“It’s not that, it’s people who don’t look after their children, that’s the problem.
“And they can’t look after their children in many cases because they don’t know how to look after their children or even think they should look after their children.”
Monetary poverty was not the only problem, she said.“I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
As the MP for Papakura, she saw a lot of those problems in south Auckland, she said.
“And I can tell you it is not just a lack of money, it is primarily a lack of responsibility.
“I know that is not PC, but, you know, that’s me.”
It seems that on planet Judith it is all the parents fault. She does not explain however what parents are meant to be doing. After all with 40% of kids living in poverty has parents who are working it is clear that the causes are with wages and systems and the cost of housing and nothing to do with supposed personal frailties that the parents may or may not have.
It is clear that Collins was on the defensive when she made her comments. She was asked a question which noted the UN report on child poverty and how this was resulting in kids being assimilated into gangs and asked if the Government was doing enough. Her initial response was to question what the UN had ever done to address child poverty in New Zealand. She then launched her attack on the parents. Keep it classy Judith.
At the beginning of the current term John Key warned against National MPs being arrogant and out of touch. Yesterday Judith Collins showed how arrogant and out of touch with reality was.
disgustingly dirty political animal – know your enemy – they are privileged, out of touch liars, thickos and cheats – may I present shonkeys cabinet…
And she should take that mask off! She should know better!
@ Takere
No! Judith already has the mask off which is why she lets everyone see the dark selfish soul of this government.
Or do you prefer the smiling assassin?
I sometime wonder if judith collins hates poor Maori children as her actions directly contribute to their disgraceful and our shameful rate of poverty and abuse they suffer.
She Played a Key role in the roastbustrering of the Alcohol law review…… and the Pro industry shambles the Nats ended up palming off as Alcohol reform.
Alcohol abuse is a Key part in the world cup for domestic violence that NZ is champion in.
Abused children and battered women are just collateral damage …..something her favorite self nominee and bender of justice wayne mapp would approve of
Her latest cynical abuse shows her benefiting through her husbands blue Octopus Orivida……. which is involved in a fraudulent exploitative and Asset stripping and resource exporting business…. http://publicaddress.net/envirologue/swamp-monsters-the-looting-of-northlands/
A tax evasion like loop hole was abused to export ancient Kauri logs as stumps … but the Kauri-con was discovered and the exporting choked down on.
Leading to blue orvida and by association Judith sitting with a yard full of these logs …… waiting for a law change to allow what was once illegal to be legal …going on past Nactform.
This yard full of Ancient Kauri is in one of the poorest parts of New Zealand …… I would confiscate this ancient Kauri and give it to the local people from whom everything else had been taken.
The greed and cynicism of Judith is quite disgusting as she harms the most vulnerable and least well off
judith the muss ….. crusher collins ……..does more than just talk tough.
A vicious sadistic lie that will go down well with National’s base.
It has a tiny sliver of truth to it in some extreme cases – so it feels less outrageous than, say, blaming aliens.
Good to hear John Tamihere on RNZ commenting and sounding quite nuanced on poverty and the state’s responses.
Agree. His work is starting to reap some good info & data about the causes, remedy and a host of solutions.
If you’re born into a dysfunctional impoverished family. That is the norm for you, so the cycle is repeated until something changes with that person, that change could be either positive or negative.
You become a victim of your own making because of the cycle and so do your offspring.
Crusher Collins believes people choose to be criminals because they really want to be? That could be true for about 3% of the population but not for 150,000 kids in poverty and parents that are struggling to provide for them.
The Nat’s constant negative messaging is really starting to fall apart, people aren’t buying it anymore.
So if the opposition keep them on the subjects they’re failing at, Housing, poverty, health, economy, environment. Basically everything!
If they continue with the same piss poor incoherent rant and attack on the less fortunate & the party(s) or journo or even organisation that provide the expertise and information which proves them to be wrong. They will lose the confidence of rationale thinking folks and hopefully the election!
Keep on asking the same questions over & over again and watch their heads explode!
Bill will be thrilled he and Collins stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue.
Bill who Muttonbird ?
This Bill.
I don’t read that comment the same way you do Muttonbird. Perhaps you linked to the wrong one?
Oh well. I thought it was clear Bill was trying to minimise the connection between the disenfranchised and high rates of volume crime in those areas. Just as Collins did.
If you accept that fraud is a form of theft, then I would argue that most theft is actually the result of the well-heeled rather than the downtrodden:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/business/dealbook/at-wells-fargo-complaints-about-fraudulent-accounts-since-2005.html
Nah Muttonhead.
I was merely pointing out that if you’re going to contend that homelessness produces thieves and burglars, then when the misanthropic among us call for crack-downs on miscreants (read:the poor, the homeless etc) then you’ll find you don’t have a leg to stand on by way of a response to those calls.
It’s buying into old-school bullshit about poor people being criminally minded.
edit: You did notice that in every comment I made I left supposed rising rates of violence aside? That’s because I happen to agree that stress can lead to various forms of lashing out (both self destructive and/or destructive of or towards others). I’ll reiterate – being poor does not result in someone becoming a burglar or a thief.
A slap in the face or worse for those low wage earners with both parents working and still not living adequately.
Judith Collins could eyeball them and tell them they are lousy parents.
As long as she was willing to step out of her ivory limousine of course!
One time a journalist might like to ask her why bad parenting always increases under National. If they can resist the urge to vomit on her, that is.
Everything negative increases under National inequalities, crime rate and P issues and where is the rehab monies for our P people in our country where is the money and funds from confiscated properties and cash going to. Obviously not the people that need help
Poverty is an important cause of poor parental responsibility. If you pay 50%+ on rent and work 3 or more jobs to feed an house your family, it would affect anyone’s parenting.
Judith looks remarkably like Jack Nicholson as the Joker in that photo
I think she looks more like Bride of Chucky.
I , ….. would have to say a wee song by Denis Leary would be not only apt but extremely descriptive of said politician,… in fact , if we were to extrapolate further it would indeed be most appropriate for the majority of the core MP’s in this current govt.
Have a wee listen then, And enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
I would say that the USA is not the only country replete with its fair share of arseholes in political power – we have more than our fair right now in govt.
and theres the outrage that will see a bump in the polls for National
Perhaps you are right PR. Those in poverty are not likely to be NAct voters are they? So the Collin’s call will resonate with the wealthy folk who want to stay wealthy. NAct voters of course.
Well I’m thinking what shes saying will resonate (at least from her pov) with the swing/undecided voter more
As you say it’ll resonate with the Nact voters anyway and when you throw in her basically saying there’ll more police then that’s always going to be a vote winner so shes doing a good job of plugging up the leaking votes holes and pitching to the missing million…or I could be completely wrong
Like her or loathe her its good politics
“good politics”?
I presume you mean effective politics and that’s not something worthy of praise, the way you seem to believe it is. I suppose you, Pucky, might say a killer made good use of his knife, showed good knowledge of how to slaughter, was a good taker of a human life, given your lack of sensitivity to the suitability of some words. Collins bare-faced (sarc) efforts to redistribute blame are not good. Nasty would be a more suitable adjective. Craven? Despicable? Cheap-shot? Par for the course?
Good politics in relation to getting re-elected obviously
So, “Good slaughterer” in relation to how quickly the victim died – have I read you right?
I don’t recall bringing up the subject of killing so I guess you can read it however you like…and you probably will
Has my analogy really flown that high over your head, Pucky?
Are you suffering a head cold today? My sympathies if that’s the case.
Naah I’m just not keen on your attempt to compare Jude Collins to a killer
Which I’m not doing, but you can force the idea, if you choose to.
If you say so, you could have used any example but you chose that one.
Ok, I’ll spell it out for your PR. RG isn’t comparing Collins to a killer, he is comparing your admiration for Collins’ political skill to someone who would admire a murderer’s skill with a knife. And thus suggesting that ‘good’ in not the appropriate adjective.
It’s not that hard an analogy to understand so I think we can assume from now on that if you don’t respond to that particular challenge to your ethics it’s because you have no defence.
Ok fine then depending on the definition:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/good
2.1 Skilled at doing or dealing with a specified thing.
‘I’m good at crosswords’
‘he was good with children’
2Having the required qualities; of a high standard.
‘a good restaurant’
‘his marks are just not good enough’
So yes Jude Collins comments can be considered both good and not so good politics depending on the definition you wish to use
The killer had the skills and worked to a high standard.
Only in the most amoral way, and only if the sole purpose of a politician is to be re-elected.
Not that I’d expect it to occur to you that they had any other function beyond their own self interest.
National’s policies are increasing poverty and through that increased death rates so, yeah, comparing them to killers is appropriate.
@ Puckish Rogue
Its actually poor and divisive politics born out of an insecure personality. Why would anyone want to talk with duplicity and single out a demographic in a negative fashion to use as a fulcrum to retain a sector of voters such as she has done to advance her position – unless she was insecure.
Don’t forget also she was stood down for a significant length of time by her own PM.
That is not the profile of someone who is confident of her position and that she is working for all New Zealanders, – in fact, … its precisely the opposite.
And is THAT the sort of model we want as politicians in this country ?… do we REALLY want such a devious, opportunistic personality like that that is quite willing and prepared to ride roughshod over a huge sector of our society?
Do we really want politicians who scapegoat and denigrate large numbers of our fellow New Zealanders?
Is this sorry excuse for a govt so ignorant of former politicians , history and policy’s such as the Mickey Joseph Savage era that made this country great that they are forced to display their devious vicious neo liberalism by criticizing and putting down their own country men and women???
Is THAT the sort of people we want in power in New Zealand,… people who were implicated in Dirty Politics and corrupt practice?
No thanks.
Maybe the Mafia would like their style but judging by the growing numbers of critics of this govt among the public it definitely seems their days are numbered – hence the insecurity.
We may have to ease up on Pucky a bit, he’s being flenched by all and sundry and he’s already suffering (I think) from a bad head-cold.
Well, I’d say that a majority of people don’t but a large number of National voters obviously do.
The National voters that haven’t figured that that National constantly lies to them yet have some learning to do.
Judith Collins is a friend of slug boy slater …………. which while not telling us much tells us heaps about her …
I’m unaware of her getting millions in charity or bail outs for any high risk bankrupt Investments ….. like key did when greed kept him invested in his old firm Merrill as it led the charge in going bankrupt and was at the center of the GFC ….
This is a good description of his honest ‘work’ in earning his bank of america shares….”In the end, says Mehta, Bank of America’s fraud resulted in “one of the biggest reverse transfers of wealth in history – from pensioners to financiers.”
” $25 billion in federal bailout funds they received to acquire dying investment bank Merrill Lynch. Both firms were infamous for their exotic gambles and their systematic cutting of regulatory corners – meaning that the shopping spree had burdened Bank of America with a huge portfolio of doomed trades and criminal conspiracies.”
*********************************
Judith has much hard face and does it the chinese way….. where officials and party get their slice of the corruption …./
“changes to ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED, 13 May 2011. ) Shareholders: Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu, and Deyi Shi. (Source)
11 June 2010: National Party receives $50,000.00 donation from Susan Chou. (Source)
30 July 2010: National Party receives $150,000 donation from Susan Chou. (Source)
18 November 2010: MILK NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION LIMITED* registered. Directors: Terry Lee and Jiang Zhaobai. (Source)
22 December 2010: Government blocks bid by Natural Dairy to buy the 16 Crafar farms on ‘good character’ grounds.
27 January 2011: KordaMentha accepts offer from Shanghai Pengxin International Group Ltd to buy Crafar Farms.
31 May 2011: National Party receives $100,000 donation from Susan Chou. (Source)
22 July 2011: ORAVIDA LTD registered. Shareholders: Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu, and Deyi Shi. (Source)
27 July 2011: ORAVIDA PROPERTY LTD changes name to KIWI DAIRY INDUSTRY LTD. Shareholder: Deyi Shi (Source)
13 April 2011: Shanghai Pengxin lodges application with the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to buy the Crafar farms.
26 September 2011: Crafar farms receiver KordaMentha rejects a conditional NZ$171.5 million offer for 16 central North Island dairy farms from a group led by controversial former merchant banker Michael Fay.
22 November 2011: National Party receives $50,0000 donation from Citi Financial Group. Shareholders: Yan Yang and Qiang Wei. (Source) (Source)
22 November 2011: National Party receives $1,600 from Oravida NZ. (Source) (Source)
26 November 2011: NZ General Election
30 November 2011: National Party receives further $55,000 donation from Oravida NZ. (Source) (Source)
27 January 2012: Government ministers approve Shanghai Pengxin’s application to purchase 16 Crafar farms.” https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/doing-the-business-with-john-key-heres-how-part-rua/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail-20120314
And the other sort of Nat voter, poorer people who have been duped by Nat rhetoric, voting against their own interests.
Yes – unfortunately there are a few of them. 🙁
Pucky, you believe National voters respond positively to claims like this one from Collins and the response from some people to what they feel is deeply cynical and unpleasant “politics” ? Have you an opinion on why we should regard the people who are about to, in your view, create “a bump in the polls for National” with anything other than disdain?
Puck agrees with Collins don’t you puck?
“I think theres probably less poor parents then what the right thinks and probably more then what the left thinks”
Based on..?
Opinion only
The right want to overestimate the numbers of poor parents so they claim that the government is doing the best they can but for those pesky parents
The left want to underestimate the numbers because they can then claim the government aren’t doing enough to help the small number of the unlucky few
Truly dizzying logic, Pucky. But you did say, “opinion”, so it matters little. Many commenters begin a statement of opinion with, “I believe”, or “I think”. Just sayin’
Yes a great non answer – true courage not.
I don’t have an opinion on why you should, or shouldn’t, regard those with disdain.
In my always humble opinion, the average right wing voter probably thing over estimates the amount of poor parents so Jude Collins saying this will only confirm what they already think
The average left wing voter probably under estimates the amount of poor parents so this, again, confirms what they already think
I think theres probably less poor parents then what the right thinks and probably more then what the left thinks
Pffffft!
Pucky, you disappoint me. You are occasionally sharp(ish) but here, dull as dishwater. You’re ducking and feinting. What’s your opinion of people who rise to this rhetoric from Collins and I mean in terms of their response to this particular issue. Give us some sort of value judgement, Pucky. You know you can do it, you regularly do just that when describing people from outside of your own political tribe.
(and it’s fewer Pucky, fewer poor parents. Less poor parenting, fewer poor parents). You are welcome.
“(and it’s fewer Pucky, fewer poor parents. Less poor parenting, fewer poor parents). You are welcome.”
Really? You think pointing out an example of my poor grammar somehow makes my comment less valid, you knew what I was trying to say yet you decide to belittle me.
Are you now going to go through everyones posts and point out their errors or is it just mine that’s worth pointing out and, if not why not?
” What’s your opinion of people who rise to this rhetoric from Collins and I mean in terms of their response to this particular issue. Give us some sort of value judgement, Pucky. You know you can do it, you regularly do just that when describing people from outside of your own political tribe.”
This was my question, Pucky. Give it a shot, go on!
(Fewer .v. less is something I’d point out to anyone, not to belittle (Oh, oh, you could use that, Pucky!) but to help nudge us all toward correct usage. You are tetchy today, Pucky and diversionary.)
There are certain, triggers if you like, that get me going. One of them is pointing out other peoples spelling or grammatical errors.
It really irks me because if you understand what the other person is saying you don’t need to point out their mistakes.
There are many reasons why someone might make those errors, maybe they didn’t do so well at school because the learning style taught to them didn’t suit them, maybe they’re dyslexic and it’s difficult for them, maybe they’re at work and are trying fit in a comment around work, maybe spelling and grammar isn’t something they consider important, maybe English is a second language or maybe its something else entirely
All it tells me is the person pointing out other peoples mistakes are just sad, little people with inferiority complexes
“Oh you made an argument I don’t agree with, let me show you how superior I am by pointing out the spelling or grammatical errors you made”
Okay, Pucky, I accept that having your grammactical erors pointed out to you really irks you. I won’t do that again.
Got time for this now?
” What’s your opinion of people who rise to this rhetoric from Collins and I mean in terms of their response to this particular issue. Give us some sort of value judgement, Pucky. You know you can do it, you regularly do just that when describing people from outside of your own political tribe.”
This was my question, Pucky.”
Generally speaking they’re most likely misinformed. I’d suggest most people in NZ are generally fair minded, decent people.
So when people raise to rhetoric like this or Labours dog-whistling on Chinese names or Winstons…whatever it is Winston is doing at the moment I’d say its a reaction to fear of the unknown and/or basic ignorance
“misinformed”
You mean ignorant? Of the facts?
Who’s responsible, do you think, Pucky, for the state of misinformation – “…most people in New Zealand…” or those providing the misinformation?
I wanted to say ignorant but unfortunately that word has been used negatively and I don’t mean it in a negative way
In most cases (but not all of course) the ignorance is down to the individual, its not helped by a media that chooses the side it wants people to take
It’s a sorry thing, Pucky, isn’t it that when comparing your opinion on those issues I cited with my own, both of us must conclude that the other is ignorant. Sad state of affairs, really.
Well I also should have mentioned the possibility of deliberate ignorance as well
how many times on here has someone posted a link and the response has been something like:
“that site/newspaper/commentator is well known left/right wing therefore I won’t read it”
This is really off topic and no doubt will be moved to open mike. But I agree with you there Puck me ole mate 100%. It is not clever in fact makes one look like a smart arse pointing out others grammar or spelling errors, and as you say, providing you get your point of view across that is all that matters. You don’t have to agree with the point of view.
I have seen very well written English with perfect grammar, but in the end, you think to yourself, what the fuck is that person on about the English is spot on but the message is obscure
others’
Sometimes it’s just a tease. Relax.
“others’ ”
You also missed pointing out the full stop I forgot to include.
Relaks
Disagree. Typos happen but lazy, incorrect spelling and continued use of incorrect words and grammar is a sign of poor schooling.
If you are in an argument/debate with someone who does this it’s legitimate to pull them up on it. Competitive advantage, you see – something which I’m sure Puckish Rogue embraces wholeheartedly.
Also, shit-stirrers will attract more attention to their bad grammar.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3515520/Are-grammar-Nazi-Language-pedants-likely-introverted-disagreeable.html
I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything though
Daily Mail. Ha, ha, you’re funny.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t being serious
[deleted]
[I’m sure there is a political point in there somewhere but it’s too late at night to be wading through sexual violence and excrement references to find it and edit the comment so I’ve just deleted all of it. Dial back the abuse please – weka]
…because what Collins said is correct, and most NZ’ers agree.
Looking at the photo I thought this was a blog about the killer clowns
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1953822/what-to-do-if-you-see-a-killer-clown/
Different phenomenon Robert. The Sun article is about people “dressing up” as killer clowns. The real thing is much rarer and more lethal.
😯
Always the way with the Natzi/CT/Spinmeister: Use the exception to prove the rule.
Actually I do know some sons of wealthy people who are rotten parents. Provided with material things but the kids have layers and layers of arrogance, selfishness and self-centredness.
Exactly.
A well off parent may have addiction issues, may have a bad attitude to parenting, may be a (so called) ‘white collar’ criminal.
The difference is that these issues can be mitigated with the use of nannies, private school, well equipped public school, good health care, relatives in a position to support the child (and the parents), and when things do go wrong they are treated more sympathetically by both the authorities and their immediate communities.
Yep. Money helps compensate for certain human imperfections in many ways. The Left should get an extra $100 pw into the hands of all parents.
Monetary poverty was not the only problem, she said.
“I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
That’s a very honest statement about some in this country who are not fit to be parents. Instead of trying to demonise and misquote Judith how about acknowledging that she has a sad but valid point and then we can discuss how best to change this reality. After all no one chooses to have such parents.
Their numbers have increased so much during the last eight years that one obvious solution is to destroy this shit government.
+ 1
Actually you are unsurprisingly completely wrong yet again.
There has been no deterioration in income inequality for the last 8 years.
Benefits have been raised by more than by any government in history.
More people are employed now than at any time in NZ history.
Net per capita GDP has risen in the last 8 years.
All of this good news despite a global financial collapse and the destruction of Christchurch. If we do not have another calamitous earthquake the prospects for New Zealand look fabulous as we progress into the brighter future.
That didn’t take long. 😐
watch the RWNJ cherry pick the only statistic that looks superficially OK
meanwhile thousands of kiwis are suffering and SLEEPING. IN. CARS.
what about *wealth* inequality?
the ultra rich hide their income as a matter of course
there has been a huge rise in COSTS that negate any income growth
thanks to your greedy rentier property speculating mates
vampire squid capitalism
Average weekly household mortgage payments up 3.0 percent* since 2014. At the same time, rent payments increased 4.2 percent* (2015 figures)
The report said the lowest 20 percent of earners spent 54 percent of their income on housing in 2015, compared with just 29 percent in the late 1980s.
In my own region, the Hawkes Bay, the $18 a week rise in the minimum wage (in take-home pay) matched a $20 increase in average rent. Just hilarious. You almost wonder if the wage increase was a deal between landlords and the Government. Certainly the Accommodation Supplement would seem to be Landlord Welfare to compensate them for overinvesting in an unsustainable business model.
I wonder if fisiani can follow these ‘subtle’ stats about inequality?? I suspect not.
Course not, fisiani can’t twist that data to fit his narrow minded narrative
+1
Income inequality has gotten higher, benefits have not been raised by more than by any government in history, the next one is due to population growth and the last one is, outside of large recessions (which did tank the GDP in 2008-2009) the norm.
Try harder.
OAB How do you destroy this government ?
Nothing has worked so far.
If I knew that it would already be destroyed 🙂
“I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of GOVERNMENTAL responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
Fixed it
Here, Pucky, here’s an example of one of those voters you believe will help create a bump in the polls. What’s your opinion about fisiani’s comment? Good, do you think? Muttonbird (below) describes my view really well. What’s yours, I wonder?
“That’s a very honest statement about some in this country who are not fit to be parents. Instead of trying to demonise and misquote Judith how about acknowledging that she has a sad but valid point and then we can discuss how best to change this reality. After all no one chooses to have such parents.”
I agree with this
Of course you do. Do you also agree that Collins has chosen to focus on and broadcast ideas that are not particularly germane to the issue, not the vital factors, and used them to distract from those that are, excite those who want to find reasons other than the truly significant ones, the “key” causes, and provoke a base response in order to gain advantage to herself and the party she represents?
Yes
And do you have any opinion as to the quality of that behaviour from Collins, other than, “it’s good politics”? I’m hoping you will have something to say about ethics or leadership perhaps, maybe responsibility or compassion, I don’t know, something along those qualitative lines.
To save you some time I thought I’d ask myself some questions
Do I agree with absolutely everything National says? No, no I do not
Can anyone say they agree with everything their chosen, major, party says or does as well?
Is she completely wrong? No she isn’t
Does she make a point about the personal responsibility of parents? Yes she does
Will this help National get re-elected and continue the good job they’re doing of running the country? Possibly
Is it better for NZ that National gets re-elected and Lab/Greens don’t? Yes, yes it is
Am I 100% happy about what National has to do to get re-elected? No.
“Am I 100% happy about what National has to do to get re-elected? No.”
Interesting soliloquy, Pucky. I’d love to hear more about those things National “has to do to get re-elected” that don’t make you happy, because it would help me, and others here too, I suspect, to understand what allowances and compromises you, a person from the rightwing and supporter of John Key and the National party, are able to make. I mean this quite sincerely. I think genuine comments from you would help us all understand each other better. Will you do it?
The first thing I’d be looking at is WFF and the second is means testing super…
No concerns about Oravida (milk and kauri logs), the Saudi sheep deal, the dirty politics that came out of Key’s office, his relationship with Slater, the pony-tail pulling, Sky City deals, Mediaworks shenannigans….on and on it goes…nothing ring any bells of concern there for you, Pucky?
Nothing on National’s pretense over climate change action, nothing around offering onshore and offshore blocks to the oil companies, none of those things stick in your craw at all?
Thats quite a list so lets see
No concerns about Oravida (milk and kauri logs) – None
The Saudi sheep deal – Some
The dirty politics that came out of Key’s office and his relationship with Slater – A little
The pony-tail pulling – None and this is probably the least important of all
Sky City deals – None
Mediaworks shenanigans – None, I was wrong this is the least important
Nothing on National’s pretense over climate change action – None
Nothing around offering onshore and offshore blocks to the oil companies – None
Yeah, thanks, Pucky – that gives me a much clearer idea of the kind of person you are.
I agree Robert, you get the feeling that Puckish has gone from smug to scared. He now dismisses creepy with a flick of his wrist and argues for more hate.
You missed the whole fact national have been quite poor at maintaining our international reputation. Actually I’m being generous using the word poor. I’m not sure anyone can think of a time when a NZ government has taken so many hits in the international press, from all you mentioned and more.
But, smug self righteous self loathers like PR will roll on with their love affair of this deeply ideological government and the antics of it’s strange ministers, led by their deeply creepy P.M.
Yes Adam NZ is doing so badly internationally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_New_Zealand
Good link,
Victimisation rate – 3rd highest out of 30, with 21.5% of people aged 16 or more being victims[14][16]
Income Equality – 54th most equal, at 36.2 (Gini Index)
Unemployment rate – 48th lowest, at 4.0%.[3], which is out of date according to the reference, its 64th at 5.80% (2015)
Some notable omissions e.g. the youth suicide rate, child abuse rates.
I don’t expect you to care about those things though, so long as it’s easy to do business here.
Hi Weka, glad you liked it but you might have missed these:
Political freedom ratings – Free; political rights and civil liberties both rated 1 (the highest score available)
Press freedom – Ranked 8th for press freedom at 1.50
Literacy Rate – 10th equal at 99.0%
Unemployment rate – 48th lowest, at 4.0%
Global Peace Index – 4th at 1.221
Corruption – Least corrupt, at 9.4 on Corruption Perceptions Index
Top Country Award – New Zealand has won the honor two years in a row (2007, 2008) by Wanderlust Magazine
Good Country Index – Ranked 5th out of 195. Based on the Goodness of a nation
Better Life Index – Ranked 7th (2016) of the 34 OECD countries based on statistics and perceptions of quality of life
I didn’t miss those PR, but unlike you I think that those things should go hand in hand with the wellbeing of all people. And when they don’t, we have a moral obligation to do something about it. You on the other hand are ok with letting the other stats get worse and worse so long as you are alright jack.
Thanks, Robert. Heartfelt 🙂
For your sheer persistence and hard work in eventually eliciting an appropriate response from PR.
(And PR : thanks, eventually, for the appropriate response.)
Many have assumed without saying so, that living in a democracy is easy, you just have to vote. Robert shows with this thread the sheer hard work it will take to eventually find the honesty in our leaders. when continuing to lie finally becomes more trouble than it’s worth to them.
Ask me a straight forward question and I’ll give you a straight forward answer
There’s no discussion required. Collins has given the reason as “it’s just what some people do”
So there ya go, you can stop worrying your little head about it.
It’s just what some people do.
Puckish Rogue said:
“Ask me a straight forward question and I’ll give you a straight forward answer”
Is it fewer apples or less apples?
If Robert Guyton left the room would you say “there’s one less [deleted] in the room” or “there’s one fewer [deleted] in the room”?
[Skirting with a short sharp ban there ] – Bill
yes
Yes it is an honest statement from a dishonest and greedy person and this is exactly the type of politics practiced by Trump and the National party, nasty and divisive and I note he has lots of support here in NZ why because we have lots of nasty divisive and selfish people here.
A perfect description of our current rulers.
“A poverty of ideas, a poverty of government responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
In one word.
Neo-liberalism.
It’s a great description of herself and the rest of National as well.
Don’t the right love to strut about wearing their lack of compassion as a badge of honour. They are so proud of it.
They do indeed – and they are admired by the poor souls who want “hard rulers”. These misguided individuals seem to think that the more you flog someone, the better a person they will become.
Abuse one child, jail.
Abuse one hundred and fifty thousand, Knighthood.
No wonder why National bought back feudal honours.
+ 1
+1
the message resonates with rednecks, racists,, posh immigrants, and “respectable” upper middle class professionals who prefer to shit on the poor than admit there is anything wrong with 100% pure NZ
I have the most contempt for upper middle class professionals.
They bs about all their values, but when push comes to shove, the trip to Vietnam, the house refurbishment or the flash European car must be protected.
Jim Mora and others of his ilk come to mind.
The National Govt is responsible for about half the Kiwi kids in poverty. Let’s say 150,000.
The Labour Govt is responsible for the other half of Kiwi kids in poverty. Let’s say about 150,000. These are the kids in poverty that National inherited from Labour.
Total 300,000 Kiwi kids living in poverty.
How does that work? Its been over 8 years since Labour Govt!
Good point – half of Labour’s children in poverty would be adults now…
It was a very stupid comment from CV despite his time warp – the Labour Govt proactively worked towards reducing poverty, the Nats won’t even acknowledge poverty exists.
“the Labour Govt proactively worked towards reducing poverty, the Nats won’t even acknowledge poverty exists.”
When it comes to benefits and social welfare National and Labour have been a tag-team since the 1990s. Each has continued to decimate the benefit system from where the previous government left off, then hands the baton back when it’s the other’s turn.
While both Labour and National have contributed equally, it’s Labour that should’ve known better because by taking that stance they’ve helped National move things along a lot quicker and a lot further to where they are now. What’s really concerning is that there’s absolutely no indication that things will be different if Labour just happens to be part of a government next year.
