Note to Labour: show some spine

89 comments on “Note to Labour: show some spine ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gordy 1

   26 August 2010 at 8:37 pm

   Is it any wonder when they appoint a guy as Chief of Staff who isn’t even a member of the party and in 2003 was one of the journos doing the most to stir up unnecessary fear around the Seabed & Foreshore issue?
   Guarantee this is part of his small target, me-too conservative approach. If you’ve got any doubt have a look at the 2003 early 2004 Dom Post stories.

   IrishBill: there’s no need to make personal attacks on staff. Consider yourself warned.
   • Gordy 1.1

     27 August 2010 at 6:38 pm

     Your blog, your rules so will take the warning. I’m surprised as there’s nothing personal in my comment. It is a political comment, not a personal attack. It is based on material placed in the public arena by a public figure. There is a substantive difference between making a comment about the politics of a chief of staff than a junior staff member. Where that chief of staff is a former journalist with a record of personal political views accessible surely that record should be open to examination?
     I do note that the views, values and conduct of his National Party counterpart are considered acceptable matters for substantive comment:
     http://thestandard.org.nz/the-company-they-keep/
     http://thestandard.org.nz/high-ministerial-standards/
     http://thestandard.org.nz/a-few-facts-unpin-a-lot-of-spin/

     [lprent: It is rather hard to see how you draw any similarities between your straight unsubstantiated smearing with zero supporting links with what was simply your opinion being presented as fact and what is in these 3 links.

     The first was about who Keys COS was seeing on his ‘holiday’. The second merely suggested that he should help Key keep better control on his ministers. The third simply states that the COS was involved in a process. All of them link to what the post was discussing, and pretty much discuss the COS in terms of what other people had written. They didn’t make assertions beyond the presented facts.

     I suspect you didn’t read the posts because you certainly didn’t show anything more than Keys COS was mentioned in some posts. That was particularly lazy.

     You appear to be an troll who just argued with a moderator with a completely inadequate answer. You’re banned for a month for being stupid dork who can’t present an argument, and just wasted 10 minutes of my time. ]
     • Benny 1.1.1

       31 August 2010 at 12:42 pm

       Victims think Mcvicar as “trustworthy” but perpetrators like Mcvicar groom a victims and older people (befriend or build a relationship with them) in order to establish a relationship of trust.
       Mcvicar who uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty him projecting the blame manipulator scapegoats often subtle, hard to detect ways.
       The elderly when hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story.
       Unfortunately revictimization refers to a pattern wherein the victim of abuse and/or crime has a statistically higher tendency to be victimized again.
       One way to minimize the chances of being lied to by Garth Mcvicar is to understand that his personality is that of a psychopath who are expert at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently and often in subtle ways.
     • ian 1.1.2

       2 September 2010 at 4:51 pm

       Garth Mcvicar is a pure breed Manipulator

       Its easy to explain Garth Mcvicar personality that is the king of Manipulators as explained in detail below and the characteristics and vulnerabilities of the SST victims mcvicar preys on like Rita Croskery.

       Manipulators have three main motivations:

       The need to advance their own purposes and their own gain at virtually any cost to others
       The manipulator has strong needs to attain feelings of power and superiority in relationships with others
       Manipulators want and need to feel in control – control freakery

       They have a “hidden agenda” to achieve their secret objectives.
       Manipulator refuses to admit that he has done something wrong.
       Manipulator concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors.
       Manipulator knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective.
       Manipulator having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.
       Manipulator for inappropriate behavior. Rationalization is closely related to spin.
       Manipulator asserts that behavior is not as harmful or irresponsible as someone else was suggesting, for example saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke
       Manipulator refuses to pay attention to anything that may distract from his agenda, saying things like “I don’t want to hear it”.
       Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic
       Manipulator throwing the victim onto the defensive by using veiled
       Manipulator giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses, weasel words.
       Manipulator suggests to the conscientious victim that he does not care enough, is too selfish or has it easy. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position.
       Manipulator uses sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim
       Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them
       Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.
       Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else’s behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another
       Manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation
       Manipulator self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying he is acting in a certain way for “obedience” and “service” to God or a similar authority figure.
       Manipulator uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty to him
       Manipulator tries to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or did not do something that they were accused of.
       Manipulator may put on a look of surprise or indignation. This tactic makes the victim question his or her own judgment and possibly his own sanity.
       Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending he or she does not know what you are talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to his attention.
       Manipulator is not actually angry, hejust puts on an act. He just wants what he wants and gets “angry” when denied.

       Manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities

       Naïveté – victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious and ruthless or is “in denial”

       Over-conscientiousness – victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt and see their side of things

       Low self-confidence – victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence and assertiveness, likely to go on the defensive too easily.

       Over-intellectualization – victim tries too hard to understand and believes the manipulator has some understandable reason to be hurtful.

       Emotional dependency – victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable he is to being exploited and manipulated.

       Too trusting – people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials etc. They rarely question so-called experts.

       Too altruistic – the opposite of psychopathic, too honest, too fair, too empathetic

       Too impressionable – overly seduced by charmers. For example they might vote for the phony politician who kisses babies.

       Too naïve – cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world or if there were they would not be allowed to operate.

       Too masochistic – lack of self-respect and unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.

       Too narcissistic – narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.

       Too greedy – the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.

       Too immature – has impaired judgment and believes the exaggerated advertising claims.

       Too dependent – dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something they should say no to.

       Too lonely – lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.

       Being elderly – the elderly can become fatigued and less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story.

       Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and vulnerabilities of their victim
     • paula 1.1.3

       12 September 2010 at 12:11 pm

       Garth Mcvicar is a chronic revenge drug addict.

       I do not know why the media ask Garth Mcvicar about law and order issues, he is a hell bent hate and revenge, thinks he is a judge, jury and hang man, it’s OK to kill a 15 year old graffiti writer and Mcvicar said the murderer should get home detention or set free.
       Mcvicar is an extreme radical, uses traumatised mentally disturbed victims for media exposure, reminding them over and over of the stress that causes their anxiety and pain and never allowing them to let go.
       Garth Mcvicar is a small victim lobby group that are hell bent on lynch mob tactics and no forgiveness.
       Mcvicars thoughts on crime are warped thinking, arm liquor licence retailers with guns, re introduce smacking children, corporal punishments (canning) back in schools, curfews for teenagers, compulsory army training for school leavers, death sentence and the list goes on with 1800 century backward mentality such as the right to kill 15 year old for graffiti crime.
       Garth Mcvicar runs down our judges, politicians, lawyers, police, law makers, and yet he is a sheep farmer with a hand me down farm given to him on a plate, no qualifications except the lust to form lynch mobs, admits was canned 36 times in one day at school, ( Liar )
       The word that started the Sensible Sentencing lynch mob with its first targeted offender was, string him up to a tree upside down, cut his balls off and stuff them down his throat, sew his mouth shut, then kill him slowly over three days.
       This kind of talk was used by SS Gestapo or recently in Rwanda where the murdered 800.000 people over 100 days or in Serbia where the raped and pillaged a modern society while we watched on TV.
       Revenge is a very powerful drug as it’s releases a feeling of pleasure and strength feeling of god oh mighty within, Mcvicar is a chronic revenge drug addict, addicting victims with the same drug while trying to push this drug onto the weak and vulnerable, especially the older retired people he spins to.
   • Benny 1.2

     29 August 2010 at 1:14 pm

     NZ herald paper reminder about Garth Mcvicars legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust
     David Garrett law and order

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-el ection-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1 501799&objectid=10543271

     “three strikes” law and order policy, stunned panellists and production staff on TV One’s Eye To Eye with behaviour described as “obnoxious” and “unbelievably unprofessional”.
     Sources said Garrett turned up drunk and offended production staff when the Willie Jackson-fronted show was recorded at TVNZ studios in June.
     “He was so extreme, I couldn’t believe it,” said one. “He was in the green room and he was so drunk. Another said: “He disgraced himself. The show was a complete disaster”.
     One studio staffer was so concerned about Garrett’s condition she alerted executive producer Claudette Hauiti. After talking to Garrett, Hauiti decided to let him appear on the show.

     During the show, Garrett, speaking slowly and occasionally slurring, made rambling comments which were rubbished by the other panellists, particularly former Act MP Deborah Coddington.Garrett: “Paedophiles, like homosexuals, 30 years ago homosexuals had, according to experts, a disease and they needed to be cured and it was a spectacular failure because homosexuality is a sexual orientation, so we decided that because there were 10 per cent of people who were homosexual it was no longer a disease. Paedophiles cannot be cured any better than …”

     Coddington: “You can’t bring homosexuality into it … ”

     Jackson later dismissed it as a “stupid analogy” and accused Garrett of having an “obsession” with homosexuals.

     Hauiti said Eye To Eye regularly sought out controversial guests and Garrett was invited on as a legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. “I did find him to be obnoxious. I told him we would never have him back again.”

     Coddington said she was shocked by Garrett’s attitude: “He was really rude to me. He walked up and said `Deborah Coddington, my brother hates you’.”

