Froth on the rich man’s hem

47 comments on “Froth on the rich man’s hem ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   21 May 2011 at 12:21 am

   John Key is a bottom line kind of a guy. After all if he breaks a few eggs and you are disapppointed, no problem, he still gets the breakfast he wants at the end of it.
2. McFlock 2

   21 May 2011 at 1:01 am

   He’s a gambler. He figures that anything over circa44% is a win, and being on 5x% he has some wiggle room to stuff the country and still get re-elected.

   But that rests on the maori party and act nabbing 5% between them, without sucking support from national to do so (a real risk with the Branksosaur). And last election the nats slipped 10 points without the risk of zero-budget “froth”.

   And labour is showing signs of breaking out the starting gates.

   The budget throws sacks of cuddly kittens and puppies into a giant blender, but I think I might still be able to vote Alliance in good conscience that I’m not denying a labour coalition a narrow victory. They might well be in a good position come november.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     21 May 2011 at 1:15 am

     Alliance? If you don’t want to vote Labour, at least vote Mana or Green so your vote actually counts for something.
     • McFlock 2.1.1

       21 May 2011 at 2:31 am

       If you don’t want to vote Labour, at least vote Mana or Green so your vote actually counts for something.

       Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? I don’t want my vote to count for stuff I don’t believe in, and I think the biggest issue in NZ at the moment is socio-economic theft. I haven’t seen much in the way of Mana policy, although they seem to make the right noises(but we all know how little noise indicates post-election action in NZ politics). And the Greens are a waste of space when it comes to broader economic issues, especially when you discount the policies that are legacies from their stint in the Alliance.
        
       I’m damned if I let my vote “count” for shite I don’t believe in, so I  might as well help Alliance stay on the registered party list to remind Labour what they sold out on and continue to sell out on today: zero structural unemployment, government ownership of infrastructure, real progressive taxation (more than 2 or 3 brackets and high rates for the richest people), removal of GST, 100% taxpayer-funded education (pre-school to tertiary) and health.
        
       If you vote for a government of jerks, you can’t complain that the government are jerks. And if you play the “tactical” game of voting for the lesser of two (or 6) jerks, then you guarantee that there won’t be non-jerks running when the electorate is finally ready to listen to them. And you’re still voting for jerks.
        
       Unless a primary-focus left-wing party emerges that has greater electoral potential than the Alliance (or more closely matches my political beliefs), my vote won’t be changing.
        
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1

         21 May 2011 at 12:49 pm

         I should go back and have another look at the Alliance.

         They’ve changed their web page again and it’s worse than it ever was.
   • just saying 2.2

     21 May 2011 at 8:29 am

     Any chance of any agreement between the Alliance and Te Mana, in your opinion Mcflock?
     • McFlock 2.2.1

       21 May 2011 at 3:04 pm

       Don’t know if anyone’s talking about it.
        
       If Te Mana has solid socialist policies, has a strongly democratic party policy structure rather than “whim of leader” planning (something I feel strongly about, for some reason), and won’t sell out just for a bit of sequestered social spending that’s a drop in the bucket anyway, then it seems likely to me. I don’t think it’s a case of Social Credit existing in perpetuity, funded by a bookshop.
        
       Although if I were a billionaire I’d buy it a chain of stores.
     • Puddleglum 2.2.2

       22 May 2011 at 12:51 pm

       An ‘alliance’ between the Alliance and the Mana Party seems logical. After all, the Alliance incorporated both New Labour and Mana Motuhake.
3. ak 3

   21 May 2011 at 1:27 am

   Oh those tiny bubbles have been popping, one by one, for many months now.

   And the froth whipped up by Helenhate hysteria is about to return its cute Joky Hen scum to the rapidly cooling pool.

   After a remarkable run, it must be said. Brash’s Orewa racism raised the filth from the gutter but ebbed after mere months: vasectomy boy’s ridden the femina*i wave right to the beach. Thanks to a big fat fairfaxapn board.

   But now wee Jack’s selling the cow for 170,000 magic beans and cream for the already obese. As winter approaches.

   Even the village idiot knows where his milk comes from: and when a donKey is shafting his assets.

   A cold wind is whipping at our lonely emperor’s finery. But is there a child bold enough to speak?
4. Jim Nald 4

   21 May 2011 at 6:24 am

   I’d hate to think what else he calls “froth” out of the public earshot.
5. Lazy Susan 5

   21 May 2011 at 7:20 am

   And here lies the problem – it’s all a game to these guys where “balancing the budget” is about sneaking through unpopular policy and not loseing too much “froth” in the process.

   Many commentators from the left suggest Blingish, Key et al are clueless fools. This is a dangerous assumption – these guys and their faceless backers are far from fools – they are smart, duplicitous manipulators. Their objective is simply to complete the confiscation of wealth from the majority of New Zealanders to a small and powerful wealthy elite. The only thing that matters to them is that this powerful elite ultimately owns and controls all of the strategic assets of this country and has access to a large pool of cheap labour. It matters not whether these assets are owned in London, New York or Epsom it’s just as long as they are owned by members of the same club.

   It’s fruitless to analyse the budget in terms of how it will benefit the economy because it is not designed for that.

   This the design timeline:
   Structural deficit – asset sales – monopoly rents – high unemployment – diminished welfare state – low wages – big fat profits for the club

   It’s yet another step in the process that has been going on for the last 25 years.
   • marsman 5.1

     21 May 2011 at 9:14 am

     Totally agree Lazy Susan. They are nasty clowns. To defer Kiwisaver cuts etc till after the election is a sneaky move to ram them through even if they don’t have a majority should they be re-elected.
   • ianmac 5.2

     21 May 2011 at 9:27 am

     Yes Susan and Steven Joyce is Joyful with his machinations!
   • Draco T Bastard 5.3

     21 May 2011 at 12:59 pm

     Bingo!

     they are smart, duplicitous manipulators.

     In a word, psychopaths.
6. Robert Atack 6

   21 May 2011 at 7:24 am

   We are all froth, to every politician, or should I say we are like musical instruments, as they play us like fiddles, and it works, every three years we trot out to ‘make a difference’ then three years later we do it again, because we are basically selfish fools who believe the triennial dose of crap.
   “What is in it for me, and fuck future generations”

   I agree with Owen Glenn’s comments in yesterdays Compost “Having children isn’t a right, it is a privilege that requires careful thought to ensure children can be cared for properly, fed, clothed and educated. Love is vital but it doesn’t pay the bills and neither should the government be expected to”.

   Maybe Owen watched the DVDs I sent him? … yeah right.
   We take more care in selecting the family pet, than taking in all the facts before we create another child.
   7 billion and about to start counting down.
   • Puddleglum 6.1

     22 May 2011 at 12:57 pm

     “Having children isn’t a right, it is a privilege that requires careful thought to ensure children can be cared for properly, fed, clothed and educated. Love is vital but it doesn’t pay the bills and neither should the government be expected to”.

     Robert, can’t you see the unintended consequence of this view? Basically, since only the highest income earning, greatest consumers will see themselves as capable of ‘properly’ raising children, then an incentive operates for all of us to chase higher incomes and greater consumption. I thought you were opposed to that?
7. Robert Atack 7

   21 May 2011 at 7:43 am

   Here is an example of the ‘froth’ believing the rhetoric, and the consequences of when the BS hits the fan
   Post-Mubarak Egypt ‘running out of food’ http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/05/18/Post-Mubarak-Egypt-running-out-of-food/UPI-63801305737085/
   The Egyptians think they can have a fair slice of the pie, well wake up suckers the pie is full of maggots and air.
   The fair share went out the window about 5 billion people ago.;) For NZ that was back about 2-3 million people.
   The more people the less there is to go around, 1 planet divided by 7 billion = end times
   • uke 7.1

     21 May 2011 at 10:32 am

     The “fair share of the pie” does not corespond simply to population but also to consumption rate. The planet can support 7 billion, but not if they all live in dream mansions, drive SUVs, and own all the other junk of our consumerist Babylon.
      
     The “end times” will certainly involve lowered material expectations and lighter technologies, but we can ease the transition by voluntarily accepting these as positives and changing our ways.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       21 May 2011 at 1:09 pm

       The planet can support 7 billion,

       Go read Limits To Growth and other publications. Educated estimate is between 1 and 2 billion people with a living standard equivalent to Europe circa 1970s and even then we need more efficient living than we have now. Think minimising resource usage rather than maximising it as we get under the capitalist “free-market”.

       Right now we’re at least 5 billion people over what the planet can support.
       • uke 7.1.1.1

         21 May 2011 at 2:28 pm

         Yes, fair enough comment (and I will get to Limits to Growth one day). I also would prefer there was a global population of only 1-2 billion.
          
         But unfortunately those other 5 billion exist. Therefore, in the absence of a world war, plague or massive natural disaster, a humane solution to our current problems would be to accept a lowering of the average consumption rate around the globe to – I guess – around 30% of the 1970s European average. Then somehow plan a lowering of the population over several generations to the ideal balance you have indicated, using the wisdom of the experience to put to bed classical economic myths around limitless growth.
          
         Less humane solutions would be mass extermination, mongering of devastating wars, or the forcible withdrawal of medical services that prolong people’s lives. These are unacceptable, to my mind, but sometimes I wonder just what the average NZer or American would do  if push came to shove: 1) Drastically downscale their consumption to a fraction of its current level; 2) Keep SUV, heated swimming pool, beer fridge, and tolerate mass misery on the other side of the world somewhere…
         • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1

           21 May 2011 at 2:53 pm

           Well, we could choose to decrease the population and then keep it within limits or Nature will do it for us. Considering our collective response to Anthropogenic Climate Change we’re going to let Nature do it for us – and that will also include all the less humane solutions that you listed and probably a few more.
         • KJT 7.1.1.1.2

           21 May 2011 at 2:59 pm

           We already tolerate mass misery, so long as it is not in front of us. Read the right wing blogs on “bennies” for instance!
8. vto 8

   21 May 2011 at 9:27 am

   Better to be the froth on top than the stinking stewing liquid cesspit below.
9. Bill 9

   21 May 2011 at 9:39 am

   Some of that sort of froth in there will come away.

   Is it just me who immediately had an image of a National voter base ‘beast’, down on all fours retching and wiping bubbly stinks of vomit from its chin? Maybe it got too drunk on bullshit?
10. HC 10

    21 May 2011 at 9:51 am

    Ha! Good point made, ZETETIC!

    I heard JK say this when asked about some comments by TV journalists yesterday.

    So I also wondered how those people would feel that were deluded enough to vote for him and give him and National “a chance” to prove their words. Clearly they are just “froth” to him.

    It sounds a bit like the die hard battle call: All for one and one for all.

    If you are not with us, you are not worth our time, is what he means by that.

    Hopefully a few more voters will wake up and cast their vote a bit more carefully and sensibly next election!
11. Mac1 11

    21 May 2011 at 10:34 am

    Mention of froth brings beer to mind, and in this context a song about John Key and beer.

    The Man that Waters the Workers’ Beer

    Cheers!
12. ianmac 12

    21 May 2011 at 10:44 am

    Interesting unravelling in the Herald by Adam Bennet. Atax cut behind a smokescreen.
    “Changes to KiwiSaver this week mean that for many savers who earn more than $58,000, the Government is taking more cash out of previously tax-free employer contributions than it pays out in annual incentives. “
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10727060
    • Treetop 12.1

      21 May 2011 at 2:21 pm

      “What’s more, reductions to government contributions apply before July, despite prime minister John Key maintaining they would not take effect before the November general election.”

      Yeah right with no mandate to touch Kiwisaver.
13. aj 13

    21 May 2011 at 11:49 am

    The last 2.5 years and possibly the next 3 might not see Labour’s 9 year legacy go up in the ‘bonfire of right-wing politics’ but there is certainly a fire and a lot of smoke.
14. tsmithfield 14

    21 May 2011 at 12:44 pm

    I am going to be very interested in what Goff comes up with as an alternative.

    There is not very much of what Key has done that Goff is promising to undo. I think he might be a dog with a big bark but a little bite. If he protests loudly about the Nat’s budget but then won’t change very much of it, he will lose the little credibility he has left.
    • Peter 14.1

      21 May 2011 at 2:37 pm

      Maybe Goff now has an open invitation to come up with something innovative and radical compared to what is on offer.
    • KJT 14.2

      21 May 2011 at 2:56 pm

      Pretty hard to change when NACT will leave a huge deficit and no assets.

      I reckon that is the intention. Read “The shock doctrine”.
      http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book
      • McFlock 14.2.1

        21 May 2011 at 3:19 pm

        But it can work both ways – if there is a major deficit issue, then the next government can say “woe is me, but these few people are really wealthy, we need to increase their taxes to help the country. They want to help the country, don’t they?”
        • KJT 14.2.1.1

          21 May 2011 at 3:24 pm

          Like Fay Rich in 87?

          Didn’t they head for Ireland?
          • McFlock 14.2.1.1.1

            21 May 2011 at 4:08 pm

            Good riddance, too. Less parasites in the local economy.
          • Draco T Bastard 14.2.1.1.2

            21 May 2011 at 4:11 pm

            Yep, and took all our wealth with them.
15. todd 15

    21 May 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Aw come on guys! It’s just a figure of speech. What he meant was that while the honeymoon period was still in effect, he will go out and fuck the country over as much as possible. While the Shirer Volk (as Bomber puts it) have their rose tinted goggles on, Key and crew will burn, rape and pillage until the cows come home to shit in our rivers. All the while bribing the media to broadcast his smile and wave circus act. The froth is just calculated collateral damage, to be washed down the drain like so much cow shit.
    • ianmac 15.1

      21 May 2011 at 1:57 pm

      Er todd. It is important rape, pillage, and burn in that order for obvious reasons.
      • McFlock 15.1.1

        21 May 2011 at 3:21 pm

        that explains the blisters. 🙂
16. promises.....promises 16

    21 May 2011 at 1:47 pm

    It appears that the kiwisaver tax credit cuts start this July, not after the election (according to John Armstrong in today’s Herald) so there goes our chance to vote on them, as promised by Key. Seems a strange mistake(?) to make.
    • ianmac 16.1

      21 May 2011 at 1:59 pm

      Perhaps it is an opportunity to get a measure on reaction of the people, so that Election strategy can be formed accordingly. Test the water?
      • Treetop 16.1.1

        21 May 2011 at 2:32 pm

        Until the 2011 budget was read I do think prior to this the government sent out probes about unfavourable policy. Kiwisaver will not be reversed because it is required by the gamblers (the government) to play it on the roulette wheel. A gambler should never count his money at the table, (the 2011 budget).
        • ianmac 16.1.1.1

          21 May 2011 at 3:06 pm

          True Treetop, but the way rhetoric is presented can be modified to suit the mood of the people. Cynical behaviour but not surprising.
          • MikeG 16.1.1.1.1

            21 May 2011 at 4:28 pm

            The Kiwisaver tax credit from the Government isn’t added to your account until after 30 June each year, so even though the decrease comes into effect for contributions after 1 July 2011, it will only be in 2012 that the reduced amount is seen in anyones account. Deceitful by Key, but that it how he would (could) argue it as ‘coming into effect after the election’.
17. randal 17

    21 May 2011 at 4:28 pm

    the deficit is easy cured. turn off all the teevee stations and put a 25cent surcharge on petrol and all our financial woes will be gone in 3 months. otherwise the whole thing is just a treadmill to keep all the proletariat with thir noses to the grindstone. its all quite simple really.
18. randal 18

    21 May 2011 at 4:30 pm

    the deficit is easy. turn off all teevee staions and put a 25cent surcharge on petrol. gone before lunchtime.
19. randal 19

    21 May 2011 at 4:34 pm

    the deficit is easy meat mate. turn off all teevee stations and put a 25cent surcharge on petrol. simple.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS