Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot

Written By: - Date published: 10:19 am, August 11th, 2011 - 82 comments
Categories: accountability, activism, Economy, national, privatisation - Tags:

National Challenges NZ to Riot

Written by The Jackal at 9:46 PM

During a Parliamentary debate today, National MP Chris Tremain made a number of inaccurate statements that were clearly designed to limit National’s responsibility for any negative consequences due to budget cuts. What made me cringe was this statement:

“Are we seeing riots in the streets of New Zealand?”

Either Tremain was stating the obvious and therefore appearing the fool or he was making a statement that things in New Zealand aren’t bad enough to cause rioting. Both of these meanings seem incongruous to me.

It’s unacceptable that National might measure the effects of their social policies by the amount of rioting that could occur. Do we really need rioting before National sits up and gives attention to the effects of austerity? There’s a vast amount of appropriate mechanisms to measure inequality, many of which are showing National’s policies have completely failed New Zealand.

The fact there’s various different dynamics at play in New Zealand makes Tremain’s association between Kiwi’s response to Nationals budget cuts and the riots irrelevant! It also raises the question of whether such extreme violence is required before National comprehends the resentment felt by the disaffected.

Here’s the embedded video if you can stand Tremain’s awkwardness:

You might have noticed that a point of order was called and then immediately dismissed before being heard. In my opinion, this is a breach of democratic process. The reason a point of order was called was because Tremain was lying about debt management.

National effectively inherited a zero net deficit when they took office, since then they have managed to get the country in hock by $16.8 billion dollars. Here’s the relevant graph:

Crusher Collins then called rubbish to any association between inequality and the riots. Clearly National is adamant that inequality has not led to increased violence or other negative social dynamics. Instead they seem to believe crime is undertaken for no reason… What a bunch of morons!

I’m sure the British Lords were telling themselves their austerity measures were A OK prior to the recent unrest that is sweeping through Britain in a tidal wave of violence as well.

http://youtu.be/5Hk6b6UGDT4

82 comments on “Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal 1
    11 August 2011 at 10:36 am

    they would love a riot.

  2. vto 2
    11 August 2011 at 10:49 am

    ““Are we seeing riots in the streets of New Zealand?”

    Chris Tremain, you have a big future in politics shouting half-cocked distratcions like that.

    Try this one instead, fitting into the NZ context … “Are we seeing excessive suicide rates in the streets of New Zealand?”

    Answer, yes.

    ffs, I am so tired of this bunch of Nat pricks. And to think I shoved my vote in that direction last time. Silly silly me.

    • freedom 2.1
      11 August 2011 at 11:04 am

      if i may be so bold

      Big ups to vto, well admitted, welcome to the light side, woohoo for intelligence and common sense !!!
      Regardless of where on the left your vote ends up, at least you know the right are wrong

      • chris 2.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 11:45 am

        What an arrogant attitude. He said he regretted voting for National, that doesn’t mean he’ll necessarily vote left. FFS, this is why I don’t read here as much anymore, you guys have forgotten that people are both capable and entitled to make up their own minds.

        FWIW – before you call me a right wing troll – I’ve always voted for labour but find them distasteful at present, so will probably vote green, mainly because of Hughes’ performance over the Skynet bill.

        • freedom 2.1.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 3:31 pm

          there is nothing arrogant in it. I made an educated guess after watching VTO’s comments over the last few months and deduced that after ditching National, VTO is hardly going to throw their vote under the crumbling ivory towers of Act. Plus a bit of positive re-enforcement never does any harm when trying to promote a voter’s persuasion away from the right.

      • vto 2.1.2
        11 August 2011 at 2:29 pm

        Well cheers mr freedom. The problem is the pricks as much as the policies. I generally find myself ranting about whoever is in power at the time as they all seem to follow a well worn path of half-truths etc. But yep I think too that most of the policies of the right are not being proved too well these days. Global financial meltdown, rioting on the streets, and deregulation leading to $20billion of leaking homes, 29 dead men at Pike River, and financial system collapse. The philosophy of the right of tiny government and hands off has proved itself not up to the task with the leaky homes and Pike River in particular.

    • travellerev 2.2
      11 August 2011 at 11:49 am

      Welcome back VTO, now start educating others: Here are a few flyers:

      About John Key’s career

      About John Key and the subprime crisis

      About the Federal Reserve, Usury and Fractional Banking

  3. Pete George 3
    11 August 2011 at 11:15 am

    I can’t find where “Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot”. You don’t seem to be supporting the headline in the post. Can you please point out where they said that?

    • Blighty 3.1
      11 August 2011 at 12:11 pm

      Tremain’s argument is that things can’t be bad here or we would be seeing rioting. It naturally follows that if you want National to think there’s a problem, rioting is the only thing that will get their attention.

      Although, to be fair, 50,000 people protesting down Queen St was enough to get them to back down on schedule 4 mining. But, then, any demonstration is just a show of potential power.

      • Joe Bloggs 3.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 12:47 pm

        I can’t see where National endorse the use of riots as a medium for discussing the effects of social policy.

        And I can’t find any communications from National that says rioting is the only thing that will get their attention.

        Can you please point out where National has said this?

        • crashcart 3.1.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 1:16 pm

          It is implied in the statement that thing can’t be bad because wew have no rioting. Therefore to pull their heads out of the sand about how bad things are for those on low and middle incomes you need to have a riot. By Tremains own words this would let him know that things are bad.

        • jackal 3.1.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 1:35 pm

          When Tremain says “Are we seeing riots in the streets of New Zealand?” It implies that he does not think things here in New Zealand are bad enough to cause riots, and therefore National can continue to ignore inequality. His statement begs the question, does it require such an event before National comprehends the damage their policies are causing?

          Like the rest of his cohorts, Tremain is ignoring many social indicators that show things are getting worse under National. Instead of acknowledging that, National prefers to ignore and obfuscate, because to acknowledge the dynamic means they will have to change their policy direction. I’m presuming the public majority does not like inequality and that our government is representative.

          You’re correct that National has not openly stated that unless there’s rioting, they will not recognize inequality, but it is strongly implied in Chris Tremain’s speech as well as Crusher Collin’s statement. She said there’s no link at all between inequality and the riots in Britain. If there’s no link between inequality and violence, what is the motivation? I’ve heard a lot about the rioters stealing high end gizmos, but then they tried to sell them. Looting is a knock on effect and not the root cause of the social disintegration.

          A few of National’s decisions for you to ponder Joe Boggs… Purchasing expensive riot equipment, increasing funding and powers for police, removing laws that protect the public, changes to the justice system, building more jails, a lock em up and throw away the key mentality, creating more unemployed, high youth unemployment, beneficiary bashing, increasing the cost of living, social inequality and reducing funding for woman’s refuges are all measures that endorse rioting in my opinion.

          • KJT 3.1.1.2.1
            11 August 2011 at 1:47 pm

            National are obviously expecting riots when the full effect of their policies becomes apparent.

            “You can fool some of the people some of the time……………”.

          • Pete George 3.1.1.2.2
            11 August 2011 at 1:59 pm

            “National are obviously expecting riots when the full effect of their policies becomes apparent” is not quite as bad as “if you don’t like it, riot”.

            Both statements are obviously backed by nothing more than twisted asumptions.

          • Peter Rabbit 3.1.1.2.3
            11 August 2011 at 2:46 pm

            Jackal your reasoning behind the updated riot gear purchase is as crazy as the suggestion that the reason the previous Government purchased the LAV’s was that despite having vastly cheaper options and better choices (considering the then theaters of options that we were engaged in), they were ideally suited for a urban suppression role which the then Government feared.

            And that the reason the then Government took such a hard line stance against the recent Fijian coup in comparison to previous Fijian Coups was that there were growing concerns of a similar coup here from our arm forces due to the growing number of anti democratic like the Electoral Finance Bill they were trying to force through.

            The simple reality is that the last significant purchase of Riot equipment was during and post the 81 Tour. Since that time most has deteriorated (the strength of the riot shields and helmet visors from that era in particular deteriorates with long exposure to sun) and while there have been some recent purchases to ensure that there was sufficient equipment levels for CHOGM the most part the the equipment the officers had available was obsolete.

            From the articles photo though it looks like the cops are getting some good protective gear which we should all be happy with considering the job we expect them to do. Best of all it appears that they are returning to the metal PR-24 Batons vs the plastics ones that use to frequently break if you tried to use to block something like with them while I’ve known cops to use metal ones to safely block machete or baseball bat swings with them.

          • Joe Bloggs 3.1.1.2.4
            11 August 2011 at 4:08 pm

            If there’s no link between inequality and violence, what is the motivation?

            I really don’t know what motivates someone to kill three men in a hit-and-run drive as they took to the streets to defend shops from looting; or what motivates a 47 year old chef to destroy a restaurant; or what motivates a teacher to loot; or what motivates looters to rob an injured man; or what motivates 10 and 11 year-olds to kick in windows to steal from the people who support their communities…

            … but blaming these actions on inequality is facile, as is the statement “Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot” – both are rather silly and shallow comments.

            • jackal 3.1.1.2.4.1
              11 August 2011 at 6:55 pm

              I’m not talking about individual cases Joe Bloggs. If it isn’t grinding poverty, then please do tell… I’m all ears? Here’s an article on the matter worth reading:

              http://greenvoices.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/london-riots-inequality-in-action/

              • Joe Bloggs …
                11 August 2011 at 9:33 pm

                duly noted – now back to reality. Where’s the grinding poverty in a well-paid teacher who loots an electronics shop? Every rioter and every looter is an individual with their own motives.

                The fact that arrested rioters include people with good jobs and a wide range of ages demonstrates that there’s much more complexity to those motives than simple “inequality”.

                Some might be driven by grinding poverty as you put it, but there’s also a hell of a lot of recreational violence.

                And some of it is simple amoral thuggery…

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  11 August 2011 at 9:43 pm

                  take it up with Chris Tremain and the other Nats that were agreeing with him. he was reckoning that the riots were all down to how shit their government is.

                  • Joe Bloggs …
                    12 August 2011 at 8:28 am

                    your comments are noted – but irrelevant to the discussion between Jackal and myself.

                    So seeing you have a view on this – can you explain why so many of the supposed grindingly poor who have appeared in court on charges of rioting or looting have been revealed as professional burglars, or that they include army recruits, social workers, teacher aids, an Olympic ambassador…

                    It’s tempting to blame this on social inequality and grinding poverty but isn’t that a superficial response?

                    Could it be that a lot of these people just got “caught up in the thrill”? Or that many of them are just unprincipled thugs who get their rocks off by brutalising others?

                    • felix …
                      12 August 2011 at 8:38 am

                      “Could it be that a lot of these people just got “caught up in the thrill”? Or that many of them are just unprincipled thugs who get their rocks off by brutalising others?”

                      Some, undoubtably.

                      All after the fact though Joe.

                      Unless you’re saying that the cause of the riots is that people just thought it would be a laugh to express some violence and thuggery, all at the same time.

                      In which case you’re pointing to a very sick society indeed.

                    • Pete George …
                      12 August 2011 at 9:16 am

                      Unless you’re saying that the cause of the riots is that people just thought it would be a laugh to express some violence and thuggery, all at the same time.

                      In which case you’re pointing to a very sick society indeed.

                      Like the student riots in Dunedin? That sort of sickness lurks in any society looking for an excuse to vomit on their own. Encouraged by media publicity. Fueled by too much easy money from the state?

                    • felix …
                      12 August 2011 at 11:21 am

                      “looking for an excuse to vomit on their own”

                      And the excuse?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      12 August 2011 at 7:20 pm

                      can you explain why so many of the supposed grindingly poor who have appeared in court on charges of rioting or looting have been revealed as professional burglars, or that they include army recruits, social workers, teacher aids, an Olympic ambassador

                      You’ll need to define ‘so many’. I’ve seen the same examples touted everywhere by people with strawmen to kill, but they don’t seem to say what percentage of the people up in front of the courts are unemployed/’students’ or engaged in dead end jobs with little prospects.

                      There was a list I saw, at the Independent I think it was, and I’m sure you’d be shocked to learn that yeah, the peeps with good jobs stand out like nice fresh shiny cherries, and duly picked, I must say.

                      The argument seems to be:

                      Ooh look, here’s the school teacher. So much for the lefty contention that every single one of these people is poor, and unemployed, and uneducated, and thus collapses the lefty theory that the riots are only about poverty and nothing else.

                      The first order of business would be to show me who is making the argument that it is purely and simply about poverty and that all the rioters will be dirt poor little shoeless urchins.

                      I’ll gladly call them a fucking idiot.

                      Not as much of an idiot as the exemplary type of idiot who claim that there is nothing political to see here because umm looters gonna loot. Or whatever the claim is that it’s just criminality and nothing more. That’s some platonic form fucking idiocy right there.

                      As for what I think. Well it’s some complicated shit. I’d start by asking why the fuck so many people for so many days did this. Those are two important variables.

                      I wouldn’t expect to get any easy answer, but where I’d be looking would be at what has gone wrong such that they no longer felt bound by the social contract. Why did they call that off for a spell, in the way that they did, at the time that the did, for as long as they did/

                      So sorry, no answer, but a better focussed question at least. Or at least, I think so.

  4. KJT 4
    11 August 2011 at 11:18 am

    Looks exactly like the graphs of numbers on benefits, numbers of children in poverty, growth in inequality and the opposite of the graph on economic growth.

  5. McFlock 5
    11 August 2011 at 11:58 am

    Personally, I prefer the more democratic “if something gets up your nose, picket” (ht: Giles cartoon from the seventies)

  6. Rijab 6
    11 August 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Darcus Howe didn’t deserve the treatment he received in that interview. The first time I watched him speak it really hit me deep … I’m not sure how anyone else reacts when they watch such things but sometimes I write … I thought some people on here might appreciate a little verse I wrote in those first moments after seeing such unfair and disgusting disrespect for an elderly man.

    Show Some Respect

    You just sound idiotic, he cried in desperate vain.
    She cut his mic, no voice for you old man insane.
    Why is democracy so weak?
    We try to wander down our street, free from pain,
    Yet we’re told we can’t even stop to speak.
    Instead, they say we’re just dangerous teens,
    and we’re shunted from their lovely screens.
    We’re simply one of their latest treats,
    devoured by all those voyeurs’, sipping their vino.
    People who never stop believing in their own delusional feats,
    buying their imported life from the encroaching sino.
    The world is changing.
    That’s why we’re choosing to be seen,
    it’s simply an attempt to be engaging.

    • Vicky32 6.1
      11 August 2011 at 6:16 pm

      Well done, Rijab! 🙂

    • The Voice of Reason 6.2
      11 August 2011 at 7:03 pm

      Good poem, Rijab! Don’t know if you know the British poet Linton Kwesi Johnson, but he wrote one for Darcus Howe too and later recorded it in a reggae stylee as Man Free (for Darcus Howe) back in the eighties. Can’t find any video, but it’s worth tracking down.
       
      Did find this though: LKJ reading a poem about the New Cross murders, followed by Howe and LKJ talking about Brixton and the ’81 riots.
       
       

      • Rijab 6.2.1
        12 August 2011 at 12:36 am

        Thanks!

        I didn’t know LKJ wrote one, so I’m heading to google after this stop! Thanks for that link too, quality footage and insightful analysis can be hard to come by.

  7. weka 7
    11 August 2011 at 12:36 pm

    The last riot we had in NZ was a bunch of overprivileged Otago Uni students who got annoyed at not being allowed to burn their couches in the streets.
     
    I despair sometimes.

  8. Afewknowthetruth 8
    11 August 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Repeating what Kennedy said: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

    And Derrick Jensen, End Game

    Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time

  9. william 9
    11 August 2011 at 3:06 pm

    This is rather a silly post…. it is a wrong to assert Tremain said this and a long bow to twist his words in that way….. he is saying that NZers are relatively content with the way things are. That’s all.

    I also note your comment that: “You might have noticed that a point of order was called and then immediately dismissed before being heard. In my opinion, this is a breach of democratic process.”

    Again, rather a silly comment in that the democratic process was at work and the point of order was dismissed by the democratically elected/appointed Speaker. …… just because you don’t like or disagree with something doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t have the decision-making authority over you. It is rather arrogant to suggest otherwise ….. in my opinion..

    • freedom 9.1
      11 August 2011 at 3:50 pm

      I am no Parliamentary expert William, hell i barely understand the process most days and wonder why most of the ceremony occurs. It never seems to deliver what it was designed to implement. Take objections of presenting documentation for a prime example. The endless ‘Under Urgency’ that National have forced so many poor bills through, but the Government has abused democratic process so often i wonder if they just use the rules of the house to prop open the door for Gerry to squeeze through. Just last week Smith stood still and silent as democratic process was again thrown out the window when The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill was passed without returning to select committee. That time at least the Greens stood up, said no and asked that the failure to follow process be noted, which i believe was done. ACT and Chris Carter also voted against it i believe.

      (Where were their balls when CERA was on the table is still a big question, but at least they are trying)

    • tsmithfield 9.2
      11 August 2011 at 4:28 pm

      And points of order are to do with procedural issues, not questions of fact. So the speaker was correct to rule it out of order.

  10. tsmithfield 10
    11 August 2011 at 3:15 pm

    “Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot”

    All I can say is that if I had said something that so blatantly misrepresents what actually was said, I would have been banned. But then I guess different rules apply to lefties.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      11 August 2011 at 4:47 pm

      It’s not a misrepresentation but a logical conclusion to what he did say.

      • Pete George 10.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 4:55 pm

        It’s twisted, and certainly not logical.

        What’s more, openly suggesting the idea, especially when based on nothing more than dishonesty, could be seen as approving of or even encouraging chaos.

      • Lanthanide 10.1.2
        11 August 2011 at 4:58 pm

        Yeah, I agree with Draco.

        Many many articles on this site have been written by the usual authors that are about logical conclusions drawn from things National has said or done.

        This one is perhaps creeping closer to the “would get banned for it” line than others, but I still think it’s a few steps away from crossing it.

        • Pete George 10.1.2.1
          11 August 2011 at 5:21 pm

          But that’s not a logical conclusion at all. Do you think any current MP would suggest that people riot if they disagree with policies? That’s ludicrous.

          And “the Nats” didn’t say what is depicted as a quote. It’s like posting:

          The Jackal: encourages people to riot

          • McFlock 10.1.2.1.1
            11 August 2011 at 7:12 pm

            The proposition that we are moving forward “in good shape” is farcical to anyone who isn’t in the top 90%.

            To support his assertion he cited the lack of rioting in NZ.

            The existence of rioting in NZ would therefore disprove his claim about the joys of living under Key.

            The fact thet the NACTs are blind (despite all the economic data available) to the economic shitheap NZ is becoming means that rioting is pretty much the only way to demonstrate that NZ does not smell of roses.

          • jackal 10.1.2.1.2
            11 August 2011 at 7:21 pm

            Learn to read between the lines Pete George et al.

            • Pete George 10.1.2.1.2.1
              11 August 2011 at 7:42 pm

              If you do that you can make up anything you like. Too many assumptions can be dangerous.

              • jackal …
                11 August 2011 at 9:10 pm

                You’ve not shown that my assumptions are incorrect. I would also argue that they’re based on relevant factual information and Tremain’s statements. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of deductive reasoning, particularly when it’s correct. There’s very few fascists that will truthfully tell you about their belief system.

            • higherstandard 10.1.2.1.2.2
              11 August 2011 at 7:54 pm

              Reading between the lines of your latest piece I can only conclude that you are a pig fucker.

              • McFlock …
                11 August 2011 at 8:04 pm

                Personally I’d be reluctant to examine the chain of assumptions that would imply your conclusion.

              • jackal …
                11 August 2011 at 9:16 pm

                You mean you can’t be bothered watching the video of Tremain… I can understand that McFlock.

                I did have a cop come onto me once Lowerstandard, I didn’t sleep with her though.

                • higherstandard …
                  12 August 2011 at 7:54 am

                  I forgot you haven’t been blogging long enough to be familiar with robinsod’s pigfucker classification.

                  oh and it’s very cute that you play dress up with your hand.

                • McFlock …
                  12 August 2011 at 2:12 pm

                  I was replying to HS. Jackal, personally I think that while your interptretation is not necessarily the most obvious interpretation, it’s on a lot more solid ground than the concerNACTs who helpfully suggest that Goff should be rolled asap.

  11. randal 11
    11 August 2011 at 5:26 pm

    oh weell it all makes good telly.
    when are the good guys gonna win?

  12. tsmithfield 12
    11 August 2011 at 6:41 pm

    DTB: “It’s not a misrepresentation but a logical conclusion to what he did say.”

    If that were the case then I would agree with you. However, it is not the case. It is not possible to construct a logical statement from what Tremain said that would lead to the conclusion he was challenging people to riot if they are not happy.

    Tremain’s argument (if you listen from approx 4 minutes) can basically be stated as:

    There is good governance therefore there are no riots in New Zealand.

    This is quite different to what is suggested in the title: “Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot”, which can simply be stated:

    If you don’t like the governance, then you should riot.

    This is quite different to what Tremain actually said.

    • rosy 12.1
      11 August 2011 at 7:21 pm

      hmmm so it’s more like ‘we can’t hear you saying you object, we believe that is because we have good governance’. At what level do you think they would hear? Especially at what level would they hear dissent from people that don’t have the organisational set-up for a good protest – riot level?, or some way before that? It’s much harder to riot at low population densities – the lack of protest has nothing to do with good governance. At the moment kids ‘just’ kill themselves. Easy for pollies to talk about the complex issues around that and absolve themselves of any blame in the precursors.

    • DS 12.2
      11 August 2011 at 7:38 pm

      >>>There is good governance therefore there are no riots in New Zealand.

      A proposition that may be represented as:

      If (Good Governance) THEN (No Riots)

      From which we can only infer that the following is false:

      If (Good Governance) THEN (Riots)

      However, we cannot infer anything about which of the following is valid:

      If (Bad Governance) THEN (Riots) or
      If (Bad Governance) THEN (No Riots)

      If (Bad Governance) THEN (Riots) is true, Tremain is stating that the way of demonstrating Bad Governance is to riot. If (Bad Governance) THEN (No Riots) is true, then Tremain is falsely attributing the lack of rioting in New Zealand to Good Governance.

      To put it another way: EITHER Tremain is saying “Don’t like it? Riot” OR he is taking credit for something he has no business taking credit for. Neither interpretation reflects particularly well on the National Party.

  13. felix 13
    11 August 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Oh Pete.

    Oh tsmithfield.

    How could my two favourite commenters be so obtuse?

    Tremain’s statement can easily be interpreted as “you’re not rioting, therefore you’re happy”.

    It logically follows from this that if you weren’t happy you would be rioting.

    Problem?

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      11 August 2011 at 7:57 pm

      Neither of them took logic at uni, it seems.

      • felix 13.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 8:09 pm

        Neither did I, but as a sentient humanoid it’s not too tricky 😉

        Actually there’s a hole in mine, I should have said could. Still stands though.

    • tsmithfield 13.2
      11 August 2011 at 8:11 pm

      “It logically follows from this that if you weren’t happy you would be rioting.”

      So, even by your own argument you agree that the title of the argument misrepresents what Tremain said.

      The title of the article says:

      “Nats say: if you don’t like it, riot”

      This is going a lot further than acknowledging that people sufficiently unhappy resort to rioting. Rather, according to the title, the Nats are actively encouraging people to riot if they are unhappy. This is clearly beyond the capacity to deduce logically from what Tremain said.

      • rosy 13.2.1
        11 August 2011 at 8:16 pm

        Nats are actively encouraging people to riot if they are unhappy
        They are… Tremain suggests that people aren’t unhappy with NActMp because they haven’t rioted. So if you are unhappy the solution to proving that is obvious… riot.

      • felix 13.2.2
        11 August 2011 at 8:51 pm

        “Rather, according to the title, the Nats are actively encouraging people to riot if they are unhappy.”

        Only if you don’t read real good. English is a funny old beast (the language, I mean). In the context of a headline it’s perfectly reasonable to interpret the title of the post as the following:

        “Nats say if you don’t like it, you would riot”

        Which is exactly what Tremain is saying.

        Your alternate interpretation – that it means Tremain is asking people to riot – is certainly one possible reading.

        But it’s an absurd one in the context, as a quick reading of the post tells us that argument is not being advanced by the writer at all.

  14. Pascal's bookie 14
    11 August 2011 at 8:25 pm

    He’s pretty incoherent.

    He says that the opposition aren’t members of the house for starters, (4.50) which is an interesting insight to his thought patterns.

    And yeah, he is arguing that the absence of riots is because we are ‘in a great position going forward in excellent shape’.

    There is an unstated premiss there. And because it’s unstated we can’t be sure what it is. I can see two possibilities though.

    It could be something like:

    Riots are caused by rioters’ beliefs/feelings that we are not in a ‘great position going forward in excellent shape’

    In which case he is saying that it is because NZers believe we are in a ‘great position going forward in excellent shape’ that they are not rioting.

    And that does imply that if you don’t think that, then rioting is something you should be thinking about.

    On the other hand, he might think that:

    Riots are a natural outcome of a nation that is not in a ‘great position going forward in excellent shape’.

    The important implication here is that rioters beliefs or feelings are simply not a factor. The riots are caused by the state of the nation and nothing else. That’s the only way this interpretation of the argument can work.

    Rioters are automatons, if you like, responding to to some sort of natural law of stimulus and reaction, they cannot be wrong in their ‘decision’ to riot. Their riot demonstrates the logical necessity of a riot brought about by the fact of their country not being in a ‘great position going forward in excellent shape’

    This would mean, for example, that the English rioting is directly related not to criminality or the things the tories over there have been suggesting, but solely to the ‘governance’ to use smitty’s term. That the rioters are in no way to blame, anymore than you would blame water for rolling down a hill. They are merely an indicator of the governance of the UK coalition government

    That goes far beyond anything I’d say about the UK riots.

  15. Anne 15
    11 August 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Oops… I’m referring to bookie.

  16. Jan 16
    11 August 2011 at 11:54 pm

    I’d like to introduce a meme. Whether the point being made is straight-forward, counter-intuitive, contrary or indecipherable as in this case how about “National knows best”. Slips easily off the tongue doesn’t it. National knows best whether it involves speculating about why NZ’ers are not rioting, choosing the larger untested, unaudited figure (ACC,) to balance the books, booking the profits before public assets are sold or supporting otherwise failing private schools.

    School standards tests – National knows best. Boot camps National knows best. Arming the police. National knows best. Private prisons, funding roads over public transport, “flexible” work-force. National need not learn from the evidence of history, research or overseas because National knows best. Supporting old carbon heavy industries instead of smart environmental industries. National knows best. Running NZ like a profit maximising Ltd company. National knows best. Leave recovery to the market. We know National knows best because the MSM tells us every day. Use it liberally and dripping with irony. More fun than planking,

    Sort of tangential to topic but I beg your indulgence! 😉

  17. One of the Masses 17
    12 August 2011 at 11:26 am

    What happened to the natural law that every action has a consequence?
    My wife & I have spent the last 21 years drilling that ) simple fact in to our now 21 & 18 year old son & daughter (& also the sayings “life is not fair” & “the harder I work – the luckier I get”).
    Both young adults are doing very nicely now thank you in Professional Uni degrees.
    We waited to have children (note only the two) until we could afford them (we were both then 30), & more importantly to have the ability to offer a parents most valuable gift – time.
    Mum gave up her career (it has now re-started) to give our children the very best start in life & Dad just worked harder & gave up social events to devote evenings & weekends to support homework & sport.
    Where is the accountability gone in western society,whose well intentioned idea was it to strip teachers & parents of their rights to administer discipline?
    Our generation, which had the political correctness & namby-pamby coddling of the left rammed down our throats, is responsible – & we as a welfare dependant society with little accountability for an individuals actions or life choices, will now pay the price.
    If Austerity signifies Accountability, then I am all for it – & yes I do believe in social justice.

    • travellerev 17.1
      12 August 2011 at 11:50 am

      I agree totally with you which is why I feel that the bankster financial terrorists should be hauled before the magistrate and made to pay for their wanton destruction of the Global economic collapse and I suggest we have four to a cell. Two of the marauding street cretins and two of the banking scum financial terrorists. Let them get to know each other a bit.

      Maybe, just maybe if we hold everybody accountable for their crimes from top to bottom, the bottom will have some faith in the system again. In the mean time I’m not holding my breath and mentally prepare for more uprisings, lootings and rebellion from the rabble.

      Oh, and good for you for “educating” you kids so well and doing everything right. I really hope your kids will find a good job and live happily ever after knowing that if they do everything by the book, God will reward them with all the good things in life.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.