     She said recording was stopped several times because of Garrett’s behaviour but didn’t think any more about the incident until Act announced Garrett as a list candidate.

     “Then I saw a picture of him and I thought, `holy moly, it’s him’.
2. Alwyn 2

   26 August 2010 at 8:40 pm

   I’m rather surprised by this blog actually.
   The Sensible Sentencing Trust have been reported on National Radio this evening as being of the view that Roger McLay should be doing time in prison for his activities.
   Other Blob entries on this site appear to agree with them.
   I would have expected you to be in favour of them after that opinion.
   I must say I do agree with them.
   A friend with me is being a spoil-sport though and is asking what the penalty for stealing $800,000 from the taxpayer should have been though
   • IrishBill 2.1

     26 August 2010 at 9:08 pm

     That was not the SST but the Howard league for prison reform. The SST has a history of backing old white privileged crims. Perhaps your friend shouldn’t be such a dick.
     • Alwyn 2.1.1

       26 August 2010 at 9:10 pm

       It was BOTH of them actually. When I say both I mean both the SST and the Howard League
   • lprent 2.2

     26 August 2010 at 9:35 pm

     Boring…..The blog authors frequently have differing views expressed in both posts and comments.

     I’m always surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to think that I would always agree with Irish, or Marty, or r0b. It shows a rather pathetic level of understanding of people.

     I guess you must be pretty damn dim.
   • Lanthanide 2.3

     26 August 2010 at 9:53 pm

     Also, I would suggest that just because the SST have come out with one sensible (hah! who’d have thunk it!) opinion once, it doesn’t mean people should generally support the SST.
3. Rosy 3

   26 August 2010 at 8:46 pm

   I was wondering what it would take for me to move away from labour given I’m getting so frustrated with their lack of progress in articulating social issues. Supporting Garth McVicar and his conference (with only National speakers?) is it. Hello Greens.
   • felix 3.1

     26 August 2010 at 8:57 pm

     Hello Rosy.
     • Rosy 3.1.1

       26 August 2010 at 8:59 pm

       🙂
       • Outofbed 3.1.1.1

         26 August 2010 at 11:06 pm

         http://my.greens.org.nz/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=17
   • Vicky32 3.2

     27 August 2010 at 12:13 am

     Hi Rosy,
     I wouldn’t… Really! I have been participating in a Green blog tonight, simultaenously with this, and they don’t seem to like women terribly much…
     • Ari 3.2.1

       27 August 2010 at 12:44 am

       Say what? We’re so against women, we’re the only party with an even party list. 😛 I’m not sure what you mean unless you talk about it specifically, but the Greens are absolutely chock full with feminists, so I’m not sure what exactly you’re objecting to.
       • Tigger 3.2.1.1

         27 August 2010 at 8:11 am

         So long as Rosy’s going further left it can only help lefties everywhere…
     • KJT 3.2.2

       27 August 2010 at 11:11 am

       You got the two stirrers on frogblog. I do not think they are even Green party members. They usually oppose most Green party positions.
       • Vicky32 3.2.2.1

         27 August 2010 at 6:50 pm

         Ah, I see… I’ve only just signed up, so I am not familiar with peoples’ views yet, but it seemed a bit of a hostile environment…
         Deb
         • lprent 3.2.2.1.1

           27 August 2010 at 10:14 pm

           That would be abnormal. I suspect you got it on a bad night when the trolls are on the prowl.

           Personally I deal to them with a hammer of sarcastic humiliation and the club of effective banning. I deem this to be the educational experience that they so clearly missed whilst growing up. Since I’ve been around of the nets for about 25-30 years longer than they have, it is seldom an experience they care to have too many repeats of. If they waste my time having to moderate then I’m determined to get as much amusement out of their humiliation as I can.

           If they get very unlucky, they run into IrishBill in a grumpy mood. At least I’m kind of tolerant to teenagers……..
   • HitchensFan 3.3

     27 August 2010 at 9:08 am

     Yep, with you Rosy. Stayin’ wid da Greens, me, after that sickening revelation by IrishBill. I’m disgusted with Labour over this.
   • mcflock 3.4

     27 August 2010 at 2:18 pm

     ahem . . . http://www.alliance.org.nz

     always an option 🙂
4. Bill 4

   26 August 2010 at 8:59 pm

   Mind if I point out that there is a world of difference between a ‘so-called party of progressive politics’ (as you have labelled Labour in your post) and ‘a party of so-called progressive politics’?

   The former can encapsulate the latter and so never amount to anything beyond ‘steady as she goes Eddie’ politics.

   And an honest description of the Labour Party is captured by that second sentence, methinks.
   • Gordy 4.1

     26 August 2010 at 9:06 pm

     I’d be surprised if the “goffice” hierarchy would consider themselves progressives at all. “So-called Common sense middle of the road” would be my guess at how they’d self-describe. Translation – good old fashioned conservatives.
     • Ari 4.1.1

       27 August 2010 at 12:45 am

       Been saying it for years, Labour have become the centrist party ever since MMP hit.
5. just saying 5

   26 August 2010 at 9:11 pm

   I think Labour needs to ask it’s focus groups what it thinks about Labour bending to its perception of popular opinion on every single issue – whether that might not create the impression of it being desperate, spineless, and bereft of principle.

   It’s certainly obvious that the ‘focus group’ approach to policy has not improved Goffs popularity one jot, so maybe it is time to try the alternative. There is nothing to lose.

   Leadership is about articulating a vision and explaining why.

   There is a vision beyond getting re-elected right? Because since the Carter debacle there seems to be little hope of another Labour leader taking the reins.
6. Rex Widerstrom 6

   26 August 2010 at 9:15 pm

   There’s a term used in prison to describe those who should stand beside their fellows but who fawn like curs to those who want to punish and oppress.

   Labour, you’re dogs.
   • KJT 6.1

     27 August 2010 at 11:13 am

     Did not know that Labour had joined the mob?
7. Tanz 7

   26 August 2010 at 9:20 pm

   This is showing spine. Maybe Goff is also sick and tired of crime-filled New Zealand, where all responsibility and blame is shifted and explained away. Good stuff, shifting to the right somewhat? (As Key has shifted National to the left?).
   • IrishBill 7.1

     26 August 2010 at 9:30 pm

     New Zealand isn’t crime-filled. There’s a minority of fearful and cowardly people who would like us to think it was crime-filled so we all get as scared and bitter as they are.

     Real spine is about recognising the social problems that drive crime and acting like grown-ups to fix them. The SST’s hysterical screaming for daddy-state to punish the baddies is childish, cowardly and ignoble.
     • Bunji 7.1.1

       26 August 2010 at 10:39 pm

       The SST’s hysterical screaming for daddy-state to punish the baddies is childish, cowardly and ignoble.
       … and won’t solve the problem either.
       • KJT 7.1.1.1

         27 August 2010 at 9:50 am

         A senior Judge pretty much hit the nail on the head about cutting the crime rate. It was almost the opposite of the ST approach. She was somewhat censored so I have put up her whole speech as it can be hard to find.
         http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-reducing-crime.html

         “There are no simple answers. But that message itself is hardly welcome. Nor is the
         public and political debate easily informed in an age where modern mass
         communication is geared to simple messages.”
     • Empiricist 7.1.2

       29 August 2010 at 11:54 am

       See p. 43

       This compares crime and victimisation across countries, and suggests that NZ does in fact have high rates of crime by international standards. Not that this necessarily justifies the SST’s policy prescription, however.
   • Vicky32 7.2

     27 August 2010 at 12:27 am

     “Key has shifted National to the left?).”
     Excuse me, but in what parallel universe has Key done that? I am completely gobsmacked by your comment…
     Deb
   • Ari 7.3

     27 August 2010 at 12:46 am

     Even if New Zealand WERE full of criminals and/or crime, the SST would make the problem worse, not better.
8. Tanz 8

   26 August 2010 at 9:58 pm

   You must have your head in the sand, Irish Bill. Every week in NZ these days here are murders, shootings, stabbings, slayiings. It’s got nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with truth. The papers are fill of it, just look at Fielding, for example. If one is prudent, one drives around with locked doors, these days, especially around urban NZ. Or do you prefer such chaos?
   • Bunji 8.1

     26 August 2010 at 10:37 pm

     The papers are full of it, you’re right.

     But that doesn’t mean NZ is a high crime society. If i forget to lock my car at night or leave the back door open all day nothing seems to get stolen. And I’m in urban NZ. Fear of crime is at an all time high though.

     Even if crime was high, locking people up for ever longer isn’t the solution. Do you want to lock up nearly 1 in 100 people like the US (and much much higher rate for the black and the brown, despite not having higher offence rates…)? We might get to match their murder rate then… and their budget deficit.

     Intriguingly other than the Silly Sentencing Trust’s press release there seems no other story link between Labour and them. Indeed less than 2 weeks ago Grant Robertson was heavily criticising them. National, having a big love-in with the SST, had the Prime Minister, Justice Minister and Police Minister all speak and use the occasion to bash Labour’s apparent lily-liveredness with their believing in bail, past criticism of the SST etc… But no response from Labour either way.

     So Labour: are you for or against the rabid Garth McVicar? You’re name’s being dragged thru the mud by being associated with him – you might as well make a stand either way.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     26 August 2010 at 11:53 pm

     Going by what’s in the papers is a really stupid means of statistical analysis. The Murder Rate is ~2 per 100,000 which means that, on any given day, you have a 0.00002% chance of being murdered. Quite simply, not worth worrying about.

     What would happen to the news about crime in the papers if they were only allowed to report local news in local newspapers and defined crime as being local only? I suspect that your impression of a ballooning crime wave would disappear into the ether. Your impression (and it is only an impression and not in any way real) is driven by the fact that the newspapers report all crime and they do so multiple times making it look like there’s a massive crime wave going when, in fact, there isn’t.
     • Graeme Edgeler 8.2.1

       27 August 2010 at 8:36 am

       The Murder Rate is ~2 per 100,000 which means that, on any given day, you have a 0.00002% chance of being murdered.

       Actually, that’s the chance over a year. On any day, it’s ~0.0000005%.
       • wtl 8.2.1.1

         27 August 2010 at 9:16 am

         And the chance of getting killed or seriously injured in a vehicle accident are much higher than that (can’t be bother looking up the numbers). But when the police crack down on those speeding and driving dangerously, there is an uproar because they aren’t focusing on ‘real’ crimes.
       • prism 8.2.1.2

         27 August 2010 at 10:57 am

         Good one GE It’s always nice to know the stats on death, disaster and destruction. Are objective stats your angle of view when thinking about humanity?
         • mcflock 8.2.1.2.1

           27 August 2010 at 3:30 pm

           point. miss. much?
   • Rex Widerstrom 8.3

     27 August 2010 at 12:33 am

     The papers are fill of it

     The papers are also full of “celebrities” and sports. Are most NZers celebrities? Do most spend all their time watching and thinking about sport (actually, maybe some do… :-/)

     The media highlight the unusual, the exciting, the interesting. Fair enough, no one would read the newspaper if the headline read “Millions go about their business while yet again, nothing of note occurs”. But that’s what happens in NZ, every day.

     But anyone who extrapolates what they read about in the media to some sort of faux “statistic” on real life has abdicated all claim to reasoned analysis.
     • Pascal's bookie 8.3.1

       27 August 2010 at 6:00 am

       Papers are also full of people winning Lotto. Every week without fail there’s a list of people pocketing thousands, and quite often millions of dollars.

       Can’t walk down the street without winning something on the Lotto.
       • IrishBill 8.3.1.1

         27 August 2010 at 6:50 am

         🙂
   • prism 8.4

     27 August 2010 at 10:54 am

     If you had chickenpox Tanz you would come out in itchy spots. If you merely scratched them you would be a long time getting better and might have remaining irreversible effects.

     The reporting of crime is leading to an itchy and scratchy response to it from the public. But the response is not to reduce incidence of it, just to leave it untreated and isolate the ‘diseased’ person in jail. With expensive outcomes that continue beyond the criminal’s death. Locking people up is giving time out to society from that person. There have to be other programs available as well as the possibility of prison to reduce crime. They have been tried ‘overseas’ and put before our governments – which dither while people are degraded by the bad things allowed to flourish in our society, and avoidable trouble, injuries, and death occur.
9. Michael 9

   26 August 2010 at 10:59 pm

   Sigh. I guess I’m in the same boat as Rosy above. I voted for Labour in 2008; if I was a year older I would’ve voted for them in 2005 as well. Since then they’ve managed to piss me off a few too many times. If Labour is indeed willing to pander to the SST then I’ll be voting Green in 2011. Idiots.
   • Outofbed 9.1

     26 August 2010 at 11:17 pm

     Its not just pandering to the SST, they are a centrist Party in spite of most of their activists being on the left,. Goff was a willing accomplice of Douglas FFS.
     It made me laugh to see the Labour party at the fairness at work’ rallies. Just how much of the anti union legislation did the Labour party roll back in their 9 years eh?
     Greens are the way to go
     • just saying 9.1.1

       27 August 2010 at 10:10 am

       I was pleased to see them there, proudly waving their banner. That and singing “Which side are You On’ in a gathering of good-hearted locals, in the sun, gave me a little spark of hope.

       Did they need to snuff it out so soon?
10. Zaphod Beeblebrox 10

    26 August 2010 at 11:07 pm

    Sounds like they have borrowed Australian labour’s spin doctors and are going after the moron vote. If you have no principles what you say with come out as an incoherent mess. Thats what sound like now.
11. TightyRighty 11

    27 August 2010 at 5:32 am

    real policy? oh IB back in fine satirical form
12. Brett 12

    27 August 2010 at 6:55 am

    A lot of people who would vote for Labour support the sensible sentencing trust.
    Very popular with the”blue collar working classes”, so it makes sense for Phil Goff to support them.
    • IrishBill 12.1

      27 August 2010 at 7:07 am

      As Felix has pointed out elsewhere less than 4% of the population voted for the SST’s political arm and they’re now polling around 1%.
      • Brett 12.1.1

        27 August 2010 at 7:19 am

        That’s a bit like saying nobody cares about the environment since less than 10% of the population voted for the greens,
        • felix 12.1.1.1

          27 August 2010 at 6:35 pm

          Is it?

          Or is it like saying that 5x more people (latest RM poll) care strongly enough about the environment to vote Green than care strongly enough about Laura Norda to vote ACT?
    • just saying 12.2

      27 August 2010 at 8:01 am

      You mean a cheap sop, as opposed to policies that would actually help the working class
13. Chuck 13

    27 August 2010 at 7:59 am

    Shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. As Just Saying says further up, if there is no leadership, there is only populism. Labour party members concerned with anything other than getting reelected need to start the machine to remove Goff and reform the upper ranks. As you can see, the idea of “get re-elected first, then reform” isn’t going to fly with the voters. For some strange reason, it just comes across as a lie. Labour simply never reformed after the 2008 mauling.
    • Bored 13.1

      27 August 2010 at 10:32 am

      In a funny kind of way I think it might be just the ticket for Labour to miss re-election next time round. It will enable two things:

      1. A realisation by Labour that the current personnel and current perception of MPs roles needs to change radically. Another loss gives the opportunity to clean out the dross and to offer a well thought out response to refroming our instituions to the electorate.

      2. National to carry the opprobrium for the failure of the current economic and social systems that is well in process (check out the world stock markets, environmetal reports, etc, we are on a downhill slope).
14. Darien 14

    27 August 2010 at 8:18 am

    I think you should check your facts on this story. At the very least, you will find most Labour MPs were appalled that SST was holding its conference in Parliament.
    • Simon 14.1

      27 August 2010 at 8:56 am

      Maybe someone could ask the Labour leadership and clear this whole thing up if it’s not true.
    • IrishBill 14.2

      27 August 2010 at 10:58 am

      I hope you’re right and I will publish a top-story correction if it turns out the SST have lied.
      • Dolan 14.2.1

        27 August 2010 at 11:43 pm

        http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/08/27/get-your-facts-right/
15. Brett 15

    27 August 2010 at 8:20 am

    I get the feeling a lot of you guys really struggle with the whole democracy thing,
16. Rosy 16

    27 August 2010 at 8:38 am

    I really hope you’re right. Can you give a link to show that most labour MPs are appalled? Supporting victims of crime shouldn’t mean showing support for the SST. Garth McVicar is absolutely crowing about the support from both National and Labour in the link to this post.

    “Despite what others say, we’ve always been a-political and we think it is extremely symbolic for opposing parties to unite on such an important issue as justice.”
17. randal 17

    27 August 2010 at 11:48 am

    something is rotten in new zealand and all the posturing in the world is not going to fix it until somebody has the gumption to really look at what the problems in new zealand are.
    its like afghanistan.
    everyone says the government is corrupt but nobody knows how to do anything about it.
    while the middle class boojies here live in a fantasyland of normative desire of how our country should be instead of really looking at how it really is then we are going to have jerkers like the sst pulling everyones strings and getting away with it.
18. Augustus 18

    27 August 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Labour needs to show spine in more than just this area. I expect more of elected agents than pander to media hysteria and perceived populist arguments. There is no crime wave in New Zealand, neither is there a “national shame” over “our” drinking culture or hordes of beneficiaries ripping off the system. And Labour should say so, if it wants my vote anway.
19. smhead 19

    27 August 2010 at 1:39 pm

    it is inevitable that goff would host the SST conference. He has tried to make a break from nanny state and liberal elite stuff to tap into the working class man, and defending criminals or taking a soft soft approach doesn’t suit the new labour party he’s trying to bring in. Goff is a social conservative, like why he always opposed lowering drinking age and crime is a classic example. Its part of his big break from the years of helen.

    The social liberals of the labour party won’t like it but what would be worse, having a leader you have elected unanimously who brings their personality to the leadership, or having a fall-guy for the next election who you muzzle by making him stand up for stuff he doesn’t believe in.

    Cosgrove is also social conservative and swaggers about trying to be tough on crime. You can’t have a be nice to criminals message when your leader and spokesman are both trying to outdo crusher.
    • Olwyn 19.1

      27 August 2010 at 2:23 pm

      I am a Labour party member, and from time to time dutifully pace the pavement putting pamphlets into letterboxes. And I would dearly love to know what this break with nanny state liberalism and embrace of small c conservatism, if true, amounts to on a practical level: so far what I see for the most part is equivocation on matters such as employment law, and unequivocal endorsement of anything to do with imposing constraints. Surely matters of employment and wages cannot be cast into the liberal elite basket! So, I take heart from Darien’s blogs on Red Alert, and Andrew Little’s passionate speech at the Wellington fairness at work rally, only to become downcast again when I hear that the SST are being courted. The thing is, if we reject namby pamby liberalism, but cannot do anything about neo-liberal economics, and will “oppose” policies that lead to economic hardship while taking a wait-and-see approach as to what we will do about them, what then are we offering exactly? Stripped of these practical concerns, it looks rather like identity politics with a new preferred identity to the forefront, with the prize being the chance to see the people you grizzle about at the pub (where you drink very moderately) get put in their place.

      As I have said, I am a Labour Party member, and I care very much about this. If anyone in the know has any insight as to what the answer might be, please tell me.
      • KJT 19.1.1

        27 August 2010 at 7:43 pm

        We need valid alternatives to neo-liberalism.
        Labour opened the door in the first place and some of the culprits are still there. Douglas and co like teenage vandals in a toy shop. They were unable to stop at the necessary reversal of some of Muldoons rorts.
        If Labour is just going to fiddle around the edges like the last 9 years then they have really lost their way.

        Face some facts. The current system only works for overseas financiers. Productive people are leaving in droves as their pay is reduced. Sticking every one in jail does not cut crime. Inequality is increasing rapidly. The new generation think that antisocial greed and loss of community are normal.
        Unless Labour comes up with some sense and courage NACT will have us down the toilet.
20. Herodotus 20

    27 August 2010 at 4:16 pm

    The SST is for many (nee middle class – if this still exists) to express publically the fears. Many statements by SSt are lost by the volume and reaction to headlines. Yet when we have the happenings below that do feed us the public that there is danger out there and with an ever increasing contempt towards our law and order by a sector of our community. There are valid cases for some offenses to have greater deterrents/punishments than do currently exist. Such as flight from police.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669307
    And remember the last Labour government did follow populist policy, with their getting tough on punishment, so this is just Phil cont on from Helen legacy, so do not be too tough on Phil.
21. Darien 21

    27 August 2010 at 6:18 pm

    So, here’s what Clayton Cosgrove says about this :

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/08/27/get-your-facts-right/
    • The Voice of Reason 21.1

      27 August 2010 at 6:42 pm

      Yep, pretty obvious really. Not endorsement by Labour at all. The SST are doing what they do best; exaggerating the facts for effect. The upside is that some Trust supporters might mistakenly vote Labour as a result.
      • QoT 21.1.1

        27 August 2010 at 10:42 pm

        Hardly an upside if it takes them four days to correct it – and then only on Red Alert, so only in the eyes of the blog-reading crowd – and if the number gained doesn’t match the number of actual liberals/lefties/sane people who leave.

        If the SST are going to actually bald-faced lie about endorsement from a major political party I want to see more than Clayton Cosgrove having a fucking whinge. Unless of course it was considered prudent to pander to the talkback crowd … *cough*Nationhood*cough*

        Captcha: quickly. Yeah, not so much.
        • The Voice of Reason 21.1.1.1

          27 August 2010 at 11:08 pm

          Has it actually been discussed outside of The Standard and Red Alert? Computer says no. No media hits for ‘labour sst host’ or similar. The link above is to Scoop’s reproduction of the SST’s press release. It’s also on the SST website. But I’m not sure that this non story has any outside relevance, though I suppose it might turn into an urban myth if we keep talking about it enough.

          So I stand by the upside. The only people likely to be fooled long term by this are SST website visitors and if any of them vote Labour as a result, that’d be fine by me.
    • Olwyn 21.2

      27 August 2010 at 6:52 pm

      Thanks for that Darien. I’m glad the situation has been clarified.
22. reid 22

    27 August 2010 at 7:31 pm

    “Labour should be pointing to the failure of lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key policies and offering some real and fair alternatives.”

    SST is comprised of families of people whose loved ones have been raped, abused, murdered.

    How would you feel and you’d be surprised to recognise wouldn’t you the fact, clear and evident, that the SST actually emanates very little anger. I mean they’re not KKK sort of people are they?

    Yet comments like that paint them as such. They’re your mother, father, brother, sister, grandma, granddad you know.
    • Julie 22.1

      28 August 2010 at 12:05 am

      And there are plenty of families of people whose loved ones have been raped, abused, murdered who are NOT in the SST.
23. Anne 23

    27 August 2010 at 7:47 pm

    @reid
    I think the word you’re looking for is ’emit’ not emanate. Still not very good but it’ll do. Best to avoid the big words if you don’t know when to use them.

    “I mean they’re not KKK sort of people are they?”
    Interesting comparison. No they’re not the KKK but not too far removed…

    anti-spam word: sensible
24. JonL 24

    27 August 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Until the Labour party show a spine and a clear policy direction, that doesn’t pander to bigots, they are going to doom NZ to elections of “voting the other party out”. Which is not a healthy state to be in!
25. reid 25

    27 August 2010 at 11:08 pm

    So apart from a grammatical error can I take it the rest of my argument stood up pretty well, Anne?
    • felix 25.1

      27 August 2010 at 11:13 pm

      No, the rest of comment was misguided at best. And I put it politely because I’m trying really hard to take you at face value.
    • The Voice of Reason 25.2

      27 August 2010 at 11:21 pm

      Not really, reid. The SST are a right wing ginger group, supported by well meaning people, such as those you describe. The trust has an MP in Parliament, under the ragged umbrella of the ACT party. A more odious example of redneckery than David Garrett would be harder to find.

      And as for anger, well, Lock ’em up and Throw away the Key is all about anger, isn’t it?
      • James 25.2.1

        28 August 2010 at 12:30 pm

        David Garrett is actually more blue collar and liberal than most of the left ever will be….you don’t know him so spin shit…big suprise.Three strikes is not in conflict with ACT ‘s liberal principals…indeed it compliments them.The Govrnments role after all is to protect peoples rights from force and fraud…and three strikes does that with violent scumbags.Crim lovers hate it because it inconviences the poor dears….oh diddums.
        • IrishBill 25.2.1.1

          28 August 2010 at 12:59 pm

          I know a few people who have known Garrett since his days on the rigs and the impression I get is that he’s always been a jumped up little authoritarian. He’s certainly not blue-collar and he’s certainly not liberal. In fact I don;t think you even understand those terms. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before you bother commenting here again.
26. Benny 26

    29 August 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Garth Mcvicar, evil psychopath

    The elderly, when hearing a sales pitch from Garth Mcvicar they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone like Mcvicar as you will see at Mcvicars meeting are normally into their eighties, a common theme is a perpetrator who identifies something that matters to an older person and then uses it to coerce an older person into a particular action.
    Victims think Mcvicar as “trustworthy” but Mcvicar grooms older people (befriend or build a relationship with them) in order to establish a relationship of trust.
    Victims of crime Mcvicar preys on are chronic depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and anger, the core feature of this definition is that it focuses on harms where there is “expectation of trust” of the victim towards Mcvicar.
    This form of Poisonous pedagogy” is a behavior that is passed on from generation to generation by being euphemized and sanitized, in a nutshell, “poisonous pedagogy” is what happens when someone like Mcvicar believes, or claims to believe, that a behavior demonstrates that the “seeds of evil”, and therefore attempts to weed out the evil, by emotional manipulation.
    Mcvicar having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary, manipulating and concealing aggressive behaviors that portrays positive reinforcement such as praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy, (crocodile tears) facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile,
    Victims find it hard to tell if Mcvicar is lying at the time they do it, although often the truth may be apparent later when it is too late.
    One way to minimize the chances of being lied to by Garth Mcvicar is to understand that his personality is that of a psychopath who are expert at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently and often in subtle ways.
    An excuse made by the Mcvicar for inappropriate behavior, rationalization is closely related to spin.
    Garth Mcvicar manipulating refuses to pay attention to anything that may distract from his agenda, saying things like “I don’t want to hear it” or not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic, similar to diversion but giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses, (weasel words).
    Garth Mcvicars guilt tripping tactics of intimidation are a manipulator suggests to the conscientious victim that results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position. Mcvicar uses sarcasm put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Mcvicar portrays himself or of someone else’s behavior in order to gain pity sympathy and evoke compassion thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation more than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive. Mcvicars self cloaking, a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying he is acting in a certain way for “obedience” and “service” to God or a similar authority figure intent of, Mcvicar who uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty him projecting the blame manipulator scapegoats often subtle, hard to detect ways.
    The elderly when hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story.
    Unfortunately revictimization refers to a pattern wherein the victim of abuse and/or crime has a statistically higher tendency to be victimized again.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 26 August 2010 at 7:56 am
2. lotto wining: posted on 27 August 2010 at 3:40 am
3. Sensible Sentancing Trust: a bunch of liars « The Standard: posted on 28 August 2010 at 12:30 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS