’t use this couple as his poster people for the need for more middle class welfare rather than the older couple who owned more than a million dollars of property.

   Seems as though the Labour Party can’t even choose the right evidence to back their arguments up. It’s no wonder they are doing so badly in the Polls.
2. RedLogix 2

   25 August 2009 at 11:08 am

   Phil Goff couldn’t use this couple as his poster people for the need for more middle class welfare rather than the older couple who owned more than a million dollars of property.

   If that were the case then they could have readily sold one of the properties and used the released equity to solve their problem. Real problem was they didn’t own a million dollars worth of property… the bank does.

   But your not interested in actually thinking anything through, just tossing around moronic little soundbites all fury and noise, but meaning nothing.
   • indiana 2.1

     25 August 2009 at 12:52 pm

     Does this mean I can go out an borrow a heap of money, then eventually lose my job one day, perhaps not through redundancy but a car accident – the govt should bail me out? Maybe you have given Gosman enough credit for actually thinking it through.
3. Tigger 3

   25 August 2009 at 11:34 am

   I really hope Maungakiekie lurches back to Labour next election. Carol is a hard worker and would have made a great MP for this electorate (of course, I’m biased, it was my electorate until we moved three years ago and I hated seeing it go blue).
4. Tim Ellis 4

   25 August 2009 at 12:15 pm

   Very thoughtful post, zetetic.

   A few questions come to mind when reading Ms Beaumont’s post, though. Firstly does this couple actually exist, and if they do, is Labour accurately representing their true circumstances? On Labour’s recent record, with Mrs Choudhary and Mr Burgess to name just a couple, then it would be difficult to believe that they do.

   Secondly Ms Beaumont again highlights Mr Goff’s incompetence in announcing a policy that he didn’t do the detail on. The original policy he announced did involve welfare for millionaires. He defended giving welfare to millionaires because he said wealthy people had paid taxes all their lives and deserved it.

   Thirdly Ms Beaumont highlights why after nine years of Labour government there weren’t arrangements in place to help the alleged couple in times of economic hardship. The speccific example she highlights would have had problems making ends meet even if there weren’t a recession. Why didn’t Labour structure a welfare scheme that could assist them?
   • lprent 4.1

     25 August 2009 at 12:51 pm

     Idiot. By your definition several of my family are worth a lot.

     Of course they don’t ‘own’ their property. The bank owns the majority of it. What they are responsible for is to pay at least the interest, otherwise the bank has a mortgagee sale. In the current market that means that it is entirely possible that a sale (if one could be made) would result in negative equity, in which case they will wind up at the end without a house AND still owing the bank.

     So you’re peddling a short con line of bullshit that is superficially convincing, but in fact is as shallow as your thinking…..
     • Tim Ellis 4.1.1

       25 August 2009 at 1:10 pm

       LP I realise this is your website but if you want to encourage other people to engage in civilised debate it would help if you don’t engage in personal abuse where it’s not warranted.

       If people choose to take on a lot of debt for investment advantage that is their choice. I don’t believe the taxpayer should bail people out from poor investment choices. The Burgess case was very illustrative on this point. The other part of the Burgess case is that Mr Goff and the Labour Party knew that Mr Burgess owned investment property, which by any reasonable measure is a material issue in terms of public perception as to his financial need. Mr Goff omitted to tell the media this when he used Mr Burgess as a poster child for Labour’s struggling families theme.
       • Tigger 4.1.1.1

         25 August 2009 at 1:33 pm

         indiana and Tim – Why all this talk of ‘bail out’? Who here was being ‘bailed out’? You think Labour were saying that the taxpayer should clear all this guy’s debts?
         • indiana 4.1.1.1.1

           25 August 2009 at 2:30 pm

           Nup…I got the impression that they were advocating that some sort of benefit/welfare should help him do it.
       • lprent 4.1.1.2

         25 August 2009 at 1:46 pm

         TE: You deserved the comment. That was a total bullshit line – ‘millionaires’.

         If you can’t show an equity statement to that effect, then I’d have to say that you’re just making crap up – in other words lying through your teeth for effect. Youy may be able to get away with that kind of crap on the credulously stupid comments areas, but not here.

         I’m pretty sure that they are negative millionaires – they are more likely to owe a million than own it. They have a liability to the bank that requires constant feeding with interest. In the current market they cannot afford to shed the liability because they’re likely to get less than than what bank has lent on it.

         Assume that is the case, as it is for most home owners. Then your ‘millionaire line looks like total and utter bullshit.

         So if you don’t like being called on this type of crap – go elsewhere.
         • Herman Poole 4.1.1.2.1

           25 August 2009 at 2:52 pm

           “If you can’t show an equity statement to that effect, then I’d have to say that you’re just making crap up in other words lying through your teeth for effect. You may be able to get away with that kind of crap on the credulously stupid comments areas, but not here.”

           “I’m pretty sure that they are negative millionaires”

           ‘I’m pretty sure’ doesn’t sound like you’ve seen any equity statements that support your comment.
       • Trevor Mallard 4.1.1.3

         25 August 2009 at 5:06 pm

         Tim you called Carol’s word into doubt. And by the way I don’t believe you audit for a bank full time.
   • The Voice of Reason 4.2

     25 August 2009 at 1:11 pm

     Jeez, Tim, it’s a bit rich you suggesting this couple doesn’t exist.

     Most people on the interweb don’t believe Tim Ellis, humble bank auditor, exists either. And I note you invented a father in law on the sewer yesterday, specifically to bag the EPMU, a union that didn’t exist either at the time your supposed relly was supposedly having problems.

     I can tell you something that does exist, though. A Government rapidly disintegrating internally and and alienating it’s support base externally. Any comment on those realities?
     • Herman Poole 4.2.1

       25 August 2009 at 1:52 pm

       “I can tell you something that does exist, though. A Government rapidly disintegrating internally and and alienating it’s support base externally. Any comment on those realities?”

       TV3 Poll 16 August 09

       National 58.1%
       Labour 29.2%
       Greens 7.5%
       • lprent 4.2.1.1

         25 August 2009 at 2:06 pm

         Two and a bit years to the next election. At the current rate it looks like NACT will manage to have as many disgraced, disciplined, or joke MP’s by the end of it as the sewer thinks Labour did after 9 years (and they have very active imaginations). All while under a very lax disciplinarian John Key pretending to be a PM while he polishes his CV….

         I suspect that the polls are changing direction
         • Herman Poole 4.2.1.1.1

           25 August 2009 at 2:39 pm

           If you want the change it was:

           National +2.1%
           Labour -0.8%
           Greens +1.4%
5. The Voice of Reason 5

   25 August 2009 at 2:19 pm

   You left out ACT; 1%, Herman.

   However, I wasn’t talking about the polls. I was saying that the Government was collapsing, not the National Party’s poll ratings. There’s further evidence of that this arvo, with Tau Henare calling Rodney Hide a buffoon and a jerk off, according to Granny Herald in this article
   • Herman Poole 5.1

     25 August 2009 at 2:45 pm

     “You left out ACT; 1%, Herman.”

     Ok, It was 1.4% which is more than United Future, Progressives, and NZ First combined.

     And that kinda makes your point irrelevant. At 1.4% Rodney Hide’s hurt feelings aren’t about to cause any governments to collapse.
     • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1

       25 August 2009 at 3:05 pm

       Thanks for the update, Herman, but it doesn’t negate my point at all. The last PM managed to hold together 3 minority governments over 9 years which included some pretty divergent parties and personalities. Mr Floppy doesn’t seem able to control his majority government, even with most MP’s supposedly behind him.

       As Lprent points out above, there’s two and a bit years before the next election. If this shambles continues unabated there will be a Labour led government elected then, even if its by default.
       • Herman Poole 5.1.1.1

         25 August 2009 at 3:32 pm

         I’d have to guess 2014 is gonna be more likely for a change of government. 2 years will come and go pretty quickly, economic data should be generally positive without any great expectations if we are at the start of a global recovery. AB’s should win in 2011 :). Of the potential pitfalls, I would say any effects from mistakes around Akld won’t come to light for a few years. Any resentment around foreshore and smacking will always partially be shared with labour. Climate change policy also won’t come home to roost withiin the next 2 years, so the only thing likely to cause a change of gov in 2011 is a major scandal that we don’t know about yet IMO.

         One thing with the ACT vote. Wouldn’t it be better for a Nat/Act coalition if ACT were to get 0% party vote and win 3 or 4 electorates? This would create an overhang in the same way that many Maori Party voters give their party vote to Labour. I don’t understand why Labour and National don’t work with the Progressives and ACT more like this.
     • So Bored 5.1.2

       25 August 2009 at 3:16 pm

       Herman,

       I think you are right, NACT is doing a fine job for those who backed it through its darkest hours, and gave the dollars, hours, media time etc etc that got Helen and the bad socialists unelected. And NACT are not disintegrating, I think they are genuinely well co-ordinated and aligned, what you see is decidedly not what you get. The smile on the face of the tiger who has come to eat you for supper.

       What you evidence by quoting the polls is either the political naievity (some might say cretinous nature) of the electorate, or the ability of NACT to dress up the unpalitable with whipped cream and chocolate.

       What is really ironic is that the cretins will all be puking up by next election when they find out that thy have been eating stale crumbs from the floor whilst the tiny percentage of real NACT beneficiaries have been dining on the fat of the land from newly acquired silverware.

       So Herman, ask yourself, are you at the table or on the floor? I suspect you may be sitting with the cretins.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS