Fuck inequality! Fuck poverty! Fuck the Nat govt!

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, August 8th, 2014 - 267 comments
Categories: cost of living, election 2014, internet mana party, john key, Metiria Turei, patriarchy, poverty, workers' rights - Tags:

There are sobering and harrowing stories coming out of Auckland Action Against Poverty’s Action Impact at Mangere this week.  Yesterday’s press release from AAAP, states:

“The number of people in need standing outside Mangere Work & Income early this morning was almost beyond belief,” says AAAP spokesperson Sue Bradford.

“Some had been here since 6am to get help from our advocates. There have been many hundreds overall.

“This morning one woman with a medical condition collapsed and had to be taken to hospital by ambulance. Two other people had ‘turns’ and were provided medical assistance on site.

“People are desperate. They come to the impact because they have been turned down for assistance in the past, aren’t getting what they’re entitled to or are simply too frightened to come into the office on their own.

“If most New Zealanders could see what’s happening here, they would be appalled at exactly how badly their government is letting so many of its citizens down.

“It is an indictment that Work & Income does not adequately support beneficiaries and unemployed people to get the assistance they need as a matter of course, so that when a group like ours turns up we are completely overrun.

Simon Buckingham’s post on the Daily Blog is a must read. He is a lawyer helping out with AAAP’s advocacy work with beneficiaries.

I grabbed a spare desk as one of two Lawyers who are assisting Auckland Action Against Poverty’s Impact Day, and my day began helping predominantly single mums who cannot name dad.

Before we begin, let me clarify. Last year when I was helping at the New Lynn WINZ office, I had the single mum who was sexually violated. She had her child, and WINZ wrongly started deducting the $20 per week for not naming the father. This was an error, as rape is the exemption, but this error had deducted $20 per week for ten years for being a victim. We managed to secure her a $10,000 rebate at a time that she needed the break!

This is an indictment on the current Paula Bennett-John Key driven system of dis-entitlement.  It is also testament to the continuing existence of compassion, care, collaborative flax roots efforts, and the human spirit under extreme pressure form those in power.  Buckingham reports that some of the WINZ staff have shown genuine compassion and been very helpful.

A couple of days ago, Metiria Turei had dropped by the Mangere Impact, to see for herself what was happening. She posted on Facebook:

Just been politely but firmly thrown out of the Mangere WINZ office. Ive been at the advocacy Impact at Mangere WINZ, talking with the advocates about the extent to which beneficiaries are still not getting their full entitlements. Then on the advice from the Ministers office, management asked that I leave. Protocols and all that. But for just this one hour I was transported back 25 years when I was doing this work. Nothing has changed for the better for people in need of some help. And needing help should not be an excuse for being treated like a second class citizen.

We will roll back these cruel welfare reforms. We will restore the principles of decency and justice in social security. National is hurting families. We have to make them stop.

I’m not sure what the “protocols” are that govern such days of advocacy.  However, Turei seems to have accepted the request to leave.  But she did have enough time to see for herself the struggles and the compassion.

Turei and Buckingham, like many others, are calling for  change of government, and new policies to “restore the principles of decency and justice”.

Yesterday’s video posted by AAAP, spells out the problems, the inequalities and the needs.  The Inequality gap cannot be just measured by comparisons of average incomes over time.  The biggest inequality gaps are seen when comparing the gaps between the richest and poorest 10% over time.  It includes the way income inequalities feed into wealth inequalities, which become very had to reverse.

The AAAP workers state on the video, that the Mangere Impact has shown even greater needs, dis-entitlement, and suffering than at the previous Impacts in Onehunga and New Lynn.

AAAP youtube video here.

AAAP advocate, Oliver Christellor, talks of the legal requirement that solo mothers name the child’s father. If they don’t, they get their benefit reduced by about $27.00 a week.  He idneitifies this as a human rights problem, because only women are penalised this way. Christellor says that the women are often not listened to.  Talking to them uncovers many reasons why they haven’t named the child’s father.

We have a government that doesn’t care about the struggles of the disempowered, the poor, or women generally:

This is the same John Key who is dismissive of the criticisms by women journalists for his blatantly sexist labeling of Laila Harre as Kim Dotcom’s “sugar daddy”.  He sucks in his breath as he stands by his statement as being “totally accurate”, while deliberately ignoring the sexual connotations of the “sugar daddy” phrase.

This is the leader of the same government that under-funds women’s refuges, and pressures women struggling to survive, to name fathers, even when it may endanger them.

keep-calm-and-fuck-john-key

For the good of us all, and especially, for the good of those doing it really tough these days, VOTE LEFT this election! We are all in this together.

vote left 2014

267 comments on “Fuck inequality! Fuck poverty! Fuck the Nat govt! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. infused 1
    8 August 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Vote Positive guys!

    • karol 1.1
      8 August 2014 at 12:35 pm

      Mate, in case you haven’t noticed – I’m not Labour.

      • silverbullet 1.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 12:40 pm

        But your shouting vote Left so that includes Labour and the slogan “Vote Positive”.

        • just saying 1.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 12:46 pm

          But your shouting vote Left so that includes Labour and the slogan “Vote Positive”.

          1. Debatable
          2. So….?
        • karol 1.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 12:47 pm

          I’ll leave it to others to decide which parties will truly represent a return to traditional Left values.

          I leave it to others to decide which opposition parties they support. I’m not a member of any party and make my own choices of who I vote for, and the public statements I make about it.

          This year, I’m party voting Green. It has a whole raft of policies aimed at returning to a more caring and inclusive society, based on stated values of inclusion, collaborative approaches and fairness.

          I think the current government needs to be called out for the negative impacts of its policies and practices.

          If you are so much into positivity, what do you have to say about the negativity of bennie-bashing, calling a female political candidate “sugar daddy”, attacking youth (many of whom have given up on established politics) for expressing their anger at the current government?

          • Once was Pete 1.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 5:55 pm

            I understood that the reference about ‘Sugar Daddy’ was about Laila Harre being funded by Dotcom. This seems to me to be just a plain statement of fact. I would go further and ask just what more Harre has to do for her not to be considered a ‘political whore’? The Alliance, the Greens, and now bought and paid for by Dotcom. Certainly the way she left the Greens was less than classy. I deplore people who have taken money off someone/party to do work and then seem to think it is their intellectual property. Nope, Harre has left the high ground and headed for a morass.
            As for the comment about attacking youth this is just nonsense. Harre/Dotcom have taken NZ politics to a new low with their nazi style orchestrated meetings. Attacking NZ youth? Baloney!

            • karol 1.1.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 6:13 pm

              So,, you still don’t get why calling a female MP a “political whore” or being kept by a “sugar daddy” is misogynist?

              I wouldn’t use the word “whore” as a term to disparage anyone.

              • Populuxe1 …
                9 August 2014 at 12:30 am

                Not that men can have sugar daddies or anything…

              • Once was Pete …
                9 August 2014 at 8:52 am

                It is not a question, of ‘getting it’ or not. It is a question of whether or not the thrust of the comment is true, and clearly it is.
                If you read what I said, I didn’t call Harre a whore. I asked the question what more would she have to do to be considered a ‘political whore’.The modern usage of the word ‘whore’ includes someone who has compromised their position for personal gain. Tell me how Laila Harre doesn’t fit that meaning! So I think you are being cute hiding behind accusations of misogynism where none exist.

            • weka 1.1.1.2.1.2
              8 August 2014 at 7:38 pm

              “Certainly the way she left the Greens was less than classy. I deplore people who have taken money off someone/party to do work and then seem to think it is their intellectual property.”

              Please explain that, preferably with some evidence.

              • Once was Pete …
                9 August 2014 at 9:02 am

                Weka, were you a school teacher in a past life? All you need to do is read the papers from the time where Harre’s ‘theft’ of Green party policy was discussed in full. She announced similar policy to the Greens before the Greens could make their own policy announcements, and then she claimed it as her own IP. What a joke. What ever respect I ever had for her has well gone. The Greens were quite obviously displeased.

                • weka …
                  9 August 2014 at 9:08 am

                  citation or it didn’t happen. I tend not to take the MSM’s word for things so would like to see if for myself.

                  “All you need to do is read the papers from the time”

                  Do you mean late last year?

                  • Once was Pete …
                    9 August 2014 at 11:27 am

                    No, I don’t mean last year. This was widely covered, after Harre joined IMP. She was also widely quoted on the issue. Is this like the moon landing – if you didn’t actually see it, it didn’t happen, because I have neither the time or the patience to trawl through back issues of the papers to find something everyone who follows politics knows happened.

                    • weka …
                      9 August 2014 at 12:54 pm

                      At the time Harre joined the IP, Turei wished her well. I saw some third party speculation about rifts and problems, but nothing that had any meaning. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were some hurt feelings, and even some conflict, but I think you have overstated the case as a way of making a policial point, which is why I want back up. You’ve actually made some pretty serious allegations as well, which also require back up (eg theft of intellectual property).

                      My problem with what you are saying is that it is sufficiently vague that it looks like your interpretation of things rather than fact. That’s why I want you to link to something so I can understand what you mean. You should be able find someting in google pretty easily. Or you could post in Open Mike and see if anyone supports your view eg “everyone who follows politics knows happened.”

                    • karol …
                      9 August 2014 at 12:59 pm

                      My recollection is that was all speculation on the part of journalists. There was no evidence of property theft.

                      I recall Harre saying something like these were issues she had been focused on since before she worked for the Greens.

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.2.1.3
              8 August 2014 at 8:18 pm

              You can tell how desperate the right are. They are getting that desperate we may have to extend Goodwin’s law to the MSM …

              • Once was Pete …
                9 August 2014 at 8:56 am

                If you are referring to my comment then you are wrong, I am definitely not right wing, but if it makes you more comfortable to label me and therefore dismiss my comments then that is fine by me.
                I do note that senior Labour MP’s have declared their displeasure at the very thing I commented on, and they have my respect for that.
                Do you think it is a coincidence that Keys hoardings have been defaced by nazi style anti semitism?

            • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.2.1.4
              8 August 2014 at 8:48 pm

              Once was Pete and still is moran:

              What the hell is a nazi style orchestrated meeting? I’ve watched video of the Nuremberg Rallies and they looked nothing like anything on that video.

              • Once was Pete …
                9 August 2014 at 8:54 am

                Murray, you do know how to spell ‘moron’ don’t you? You do know that the IMP video was edited, and didn’t show the orchestration of the crowd? You do know that senior labour MP’s have now declared their distaste for the very thing I commented on don’t you?

                • weka …
                  9 August 2014 at 9:03 am

                  Google ‘moran’ if you want to understand the reference. At this point in time ‘moran’ also appears to be in use as a way of reinforcing that the person it is applied to is a double moron for not understanding the moran reference. Won’t last though, it will be in the general lexicon eventually.

                  • Once was Pete …
                    9 August 2014 at 11:28 am

                    Well, an alternate language for the illiterate. Who would have thunk?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 August 2014 at 1:56 pm

                      Shorthand for “so bad it’s not even wrong”. Have you retained any dim awareness of the fact that language changes and new words are introduced to the lexicon with each new dictionary reprint?

                      I suggest you track down the source of this particular new word, it will clue you in to how people here see you.

        • Clemgeopin 1.1.1.3
          8 August 2014 at 4:59 pm

          Voting against National and the other RWN jobs IS positive!

      • JanMeyer 1.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 4:39 pm

        Yes we know that, but the Karol most of us know and appreciate (even if we may disagree with) would not normally frame her arguments with the profanity now firmly associated with the Internet Mana Party

        • karol 1.1.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 6:37 pm

          Maybe it would help for you to consider I would take such an unusual step? Including considering I have not now, nor ever been a cheerleader for IMP.

          Hint: It’s all in the post.

    • Mary 1.2
      8 August 2014 at 3:18 pm

      Labour supports national’s welfare reforms.

      • dave 1.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 4:40 pm

        no they fucken don’t is raising the minimum wage support nationals welfare reform is paying liveing wage supporting national welfare reforms is repealing 3 month sack without reason supporting national is paying 60 dollars per child supporting national where the hell do go off making such a stupid statement of ignorance Mary

      • Murray Olsen 1.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 9:42 pm

        They haven’t promised anything to suggest they don’t. Luckily Mana and the Greens recognise that welfare is in a shocking state and will do something to fix it.

  2. just saying 2
    8 August 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Fuck inequality! Fuck poverty! Fuck the Nat govt!

    Exactly. Say it proud.
    God knows, nothing else has gotten through.

    • marty mars 2.1
      8 August 2014 at 12:59 pm

      Plus 1

      You are onto it just saying – I am proud to say fuck inequality, fuck poverty and fuck this gnat government and I am proud of those young people whose political awareness is awakening.

    • Chooky 2.2
      8 August 2014 at 1:25 pm

      +100…and Fuck John Key’s NACT Spinners!

      ….and go ‘The Young Ones’ !

  3. Mr Nobody 3
    8 August 2014 at 12:28 pm

    “WINZ wrongly started deducting the $20 per week for not naming the father. This was an error, as rape is the exemption, but this error had deducted $20 per week for ten years for being a victim.”

    10 years so that would mean that the original decision was when Labour were in Government right?

    • karol 3.1
      8 August 2014 at 12:39 pm

      That’s true. Contrary to what many on the right say about the last Labour-led government, it did tighten the screws a bit on beneficiaries.

      The current government took it to a whole new level of bennie-bashing.

      NZ does need a return to older principles of a caring and inclusive society.

      • Macro 3.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 2:05 pm

        And there is nothing Labour have said as far as I am aware, that they intend to reverse their tight fisted and unsympathetic attitude to beneficiaries in the short term future either, which is one of the many reasons why I will not be voting for them. History judges Governments by the way they treat the most vulnerable in society. The first Labour Govt saw the needs of the poor and immediately on taking the treasury benches did something about it with 100 pound bonus and the introduction of the child benefit. The situation for many families across NZ is just as dire as it was in the 1930’s – but we hear nothing. A $2 increase in the minimum wage is not even a liveable wage. Pushing the retirement age out to 67 may sound “fiscally responsible” to those who can afford it. But to many who are in physically demanding work or struggling in mentally exhausting work places that extra two years is an extra two years of purgatory.

        • phillip ure 3.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:16 pm

          @ macro..

          “..And there is nothing Labour have said as far as I am aware, that they intend to reverse their tight fisted and unsympathetic attitude to beneficiaries in the short term future either..”

          ..+ 1..

          • tricledrown 3.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 6:12 pm

            Philip you still Don’t understand MMP or New Zealands attitudes why do you think we have had more right wing govt’s in the last seventy years its mainly to do with lack of unity on the left!

            • JRyan 3.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 9:30 pm

              Really, lack of unity. Maybe something to do with actual policy?

            • Macro 3.1.1.1.1.2
              8 August 2014 at 9:43 pm

              “why do you think we have had more right wing govt’s in the last seventy years”

              It’s more to do with the amoral and stupid attitude of NZers generally.

              But then people get the governments they deserve.

              If the people want to be punitive (NZ has the second highest imprisonment rate in the Western World after USA) and tight arsed, they elect punitive and tight arsed govt’s.

              Doesn’t mean it’s the best or fairest way though.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 August 2014 at 9:54 pm

                Also somewhat to do with a Left which hasn’t got its shit together and hasn’t got a broad vision and agenda that enough people can get in behind.

        • alwyn 3.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 5:43 pm

          Can you please explain what you mean by the statement
          “The first Labour Govt saw the needs of the poor and immediately on taking the treasury benches did something about it with 100 pound bonus “.
          This seems to imply that everyone, or at least all the unemployed got 100 pounds

          The only bonus I am aware of was a total amount of 100,000 pounds that was to be split up among all the unemployed and all the people on relief work. I don’t know the full details but if it was evenly allocated that would mean about 25 shillings each ($2.50)

          As far as the child benefit goes it was first introduced in New Zealand in 1926, long before the first Labour Government. I don’t believe they modified it until the Social Security Act of 1938, which is hardly immediately after taking the Treasury benches.

          • Macro 3.1.1.2.1
            9 August 2014 at 1:44 pm

            The family benefit was for children above the age of two and means tested. The child allowance as introduced by the 1st Labour Govt applied to all children.

            Yes it was the unemployed and those on charitable support who got the Christmas bonus.

            and you are correct – it was the 100 thousand ponds total. A small (by todays standards) but significant sum in those days.

      • Mary 3.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 3:22 pm

        I would say a bit more than just tighten the screws a bit. Labour abolished the special benefit in 2004, introduced the ability to work test people on the invalid’s benefit and then voted with the government on the latest nasty big round of welfare reform just a few months ago. Labour crucifies beneficiaries.

      • Stifflittlefinger 3.1.3
        8 August 2014 at 4:48 pm

        Robbing the rich to give to lazy bastards who think they can sit on their backside and stick their hands out to the Govt. We live in a fantastic country where if you want you can be your own made man/woman.
        All it takes is a bit of get up and go, which is sadly something that the left are positively missing.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.1
          8 August 2014 at 5:01 pm

          Dream on mate, there’s no such thing as a self made man. For starters, no man ever pushed himself out of his mother’s womb without a bit of help.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.2
          8 August 2014 at 5:24 pm

          Robbing the rich to give to lazy bastards who think they can sit on their backside and stick their hands out to the Govt.

          Yeah, the lazy bastards like Rio Tinto and Warner Bros and farmers and the rich generally. They all steal from the rest of us.

        • Tracey 3.1.3.3
          8 August 2014 at 5:37 pm

          yyea

          fuck warners
          fuck rio tinto

    • mickysavage 3.2
      8 August 2014 at 8:34 pm

      “INZ wrongly started deducting the $20 per week for not naming the father. This was an error, as rape is the exemption, but this error had deducted $20 per week for ten years for being a victim”

      “10 years so that would mean that the original decision was when Labour were in Government right?”

      Honest I am sure that the Labour Minister in charge of Social Security would be mortified at this decision. But it was obviously made at public servant level by someone who made a mistake. This is not political, it is a bad public service decision. I am pleased that Simon managed to get the arrears paid.

  4. Blue 4
    8 August 2014 at 12:31 pm

    The positivity is almost breathtaking. Stay on track there team, I’m sure middle New Zealand will be impressed.

    • karol 4.1
      8 August 2014 at 12:33 pm

      “Middle New Zealand” is already not listening to those on the margins, or to the young. So, no change there.

      The message to John Key is more about the politically disengaged, the disenfranchised, the marginalsied and the already powerless.

      There’s negativity coming from key and those claiming to be for “Middle New Zealand”: negativity towards beneficiaries, women and the young.

      The positive message is for a change to a government that cares about all Kiwis.

      • silverbullet 4.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 12:54 pm

        Well if you have given up on middle NZ, aren’t you preaching to the converted? I guess this is more a mobilisation campaign to get the true believers out on voting day, which is fair enough.

        As a tax payer I want to know who the fathers are of these kids I am now paying to raise. Then those fathers can be made to take financial responsibility and my tax dollars can be put to better use . The whole idea of Welfare is for it to be some kind of social SAFETY NET. It is not there to create or cultivate a lifestyle of dependency – women expecting the tax payer to raise their kids for them.

        • marty mars 4.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 1:02 pm

          How would you like your tax dollars to be better used – rather than helping out the disadvantaged and those needing assistance.

          • silverbullet 4.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 1:17 pm

            There are too many using the DPB as a tax payer financed life style choice. How do you propose reducing that expense?

            There are million other things that tax payer money can go on – education, health, conservation, infrastructure, R&D etc etc.

            • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 1:33 pm

              “There are too many using the DPB as a tax payer financed life style choice.”

              A great line that just isn’t true – although if 1 person did that it could be argued that is too many. Your weapon is directed at the wrong people – aim at those who deliberately keep people in poverty and aim at those who deliberately keep people disadvantaged.

              • RedBaronCV …
                8 August 2014 at 7:51 pm

                More correctly I think there are too many absent parents using the DPB as a taxpayer financed lifestyle choice as they avoid paying for their kids. The kids and parents on the DPB arn’t having anything remotely like a lifestyle choice.

                And it’s worst at the top end of town, money hidden in Trusts and companies -rich absentees don’t pay

            • Tracey 4.1.1.1.1.2
              8 August 2014 at 2:26 pm

              ” 5. Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers – many of them teenagers – who have extra children so that they can get more money

              This is a hoary old myth that combines the resentment of beneficiaries in general, with prurient resentment of the sexy young having too much sex. In fact, the US and New Zealand evidence is that young people are having less sex, later than their parents’ generation.

              The Salvation Army’s recently published State of the Nation report contains similar positive findings for New Zealand :

              Teenage pregnancies and abortions have fallen during 2009, which is perhaps welcome news that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. The number of 11–14 year olds giving birth or having an abortion dropped from 122 in 2008, to 108 in 2009….Although this decline is on a very small base, this number of pregnancies is the lowest in at least eight years. For older teenagers aged 15-19 years old, there was a 10% decline in the rate of pregnancies between 2008 and 2009

              Such figures help contradict Key’s scaremongering use of the young as a pretext for welfare reform. More to the point, the NZ figures on DPB recipients do not bear out Key’s specific assertion about ‘significant numbers of very young women going onto the DPB and staying there for a lifetime.”

              In fact, only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age – and that figure has barely flickered since 2005, when the figure was 2.9 %. Put another way, 97% of the people on the DPB are NOT the ‘very young women’ of Key’s lurid imagination. There are in fact, significantly more people on the DPB over 55 years of age (5.6%) than there are ‘very young women’ receiving this benefit.

              The vast bulk of DPB recipients (nearly 75%) are what you would expect : they are aged between 25 and 54. Some 61% of them are caring for children six years or under – a figure that, again, has barely changed since 2005. Nearly half are caring for two or more dependent children.

              Many of these women are caring for children alone because of a marriage breakdown, which is rarely a lifestyle choice. They have not only borne the opportunity cost of foregoing career opportunities to raise a family but are also now doing the bulk of the parenting alone and – if one can believe the child support payment figures – very often without the financial support that is due to them. Even so, more DPB recipients are engaged in part-time work (16%) than those on the dole. Far from being left at home to look after their children in ways that low income workers cannot, people on the DPB have since last September, faced a regime of work tesing.

              These are the women that the WWG and the Key government want to stigmatise? Even Paula Bennett’s own department doesn’t believe the real problem here is a lack of personal motivation, or an absence of strong incentives. The Social Development Department’s December fact sheet on the DPB blames the economy instead :

              The number of clients receiving a Domestic Purposes Benefit at the end of December decreased from 106,000 to 98,000 between 2005 and 2007, then increased to reach 113,000 in 2010. This pattern reflects changes in economic conditions. (My emphasis.)

              One further crucial piece of evidence shows there is no social or economic crisis in the country’s current DPB figures. The ratio of those on the DPB – if taken as a percentage of the working age population – was actually lower in December 2010 (at just over 4%) than it was when National left office in 2000, when the figure was heading for 5%.

              ” Gordon campbell

            • Tracey 4.1.1.1.1.3
              8 August 2014 at 2:30 pm

              how do to public health workers? How do you explain the rockstar economy only offering a pay increase of 0.7%

            • Minarch 4.1.1.1.1.4
              8 August 2014 at 2:36 pm

              “There are too many using the DPB as a tax payer financed life style choice”

              this is so retarded it is “not even wrong”*

              *The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

        • The Al1en 4.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 1:19 pm

          “I want to know who the fathers are of these kids I am now paying to raise.”
          “women expecting the tax payer to raise their kids for them.”

          Missing the point completely that you’re not raising these children adequately, but keeping them in a state of poverty, and (willfully) ignoring corporate welfare, tax dodgers and the like as greater drains on the tax pool, there are a raft of reasons why there are absent fathers and non disclosed names on birth certificates, none more serious than violence for example, or death.

