Nat minister: we don’t want success for other people

Written By: - Date published: 1:00 pm, October 17th, 2011 - 23 comments
Categories: same old national - Tags:

Which National Cabinet Minister said to Allan Peachey “You want success for other people. You’re a very enriching person whereas the rest of us have all come from backgrounds where we look after ourselves”? It’s a pretty revealing quote. National’s ministers aren’t about the greater good. They’re in it for their own glory.

Peachey helpfully narrowed down the list. She’s female. She’s a Cabinet Minister. She was elected in 2005.

By my count, that leaves only Kate Wilkinson and Paula Bennett.

Reckon it was Bennett. Wilkinson doesn’t strike me as the reflective type. Bennett though is cunning and self-interested as a weasel. After all, she started off playing at being a leftie but went Tory when she saw an easy, um, route to advancement via McCully.

Good to know that under all her fake caring bullshit she knows what herself and her National colleagues are really all about.

23 comments on “Nat minister: we don’t want success for other people ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    17 October 2011 at 2:38 pm

    I thought Bennett was elected in 2008 ?

    So that does leave it down to Wilkinson.

    • logie97 1.1
      17 October 2011 at 2:42 pm

      She was an example one of the few disadvantages of MMP. She won the Waitakere electorate in 2008 but made her name in the previous parliament attacking the 20 hour early childhood policy

    • P.B. 1.2
      17 October 2011 at 10:06 pm

      In the 2005 general election Bennett stood – unsuccessfully – as the National Party’s candidate for the Waitakere seat. She nevertheless entered Parliament as a list MP, ranked 45th on the National Party list.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Bennett

  2. JJ 2
    17 October 2011 at 2:45 pm

    In order to become a top politician you are ultimately going to have to be ruthless about pushing your own career forward. I think that is what the quote is in reference too.

  3. randal 3
    17 October 2011 at 3:01 pm

    if that is the case jj then what exactly is she in parliamanent for?
    her career or the greater good?
    if it is her own career then she better get to work because the country is getting ready to throw them and her out on nov 26.

    • kriswgtn 3.1
      17 October 2011 at 3:05 pm

      she gonna go bak on dpb 😛

      “she better get to work because the country is getting ready to throw them and her out on nov 26.
      heh

    • JJ 3.2
      17 October 2011 at 3:15 pm

      Randal, I think all politicians care about their careers and this is not necessarily incompatible with a desire to work for the greater good. Every politician is going to have their own ideas about the directions that society and their party ought to take for the sake of the greater good. Indeed this self-belief is no doubt a big motivator in deciding to become a politician, after all if you don’t passionately believe in yourself then someone else may as well be in parliament instead of you.

    • queenstfarmer 3.3
      17 October 2011 at 3:22 pm

      the country is getting ready to throw them and her out on nov 26

      I won’t pretend to know who will be the next Govt, but given that Bennett is #14 on the party list, you are clearly wrong on her not making it back to Parliament. Whether she is an electorate MP or not is the only question in that regard.

  4. felix 4
    17 October 2011 at 3:18 pm

    How dare you mention Peachey!!!??? Don’t you know he has cancer!???!!!!

    Signed,

    Disgusted of Kiwiblog.

    p.s. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed that without his hair he looks a LOT like The Great Beast 666 Aleister Crowley.

  5. aerobubble 5
    17 October 2011 at 3:24 pm

    The idea that any MP let alone a minister honestly thinks that personal glory comes
    only at the expense of the common good, well is just ludicrous. What they mean is
    are you a member of their tribe or not. When petrol flowed cheap, the losers thought
    they had made it good as they seemed to be able to pay their debts off, so loaded
    up on even more debt. Sad fact of life though, the wealth they thought they had
    accured to pay down their debt was bubble market money, and over priced share
    prices based on infinity growth forever projections. Now the losers, the follower
    blindly in inane neo-liberal myths, that they were standing on their own, their
    wealth came from their personal glory, is bunk. So much bunk, its flawed
    in its premise, its delivery, its assumptions, is like some idiot gets up and
    holds a great big sign above themselves with the words writ large, moron and
    an arrow pointed at their heads. National is a party of followers whose God
    has found to be anything but a God.