Thanks for the classic example of false equivalence and conflation of “poverty” with “benefits”.
Benefits are the lowest common denominator when it comes to poverty. If you don’t get that right then you’ll get nothing right.
Or would you prefer to continue to ignore the very poorest of the poor, even in discussions about poverty?
No I wouldn’t.
But focusing on benefits ignores the fact that when eople do what toriessay they’re supposedto do and get a job, they can still be very poor. And not every poor person qualifies for a benefit. So beneficiary numbers or benefit amounts do not equate to “poverty”.
Besides, your claim “Labour and National have contributed equally” is bullshit either way you count it.
“Besides, your claim “Labour and National have contributed equally” is bullshit either way you count it.”
Your belief here is typical of the left’s head in the sand approach to what Labour did to benefits.
Well said +1 on your comments McFlock.
Lol that’s rich coming from you Chris.
Never said Labour was perfect, but facts accuse you of false equivalence.
Touche’ McFlock
@Loftie – are you saying I’ve got my head in the sand when it comes to what the Fifth Labour government did to benefits? FFS, you’re the one who needed links to be convinced that Labour’s war-on-the-poor legislation even existed, and to *prove* Labour voted with the government on anti-beneficiary legislation in 2014. Fuckwit.
@ McFlock – that graph doesn’t address my comment. It doesn’t reflect what the nats and Labour put on the statute books. There are all sorts of variables that affect that information (which includes a spike during the Clark years, I might add). I’m not saying it’s wrong or that it’s irrelevant, just that it doesn’t address what I said, which was when it comes to benefits Labour and the nats have acted as a tag team since 1991.
Yes it does, because you conflated “benefits” with “poverty”.
no, it reflects the outcomes of those legislative changes, alongside policy changes that might have been purely regulatory.
No, it includes a slight increase between the 1998 and the 2001 datapoints. It is not interval data.
And focusing on “benefits” is focusing on only half of the topic you initially replied to, which is poverty. The working poor need to be remembered, because the main tory myth is that work gets you out of poverty. For 40-odd percent of poor people, it doesn’t.
+1 McFlock
If anything you are the fuckwit Chris, Nat fan troll.
comment of the day KJT.
From Open Mike – was aom referring to the topic of this post. If so, I think it’s worth repeating here.
aom 9
13 October 2016 at 8:59 am
Kim Hill is a breath of fresh air on RNZ’s Morning Report. This morning’s treasure was the interview with Judith Collins. Kim started by handing the Minister a shovel, then passed over replacements ones as Collins dug herself ever more deeply into the hole of her own making. The coup was letting the Minister ventilate non-stop at length then advising listeners where Judith Collins’ credibility could be checked.
Basic journalism at work, kim’s always worked to a standard the rest of the jonolists wouldn’t have a clue about.
e.g. JC says that people abuse their children because they were themselves abused. They become ‘bad parents’. KH asks where this intergenerational abuse comes from, what does JC attribute it to, where did it start? JC, and this is a quote (after a pause where she has to think about it)
“to put it in a nutshell, that’s – what – some – people – do…”
Thanks Kim, now we know that the Minister of Police thinks some people behave badly because they just do.
Which makes sense you know. If some people just behave badly, you have to put them in prison, and may as well make some money out of it at the same time.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201819787/police-minister-says-poverty-comments-takern-out-of-context
edit, lolz, at the end KH says they will put the original speech transcript on the RNZ website so people can do a reality check as JC suggests.
Collins doubled down and claimed no link between crime and poverty at one stage in that interview. Unfit to be Police Minister with that degree of stupidity.
Have to wonder what her parents make of how she’s turned out..
Yep,
“I reject fully, and will always reject any links between any form of poverty in NZ and crime.”
Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe her.
Being poor does not make you a criminal. No one can make you a criminal without your consent.
Being poor is not an excuse for being a criminal.
Judith Collins’s comments resonate with the public because they are true. The posters here just cannot accept reality.
All those academics who devote themselves to studying crime or poverty must be wrong, eh. Thank goodness for Saint Judy the benificent. We are truly blessed.
And for Professor Fisiani, with his Masters in Knowing more than experts.
“No one can make you a criminal without your consent.”
what BS….
where do you even get this stuff from ?
No links between poverty and crime, you claim, fisiani. Well, no, you didn’t echo Collins’ claim, you made up one of your own, “Being poor does not make you a criminal”. Collins “rejects fully any links between any form of poverty and crime” if weka’s quote is accurate. In fact, her words don’t make sense. She should have said that she rejects that there are any causal links but hey, that’s how politicians speak when they don’t want to be pinned by their words, that is, accountable for their claims. In any case, the claim is wrong however one looks at it and I say one, because saying “you” would be wrong, as you seem unable to recognise the difference between truth and lies.
She was all over the place. At the start she says “I do not blame poverty on criminality”.
Which is darkly funny, because I’m sure she didn’t meant to say that, but given National and herself behave like criminals I think we can also categorically say that criminality in NZ is a primary cause of poverty.
Being poor does not make you a criminal. No one can make you a criminal without your consent.
Being poor is not an excuse for being a criminal.
Judith Collins’s comments resonate with the public because they are true. The posters here just cannot accept reality.
For the people with low emotional and social intelligence who believe such things, we can always look at this from a public health perspective. Instead of looking at who to blame (e.g. ‘excuse’) we can look at research which shows links. We can then respond with public health initiatives for the good of society e.g. if we reduce poverty and we see a reduction in crime, that benefits the good people in society not just the bad ones.
Not sure what we would do about the emotionally/socially stupid people though.
Governments can pass laws that make previously law abiding citizens criminals. Members of the Resistance in Germany were made criminals without their consent by the Nazi Government, as were citizens affected by the Nuremberg laws.
Yes – I liked this acknowledgement from JC:
“There is enough for every one. All they have to do is ask” or words to that effect.
Good to hear that Judith – problem is you and you friends have all the wealth – so can the poor have some of it please?
Well according to radio New Zealand, research shows just the opposite. But when has research ever engaged a right-wing politician? Or any politician for that matter. Their general attitude towards research is “I want to do such and such, find me some research that supports it.”
“I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
I see a poverty of just out and out intelligence on the part of all of society. We go out of our way to be ignorant of the facts.
The information is out there for those with half a brain, if you have enough smarts to fuck, you have enough smarts to understand we are fucked 😉
….. Ho hum …. The last time the environment was at 400 ppm CO2 and 2 ppm CH4 there were no children on the planet, simply because if they could have been born they would have lasted only days in the environment that would have existed back then.
Once the ice and low temperature oceans are gone 95+% of all current life will also be gone, humans are going to be well and truly gone before it gets to that point, With something like 3 years survival if/when the bees go for one thing.
The last human generation could be 10 years old now, and that is if we are lucky,every child is being born into poverty now, poverty of clean air, water, food and security, and EVERY new parent doesn’t give a fuck, if they did, simply they would not be parents.
I’m guessing the penny should drop within the next 5 years at best (ignoring ww3) the pregnant will be look upon as fools, and the newborn with pity (which I do now).
If a mother had true love for their children they wouldn’t have them, birth is ego driven bullshit.
The days of “Little House on the Prairie’ and “Good night John Boy” are over folks, it’s 22After.com / The Road for all of us
http://www.guymcpherson.com as just one example, this should be compulsory reading for prospective parents, but no … like I said breeding is ego driven BS and parents just do not want to know. … a bit like Kiwi Savers
Collins is horrid…. yet here comments aren’t designed for those of us who are offending by her words…. rather they resonate with a lot of those who vote national – the personal responsibility mob (who are anything but when it comes to themselves)… the angry ugly mob that actively dislike poor people
as much as its great Collins is taken to task by RNZ and Kim Hill her message isn’t for us nor the RNZ audience
Another event example is the “slashing of immigration numbers” which is actually a tiny decrease for a very short time… I can see through the bullshit but many only hear and see “numbers slashed” and think good on them
its very depressing knowing it is just so hard to get facts over soundbites to many
This from Collins is certainly true:
Monetary poverty was not the only problem, she said.
“I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
This from Micky Savage is also true:
… 40% of kids living in poverty has parents who are working [so] it is clear that the causes are with wages and systems and the cost of housing…
The government can’t do much about shit parents, which is of course why Collins prefers to dwell on that particular cause of poverty. However, the government could do a lot about low wages, poor working conditions and skyrocketing housing costs, and in theory has a responsibility to do something about those things – which is of course why Collins doesn’t mention them. As Robert Guyton points out above, there’s a big difference between “effective” politics and “good” politics.
Why can’t the government do anything about shit parents?
if you’re receiving the DPB or WFF, part of the requirement should be that you have to do compulsory courses on budgeting and parenting.
the govt has very little interest or input into how the rich raise their children….
It is only concerned with labelling the poor as shit parents
You don’t think it would help the less well off if they did budgeting and parenting courses.?
This is not to say all poor people are shit parents who don’t know how to raise their kids, but there are certainly some dud ones that could probably do with some guidance and attitude adjustments.
The only way to catch the bad ones and be fair is to put every one under the spotlight,
” attitude adjustments.”
gulag you say ?
Can’t. They are stripping funding for budgeting services.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/305818/budgeting-service-funding-to-be-slashed
What has this government done about your shit parents BM?
Awful argument ‘ant it?
Why can’t the government do anything about shit parents?
Many reasons. It’s not as simple as “OK, so you have fetal alcohol syndrome, you never bonded with any parent and you were raised in an environment of neglect, violence and verbal/psychological abuse, but no excuses – after undergoing these courses you’ll be an excellent parent or we’ll cut off your benefit.” That can’t and won’t work for obvious reasons. Or, for the ones who are shit parents because they just don’t give a shit, how do you make someone give a shit? Most of them don’t give a shit because life’s already thrown at them way worse things than anything the government might do to them.
I can envisage the government doing something about shit parents in the sense of getting them before they’re parents and making sure they’re well equipped with contraception, training in what it’s for, and compelling reasons to believe causing a pregnancy will have bad consequences for them, but that’s a political minefield and likely to have only limited success. Much better to concentrate on things that actually are the government’s responsibility.
“The government can’t do much about shit parents,”
Yes and no. If part of that cohort are bad parents because of intergenerational abuse, and there is a link between that and poverty (which doesn’t meant that all intergenerational abuse is caused by poverty), then relieving poverty gives individuals and families more chance to get out of that cycle.
This from Collins is certainly true:
Monetary poverty was not the only problem, she said.
“I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring.”
Straight out psychological projection from Collins. National run an intentional abusive welfare system that includes all those things she names (except maybe the ideas, they have plenty of ideas they’re just shit ones that don’t work).
It probably is true that fixing the things they can fix (and are actually responsible for fixing, not that you’d ever know it from listening to them) would lower the number of shit parents over the long term. It’s of limited effect, though – I grew up at a time of full employment and a generous welfare system, and there were plenty of wasters and munters having kids and turning them into future wasters and munters back then too.
AFAIK we still had poverty in the 1970s, but there has been an increase and I would say that compounds problems exponentially.
No-one is saying poverty is the only factor, so we /the govt can look at multiple factors for crime, and then see how poverty exacerbates that. I’d make a connection with neoliberalism too. Tell enough people to be selfish and you create more of a sense of entitlement to be selfish e.g. steal from people.
The Government can do things to help bad parents and make them better parents. But they are opposed to doing constructive things.
The current system throws people off benefits and forces people into work.
The current system forcibly takes children off their parents.
The current system doesn’t rehabilitate parents who get into trouble with the law.
The current system has stripped away funding for many support services.
The current system reinforces shit wages and devalues employees.
The current system has forced people from their homes.
The current system doesn’t look at the problems parents have holistically.
excuses, excuses , why must there be a system to be a good parent ? Just be a bloody good parent , end of story
That’s a nice Utopian fantasy you have there. Facts are not excuses.
QFT
At 3 now.
This was a doozy though and made me laugh.
The opposition lead by Winston Peters, and exploding crime stats, forced Key into this – Collins had nothing to do with it.
Also theres an election coming up
Yep. Further evidence this is a reactionary government which relies on the opposition to point the way.
Also politically smart, next year will be even better with big surpluses increasing social spending and investment , not tax cuts from the centre left national government. 4 more years muttonbird I am afraid
From that you’d have to say it’s a very powerful opposition to have dragged the government that far left.
I agree – the opposition have done a good job by getting some victories for New Zealanders in the form of slowly improving protections for workers and increasing housing standards but there’s still much to be done.
I am afraid for the weak, the poor and the vulnerable if this wretched government and its selfish, mean-spirited and corrupt ministers get re-elected.
Comical.
She is a creep and i dont understand why the papakura people keep voting her in . Neverddone much to help the underpriveliged in our area.
It’s the wealthier people on the west side of the motorway, and karaka, and in the rural areas, that keep voting for her. Not those who are underprivileged.
A thorough fisking of the Minister’s stupidity: http://morganfoundation.org.nz/judith-collins-not-crushing-pc-brigade-just-mainly-wrong/
It’s a confession of incompetence really.
The neo-lib line is that they can create a ‘rising tide that lifts all boats’.
But they have not and cannot – so they blame the people they have failed.
For shame Judith, you vicious and brutish lout. Your lies have found you out.
“The rising tide that lifts all boats”
That neolib spin line that’s now been around for over a decade. It was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now. It doesn’t take account of the very many boats that had fucking great holes in the bottom requiring the occupants to keep bailing for their lives just to tread water.
“Well” (says the neo-lib) “you’ll just have to bail faster – you have a personal responsibility. Don’t you know I’m the self made man. Why in my day, I had to walk 5 miles to school every day, and 5 miles back. Look at Paula – she pulled herself up by the bootstraps and didn’t rely on the State for her start in life. And so did John! He had a particularly hard start in life. And if Paul, and John and I can do it, so can anybody!” etc., etc.
In fact neo-lib economics can work – but like Keynesian interventions, that requires hard work and scrupulous discipline.
The Gnats are much too lazy, stupid and venal to be bothered to make their policies work.
Blaming their victims is so much easier.
It’s time MPs took a massive pay cut – they’re not taking their cushy jobs seriously.
Interestingly enough I agree with this: “It’s time MPs took a massive pay cut” I’d also support a drop of MPs down to 99
60 would be plenty.
You need bigger numbers to drive the select committees where a lot of the detailed scrutiny of Bills happens to improve them before they become law.
With respect, those processes have failed to protect many things that were important to us. Process is not, in the absence of sincerity, a guarantor of anything of value.
That my friend is fucking shit hot. Says it all doesn’t it
“At the beginning of the current term John Key warned against National MPs being arrogant and out of touch. Yesterday Judith Collins showed how arrogant and out of touch with reality was.”
Agreed, I have defended some of her actions in the past, but this is on par with saying all Muslims are terrorists. She is acting more and more arrogant and needs to take yet another turn sitting on the back benches. Let’s hope the people of Papakura don’t give her a way back next time.
She may be reacting to the opposing Boag faction being disgraced in the Auckland local elections. Poor emotional management.
Ok, for the sake of intellectual exercise, let’s say that her completely warped description of the problems facing poor parents is correct
Monetary poverty: well, give them money then. Problem solved.
Poverty of ideas: it’s called “education”. It’s called “making your service accessible”. Get out there and give them ideas, show them that other ways are possible
Poverty of parental responsibility: Well then, where’s CYF or whatever it’s called this year? Blaming a poverty of parental responsibility simply increases the governmental responsibility to those children
A poverty of love, a poverty of caring: again, if neglect or truancy is involved, where’s the government? Where’s the school? Where’s the counselling? The proportion of parents who don’t love their kids is minescule, and the number who can avoid loving their kids while avoiding neglect and abuse is even fewer. And generally has nothing to do with monetary poverty, so wtf is it even being mentioned?
All she’s done is listed her government’s failings, not its excuses.
CYFS has been de-scoped to be a “ministry of vulnerable children” so I guess they are no longer interested in helping parents / families
It would be nice if public services could provide the public with services that help all of us to live fulfilling, productive lives
Judith Collins is a far more unpleasant version of THIS WOMAN…
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/keep-calm-and-let-them-eat-cake-44.jpg
Mora and the Panel ran out of time to discuss the issue.
Jim’s Tory leanings meant it was a topic worth dodging.
Much better to talk about the usual frippery.
I heard that, Paul. I was impressed by the Panelist James Elliott, who eloquently summed up this nasty little episode. Judith Collins, he said, is projecting.
The other Panelist, Lisa Scott, said something anodyne and not particularly intelligent. Jim Mora, in the same segment, actually stated, without any sign that he knew even slightly what he was talking about, that the notorious Three Strikes Law is not usually applied unfairly in the United States.
I don’t think his comments are mere frippery; I think he is not just complacent and thoughtless but deeply nasty, and irresponsible in his statements. He treated Collins’s ruthless rhetoric as though it deserved serious consideration instead of rejection; when challenged on this behaviour in the past, he has always waved away objectors—and there are many—by saying he’s playing the devil’s advocate.
Missed that.
What did he say?
Keep watching, my friend—-there’s a transcript on the way!
Thank you.
I really enjoy your transcripts.
Lisa Scott comes across as a dopey version of Jesse Mulligan.
Indeed. We’ve encountered her in the past, unfortunately….
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-14062013/#comment-648511
A giggling ninny.
Her victims mostly don’t vote.
Her supporters do.
She’s safe, tragically.
Michael O’Brien nails it.
‘If we’re serious about tackling crime, we need to tackle poverty’
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/315600/'if-we're-serious-about-tackling-crime,-we-need-to-tackle-poverty‘
She is so concerned about this and other issues in her electorate that immediately after the last election she moved even further away from it to Herne Bay I believe. Very reminiscent of Marie Antoinette in her behaviour. “Let them eat cake”.