          It should be noted that when a mother claims a benefit on behalf of the child in her care, if the father is named and working, he will be, unless sorted by private arrangement, be paying full formula awarded child support through ird. The real disgrace is that this amount is not directly paid to the carer, only a small portion is, making a mockery of the system as a whole.

          “The whole idea of Welfare is for it to be some kind of social SAFETY NET”

          Quite right, yet what we are seeing from the examples given above, is that the system is failing our vulnerable children. The net, it has big holes and the littlest fall through the gaps.
          What’s needed is compassion, not right wing, I’m all right Jack, bullsh!t.

          “tax payer financed life style choice”

          See above re right wing bullsh!t.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.3
          8 August 2014 at 2:06 pm

          havent you heard, child maintenance is unfair and isnt chased hard as a result, so knowing the father is an excuse…

          • adam 4.1.1.3.1
            8 August 2014 at 6:18 pm

            One thing that use to piss off the Aussies back in the day, was the number of kiwi males who had done a bunk to Aussie. Oh wait 170 odd years since white settlement and the same old shit still happening.

      • lurgee 4.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 7:36 pm

        “Middle New Zealand” is already not listening to those on the margins, or to the young. So, no change there.

        Without Middle New Zealand, you won’t get anywhere near power in a generation.

  5. Zorr 5
    8 August 2014 at 12:36 pm

    Originally I thought that maybe the calls of “F*** John Key” were somehow inappropriate and that they should have been more demure in their approach.

    Then I remembered that it is exactly what I am yelling almost every night already, just they’re doing it in public now.

    Roll on the concern trolls… because f*** ’em all.

    • karol 5.1
      8 August 2014 at 1:38 pm

      Indeed, Zorr. I think people probably don’t see me as someone who uses swear words/expletives in my posts and comments. And I wouldn’t be inclined to go to a rock show that involved loud chanting, and probably am unlikely to go to an IMP political rally. But I’m also not in the demographics that are most disenfranchised and politically disconnected.

      Trying to censor their choice of language, and to squash their expressions of anger is not necessary or desirable in a democracy.

      And, I do recall in my younger days, enthusiastically dancing & singing along to songs such as the following:

      “I am an anarchist!”

      “God save the queen, the fac1st regime…”

      “Oh Bondage! Up yours!”

      and joining in various anti-Thatcher chants on demos.

      • Dumrse 5.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 6:41 pm

        Your puerile headlines are a huge statement about you but do nothing for any political argument.

        • karol 5.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 7:10 pm

          So you have nothing to say about poverty, inequality and the way Key’s government have dealt with it? Some people might say that says something about you….?

          I have written loads of posts that are critical of the degree of inequality, poverty, John Key, The Nats etc, using relatively polite language in the title.

          They never seem to get the support of right wingers who come here. There’s always reasons given for poverty and inequality denial, diverting from the topic, etc. If not the language, then something else…..

        • Puddleglum 5.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 9:16 pm

          “Your puerile headlines are a huge statement about you but do nothing for any political argument.”

          What about puerile pseudonyms, Dumrse?

          And puerile names for blog sites (WOBH)?

    • Tracey 5.2
      8 August 2014 at 2:09 pm

      i am trying to work out if i understand this correctly

      Saying fuck john key is wrong and like hitlers germany
      Lying and deliberately misleading the electorate since 2008 is ok

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    8 August 2014 at 12:46 pm

    The more posts like this I see the more confident I am of a National-led government

    • karol 6.1
      8 August 2014 at 12:49 pm

      And the poor, the struggling and impoverished in South Auckland? The extent of their suffering doesn’t bother you?

      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 12:58 pm

        No more then the poor, the struggling and impoverished anywhere else in NZ and thats why the best hope for these people and NZ are a National-led government

        If Labour was as strong as National then it’d be fine if they were in power because the influence of the nutter parties would be minimal but Labours too weak so the influence of the nut bar parties will be strong and thats not good for NZ

        • Macro 6.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 2:22 pm

          “No more then the poor, the struggling and impoverished anywhere else in NZ and thats why the best hope for these people and NZ are a National-led government”

          Are you for real??

          On Planet Key maybe.

          Just to recall – The number of unemployed in this country has RISEN by 32,000 since 2008 – and is not expected to decrease to zero until 2018 at the earliest as projected by Treasury on the current economic “programme” as “run” by National. (National actually have no economic policy other than to stand back and see what happens.)

          That’s at least 32,000 more who either are on a Benefit, or living on someones couch. or on the street.

          Benefits HAVE NOT kept pace with CPI which is actually NOT a good descriptor of costs for someone on low and inadequate income. (I began my working career working on the CPI in the research dept of statistics). Beneficiaries are far worse off now than they were in 2008. Low paid are in the same boat – many have had no pay increase in several years, only the minimum wage increase.

          It is the “Nut bar” parties that will demand that Labour actually get off their butt and do something about it and the stronger their voice the more that will be done.

          • john 6.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 4:28 pm

            Nonsense.

            Over the last 15 years –

            • the CPI has gone up 43%
            • the minimum wage has gone up 104%

              ($7hr in 1999, $14.25 today)

            You posts reminds us that in the heads of those on Planet Labour, the global financial crisis never happened.

            • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 4:42 pm

              so your response to comments about benefit rates and CPI since 2008 is to quote minimum wage changes and CPI since 1999?

              You’re a fucking genius /sarc

              • john …
                8 August 2014 at 5:12 pm

                Irrelevant – since 2008 the minimum wage has gone up TWICE as fast as the CPI.

                Minimum wage has gone up 27% (a $3 increase on $11.25)
                CPI has gone up 14%

                • Macro …
                  8 August 2014 at 5:43 pm

                  For the low waged and poor the CPI is an irrelevant number – their costs escalate far more than the CPI. Take rental costs, electricity, and fuel, for a start. These are the main necessary expenditures for those at the bottom – if they are lucky. Clothing food and other items become a “nice to have”.

                  You obviously have no idea john – so STFU.

                • Macro …
                  8 August 2014 at 5:52 pm

                  As for your abuse of statistics – I will just refer you to Disraeli

                  “There are lies damned lies and statistics”

                  and your last abuse of %ages is one of them.

                  Percentages have no meaning when used in the way you have way – it is an abuse of a simple mathematical device which should be used to compare one proportion of a unique grouping with another – but obviously you are a mathematical imbecile.

                • McFlock …
                  8 August 2014 at 6:20 pm

                  minimum wage is irrelevant to a comment about benefit rates.

                  even if you do insist on using the Lab5 2008 minimum wage increase to subsidise national’s woeful efforts.

                • Local Kiwi …
                  8 August 2014 at 7:07 pm

                  john, or Mr Key,
                  Do you think we average NZ public here are simple idiots, you pull this shit out of your cooked books and tell us the CPI has not risen as fast as Minimum wages, who quoted this, Treasury?

                  Then why do you ignore why countless times the treasury have warned you to change your policies when you operate outside the prescribed directives of treasury forecasting, and you say “we don’t think that they have got it right?”

                  We don’t believe your bullshit because you have never remembered many things you promised like we don’t want to see you tenants in your own land!
                  Remember saying that?

                  You borrowed 56 Billion of crown debt and the percentage compared to the GDP has gone from 6% in 2007 to 26% under your sell it all right wing regime.

                  Don’t tell so many lies, and begin to repent, as you seem to have a disgust of the Kiwi citizen today, whereas the UK P.M. has honoured their citizens for bearing the negative affects
                  of the Global economic crash but you just rubbish us so who is negative here eh?

                  Honour the Kiwi not your crooked mates, or pay the consequences.

      • TightyRighty 6.1.2
        8 August 2014 at 3:38 pm

        what you don’t seem to understand is what you want, will vote for and stridently believe needs to happen will extend the suffering to more people.

        • Macro 6.1.2.1
          8 August 2014 at 4:07 pm

          That is so much bullshit – it’s hardly worth responding too.

          About time you actually went away and studied some real economics – Not the fairy tales of your neo-liberal ideology.

  7. Karen 7
    8 August 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Thanks for this post Karol. The treatment of beneficiaries in this country, particularly women on DPB, is something I find extremely distressing.

    When I was at University in the 1980s I had a holiday job in Social Welfare (as WINZ was called back then). While some of the staff were anti beneficiary, most would try to ensure that everyone did get all their entitlements. This changed in the 1990s after the benefit cuts, when the National government encouraged beneficiary bashing. Most of the people I knew that had tried to treat people fairly found other jobs.

    We need a government that is willing to take care of the most disadvantaged in this society, not one that puts the boot at every opportunity.

    So, yeah, fuck the Nacts.

    • Chooky 7.1
      8 August 2014 at 1:30 pm

      +100 Karen and karol

    • Roflcopter 7.2
      8 August 2014 at 1:48 pm

      You’re fucking delusional if you think the Nats of today are anything like the Nats of the 90’s, the Nats of today are Labour Fucking Lite, and have only tinkered around the fucking edges.

      Just checking… am I doing this fucking “fucking” thing right?

      • McFlock 7.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 1:54 pm

        yeah, just use it like punctuation. It seems to fuck some people off.

        I’m not so sure that nats today are better than ruthenasia – after all, lab5 maybe slowed the car, but didn’t reverse back a dramatic distance. Nats have changed back to “drive” and put their foot down again.

        • weka 7.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:30 pm

          Interesting Rofl. I think of the current lot as like Labour in the 80s. Pushing through so much radical change, doing it smartly and in ways that are hard to resist. Ways that allow the country to sit by and let it happen. Again. Whereas the 90s NACTs were too brazen and got themselves a lot of protest and resistance.

    • Stuart Munro 7.3
      9 August 2014 at 3:22 am

      Same thing happened to ACC. They used to do their job. Don’t now.

  8. dale 8
    8 August 2014 at 12:51 pm

    After living in South Auckland for many years all I can say is that the majority of beneficiaries have created their own misery. Time to get off your fat arises and improve your own lives and stop blaming everyone else. Karol incase you didn’t notice unemployment ic down to 5.6%. And the lady that was raped very sad but being on a benefit for 10 years is a disgrace.

    • karol 8.1
      8 August 2014 at 1:03 pm

      Thanks for your compassion. So you think a woman who is a survivor of rape, and has a young child as a result of it, should just get out and work?

      Thanks you for your compassion.

      Unemployment is till high. Did you not read the bit of my post about the inequality gap between the top and bottom 10%, as opposed to quoting averages.

      The general unemployment stats can be misleading. Under-employment is up. Unemployment is still very high. Many people don’t feature in the unemployment stats because they have been kicked off benefits…etc, etc.

    • stever 8.2
      8 August 2014 at 1:21 pm

      I thought that the majority of beneficiaries are pensioners, and if you add those on working for families, well….

      The rest is peanuts.

      • weka 8.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 3:26 pm

        lolz. I’m not sure what’s wrong with being on the DPB for ten years. Who else is supposed to raise the child? Or should the woman have been forced to marry?

        • TightyRighty 8.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:41 pm

          how many single working mums would agree with you? typical chauvinistic approach of the male hard left. you think woman are only good for staying home and looking after kids. no way could they balance family life and a job, poor wee things according to you weka. so you think a decade of an indulgent allowance is a good thing to keep woman in the home?

          • weka 8.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 4:03 pm

            lolz, I’m a feminist you dick, who supports women to have choices. So if women want to work and have someone else raise their children, they can. Or if they want to stay at home and raise their kids themselves they can. Or a bit of both. But we, society, need to make sure that some of those women aren’t disadvantaged by society. You obviously have pretty much no understanding of the realities of life on the DPB for women other than your dogmatic ideology, but anyway here’s the thing. Some women on the DPB have no other supports in their life, and given there aren’t enough jobs to go around and many employers won’t tolerate working mothers who have children with needs, there is little choice for them.

            Some of the solutions to this are,

            free access to contraception and abortion

            lower unemployment and improve work conditions, including job security beyond casual work

            better funding for childcare

            reinstate training incentive allowance, and travel allowances

            fix the appalling abatement issue for beneficiaries

          • tricledrown 8.2.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 5:42 pm

            TA Stay Married to abusive husbands That tighty puts in a good word for!
            Or get the working for families you call communism by stealth .
            The DPB is paid to Men as well Tighty to lump all women in the same category is sexist to.

          • tricledrown 8.2.1.1.3
            8 August 2014 at 6:07 pm

            The average stay of people( that is men and women it is sexist to claim only women claim the DPB) on the DPB under labour was 2 years National 7 years

          • tricledrown 8.2.1.1.4
            8 August 2014 at 6:09 pm

            Numbers on the DPB under labour 84,000 up to 114,000 last figures i saw under National!

    • anker 8.3
      8 August 2014 at 3:21 pm

      Dale @ 8. I do not know the young woman in question, who you say should be working after 10 years.

      What I do know is that victims of rape are by far the most likely to develop PTSD of all trauma victims. This includes combat victims.

      PTSD is a very serious major mental illness that compromises people’s ability to function. It is possible this young woman has PTSD. If this is the case your comments that it is a disgrace that she is on a benefit are almost unbearably cruel.

      Personally I think it is a disgrace that we have men who rape and that there isn’t more understanding of the profound effect this has on victims.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 8.4
      8 August 2014 at 3:41 pm

      Tell us Dale what you think about the ever increasing number of NZS claimaints who are working fulltime.

      I know several earning over $70,000 per year getting NZS.

      Are they bludgers?

      And if you’ve worked and paid taxes for x years and ended up on a benefit are you a bludger despite having paid your taxes?

      And if you are a young person just left school but can’t find a job are you a bludger?

      How long is it before you become a bludger? Do you have to have paid a certain amount in tax?

      What if you have an intellectual disability – are you a bludger then?

      What if you don’t live in South Auckland or are skinny – does that remove from the bludger group?

      What if you’re not blaming everyone?

      What if people like you keep calling me a loser and I start believing it and spiral into depression (we’re just a bag of chemicals really) am I a bludger then?

    • Tracey 8.5
      8 August 2014 at 5:40 pm

      17% of ACT MPs have been convicted of crimes of deceit

  9. dale 9
    8 August 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Things were no better under Labour. So whats your fucking point?

    • karol 9.1
      8 August 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Actually things were better under the last Labour government, though they were far from perfect.

      I said way more than that in my post.

      Do you have anything more to say about those struggling to survive in the poorest sections of society?

      Where’s your compassion?

    • weka 9.2
      8 August 2014 at 1:11 pm

      Things were better under Labour, but we can do do even better than that.

      • phillip ure 9.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 3:30 pm

        “..Things were better under Labour,..”

        ..factcheck:..

        not for the poorest they weren’t..

        ..clark did nothing for the non-working poor/families..

        ..in fact she made things worse..

        …by getting rid of the ‘special allowances’ those living in special circumstances could apply for..

        ..all in the name of that (faux) neo-lib mantra..’the level playing field’..

        ..an artificial construct..if ever there was one…

        • weka 9.2.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:35 pm

          It’s true that Labour did serious structural shit like getting rid of Special Benefit, and not allowing Working for Families for beneficiaries. But within the department, WINZ is generally a better experience under Labour govts than NACT ones. One example is that under the last Labour govt, the use of the term ‘entitlement’ was used by staff, whereas prior to that, you were allowed to talk about entitlement and it was all about what WINZ would deign to grant you. That doesn’t sound like much, but it was a significant shift. Of course, some describe this as NACT stabbing you in the front while Lab stab you in the back, and for sure Labour have a lot to answer for in that time.

          • phillip ure 9.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 7:12 pm

            “..But within the department, WINZ is generally a better experience under Labour govts than NACT ones…”

            the thumbscrews on half a turn less..?

            • weka 9.2.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 7:43 pm

              Actualy no. Not sure how much you have had to do with the dept phil, but the difference between managers who believe that beneficiaries have entitlements and those that believe that beneficiaries are at best people who need a stick to motivate them or at worst are scum is much wider than you are portraying.

              • phillip ure …
                9 August 2014 at 7:33 am

                “..Not sure how much you have had to do with the dept phil..”

                ..thru’ an unplanned pregnancy..at a time in my life when i had other plans..(fatherhood again not amongst them..)

                ..i had to ditch those plans to raise my son..

                ..and i have raised my son on a d.p.b..

                ..i know of what i speak..

                ..i cd write a thesis on the subject..

                ..and yes..this crew is shit..

                ..but clark-labour were little better..

  10. Mainlander 10
    8 August 2014 at 1:11 pm

    What the hell is wrong with this blog these days its starting to resemble that revolting hate blog by Bradbury, like a lot of people i chose to come here to learn and to see the Vote Positive message coming across in posts and commentators opinions yet what do we actually see more and more rabid and disgusting comments, if you think this is the way to gain more support or to make up swing voters minds then i believe you are sadly mistaken, .Com and Laila have seriously underestimated just how his lastest stunt has backfired and sadly The Standard seems to be going down the same path which to me is a great shame and a missed oppertunity to rise above the filth

    • weka 10.1
      8 August 2014 at 1:14 pm

      What specifically are you objecting to? The use of the word ‘fuck’?

      • Mainlander 10.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 2:27 pm

        Not if that is the way someone chooses to get their message across, but i dont see the point in saying fk this fk that fk you or John Key or anyone for that matter, making a rational and well thought out comment is a lot more powerful than a profanity filled post, my evidence to this is strewn throughout the Open Mike, maybe some of those comments had great points in them i dont know they get the autoskim from me, maybe they do from many others as well, maybe it even stops people coming here at all ?
        I admire David Cunliffe for sticking to the “positive” message and believe it will serve him well as the election draws closer, how about a post positive campaign- This is not a personal attack just my views.
        Yeah i know “tell him hes dreaming”

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 2:48 pm

          I agree it’s great that DC and Labour are running the positive thing. Frees the rest of us up to be more honest and direct. There is a place for both and both are needed. It’s about context and appropriateness.

          It’s fine if you don’t like the word fuck. Don’t read the post, and don’t engage with the IMP. But the IMP know who they are talking to, and when their constiuents use the word fuck, it’s appropriate. It’s not like it’s the Governer General or Mother Teresa or someone reading the 6 O’clock news. This was a room full of young people at a dance party cum political rally. The word fuck is appropriate.

          Likewise karol’s follow up. It connects us all in our determination to put a stop to the destruction of NZ.

          And what Ssssmith says below. We can all use languate devoid of profanity in much more demeaning and damaging ways.

        • anker 10.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 3:27 pm

          mainlander at 10.1.1. 1000+

          As I said on a previous post if that had of been Labour with DC saying F’ John K, every person and their dog would have been criticizing Labour.

          I don’t like that Kim D C did that . My personal view. I had thought he was staying out of the campaign and leaving it to the professional politicians.

          Its like the beat up over Labour and IMP. Labour have made their call, a good % of their party support this. People on some posts have talked of it being Labour’s fault if we loose the election because of it. Kelvin D made some bad judgement call. Labour HQ dealt with it well. Kelvin made a great call to donate funds from WO and Farrar to Rape crisis.

          Kim D C is a risk. I am pleased Labour are staying seperate. They have some amazing well thought through and well costed policies.

          • Mainlander 10.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 3:40 pm

            Thank you anker, the reality is there are a lot of people out there that automatically associate the IMP party with Labour and at this late stage of the game who needs the msm to go on another anti Cunliffe campaign, we all know he is only one mis-word away from that happening anyway why give them the ammo, KDC should find a new on-line game to play and vanish for a few weeks

            • weka 10.1.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 7:44 pm

              There is already a contiuous anti DC campaign in the MSM. Time to push back.

          • Local Kiwi 10.1.1.2.2
            8 August 2014 at 7:46 pm

            Anker, What is a professional politician?

            Have you watched the corrosive spectacle that was parliament?

            Is that “professional”?

            No Mainlander we don’t buy the argument that it is us left wing folk that brought the hate campaign to media it was the corrosive conduct of our employees “the Professional politician”.

            We sincerely hope for all our sakes the Government changes or the corrosion from National will turn this once peaceful land into a bed of hostility.

            Remember the gap between rich and poor is widening every day, and the middle class id shrinking. So be positive a change of Government is coming.

            • anker 10.1.1.2.2.1
              8 August 2014 at 8:10 pm

              Ok local Kiwi fair comment…i.e. what do I mean by professional politicians and your point is certainly taken about parliament. I attended the final session last week or whenever and was disgusted by in particular Bill English, but was impressed by the Greens. Your point it taken.

              But what I was trying to get at by a “Professional politician” is someone who has had experience in Parliament, government, the public service or Cabinet. I think people such as Key who came into politics with no political background and then rose very quickly are problematic. I think Steven Sackur (Hardtalk) really challenged Key about this and the fact that he had never been a Mayor or had any such background and I think it is valid.

              I think the same applies to Kim.Dot Com. I had thought he wasn’t going to be involved with the party, but correct me if I am wrong. I am not comfortable with him. My opinion.

              It would be great if codes of conduct could improve the “professional politician”. In my view JK govt has made this worse with corruption and lack of accountability etc, etc, etc.

              I am waiting, hoping a doing what I can for a change of government.

            • anker 10.1.1.2.2.2
              8 August 2014 at 8:10 pm

              Ok local Kiwi fair comment…i.e. what do I mean by professional politicians and your point is certainly taken about parliament. I attended the final session last week or whenever and was disgusted by in particular Bill English, but was impressed by the Greens. Your point it taken.

              But what I was trying to get at by a “Professional politician” is someone who has had experience in Parliament, government, the public service or Cabinet. I think people such as Key who came into politics with no political background and then rose very quickly are problematic. I think Steven Sackur (Hardtalk) really challenged Key about this and the fact that he had never been a Mayor or had any such background and I think it is valid.

              I think the same applies to Kim.Dot Com. I had thought he wasn’t going to be involved with the party, but correct me if I am wrong. I am not comfortable with him. My opinion.

              It would be great if codes of conduct could improve the “professional politician”. In my view JK govt has made this worse with corruption and lack of accountability etc, etc, etc.

              I am waiting, hoping a doing what I can for a change of government.

        • phillip ure 10.1.1.3
          8 August 2014 at 7:18 pm

          @ mainlander..

          ..so that odious little rightwing-trout ‘chippy’ hipkins coming out and calling dotcom ‘a thug’..

          ..and spewing and venting all over the place..

          ..with that other odious rightwing oink cosgrove flying wingman for him..?

          ..this is that ‘positive’ message you speak/dream of..?

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 10.2
      8 August 2014 at 1:39 pm

      As someone who rarely swears I have a general aversion to it.

      As someone who grew up reading a wide range of literature and listening to punk rock music I also understand that sometimes the pressure to be polite is an artificial construct designed to keep the working class in check – as is the pressure for monogamous married relationships.

      The right wing offensiveness of conformity to their stated norms (and ones they don’t practise themselves quite often) is much more offensive despite being couched in the queen’s english.

      It’s easy to denigrate people using good language – the notions of beneficiaries as bludgers and cheats, the notion of sole parents as breeding for a business, the notion of high drug use amongst those on benefit or an unwillingness to work, the notion of the greens as looney, the sugar daddy comment, the nothing to fear nothing to hide mantra – these notions haven’t come out of a vacuum.

      I’ve never seen a government and an employer class place less value on and denigrate more NZ citizens than this current government.

      You cannot help people by denigrating them – try it with your staff and your children. Tell them they losers. You wouldn’t do it.

      So given our own citizens are being told this day after day after day the occasional fuck you back is OK by me.

      • weka 10.2.1
        8 August 2014 at 2:25 pm

        That is an awesome comment, thanks

      • Mainlander 10.2.2
        8 August 2014 at 2:55 pm

        Thank you DOS great post and powerful meaningful message, i will take your points on board

      • Saarbo 10.2.3
        8 August 2014 at 7:30 pm

        That is exactly spot on the mark DoS.

        I wish the Labour MP’s would just keep out of this. The reason that National is going so hard against this is because it has the possibility of going viral amongst young people, and a huge number of votes going Left. It doesn’t need Cosgrove and Chris Hipkins to say anything.

        My favourite from Summer 2013.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Fqp_BTusw

    • tricledrown 10.3
      8 August 2014 at 2:01 pm

      Mainlander you are to old to know what young people think like these day.
      so WTF are you worried about the standards of opposition party comments if you were very smart and this was so bad for the standard you would not comment and let them carry on making mistakes.
      When you look at young people today the f word bomb is like what bugger was to you generation so bugger off

      • Mainlander 10.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 2:34 pm

        Ouch when did 40 become to old, not sure about the rest of your comment you make me sound like a National party supporter trying to tell off the big bad Standard readers if that is your intent you are sadly mistaken in my intent or my political affiliations

    • Tracey 10.4
      8 August 2014 at 2:15 pm

      be a good little nzer and let yourself be fucked over without losing any decorum. Sometimes anger needs to expressed. So yeah fuck inequality, fuck poverry and fuck all parties that choose to be part of the problem.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5
      8 August 2014 at 2:28 pm

      Objects to the word ‘fuck’. Has nothing to say about the Prime Minister’s relationship with C. Slater.

      Raise the double standard.

      Vote positive is the Labour campaign. Karol supports the Greens.

      • Mainlander 10.5.1
        8 August 2014 at 2:41 pm

        Yes OAB im well aware Karol is a Green supporter and i dont give a rats about C. Slaters buddies nor do i have double standards or object to the use of the word fuck
        i guess my message was lost on you, that comes as no real surprise
        Edit to add sorry Karol my rants should have been on Open Mike

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:06 pm

          @Mainlander Karol’s message was lost on you, and in no way resembles a “hate blog”.

    • phillip ure 10.6
      9 August 2014 at 7:38 am

      r u a fan of kiwiblog and slaters’ site..?..there..?..mainlander..?

      ..or any of those other far-right nutbar/jobs websites..?

      ..and if so..you must know this is p.c.-heaven compared to them..

      ..and personally..i find the word ‘poverty’ to be far more obscene/disturbing than the word ‘fuck’ will ever be..

  11. weka 11
    8 August 2014 at 1:13 pm

    “If most New Zealanders could see what’s happening here,”

    Ae, where the fuck are you mainstream media?

    Apparently John Campbell was there, anyone know if anything turned up on TV3 yet?

  12. McFlock 12
    8 August 2014 at 1:49 pm

    To all those tory fuckers who thought commenters and authors on The Standard had promised to be “positive”:
    this is the site you were looking for.

    And if that’s the best line C/T and the slug can come up with, john key will be fucked on sept 20.

    Read the article again. People are suffering badly under this regime. You can kick large sectors of the population in the nuts and call it “motivating” all you want, but sooner or later enough people will figure it out and kick back.

    National have no friends – unclecousin and the hairdo might not be enough for you this time.

  13. Michael who failed Civics 13
    8 August 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Will Labour do anything at all to change this state of affairs, other than engage in synthetic moral posturing? Its actions in Government between 1999 and 2008 are not encouraging. No government can make the bureaucrats treat people decently unless it is prepared to take strong action against the worst offenders. I don’t think Labour has the guts to do this.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      8 August 2014 at 2:29 pm

      You’re asking a Green voter (Karol) what Labour are going to do?

    • weka 13.2
      8 August 2014 at 2:39 pm

      by worst offenders do you mean WINZ staff? I actually think getting rid of Paula Bennett would do wonders, and David Bratt, and I guess the CEO is probably a big part of the problem now given the past 6 years, but yeah, there is much for Labour/GP to fix up from the mess that NACT have created.

    • anker 13.3
      8 August 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Micheal @ 13. Two Labour women shadow ministers have meet with Winz beneficiary Sarah??? sorry forget her name and have spoken of the need to change the culture at Winz so beneficiaries are treated with respect. If I can find the reference I will post it, but this happened months ago.

      Also the Royal Commission into public service and bullying corruption etc, may cover this. They haven’t released their policy on beneficiaries yet. Best Start will help all infants including beneificiaries and I think their Dr’s visit policy will too.

      • weka 13.3.1
        8 August 2014 at 3:40 pm

        I think the meeting with Sarah Wilson would count as synthetic moral posturing unless it’s backed up by some real change within the dept. As Michael pointed out, the last Labour govt’s record is not encouraging. Am still waiting and seeing with DC’s Labour, but they will have to do something real, not just be concerned.

        • anker 13.3.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:56 pm

          Of course, I agree entirely Weka. But I don’t agree that meeing with Sarah Wilson synthetic moral posturing…………I think it is consulting with a vulnerable woman who was prepared to speak up. But of course it needs to be translated into real change.

          For me, I was brought up Labour. My mother idealized (for good reason Mikey J Savage). She became a a Life Member. Then Rogernomics and I became deeply embittered and abandoned Labour and to my own shame politics. I have real hope for the next Labour Govt under DC. I want the party back. Both for my mother, who is since passed on, but for my family and everyone in NZ. I remain furious at how it was hi-jacked by Douglas et el. I want it back.

          • weka 13.3.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 4:05 pm

            All power to you then anker and I hope you get the Labour you and your mother deserve. Will have to get rid of the Rogernomes still in there though.

            “I think it is consulting with a vulnerable woman who was prepared to speak up.”

            Yep, Labour is good at doing the nice thing. But it’s not enough to consult. Am waiting with interest to see their actual welfare policy 😉

            • anker 13.3.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 4:49 pm

              Thanks Weka.

              I hope I am not proved wrong! I will admit it if I am. I actually trust DC. I like their policies. Not all of them. I am in two minds about super, but then I think of the young people who will have to pick up the tab for my early retirement. But I am one of the lucky people cause I like my job!! So I can see both sides of that arguement.

              I am unsure of Dot.com, and Hone. Its not a criticism peeps! Just remember Hone went with National………………….and Dot.com. Well I just don’t know. But what they have done is savy.

              Greens are great. Lots of respect for them. But my wanting to get the Labour Party back to its core values is pretty important for me. I think “why the f should I have to go and join a new party???? I want our party back”

              Yes of course Labour have to do more than just consult…………but can you imagine Paula even getting near there!

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 August 2014 at 5:12 pm

                I think “why the f should I have to go and join a new party???? I want our party back”

                Exactly.

              • Peter …
                8 August 2014 at 5:16 pm

                This might just happen sooner than you think 🙂

              • phillip ure …
                8 August 2014 at 7:25 pm

                @ anker..the maori party went with national..

                ..harawira then left the maori party..

                ..(there is a difference..)

                • weka …
                  8 August 2014 at 7:51 pm

                  +1 phil. Been seeing that misleading statement a few times lately. Harawira didn’t want the Mp to support a National govt. It’s just plain wrong to say he went with National, was untrustworthy because of that and then was unreliable or whatever because he then left them.

                  • anker …
                    8 August 2014 at 8:12 pm

                    Ok local Kiwi fair comment…i.e. what do I mean by professional politicians and your point is certainly taken about parliament. I attended the final session last week or whenever and was disgusted by in particular Bill English, but was impressed by the Greens. Your point it taken.

                    But what I was trying to get at by a “Professional politician” is someone who has had experience in Parliament, government, the public service or Cabinet. I think people such as Key who came into politics with no political background and then rose very quickly are problematic. I think Steven Sackur (Hardtalk) really challenged Key about this and the fact that he had never been a Mayor or had any such background and I think it is valid.

                    I think the same applies to Kim.Dot Com. I had thought he wasn’t going to be involved with the party, but correct me if I am wrong. I am not comfortable with him. My opinion.

                    It would be great if codes of conduct could improve the “professional politician”. In my view JK govt has made this worse with corruption and lack of accountability etc, etc, etc.

                    I am waiting, hoping a doing what I can for a change of government.

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 8:17 pm

                      KDC isn’t a politician. He’s not allowed to stand for election in NZ. I think it’s fine to feel uncomfortable about him (I have my own reservations). I don’t think it’s right to compare him to Key and expect the same standards to apply.

                  • anker …
                    8 August 2014 at 8:13 pm

                    Ok local Kiwi fair comment…i.e. what do I mean by professional politicians and your point is certainly taken about parliament. I attended the final session last week or whenever and was disgusted by in particular Bill English, but was impressed by the Greens. Your point it taken.

                    But what I was trying to get at by a “Professional politician” is someone who has had experience in Parliament, government, the public service or Cabinet. I think people such as Key who came into politics with no political background and then rose very quickly are problematic. I think Steven Sackur (Hardtalk) really challenged Key about this and the fact that he had never been a Mayor or had any such background and I think it is valid.

                    I think the same applies to Kim.Dot Com. I had thought he wasn’t going to be involved with the party, but correct me if I am wrong. I am not comfortable with him. My opinion.

                    It would be great if codes of conduct could improve the “professional politician”. In my view JK govt has made this worse with corruption and lack of accountability etc, etc, etc.

                    I am waiting, hoping a doing what I can for a change of government.

                  • anker …
                    8 August 2014 at 8:17 pm

                    Thanks, I had read Hone went with Maori and National and did what many NZ do, brought the spin. So thanks I stand corrected.

                    I have just read some of the main parties policies, gone to their website. It is interesting to do. National’s IMO is very week, non specific and includes Canterbury re-build.

                    Labour’s very thorough and dare I say it professional. And really, really great policies.

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 8:34 pm

                      I think Labour are doing pretty good with the policy too, and hope that the message gets through past the bias in the MSM.

          • Local Kiwi 13.3.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 8:21 pm

            Anker I stand with you on this.
            “I remain furious at how it was hi-jacked by Douglas et el. I want it back.”
            Top comment mate me too, I went overseas in 1987 and came home in 1998 and saw what Rogernomics did to our town, so many families torn apart and here we go again so you are so-so right’

            Why cant they see the fabric of our society is disingregrating as this right wing mobsters cull everything of worth again for personal gain.

            Bring back the Labour we all knew before rogernomics.

  14. Tracey 14
    8 August 2014 at 2:43 pm

    The top 69 john key lies site deserves applause

    • karol 14.1
      8 August 2014 at 2:52 pm

      I selected #59 for this post for a reason. I was planning to post on the AAAP action in Mangere, on the treatment of solo mothers (and women generally), the appallingly sexist use of the “sugar daddy” term. Then today I see the MSM, Guyon, et al, are incensed about the use of the F word, and have little to say about Key’s use of the term “sugar daddy”.

      BTW have any of the right wing commenters here, said anything about the Nat government’s general attitude to women, and especially about Key’s use of the “sugar daddy” phrase?

      It’s interesting in the video on the NZ Herald page, that several women journalists actually sound quite unhappy with the use of the “sugar daddy” term, even though, I’m pretty sure they are not IMP supporters.

      • Tracey 14.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 3:08 pm

        I havent seen any right commentators here condemn john keys description of laila harre having sex with dotcom in return for money. That “fuck” spoken by a bunch of young people is offensive or more offensive is mind boggling. ?.

        And there is matty hooton…

        The most colourful critique of the Internet Mana video is that it is reminiscent of Nazi Germany propaganda. On Twitter, it’s been Matthew Hooton (@MatthewHootonNZ), in particular, pushing this line, with tweets such as: ‘Feels a bit like a Munich Beer Hall in the 1920s’. “

        • TightyRighty 14.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 3:44 pm

          kim dotcom is the IMP’s sugar daddy?? there is no implication of sex?

        • weka 14.1.1.2
          8 August 2014 at 4:13 pm

          “The most colourful critique of the Internet Mana video is that it is reminiscent of Nazi Germany propaganda. On Twitter, it’s been Matthew Hooton (@MatthewHootonNZ), in particular, pushing this line, with tweets such as: ‘Feels a bit like a Munich Beer Hall in the 1920s’. “”

          Have to say I had that thought myself, not about Munich beer halls, but about the power of charisma and emotion and sloganed ideology, and what happens when you mix that with politics. Have been trying to figure out how much of my discomfit is leftovers from my middle class Anglican upbringing, and how much is alarm at anything that smacks of a cult. I loathe pentecostal Christianity for the same reasons and that mix of the preacher up front manipulating the crowd, and the crowd being high on emotion… mix that in with politics and I’m just not sure about it. On the other hand, not sure how different it is from marches and rallies I’ve been on. Would probably have less of a problem with it if it wasn’t KDC up there (I still don’t trust him enough with that kind of power and influence).

          Am still hoping to get to one of the IMP meetings to see what they are actually like, the video was such a short insight into what is going on.

          As for Hooton, maybe he believes in reincarnation, so really does know what it ‘feels’ like to be in a Munich Beer Hall in the 1920s 😉

          • karol 14.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2014 at 4:27 pm

            I understand your reservations, weka. I’m not keen on the KDC personality focus. I’m also not keen on too much of the call-and-response type crowd stirring.

            But, as you say, it happens at a lot of political rallies – at at rock concerts.

            But I am also more concerned that the focus on the criticism of the F word is over-riding any criticism of Key’s use of the “sugar daddy” term, and his/Nats’ continually undermining women and those in poverty.

            • weka 14.1.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2014 at 4:34 pm

              My guess is that most people don’t care about the F word, and this is just an excuse for a right wing/MSM beat up of the IMP/left. Running scared.

              “But, as you say, it happens at a lot of political rallies – at at rock concerts.”

              True, and I’ve been trying to think what the difference is. At rock concerts it’s different because people are there to have fun and let emtion roll and that building up of a charge and directing it is part of the show and the experience but it doesn’t go anywhere in particular (with exceptions, am thinking Dave Dobbin in Aotea Square).

              Political rallies, I guess I’ve never been at one where there has been someone with that mix of charisma, ability to manipulate the crowd, dodginess and money/influence that KDC has. NZ doesn’t really go in for celebrity political activists, so maybe it’s cultural too.

              • karol …
                8 August 2014 at 6:24 pm

                Some people argue that our whole audio-visual saturated culture has developed since WWII using the same manipulative strategies of persuasion as used by the 3rd Reich. It targets the emotions rather than critical reflection.

                I do most usually prefer fairly low-key, considered approaches to politics.

                However, there are also times when it’s appropriate to express anger and outrage.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  8 August 2014 at 7:22 pm

                  Some people argue that our whole audio-visual saturated culture has developed since WWII using the same manipulative strategies of persuasion as used by the 3rd Reich. It targets the emotions rather than critical reflection.

                  And the Third Reich used those technqiues as they were developed, used and refined by Bernays and co. to bring the American public on side with getting into WW I.

            • john 14.1.1.2.1.2
              8 August 2014 at 4:39 pm

              You offense a sugar daddy comes across as totally fake.

              Not a word against Dotcom making jokes about rape, niggers, and killing prostitutes.

              The fact that Harre and and Mana are bankrolled by someone who is the antithesis of what they stand for, means sugar daddy is a very accurate and apt term to use.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 August 2014 at 4:43 pm

                It’s not a surprise that John Key knows all about Sugar Daddies. His Wall St mates are famous for their personal support of US$1000/hour call girls.

                • john …
                  8 August 2014 at 5:04 pm

                  pathetic

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 August 2014 at 7:18 pm

                    Just standard entertainment practice on Wall St

                    http://www.thefix.com/content/wall-st-high-rollers-caught-pants-down

                    FBI investigations in thepast have found that many of Wall Street’s top firms regularly spent millions of dollars a year on booze, drugs and hookers to entertain important clients and in-house executives. Of course, firms like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, routinely listed all these T&A expenses as T&E expenses.

                    During their investigation of the mortgage crisis a few years ago, the FBI interviewed a number of powerful madams who testified that their services were hardly a secret on Wall Street. Indeed many of them regularly sent invoices for hundreds of thousands of dollars for traders’ sex and drug parties directly to the firms for payment.

                    While the Madam.s testimony, and reams of documents confiscated from top Wall Street houses, could have supported a number of charges against some of Wall St’s most well-known big wigs, the Justice Department declined to pursue any further action, overruling the FBI’s recommendations.

              • Tracey …
                8 August 2014 at 5:46 pm

                citations for not caring about dotcom saying niggers… rape etc

                and are you ok about sugar daddy, attempted rape not being serious and so on?

              • karol …
                8 August 2014 at 6:26 pm

                I do not support KDC making those kinds of jokes. I’ve said many times I’m not a great fan of KDC. I have been critical of his macho stances before today.

                • lurgee …
                  8 August 2014 at 7:59 pm

                  As usual, we fall into a simple trap. Key makes some slightly off colour remark. The left start howling and despairing about the remark, making themselves look like idiots and giving the original nasty little quip more buoyancy. And yelling highly sexualised invective immediately surrenders any sort of moral high ground. If you don’t have to use that language (and by your own admission you don’t), then don’t.

                  A smarter response would have been to reel off a list of John Key’s ‘sugar daddies,’ rather than getting all pissy about his (wah, wah) use of an insulting derogatory term. Especially when there are infinite instances where worse has been said or suggested about politicians and public figures here, without anyone getting upset about it.

                  “Hey, John – been getting much mail from Ron Hickmott recently?”

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 August 2014 at 8:04 pm

                    Well your approach has some merits, and could have been used as a component of the return serve to Key, instead of basing the entire counter on gender issues.

                    • karol …
                      8 August 2014 at 8:15 pm

                      I think the Nats are not only damaging the lives of those in poverty, but are not a woman-friendly party.

                      Gender and poverty/inequality are major themes of my post. And I will keep commenting on that.

                      I do not understand any woman would vote National.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 August 2014 at 9:25 pm

                      I do not understand any woman would vote National.

                      Oh that’s easy. Because many Kiwi women do not view gender issue politics in the same way that gender issue political activists do.

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 9:33 pm

                      I think it’s more likely because many women are privileged by National policies, or the men they are dependent on are. Of course those women aren’t going to think about politics in the way that left wing feminists do.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 August 2014 at 10:45 pm

                      So in your view these ~almost half million women vote National because they have decided that it is in their best interests/personal income/economics to do so?

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 10:53 pm

                      Some, sure. I think it is more nuanced than that though, and people who are privileged don’t necessarily make a conscious decision to support what privileges them. Many people don’t recognise the privilege. But really the reasons why people vote are many and varied and I don’t see why it would be different for women voting National. Some will be voting because they believe that the policies are best for the country. Am also thinking of old school conservatives that I know, women from the generation above mine who came of age before neoliberalism.

                  • weka …
                    8 August 2014 at 8:54 pm

                    “A smarter response would have been to reel off a list of John Key’s ‘sugar daddies,’ rather than getting all pissy about his (wah, wah) use of an insulting derogatory term.”

                    The problem with that approach is that it doesn’t acknowledge that there is a difference between calling a male politician a whore and a female one.

                    Reeling off a list of Key’s sugar daddies basically says that calling Harre a whore is ok because Key is one too. If you want to go down that line, call Key the US One Percenter’s bum boy and see how that goes down. Still not quite the same as calling a female politician a whore though, and karol is correct to be pointing out the misogyny within National. Being gender blind doesn’t help women in NZ even if it does help your political agenda.

                    • lurgee …
                      8 August 2014 at 8:58 pm

                      No, because you don’t call him a whore back. You just show he’s guilty of the same sort of behaviour as he is accusing Harre of. It shows he’s a hypocrite and a nasty little fool. Then the ‘whore’ comment (which is often aimed at men as well) is forgotten and Key ends up looking like a twit, not us.

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 9:05 pm

                      ok, so you imply whore like Key did instead of saying it outright. My point still stands.

                      btw, Key doesn’t care if he looks a hypocrite. He’s teflon coated. Harre’s response to the sugar daddy thing wasn’t to change people’s minds about Key, it was to remind them, particularly women, that they have a choice and that there are people in politics who have values around gender. Remember she isn’t after the middle NZ vote, or the swing vote who might be turned off Key, she’s after the people who haven’t bothered voting at the last election, specifically the ones that will be interested in the message from IMP.

                    • lurgee …
                      8 August 2014 at 9:16 pm

                      I don’t care what Key cares for. It’s about persuading people not to vote for him.

                      And exposing hypocrisy doesn’t entail implying calling someone a whore. It entails exposing hypocrisy.

                      A propos of nothing, I voted Mana last time. I’ve voted for the Alliance before. But I’m really struggling with I-MP, because of Dotcom. He’s corrosive and divisive and if the left weren’t so desperate no-one would go near him.

                      Key touched on a real issue, which is why it is resonating and – I suspect – why it has produced such a swivel eyed response.

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 9:29 pm

                      despite you having completely ignored the points I was making, I’ll just reply with this – if you don’t like KDC then don’t vote IMP (although the IMP does not equal KDC). Vote for whoever you like, but just remember that if you party vote for the Alliance or any other party that doesn’t increase the left’s chance of forming govt (which included Mana at the last election) then you are effectively supporting another term for National. It also effectively undermines any political credibility you might have, esp given you have just said lefties should be trying to persuade people to not vote for Key. True, don’t vote for Key but do at least put your vote somewhere where it counts.

                    • lurgee …
                      8 August 2014 at 10:27 pm

                      I don’t think Key is ‘teflon coated’. That’s just an excuse for the left’s failure to land any telling blows, even after six years of corrupt self serving Christcurch failing asset stripping national standards introducing environment degrading worker’s rights shitting on Paula Bennett existing John Banks being allowed to hob-nob with the PM madness. That’s why ignored your ‘points’; because they were blunt, and not in a good way.

                      If people challenge Key continually on his hypocrisy, then people will notice it and he’ll get the opprobrium he deserves. But every time he does something like this, we resort to type, shrilling about some slight to some special grouping or identity. Which makes us look weak, silly and continually on the defensive. Which is what he wants.

                      Which brings us full circle, back to my earlier comment.

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 10:40 pm

                      ah, glad that’s out in the open. This is really about your antipathy to what you perceive of as identity politics. That makes much more sense of what you are saying and why you won’t address my points. Whatever, I’m not really going to take seriously the political opinions of someone who wastes their vote in MMP elections.

                    • lurgee …
                      8 August 2014 at 10:46 pm

                      Ah, the classic ‘invent stuff so I can argue about other stuff because I’ve run out of sensible arguments about what we were talking about’ routine. Well played, sir!

                      You invent an ‘antipathy’ towards ‘identity politics’ where I merely pointed out the inadvisability of doing what the enemy expects and wants you to do. Then you mysteriously divine that I am going to waste my vote. By what means do you arrive at this conclusion? I merely said I find the IMP link up uncomfortable. How does that equate to wasting a vote? How many chickens did you eviscerate to achieve this remarkable insight?

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2014 at 11:01 pm

                      dude the fact that you refer to identity politics in such derogatory terms tells me much (actual text: “shrilling about some slight to some special grouping or identity.”). But if I am wrong, if you don’t have an antipathy towards identity politics, please correct me.

                      You said that the point was to get people to not vote for Key. If you want a left wing govt, then it’s not enough to not vote for Key, you have to party vote where it makes a difference. In that context you waste your party vote if you vote Alliance or Mana. If you want to support those parties by party voting for them, that’s a different thing, but it doesn’t support a change of govt in 2008, 2011, or 2014 (although party voting IMP might make a difference this time round). Surprised I have to explain that.

                    • lurgee …
                      9 August 2014 at 10:23 am

                      dude the fact that you refer to identity politics in such derogatory terms tells me much (actual text: “shrilling about some slight to some special grouping or identity.”).

                      You’ll notice my scorn is directed at the shrilling fools. Just because some blundering idiots subscribe to an idea does not mean the idea itself is worthless.

                      Otherwise – given the number of idiots here – socialism would be the Most Useless Of All Times. It isn’t. It is better than a lot of its rather silly adherents.

                      You said that the point was to get people to not vote for Key. If you want a left wing govt, then it’s not enough to not vote for Key

                      Context, context. That was in response to the ‘whore / sugar daddy’ comment and explaining the purpose of my preferred response. Yelling ‘Bad rude man!’ at Key isn’t likely to lose him any votes, because it merely re-confirms perceptions. People don’t like hypocrisy, however, and pointing out how thoroughly he and his party have been bought might be more effective.

                      I’ll grant you voting IMP (though I haven’t said I would, you klutz – I said I DID, but was no longer comfortable with them) would be a wasted vote in the short term – assuming Cunliffe actually sticks to his word (a big if!) and excludes them from any coalition, though I suspect he’d still accept a confidence and supply arrangement.

                      As for strategic goals of forming a leftwing government, that isn’t going to happen. We’re going to get Labour (Centrist) Greens (A bit left) and NZ First (Rightwing) at best. I don’t see that as being a much better option for National, if it comes about, which is highly unlikely (If I was one of the leaders of the Greens, I’d steer clear of it). Cunliffe has shown himself to be tactically stupid, ruling out IMP (unless he knows something remarkable abut Dotcom that we don’t, yet) and essentially forcing himself into Winston’s arms.

                      But strategically, it might be worthwhile to build the radical left vote for the future. Making it big enough so Labour has to treat with them, rather than NZ First, seems like a reasonable strategic goal. So I wouldn’t call it a wasted vote on my part.

                      Cunliffe may have decided to waste it, of course.

                    • weka …
                      9 August 2014 at 10:45 am

                      In the past you have voted Alliance and Mana. Those are both wasted votes if you wanted to change the govt at that election. Alliance because they had no chance of getting any MPs, and Mana because their electorate seat brings in more MPs than their party vote (so the party vote would be better going to another left wing party if you want to change govt).

                      IMP didn’t exist at previous elections, so you can’t have voted for them. They won’t be a wasted vote this election if it looks like their electorate votes will yield them less MPs than their party vote. We don’t know yet if that is true, and it’s hard to say if the polls will help in that decision closer to the election. But it is clear that it’s probably a gamble but less of a certain wasted vote than voting Mana last time.

                      You appear not to understand these basics about MMP, but lots of NZers are the same I think.

                      Or, you don’t think that there is any point in shifting left, we have to jump there in one go, so bugger trying to get Nact out and L/Gp in. If you had some kind of intelligent alternative strategy that might make sense, but you don’t so as far as I can see you promote the idea that there is no way to have a left wing got currently so may as well waste the party vote. All I can say is fuck that defeatish, dogmatic ideology, and I prefer to work with the real world. It will be much easier to shift NZ left again if we have a L/GP govt.

                      As for Peters, you seem certain about things that aren’t certain. There is still a small chance that NZF won’t reach the 5%. And DC hasn’t ruled out C and S with IMP, he’s just said they won’t be in govt, which is a good move all round. It’s possible that a L/GP govt could form with support from the IMP. The chance might be small, but why would you waste it? As far as I can tell, the only reason is because you don’t approve of those parties enough, which is frankly just childish. You really think that another term of NACT would be no worse than a L/GP/NZF coalition? There is absolutely no evidence for that, although there are a few people who feel that to be the case. They’re really not paying attention though.

                    • lurgee …
                      10 August 2014 at 9:10 am

                      In the past you have voted Alliance and Mana. Those are both wasted votes if you wanted to change the govt at that election. Alliance because they had no chance of getting any MPs, and Mana because their electorate seat brings in more MPs than their party vote (so the party vote would be better going to another left wing party if you want to change govt).

                      You appear to misunderstand how time works. When you cast your vote, you can not be certain what the broader result would be. When I voted Alliance in 2002, they had multiple MPs in parliament and there was a good possibility of Harre winning Waitakere. It didn’t come to pass but (here’s the clever bit) you don’t know that at the time. We’re not lucky enough to live in one of those democracies where the results are known before the votes are cast.

                      My vote for Mana in 2011 was also quite logical. Mana had a secure seat. Whether or not the party vote exceeded the electorate vote wasn’t something we could tell before polling day because, you know, the future hadn’t happened at that point. With micro parties like that, a few votes are all it would have taken to bring in a second MP.

                      I had little interesting in installing a rightwing Goff lead Labour Party in power, so it seemed a reasonable course of action. It didn’t work out, so you can crow about my ‘wasted vote’ all you like in that regard – but only if you’re prime objective is changing the government. Mine wasn’t, as the alternative government on offer didn’t seem significantly different to me. Too rightwing, too pro-business, too male, too white (sorry, what were you saying about my antipathy to identity politics?)

                      They won’t be a wasted vote this election if it looks like their electorate votes will yield them less MPs than their party vote. We don’t know yet if that is true, and it’s hard to say if the polls will help in that decision closer to the election. But it is clear that it’s probably a gamble but less of a certain wasted vote than voting Mana last time.

                      Again, this past / present / future thing. There was nothing ‘certain’ about how the ballots would work out in 2011. You really need to get your head around this time thing.

                      As for Peters, you seem certain about things that aren’t certain. There is still a small chance that NZF won’t reach the 5%. And DC hasn’t ruled out C and S with IMP, he’s just said they won’t be in govt, which is a good move all round. It’s possible that a L/GP govt could form with support from the IMP. The chance might be small, but why would you waste it? As far as I can tell, the only reason is because you don’t approve of those parties enough, which is frankly just childish. You really think that another term of NACT would be no worse than a L/GP/NZF coalition? There is absolutely no evidence for that, although there are a few people who feel that to be the case. They’re really not paying attention though.

                      So I SHOULD vote IMP, according to you, even though I have reservations about them. Even though it will probably be a wasted vote as there is only a ‘small chance’ of them being only excluded from government, so they can (possibly) be used to prop up a government I don’t support.

                      That’s strange, desperate logic, though I can see how it makes sense from the POV of a desperate Labour Party.

                      Whether or not Peters makes it above 5% is one of those things that are in the future, that murky and mysterious place which seems to confound you so much. But if he doesn’t, then the chances of any sort of government featuring Labour recedes to the realm of the absurd. Which means, applying your electoral ‘logic’ we should not vote for them, as they have little realistic chance of winning! If everyone voted according to your ‘principles’ (Don’t vote for parties that you approve of, vote for parties that will win), National would be polling close 100% and we would be living in one of those charming Arab-style democracies I mentioned earlier.

              • weka …
                8 August 2014 at 7:59 pm

                “Not a word against Dotcom making jokes about rape, niggers, and killing prostitutes.

                The fact that Harre and and Mana are bankrolled by someone who is the antithesis of what they stand for, means sugar daddy is a very accurate and apt term to use.”

                At the time that KDC did those things, they were commented on. Or do we have to repeat our comments about everything everytime KDC does something the right doesn’t like?

                Harawira also at times has said some shitty misogynistic things, and then pretty quickly apologised. I would guess he gets pulled up by his whanau pretty quick. KDC also gets pulled up and seems to be more inclined to apologise or withdraw what he says. He’s been raised in a culture that privilges white men, esp rich white men. The fact that he is learning is a good sign, although I still think he has a long way to go. If you link to some specific examples I’m happy to tell you what I think, but in general I don’t expect men in politics in NZ to be perfect when it comes to sexism, but I do expect a willingness to change.

                However, even if what you say were true about Harre, it’s still not ok to call her a whore. Or any woman. And I don’t understand why you think it’s ok to call her a whore but not ok for KDC to make misogynistic jokes. You seem to think that misogyny is about who deserves the put down.

        • Local Kiwi 14.1.1.3
          8 August 2014 at 8:31 pm

          “On Twitter, it’s been Matthew Hooton (@MatthewHootonNZ), in particular, pushing this line, with tweets such as: ‘Feels a bit like a Munich Beer Hall in the 1920s’. “

          Nat’s Hooten is playing the reverse psychology game and will backfire..

          They are the Munich beer hall Nazis look alike, and act alike with heir Joyce overpowering David parker, that we will see plenty more of come the weeks ahead.

          They cant help themselves, just wait and see.

  15. Clemgeopin 15
    8 August 2014 at 3:43 pm

    I saw this picture on the face book page :
    ‘National Party Billboard Makeovers’s Photos’

    I was pleasantly surprised at this elderly woman’s very determined effort! Enjoy!
    http://tinyurl.com/mwpxrs4

    • fisiani 15.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:45 pm

      Enjoy??????? Focusing on the important is what has helped National to record level support.

    • Anne 15.2
      8 August 2014 at 8:14 pm

      Delightful. Thanks Clemgeopin

      Edit: these right wing cretins have no sense of humour have they…

  16. anker 16
    8 August 2014 at 3:44 pm

    Tracey @ 14.1.1.

    Just to clarify my position it is isn’t the use of the word fuck. I frequently use it especially around JK and the msm. My concern is Dot.com on the campaign trail as I had thought he was taking a back seat. Of course he is perfectly entitled to be there, but in my mind it reinforces that from his point of view it is a revenge party. Nothing wrong with that, and a stroke of genius getting Laile. But I won’t be voting them. For me Kim D C is an unknown quantity with a lack of experience in politics.

    I think the video clip was not good pr (my own opinion here ) Leaves it open to Hooten’s comments, but well handled by Laile.

    My point hear is that I think Labour get heavily criticized and if this had of been them, they would have been very heavily criticized.

    I am glad Labour are not doing deals before the election and a being very clear about where they stand with IMP. Accused of potentially losing the election, but somehow it seems like it is always Labours fault!

    No one to my knowledge has said why don’t the Green’s pull their candidate in Ohuiru so Labour can win. It will be the Greens fault if we loose.

    Excuse the rave and the spelling mistakes. Its friday and I have a lot today before I can leave work and get home!

    • SPC 16.1
      8 August 2014 at 6:44 pm

      The Greens run candidates in electorates to him them win party votes. Most candidates are clear about this. Having an MP like Hughes there last time may have confused this – he is not there this time.

      The combined Labour and Greens vote was a lot lower than the National vote there in 2011. And the seat has had new areas brought in that favour National further.

      The best way to take out Dunne out would be for Labour voters to vote for the National candidate – and also do this in Epsom. It adds nothing to National as they lose an equivalent list MP.

    • phillip ure 16.2
      9 August 2014 at 7:51 am

      @ anker..

      “.. My concern is Dot.com on the campaign trail as I had thought he was taking a back seat..”

      i am not privy to int/mana-rrasonings..

      ..but i wd guess dotcom is on this roadtrip..and will be at university rallies etc..

      ..because he is such a drawcard..

      ..but he will be having no appearances in any of the political set-pieces in the media in the campaign proper..

      .and of course his big moment will be the ak. town-hall spooking/key-information-dump..

      ..with glenn greenwald..(and other to-be-announced) guests..

      ..on the 15th sept..

  17. TightyRighty 17
    8 August 2014 at 4:55 pm

    @weka

    “Lolz, I’m a feminist”

    Why, because your mother was a woman. Your first comment smacked of misogynistic “I know what women want and need”‘rugby club 5 schooner ribaldry. So pull the other one

    • silverbullet 17.1
      8 August 2014 at 5:26 pm

      Men can only ever be apparatchiks in the Femmosphere apparatus, they are not allowed the status of Nomenklatura.

    • tricledrown 17.2
      8 August 2014 at 5:49 pm

      Hey tighty allmighty your the biggest misogynist around using your women like an hedonistic sex object you have neglected your family in fact neglected to have a family because Money is the only object of your desire you couldn’t handle having a family because you couldn’t handle being poor!

    • weka 17.3
      8 August 2014 at 8:03 pm

      ““Lolz, I’m a feminist”

      Why, because your mother was a woman. Your first comment smacked of misogynistic “I know what women want and need”‘rugby club 5 schooner ribaldry. So pull the other one”

      I don’t actually know what you mean by “rugby club 5 schooner ribaldry.”, but if you want to know what makes me a feminist look at my comment history on ts for the past few years. It’s not a secret. Then see if you can address the actual points I made instead of attempting some pathetic, tired old ad feminem.

  18. fisiani 18
    8 August 2014 at 5:48 pm

    This post neatly sums up the foul mouthed impotence of the Taliban Left as it looks like the Greens will yet again be squeezed out of power. If National win then the Greens will be in Opposition yet again. If NZF get over 5% and can form a minority government with Labour then The Cunliffe knows that he can exclude the Greens as they will have no bargaining power.

  19. Binders full of women 19
    8 August 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Fuck I’m thankful for all the tagalog speakers doing the milking in Southland and rebuilding Chch, and fuck I like Pengxin and Harvard in the Central North Island… changing NZ for the better.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:07 pm

      We used to be a country proud and capable of doing our own work. Now its just a bunch of Queen St farmers and property developers pimping the nation out so they can collect and show off their self centred bling.

  20. Dumrse 20
    8 August 2014 at 7:08 pm

    The Standard (the left that is….and Karol) is slowly slipping beneath the waves. Depression is creeping in and is now evident in your postings, your language, your demeanour and your psyche. You are shattered, you are leaderless and you are watching your political future fade before your very eyes. If you keep this up for the next six weeks you are history. Wake up, smell the coffee, debate the policies and the issues, stayed focused, be positive ……… hang on, that’s what you leader said didn’t he.

    • karol 20.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:11 pm

      And then you woke up……

      • Colonial Viper 20.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 7:26 pm

        I’m sure the Righties are attacking and smearing hard out against IMP because they know that National already has the election in the bag. Yeah, right.

  21. reason 21
    8 August 2014 at 7:13 pm

    I agree with infused, tighty righty and PR ……

    What we witnessed was the blunt end of an attack on democracy by a fugitive terrorist and wanted German war criminal.

    Those hooligans masquerading as students have shown an ugly bias against nice honest Mr Key and should be barred from voting.

    Its as simple as that.

    • Chooky 21.1
      8 August 2014 at 7:22 pm

      reason …could you with your colleagues ….infused, tighty righty and PR….and Dumrse…and fisiani!…

      ….be in actual fact ….REAL, genuine FUCKWITS ! ?

      ( inwhich case i want your autographs on my t-shirt)

      …now where is srylands and Possum …for this happy little get together?

  22. felix 22
    8 August 2014 at 7:35 pm

    So all the John Key supporters are having a cry about a rich man pulling the wool over the eyes of idiots who are easily impressed by money and pr stunts and personality cultism when they should be engaging in serious debates about issues and policy.

    Oh the irony.

    Oh the fucking lolz of it.

    • lurgee 22.1
      8 August 2014 at 8:03 pm

      That was quite clever.

      See, The Left?

      It can be done. Smart, effective response, without sounding tiresome and whiney.

      • weka 22.1.1
        8 August 2014 at 8:13 pm

        oh well, I guess the rest of us should go home, given we’ll never be as clever or witty as felix (except maybe OAB, and what’s happened to Rhinocrates?).

        • lurgee 22.1.1.1
          8 August 2014 at 8:16 pm

          Rhinocrates was an embarrassment, a squealing bully always squealing about bullying, a popinjay, a pantaloon, a petulant pustule masquerading as a brain.

          • Anne 22.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2014 at 8:26 pm

            Rubbish lurgee. Rhinocrates is hugely intelligent and has a great sense of the ridiculous. He does, by his own admission, suffer from an autistic condition so surely a little lee-way is appropriate. We don’t hear very much from him these days which is a pity. He is always worth a read…

          • Chooky 22.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2014 at 8:26 pm

            @lurgee…that should bring him back!…i enjoyed his way with words …i think he just got tired of people like you lurgee

            • lurgee 22.1.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2014 at 8:52 pm

              You know what Dr Johnson said, don’t you? “He who is tired of lurgee is tired of life.” Or something like that.

              If he was half as smart as you think, he probably got tired of the idiotic +1000000 type comments and the complete lack of independent thought too often seen round here.

              (Feel free to interpret ‘lack of independent thought’ as ‘failing to agree with lurgee,’ which appears to be an oxymoron but is really a Great Truth.)

            • Rhinocrates 22.1.1.1.2.2
              8 August 2014 at 9:20 pm

              Thanks Chooky, and yes (though it look’s like I struck one of flu’s more alliterative nerves and might just poke him again to see if I can find the one for assonance). And Anne, I don’t suffer from it, actually I enjoy it.

              • weka …
                8 August 2014 at 9:23 pm

                heh, nice come back.

              • lurgee …
                8 August 2014 at 9:26 pm

                Assonance annoys, but I’ll assay an attempt.

                Ill minded imbecile, willingly spilling hissing piffle on the internet, inveighing with trifling platitudes.

                Him, I mean, not I.

                • Rhinocrates …
                  8 August 2014 at 9:30 pm

                  QED

                  Big shiny red button – can’t resist it.

                  • lurgee …
                    8 August 2014 at 9:32 pm

                    You’re the one who suddenly re-appeared, like a tired sequel to a film no one watched in the first place, because someone dared to mention your name in less than hallowed tones.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      8 August 2014 at 9:38 pm

                      “But Mummmeeee, he started it!”

                      I was originally responding to Anne and Chooky for their courtesy, so don’t flatter yourself. Instead, try some lemon and ginger tea, flu – I’m not at all upset but you really seem to be. If you give me your postal address, I’ll send you some of my prozac.

                    • lurgee …
                      8 August 2014 at 10:18 pm

                      Oh, no. I started it. Don’t try to claim credit for that. The only thing you managed to do was rise to the bait, unable to resist the wriggling pink worm I was dangling in front of you …

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 August 2014 at 11:30 pm

                      That’s way too Freudian; there isn’t enough “Eeeew” in the world for that.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 August 2014 at 9:30 pm

                And to be clear, it is a pleasure for us to enjoy it with you.

              • Chooky …
                9 August 2014 at 1:27 pm

                lol Rhinocrates…good to see you are still around and countering some nasty viruses

    • Local Kiwi 22.2
      8 August 2014 at 8:48 pm

      reason said,
      “What we witnessed was the blunt end of an attack on democracy by a fugitive terrorist and wanted German war criminal.”

      Kim.com has them worried why are they still banging on about him so incessantly.

      Kim.com has a master stroke of the “element of surprise” on all this chapter.

      On the other side and Key and his cohorts are shitting their pants every day now as they cant cover-up what is coming like a train and they are tied to the tracks.

      “Key and his asshole mobsters tied to the rail track and Kim.com coming down the rail track in a big arsed freight train smiling and saying;
      “I’m Back”

      Can someone make a cartoon sketch?

  23. Glenn 23
    8 August 2014 at 8:32 pm

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    If Labour don’t realise that, they are doomed to be in opposition for a lot longer.

    Dotcom’s publicity gurus are certainly getting plenty of bang for their buck. They know what they are doing. I often wonder if Labour’s do.

    • john 23.1
      8 August 2014 at 11:22 pm

      No political campaign will be as successful at the Internet Mana campaign…….for shifting people to the right.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1.1
        9 August 2014 at 7:42 am

        How would you know? You were already there.

        I note that Matthew Hooton has compared the IMP rally to the very embodiment of right wing values. Can’t you guys get your lines straight?

  24. karol 24
    8 August 2014 at 9:54 pm

    Whoa! Paula Benefit, looking tight lipped and containing the anger at having to debate poverty & inequality with Turei tonight.

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      8 August 2014 at 9:55 pm

      A beautiful thing to behold.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 24.2
      9 August 2014 at 7:54 am

      Link available? 🙂

      • karol 24.2.1
        9 August 2014 at 8:08 am

        Prime (owned by Sky) don’t do TV Ondemand.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 24.2.1.1
          9 August 2014 at 8:15 am

          Thanks anyway 🙂

          • karol 24.2.1.1.1
            9 August 2014 at 8:33 am

            I recorded it, so can check details.

            It was interesting to see Plunket trying to feed poverty denier lines to the panel – eg asking the rightees (Bennett and the guy from Maxim who works with people in poverty – Greg Fleming CEO of the Venn Foundation).

            Plunket asked them about people who make a “lifestyle choice” to be on benefit. Fleming said that really doesn’t happen: that very few people choose to be on benefits.

            Plunket talked of moral choices not to have children without there being 2 parents – and not getting divorced etc. He put that to the Salvation Army guy – probably expecting agreement. The Sally guy rejected the assumption eg saying that staying in a dysfunctional relationship is not good for the child such as when a partner is violent.

            Bennett did the line about less teenagers giving birth and taking some credit for it. Turei said that trend started before the Nats came into government.

  25. Doughty 25
    8 August 2014 at 11:07 pm

    Fuck John Key and Fuck Paula “Benefit Fraud” Bennett, slimy little toads the both of em.

  26. Clemgeopin 26
    9 August 2014 at 12:40 am

    WARNING!

    DO NOT WATCH THIS KEY PICTURE IF YOU SCARE EASILY!

    If, not, here you go:

    http://tinyurl.com/pq2f54t

  27. Disheartened 27
    6 September 2014 at 11:20 pm

    What language is used is irrelevant. There is much talk of child poverty in this country as though it is only children being forced to live this way. For those that think people getting a benefit are living the high life you must live in the high income bracket and probably have no idea what a beneficiary is expected to survive on. I can tell you for a person unemployed in their early 60’s who busted a gut to pay off their mortgage, ended up with a permanent disability through a work accident is expected to live on the princely sum of $206.06 a week. See how far you would get on it. Rates $195 a month, Insurance $205 a month, Electricity $148 month, Internet and phone $75 a month, cell phone $6 a month, Petrol $30 (last 4 things you are expected to have if you are actively looking for employment) this leaves $141 a month to cover heating (needed for more than 6 months of the year in the deep South) car repairs, warrants, rego, clothing, doctors fees, repairs to my house and if you are lucky there are a few dollar left for food. My teeth are loose from having to live on a far from adequate diet for so long. Finding the money for a haircut is hard to save up for. Grey hair in need of a cut and 2nd hand clothes are not a good look for going for interviews. If those that believe John Key that there are a heap of jobs out there please let me know who hires people in their 60’s with a disability or health problems? there was no OSH when we started work, so most of us in this age group have a disability or health problems. Do you ever ask yourselves what this is going to cost the Health system in years to come? children and beneficiaries are lucky to get mince and sausages once or twice a week, meat, fruit and veges are luxury items, cheap white bread has no nutritional value and fresh fish is distant memory. Those trying to raise families on minimum wage don’t fare any better. National has always worked for the wealthy, Labour used to be for the workers and well being of all, but this year I am disillusioned with them as well. Who does one vote for??? the lack of morals, ethics and backbone of modern politicians doesn’t leave much to choose from. It is the first time in my life I am considering not bothering to vote. Winz is a degrading, humiliating place to deal with. I would rather starve than go in begging for a food voucher even though I am supposedly entitled to $300 in food vouchers a year, case workers are well aware of my predicament but never have I been offered a food voucher. I need glasses but the best they could offer was a loan to be paid back at $10 a week. I would be retired before they were paid for.
    If you think I am a bludger and this is the way to live, try living on this amount of money for 6 months. I could go on and on about the inhumane way Winz treat clients. I haven’t heard any party say they will address the problems or overhaul the sytem. After the deaths of Winz workers all National do is put on more security guards, nowhere have they said they will look into why there is so much anger directed at Winz workers, yet we know they are only working to the dictates of the minister that tells them to deprive beneficiaries of their rights. Nowhere will you find a case worker that will tell a client what they are entitled to

    • r0b 27.1
      7 September 2014 at 12:01 am

      Disheartened, may I put your comment up as a post on the blog?

      • Kiwiri 27.1.1
        7 September 2014 at 12:21 am

        Would be grateful if editorial liberty could be exercised to insert some paragraphs (my ageing eyes are making reading the screen a bit difficult). Thanks in advance.

    • blue leopard 27.2
      7 September 2014 at 12:13 am

      Pleeeeease don’t not vote!! Pleeease vote. There is Mana and Greens and they both have solid welfare policies.

      Pleeeease help to vote this horrid government out!

      I am sorry to hear about your situation 🙁 hang on in there.

      Winz staff are usually hugely more helpful if you take a community worker or friend in when you have to deal with them.

      I truly hope NZer’s see that treating people without jobs in this manner is simply not the way to go and vote left.

Links to post