    Sure don’t get me wrong personal glory good, common good good, but they
    have to pretty damn stupid to think there was no profit in helpiing the common
    good along.

  6. queenstfarmer 6
    17 October 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Zetetic, if in your world telling someone “you want success for other people” logically implies “and therefore we don’t want success for other people”, I suggest beginner’s classes in logic and English.

    • Lanthanide 6.1
      17 October 2011 at 4:05 pm

      Here’s the full quote from the article. I’m not sure why Zetetic didn’t include the whole thing because it puts it in context much better:

      Mr Peachey also said a comment by one of his colleagues who was also elected in 2005 and was now “doing well” as a cabinet minister had caused him to consider his role as a politician.

      “She said to me: “You’re different from the rest of us. You have an empowering nature about you. You want success for other people. You’re a very enriching person whereas the rest of us have all come from backgrounds where we look after ourselves, you’re not like that.”.”

  7. Rosemary 7
    17 October 2011 at 3:45 pm

    An exceptionally nasty piece of work is our Paula. Models herself on Jenny Shipley, has adopted Rankin’s psuedo-compassion and has very little going on upstairs – the most dangerous concoction you can have in a social welfare minister. She’s displayed her lack of intelligence in every video of herself she’s uploaded onto youtube, but her handling of the disclosure of the beneficiary’s personal information case and the subsequent complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal are the most telling. Just plain dumb. I hope Sue Bradford rolls her out on her tummy.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      17 October 2011 at 4:05 pm

      Agree with you part way Rosemary but …
       
      The only person with a chance of dethroning Paula is Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni.  I just hope that Sue Bradford campaigns in such a way that Carmel’s chances are not lessened.

      • felix 7.1.1
        17 October 2011 at 7:25 pm

        That does seem to be Sue’s intention, to campaign for a tick for Carmel and a tick for Mana.

        Either of them could dispense with Bennett easily in a debate, but what are the chances of getting her to turn up to one?

        Gonna take some clever campaigning and a lot of co-operation.

    • Deadly_NZ 7.2
      19 October 2011 at 12:08 am

      Maybe someone should request her DPB file just to make sure she was’nt some fat slapper having kiddies on the DPB. Oh and who and where is the father??? Is he Paying his fair share??? . She pulled this shit with others, maybe time for her to see what it’s like having your private info revealed to all and sundry.

  8. Rich 8
    17 October 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Bennett and McCully bumped uglies? That’s a horrible image. Some people might be having tea, you know.

  9. ianmac 9
    17 October 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Of course everyone aspires to be self reliant I think. It should however be in tandem with generosity of spirit and a willingness to look out for others either with lending a hand or even setting financial security for those in need.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      17 October 2011 at 5:29 pm

      Of course everyone aspires to be self reliant I think.

      I think it more accurate to say that everyone aspires to be useful and wanted. Unfortunately the psychopathy of individualism has morphed that natural desire into the unnatural drive to be independent and successful no matter the cost to everyone else.

    • Anton 9.2
      17 October 2011 at 10:14 pm

      Absolutely. But where’s Labour really at on social security? It axed the special benefit, the ultimate safety net within the Social Security Act, in 2002 under urgency because they knew after the nats failed in 1995 to do it there’d be resistance enough to block it, then introduced work-testing of invalids beneficiaries and a whole bunch of other changes with the Social Security Amendment Act 2007, and there were a whole raft of other things they did, too, that you’d only expect from a Brashkey regime. When questioned if they got all this wrong or if they’ll be continuing down this track they clam up. The hypocrisy of Annette King is astounding. I just cannot trust these people at all. Just look at all the posturing around the surveillance bill, almost enough to make you think they might be coming right, but no – it’s business as usual, linking arms with the filthy foe in the way we’ve become accustomed to expect. Totally disgusting.

  10. mik e 10
    17 October 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Gareth Morgan on the nation QSF