Rich reaction roundup

44 comments on “Rich reaction roundup ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stef 1

   15 February 2008 at 12:08 pm

   The recent stoush with Allan Peachy has set off alarm bells in my head that there is more to this than meets the eye.
2. Ruth 2

   15 February 2008 at 12:09 pm

   There has been some awful misogynistic posts about her, too. She had class. I’ll be interested to see what comes out.
3. the sprout 3

   15 February 2008 at 12:17 pm

   Trading Rich for Slobberin’ Peachy is sheer suicide.

   Losing rich removes any last vestige of inclusiveness and diversity (which had to be pretty thin considering a middle-class white woman made them look diverse), and removes an experienced, affable and competent hand (attributes clearly in short supply on the National front bench).

   so how many women left on the National front bench? Just Judith Collins? God help them.

   A serious loss for National, but a gain for Labour – well done John.
4. gobsmacked 4

   15 February 2008 at 12:36 pm

   Yes, but they’re getting Stephen Franks instead, so …

   Oh.
5. Michele Cabiling 5

   15 February 2008 at 12:38 pm

   Smarmy Maharey’s departure for family reason?

   Gimme a break.

   Seeing the writing on the wall for this lame duck government of fruits and nuts … a few years out of politics in a lucrative academic admin position … let Phil Goff take over from Helengrad as Leader of the Opposition for the next three terms … come swarming back on board to roll Goff just in time to catch the mug [“it’s Labour’s turn”] vote and become PM …
6. East Wellington Superhero 6

   15 February 2008 at 12:39 pm

   It’s amazing to see how much you guys know about what’s going on. Nothing.
7. Michele Cabiling 7

   15 February 2008 at 12:44 pm

   What’s all this “diversity” crap, Sprout?

   The leftard “identity politics” assumption that someone can only be adequately represented by someone who shares a common “Race, Gender, Class” personal characteristic is nothing but arrant nonsense.
8. rjs131 8

   15 February 2008 at 12:46 pm

   I guess Peachey was only the principal of one of nz’s most successful secondary school’s, so yeah i guess he doesnt know what he is talking about…..

   I guess Rich maybe isnt as ruthless as the likes of say judith tizard to think she can manage a family and still suceed in parliament’s bear pit

   It was interesting the lack of coverage of Dianne Yates resignation, considering her and Rich were often talked about as rising female stars in parliament
9. Santi 9

   15 February 2008 at 12:55 pm

   There are other dissatisfied MPs who are widely known to be giving thought to their futures. Some feel they have been overlooked (Benson-Pope), others underutilised (Hawkins). Still others are merely biding their time (Goff).

   I’m glad to report not all is well in the socialist family.
10. gobsmacked 10

    15 February 2008 at 12:57 pm

    “What’s all this “diversity’ crap?” – Michele.

    “I’ve made it clear I want to see a greater ethnic diversity on the list in 2008″ – John Key, speaking at Ratana.
11. insider 11

    15 February 2008 at 1:11 pm

    “you’d have to conclude there’s more going on than the Nats are letting on.”

    I looked at the pictures of her kids and the diary of a senior govt Minister and concluded that I knew what call I’d make. Not everyone is a pure political animal willing to sacrifice long term relationships for ideology and power. On the balance of credibilities I’d take her reason over your rumours any day.
12. Michele Cabiling 12

    15 February 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Yah, and it’s CRAP.

    It makes me sick to hear Key making statements like: “I’ve made it clear I want to see a greater ethnic diversity on the list in 2008″ and telling NZers that National can work with the Maori Party.

    NZers are sick of dishonest political pragmatism. Everything National does has to come from a clearly articulated set of political principles.

    I remember Richard Prebble telling us that the other parties in an MMP Parliament would say they always knew how ACT would vote on any political issue, so it was a waste of time seeking its backing on certain matters. This is the space that National needs to occupy if it has genuine aspirations to being once again the natural party of government.

    There’s no point in being “Labour Lite’ and espousing “ends justifies the means’ policy positions. By refusing to rule out getting into bed with the Maori Party after the next election, he is moving up the same political cul-de-sac as Bolger who was hijacked by Doug “The Tug” Graham, Nick Smith and other “wets” in his caucus.

    His courting of the Maori vote by empowering Lord Montrose of Drury to pander to the Treaty Grievance industry was a total waste of time. Maori who vote National don’t do so for handouts. The racial pork barrel vote has always gone to Labour, but is increasingly being hoovered up by the Maori Party.

    This constituency will never switch to National, but trying to work it is actually incredibly alienating to New Zealanders of all races who are sick to their guts of more than two decades of legalised apartheid.

    Far better to underscore that National stands for colour-blind government. The worst kind of unearned privilege is that accruing on the basis of skin colour.

    As a matter of principle, National must refuse to line up with any political party constituted along racial or ethnic lines. And as a first order of business on gaining office, it must abolish the racist Maori Seats, thus ridding us of the motley Maori Party, none of whom would stand a dog’s chance of getting elected to a General Seat on their own merits.
13. mike 13

    15 February 2008 at 1:19 pm

    “Smarmy Maharey’s departure for family reason?”

    What a labour party person with kids? Are they adopted then
14. Michele Cabiling 14

    15 February 2008 at 1:24 pm

    He’d be one of the few male Liarbour MPs who [Michele, you’ve been told about cutting out the homophobia, don’t inflict your problems on the rest of us] around on dungeon floors without a dog collar around his neck!!!
15. ghostwhowalks 15

    15 February 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Why is that the new Rakaia electorate selection corruption , which led to Carter going ‘voluntarily’ back on the list never explained.

    Doing it all for the ‘family’ or the ‘party’ seem to cover up all sorts of shenanigans in the NP , but no digging behind the facade ?

    Looks like a few Mps ( Carter Peachey) have looked at the way Shar-Key
    got to the top by making sure banana skins were left around for the others in the party that were in their way.
16. Ray 16

    15 February 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Is this the wedge poltics you guys are always whinning about when anyone dares comment on the Labour party internal goings on
17. Pablo 17

    15 February 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Michelle’s advice for permanently marginalising the National Party. Brilliant. Are you trying to create a niche for Winston1 or Dunne to create the new centre-right party of choice for conservative NZers?

    How has your first week or so of school been going Michelle? I’ll bet you’re finding the fifth form way easier the second time round.
18. Steve Pierson 18

    15 February 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Ray. Wedge politics is attempting to divide a a group with common interests by appealing to deep-seated prejudice of part of that group against another part of that group.

    For instance. Working class people have the same econmic and political interests in having decent work for decent pay and not being subjected to tyranny from the bosses. If you were the party representing the bosses, you might attmept to divide that the workers on ethnic lines, say by making a speech in which you say the Maori workers have all these special privileges and now they want to stop Paheka workers going to the beach.

    If you’re lucky, Paheka workers will see this as a big threat or injustice and that will overcome their underlying class interest in common with Maori workers to the point that they will switch their alliance from the workers’ party to the bosses’ pary for the bosses’ party, thereby saving the bosses’ party from the politically irrelevancy it had achieved in 2002.
19. Santi 19

    15 February 2008 at 2:30 pm

    “Paheka workers will see this as a big threat or injustice and that will overcome their underlying class interest in common with Maori workers…”

    Spare us the communist rethoric and jargon, Steve Pierson. This is NZ not Russia circa 1917.
20. Michele Cabiling 20

    15 February 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Are you familiar, Pablo, with the Jonathon Richman and the Modern Lovers song “Pablo Picasso”?

    It goes something like this … “Some guys they ask a girl out, they get called an asshole, but that never happened to Pablo Picasso.”

    In your case, Pablo, I suspect it happens rather a lot …
21. Matthew Pilott 21

    15 February 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Does anyone else think Steve’s post went about 3″ over Santi’s head? 😉
22. Michele Cabiling 22

    15 February 2008 at 2:37 pm

    “3″ over Santi’s head?”

    Is that a Freudian slip?

    Are you trying to tell us something, Matthew?
23. Matthew Pilott 23

    15 February 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Yes Michele. It’s three inches. Around…
24. Santi 24

    15 February 2008 at 2:54 pm

    “It’s three inches. Around ”

    Keep dreaming Mathew, but I suspect your brain does not exceed 2 inches 🙂
25. Pablo 25

    15 February 2008 at 2:58 pm

    “People try to pick up girls, they get called assholes, that never happened to, Pablo Picasso. He could walk down any street, and girls could not resist his stare, Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole, not like YOU”

    What a great song. I have John Cale’s version of it somewhere. You’ve gotta be in the game to score Michelle, and that’s a fact.
26. Robinsod 26

    15 February 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Um, Matt, three inches around isn’t that big… sorry bro.
    [lprent: bad choice of topic…]
27. Pablo 27

    15 February 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Matt, you gotta tell the sheilas it’s three inches *from the ground*
    [lprent: bad choice of topic…]
28. mike 28

    15 February 2008 at 3:33 pm

    You know labours history when there main blog site is concerned with cock size while the oppositions site is more concerned with the size of our Kyoto liability.

    [lprent:
    a) asked and answered – it isn’t a labour’s blog site. Read the About page.
    b) you are correct, relative genital size is not what this site is about.]
29. The Double Standard 29

    15 February 2008 at 3:35 pm

    So, despite all the informed commentary being that Rich’s reasons are genuine, you conclude that you are correct.

    Typical doublethink from The Standard.
30. Michele Cabiling 30

    15 February 2008 at 3:42 pm

    IrishBill says: Filth: Deleted. I see you don’t learn Michele. Final warning.
31. Robinsod 31

    15 February 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Hey Mike. It’s Friday afternoon. Why don’t you head over to the bog if you want to talk Kyoto?
32. mike 32

    15 February 2008 at 3:47 pm

    no bog here – just the nightcaps workingmans club.
33. James Kearney 33

    15 February 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Smarmy Maharey’s departure for family reason?

    Gimme a break.

    His wife died. Your ignorance is tragic Michele.
34. Robinsod 34

    15 February 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Actually, I’m looking down Nightcaps way for a bit of a crib. If you see a good one can you let me know?
35. the sprout 35

    15 February 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Michele
    How has deregulation worked for the Philippines?
    Do you like it better here or there?
    Who has been your favourite Philippine leader?
    Do you like shoes?
36. Michele Cabiling 36

    15 February 2008 at 4:11 pm

    I’ve already stated many times on this blog that the scourge of the Third World (including Phils) is the political corruption and crony capitalism that prevents the democratisation of wealth.

    Phils needs MORE not less capitalism.

    I like it both in NZ and in Phils for different reasons. Both places have much to recommend them albeit in different ways.

    All Phils leaders are uniformly corrupt and I’ve no respect for any of them. A recent publicl opinion poll held in Phils suggested respondent believe GMA is the most corrupt leader ever and I’m inclined to agree.

    Of course I like shoes (within reason). Most women do. That comes with the qualifier “Everyone has one mouth to fill and one asshole to empty” i.e how many pairs of shoes can you wear at once …
37. the sprout 37

    15 February 2008 at 4:13 pm

    that’s really interesting michele.
    and what is it like being an american colony?
38. Michele Cabiling 38

    15 February 2008 at 4:18 pm

    The best thing Phils could have done was vote to become state number #51 if the USA.

    Every country has some political corruption, but that found in the US is a mere a fraction of that found in Phils.

    The influx of investment capital, coupled with the free exchange of technology, abundant natural resources, and the dynamism of Filipinos would have made Phils one of the most prosperous countries in Asia.

    You’d be struggling to find a Filipino on the dole in NZ that’s for sure.
39. the sprout 39

    15 February 2008 at 4:21 pm

    i’m sure that’s true michele.
    and what to you consider to be the source of the scourge of “crony capitalism”?
40. Michele Cabiling 40

    15 February 2008 at 4:24 pm

    An embedded social and political elite who short-sightedly as a group can see no reason to give up its privileged position.

    Anyone bucking the trend is either fitted up in a manufactured scandal or assassinated.
41. the sprout 41

    15 February 2008 at 4:28 pm

    that’s a very pernicious state of affairs.
    which party, do you think, most represents the short-sighted “embedded social and political elite” in this country michele?
42. Ex Labour Voter 42

    15 February 2008 at 4:30 pm

    “but Vernon and Colin’s analysis runs counter to the persistent rumours around the Beehive that Rich has been deeply unhappy in the National caucus since being stripped of the welfare portfolio by Brash.”

    Snap. You would know about this persistent rumour how, all-your-base? Is it because you’re employed in the Beehive to promulgate this very kind of rumour? And how relevant is it that the Beehive would be spreading rumours to smear Katherine Rich?

    That’s like me saying: “There are rumours in the National Party research unit that Labour Party member X is stupid.” (And no, I don’t work in the research unit, but they are as much of an authority on the psychology of Labour MPs as you, as an employee of the Beehive, which you’ve inadvertently exposed, are on Katherine Rich’s motives.)
43. Michele Cabiling 43

    15 February 2008 at 5:04 pm

    IrishBill says: I thought I banned you.
44. Horisthebear 44

    15 February 2008 at 5:17 pm

    People there are some very good people coming through in 2008 for National, as there are some for Labour as well. Both parties will have a mix of political views. Just look at the selections to date by the parties. The thing for me is not what the class of 2008 will look like, which will have big changes but what is the class of 2011 ie post Clark, Cullen, Peters, Anderton…is there enough young talent in Labour this time to spend in Opposition to compete for say the 2011 Election and the one after that…Nationals Caucus now is relatively young (compared to Labour – there is not one 60 in Nationals front bench there are heaps in Labours) and there will be a crop of another say 10 new Nats this year with some serious talent and I expect in 2011 there will be more changes.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS