Roofpainter II: Son of the bride of the monster roof painter

126 comments on “Roofpainter II: Son of the bride of the monster roof painter ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kousei 1

   30 September 2012 at 7:29 pm

   Shearer continuing to justify the use of this anecdote is disturbing. By itself it is enough to turn me right off the labour party. There are just so many things wrong about judging someone in that situation without credible knowledge of that person’s circumstances. The longer he sticks to his line the more it says he is just vote seeking in National’s traditional territory.
   • MrSmith 1.1

     1 October 2012 at 8:42 am

     “The longer he sticks to his line the more it says he is just vote seeking in National’s traditional territory.”

     That appears to be exactly what he is doing because the Media and General public seem to lap it up, Shearer appears to be saying what the majority want to hear.

     So how to change the Public’s and Medias view, well winning the next election first would be a good place to start and to do that you need to be saying what the majority of People want to hear.
   • Mary 1.2

     1 October 2012 at 1:30 pm

     “By itself it is enough to turn me right off the labour party.”

     Shearer’s so-called blunder is just one in a very long line of “blunders” that started by axing the special benefit in the early 2000s, continued throughout that decade and are alive and well today – those “blunders” just haven’t stopped. In isolation it’d be easy to dismiss some of Shearer’s and other Labourite comments as stemming for ignorance or naivety around the subtleties of the issues but that’s just rubbish. Labour abandoned traditional Labour values a long time ago never to be seen again. They are in a state of decay and we must do all we can to help that decay along. The aim now for the Left should be to assist the Greens oust Labour as one of the two main parties. That will be a very happy moment in NZ’s history indeed, opening the way for a revitalised Mana Party or equivalent to sit further to the Left and help ensure NZ recaptures the meaning of a truly caring and inclusive society. Until Labour is destroyed they’ll just keep competing with the Right for the “who can screw the poor and vulnerable the most and get away with it” award. If we truly want a fair and caring NZ then we need to realise how much of a menace and a liability Labour is, then get rid of them.
2. just saying 2

   30 September 2012 at 8:09 pm

   This is about the fourth time he’s tried to garble out these words in response to questioning following the roofpainter “anecdote”. The spin-doctor who wrote them must be thrilled that he almost got it right this time.

   (prev on radio twice and once on stuff’s question-Shearer programme).

   If you listen to him, and god knows he’d bore a battery hen, he mainly repeats (or tries to) learned phrases to most questions

   Personally, I loathe the guy. I’d say he was as slippery as an eel, but he’s not articulate enough to pull it off, so he just tries to be. Only reason he’s not on the National backbench is the Labour leadership shoulder-tapped him and offered him a seat first. Like Chris Faafoi (sp), he wasn’t even a member of the party. (And so wonderfully democratic of them to do so.)

   I reckon he’s got a seventy percent chance of leading a one-term coalition government in 2014, solely on account of National’s abysmal performance. Gods help us.
   • karol 2.1

     30 September 2012 at 8:22 pm

     he’d bore a battery hen

     That interview certainly bored me. Recorded it yesterday and tried to watch it this morning before work. With the boring factor plus some of the things he said (not just the roof painter thing), I gave up half way through. Dispiriting for him to be leader of the biggest opposition party in parliament.
     • Dr Terry 2.1.1

       1 October 2012 at 8:08 am

       Shearer is boring largely because he uses so much “political jargon” in his speeches. The comparison with yesterday’s brilliance of Cunliffe, makes for an embarrassment for the Labour Party. Incidentally, I doubt that all of National’s undoubted abysmal performance will take very much away from them. Too many voters lack discernment about leaders, as well as keeping intact their immensely short memories.
3. keith ross 3

   30 September 2012 at 8:19 pm

   I am the same as above. I was always labour voter but after being on Acc for 5 years the comment about the guy painting his roof is just wrong. He could be like me, ok when pumped up on drugs some of the time but if I do anything then even the hard drugs do not give me relief. I have to crawl out of bed to get to the loo and the medicine in the mornings. I could be that guy on the roof, but there is no way that I could hold a job down .Thank god that the greens have come of age in time for people like me
4. Colonial Viper 4

   30 September 2012 at 8:32 pm

   Glad you put this together QoT.

   Shearer also says that Labour will make room within it for both the Left wing and the Right Wing, because Labour is a “broad church”.

   Of course this is a total bastardisation of what a ‘broad church’ means, IMO there is no need to give a special welcome to misogynists, racists, or neo-liberals inside the Labour “broad church”.

   (please excuse the fact I used the same quote earlier this evening)

   He said he disagreed with the claim earlier this year by Economic Development spokesman, David Cunliffe that voters who deserted Labour did so because they party’s policies as not very different to National’s.

   However he said there was room for Mr Cunliffe inside Labour because it was “a broad church”.

   “There are many people who vote Labour from what you might call left and to the right as well.

   “It’s a broad church and what we’re looking for is to be a party for all New Zealanders, not just one of the other.”

   http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/shearer-hints-front-bench-shake-ck-129842
   • QoT 4.1

     30 September 2012 at 9:21 pm

     Shearer seems to think “broad church” means “everyone is a big happy family and we pretend to never agree on things and I just agree with whoever I’m currently talking to”. Which in my experience is the basis for some fantastic explosions when the internal tension gets too high.
   • Puddleglum 4.2

     30 September 2012 at 9:30 pm

     Good grief!

     That kind of rhetoric would go down well in United Future.

     Yes, the leader of a major party should serve the interests of all New Zealanders – but only by implementing policies based on their particular understanding of how the world works which, we hope, they believe will serve the best interests of New Zealand as a whole.

     From the start, my one question about Shearer was what he actually understood about how the social, political and economic worlds operate. (Saying you believe in a world where everyone has ‘opportunity’ and ‘pays their way’ and where we all get along together doesn’t count as an understanding, BTW. It just counts as using rhetoric.)

     I still have no idea what his understanding of the world is, to the point where it’s hard for me to escape the conclusion that he has no idea – and probably hasn’t thought much about it.

     That makes him, at best, a straw in the wind.

     You can try dressing that up as ‘centre-left pragmatism’ or some such, if you like, but ‘pragmatism’ in politics is a close kin of either a very cynical approach to policy implementation or of vacuity (i.e., straw fodder for the political winds).
     • Mary 4.2.1

       1 October 2012 at 7:59 pm

       Labour’s belief in the deserving/undeserving poor (because that’s precisely the thinking that’s been part of Labour for a long time and that Shearer’s continuing to push, just look at what the Paganis etc etc) means we’ll never have a caring society because on this one basic and fundamental question they are no different from what National/ACT/United Future/NZ First/Conservatives/Libertarianz etc hold central to their thinking. The answer therefore is that we need to replace Labour with a party that does not subscribe to this belief. The obvious party to do this is the Greens (although it doesn’t necessarily have to be them). A strong Left grouping could then develop around this. One things for sure though and that’s for as long as Labour remains one of the two main parties the Left is stuffed.
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 4.2.1.1

         1 October 2012 at 8:30 pm

         I disagree. The Labour Party has a mass of institutional knowledge and experience in government, and it has the brand. It wasn’t very long ago that a Labour Prime Minister enjoyed more popularity than any before her.

         We are being taught a very harsh lesson in why its core values are important to the health of a nation. Labour, despite their occasional Quisling tendencies, like it or not, will be part of the solution.
         • Mary 4.2.1.1.1

           1 October 2012 at 8:41 pm

           How can they be when blaming the victim is a cornerstone of its belief system?
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 4.2.1.1.1.1

             1 October 2012 at 9:03 pm

             Citation please.

             “How can they be…?” Realpolitik, if nothing else.
             • Mary …

               1 October 2012 at 9:12 pm

               Social Security Amendment Act 2007 is a pretty good example.
             • Mary …

               1 October 2012 at 9:27 pm

               Thought you were referring to how blaming the victim is bound up in its core values. Sure, they can be part of the next government and probably will be. My point is that our society will never be as inclusive or caring as it should be while Labour is one of the two main parties because it’s foundation is fundamentally too close to National’s.
               • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                 1 October 2012 at 9:37 pm

                 I think you are conflating The New Zealand Labour Party’s recent policies and the core values of the Labour movement – or Socialism if you prefer.

                 But it isn’t just about that – it’s about power.

                 btw: This is what Labour says it’s about. You were saying?
                 • Mary …

                   1 October 2012 at 10:06 pm

                   I’m not conflating anything. Labour’s recent policies show precisely how it’s abandoned its original core values. Its Social Security Amendment Act 2007 is wholly consistent with National Party welfare policy but nobody bothers looking at it because nobody could ever believe that Labour could be responsible for such nasty and odious legislation. The 2007 amendment act is just one example. But you have to read it to believe it. Labour did other similar things early on during the Clark years which also went unnoticed. Again, you have to go back and look at precisely what they did to understand. Near the end of that clip it said “Labour was back, and people mattered more than ideology” (straight after shots of Douglas and Richardson I might add) which is total rubbish. The Social Security Amendment Act introduced work-testing invalid’s beneficiaries FFS (as well as a whole bunch of other nasties). Sound familiar? Clue: Shearer-sickness beneficiary-roof. Like I said, I’m not conflating anything. I’m saying that Labour has fundamentally changed, which is something you don’t seem to acknowledge.
   • Steve Wrathall 4.3

     2 October 2012 at 1:42 pm

     “…there is no need to give a special welcome to misogynists, racists…”
     So Maoris who expect special treatment and for their wahines to sit quietly at the back of the marae are out?
5. BM 5

   30 September 2012 at 9:15 pm

   Maybe the neighbour know’s he’s a useless bludging fuck who’s ripping of the hard working people of NZ, which is the reason he’s speaking to David.
   Socialism where everyone works together and if not to the fucking gulags for the shirkers.
   • Roy 5.1

     30 September 2012 at 9:24 pm

     Then again, maybe the neighbour is an intolerant judgmental old prick who doesn’t understand that a person can be physically well enough to paint a roof but not mentally well enough to do a 9 to 5 job. One thing’s sure, neither the whiny neighbour or David Shearer are the roofpainter’s GP or other medical professional who signed the roofpainter up for the sickness benefit, so neither of them has the faintest idea what they are talking about and should mind their own business.
   • weka 5.2

     30 September 2012 at 9:24 pm

     Doesn’t explain why Shearer would believe him without thinking the issue through.
   • QoT 5.3

     30 September 2012 at 9:24 pm

     You know, BM, if the neighbour had any factual basis to his insinuations, I’m pretty sure WINZ would love to have heard from him, and he would’ve been bragging to Shearer (still assuming any of this story is authentic) about getting the bludger locked up.

     Now of course, I may be jumping to conclusions here in thinking you’re a judgemental asshat, but maybe I’m wrong. You could be a medical doctor who’s worked closely with the dude on the roof and can actually put forward an informed opinion on his condition! Feel free to provide actual evidence of this at any time you like.
     • weka 5.3.1

       30 September 2012 at 9:36 pm

       Not so sure. There’s lots of people who think that dobbing is even worse than bludging. On the other hand, there are also lots of people who like the weight of the chip on their shoulder.
       • BloodyOrphan 5.3.1.1

         30 September 2012 at 9:46 pm

         Most are trying to contribute and point out obvious observations.
         The error is in the interpretation, but he (Shearer) doesn’t want to show weakness of mind.
         He really needs to find a much better analogy about fairness, the “koha” principle would be a good one
         And he needs to redefine the word sick in a civilised sense maybe
         We’ve always been trying to educate people, x% have failed, we have too accept that, criminal outcome or not.
     • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.3.2

       1 October 2012 at 11:07 am

       I don’t think the roof painter or the neighbour even exist – Shearer or one of his “brains” “trust” made them up.
   • millsy 5.4

     30 September 2012 at 9:57 pm

     What about the wealthy who are demanding tax cut after tax cut even though they know full well that it will lead to cuts in services for the rest?
   • Warren 5.5

     30 September 2012 at 10:36 pm

     Heard of Scandinavia?
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.6

     1 October 2012 at 9:37 am

     BM’s “thoughts” on “socialism”. So relevant, so insightful. lol
6. Pete 6

   30 September 2012 at 9:23 pm

   It’s interesting that he says he doesn’t read the blogs. Sure, we’re not opinion shapers like the msm, but he ignores the activist base at his peril.
   • QoT 6.1

     30 September 2012 at 9:26 pm

     I can believe he doesn’t read them himself – he should, theoretically, be a busy man – but someone in his media team must be keeping an eye on them, if only so they know when Clare Curran decides to grace WO with another bridge-building guest post *headdesk*
     • mickysavage 6.1.1

       30 September 2012 at 10:38 pm

       They (caucus and Shearer’s office) read the blogs all the time.  They are particularly critical of and afraid of the Standard.  They do need to get a grip.  Blogs are the current version of good old fashioned meetings where people would stand up and say what they thought and hold their MPs to account.

       And I agree Pete.  Shearer should pay more attention to his activist base and less to the chattering classes. 
     • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.1.2

       1 October 2012 at 7:31 am

       wtf! I don’t follow Mr. Oil, so this comes as a surprise. Blood boiling now.
       • QoT 6.1.2.1

         1 October 2012 at 6:13 pm

         It’s a bloody boring post, too. Especially if. You find it a little mind-numbing. Reading things which aren’t. Written using full sentences.

         (Linking to the RA blog not WO’s because, you know, ew.)
         • weka 6.1.2.1.1

           1 October 2012 at 7:40 pm

           This is funny:

            

           Cactus Kate says:

           May 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm

           Clare
           You asked Whale to do door knocking with you? Words cannot begin to describe the amusement of that.

            

           Clare Curran says:

           May 23, 2011 at 7:37 pm

           @Cactus He would have had to come to Dunedin. It would have been an interesting experience for him. Real people on real doorsteps. I would ahve been gracious. I would have hoped he would behave himself and put his case.

            

           Cactus Kate says:

           May 23, 2011 at 7:56 pm

           @Clare I think my point is that the National Party wouldn’t even let Whale door knock for them!
         • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.1.2.1.2

           1 October 2012 at 8:07 pm

           QoT, I’d be rhetorically asking you this question, but since Ms. Curran is present, perhaps she could answer it herself.

           When is your guest post appearing on The Standard, Ms. Curran?

           [lprent: We tend to be adverse to sitting MP’s writing posts here. We have done it on special occasions like the leadership debate or as election questions. But if you think about it, the site makes a pretty strong claim towards not getting any money from taxpaid sources. MP’s are paid by the taxpayer and they can be considered to never really being off-duty. Personally I can’t really be bothered arguing the semantics and nuances of that with the mindless morons. ]
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.1.2.1.2.1

             1 October 2012 at 9:08 pm

             OK. My mistake.
     • Rhinocrates 6.1.3

       1 October 2012 at 7:54 am

       The lying prick reads them. Exactly like John Key, he just claims not to because he’d have to start answering some very awkward questions about why he doesn’t immolate himself right away.
       • Jokerman 6.1.3.1

         1 October 2012 at 11:36 am

         that is funny
7. Blue 7

   30 September 2012 at 9:50 pm

   “…helping those on welfare to get jobs, not blaming them for being poor.”

   “paying your way…not taking advantage of the welfare system.”

   Which is the statement of the leader of the Labour Party?
   • QoT 7.1

     30 September 2012 at 9:56 pm

     … I sense a trick!
     • Blue 7.1.1

       30 September 2012 at 10:08 pm

       Statement 1 was spoken by David Cunliffe.

       Statement 2 was spoken by David Shearer.

       There’s no trick, just a question of why the fuck the leader of the Labour Party sounds like he should be off bashing bennies with Paula while the guy who should be the leader of Labour is being stymied by his caucus colleagues.
       • QoT 7.1.1.1

         30 September 2012 at 10:37 pm

         A question I am continuously asking myself, believe me.
         • Kotahi Tāne Huna 7.1.1.1.1

           1 October 2012 at 7:32 am

           +1 Cunliffe leads. Shearer fumbles.

           David Cunliffe is the de-facto leader of the Labour Party.
           • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1

             1 October 2012 at 8:20 pm

             Helen Kelly for deputy.

             Ahhhh fuck that. Cunliffe can be her deputy.
     • Jokerman 7.1.2

       30 September 2012 at 10:11 pm

       still loving your work. Night. 😉

       and….., for the umpteenth Time

       DAVID CUNLIFFE DAVID CUNLIFFE DAVID CUNLIFFE

       (if we are ever gonna’ “Break On Through To The Other Side”
       cos the day divides the night…”)
8. millsy 8

   30 September 2012 at 10:04 pm

   I dont think that DS has the commitment to the welfare and social security state that a Labour leader should have. The caucus should get rid of him and replace him with a leader who does. Until that, I will be giving my vote to the Alliance.
   • weka 8.1

     30 September 2012 at 10:34 pm

     Wasted vote. Party voting Mana or the Greens will help prevent another NACT catastrophe.
     • Populuxe1 8.1.1

       1 October 2012 at 12:34 am

       I am yet to be convinced that a Labour-Greens coalition would be anything but dysfunctional, and there is no way in hell that Labour will even entertain the idea of coalition, or even a ten foot barge pole, with Mana. Mana is political poison – it will only ever be a cross-bench party, and not a long-lasting one.
       The problem with Mana is this: It’s an unstable Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience from Maori activists alienated by the Maori Party, and old skool trade union socialists. Tino rangatiratanga is at the most basic level incompatible with State ownership and citizen equality. Eventually it will fall apart.
       Labour and the Greens are shambling centre-wards and have little rapport with people like Minto and Bradford, and every time Harawira opens his mouth he offends around 73% of the population. I’d almost be willing to bet money it won’t happen.
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         1 October 2012 at 12:51 am

         and every time Harawira opens his mouth he offends around 73% of the population.

         He only needs to impress 1/4 of what’s leftover to become a powerful political force. Parliament is far better with Harawira in there.
         • Populuxe1 8.1.1.1.1

           1 October 2012 at 1:32 am

           Yes – I’d agree with that – but it will be cross-bench, not coalition
         • David H 8.1.1.1.2

           1 October 2012 at 1:05 pm

           Also he (to be blunt) Keeps the bastards honest. As Hone, and he may be many things. Will NEVER let any govt he was in get into to shonky practices.
       • fatty 8.1.1.2

         1 October 2012 at 1:11 am

         “The problem with Mana is this: It’s an unstable Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience from Maori activists alienated by the Maori Party, and old skool trade union socialists. Tino rangatiratanga is at the most basic level incompatible with State ownership and citizen equality.”

         I’ve heard many political scientists say that…but its because Mana doesn’t subscribe to classic political ideological paradigms. From what I can see, their policies are far more coherent than the ‘third way’ shambles that Nationa/Labour have delivered us since the 80s. The neo-trabalism we have thanks to the Pakeha definition of biculturalism is not normal, nor should it be accepted.
         Mana want reduced economic inequality, equity, and cultural equality…its not that hard to get your head around.
         Also, this ‘Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience’ is an illusion perpetrated by right wing bloggers and an ignorant media. Sue Bradford, John Minto, and Matt McCarten are all class focused but have a long history of activism for Maori rights. Hone is Maori focused, but has also focused on economic inequality.

         “Eventually it will fall apart.”

         True, just as labour did in the 80s…everything falls apart and then continues to evolve.
         The Greens, Labour and Mana can easily work together, if they have the opportunity they will, they will disagree with some things, but the coalition will work. If there weren’t differences between the parties, then they would all be the same party, duh.

         ” I’d almost be willing to bet money it won’t happen.”

         The word ‘almost’ shows you don’t even believe your own post.
         • Populuxe1 8.1.1.2.1

           1 October 2012 at 1:57 am

           I’ve heard many political scientists say that…but its because Mana doesn’t subscribe to classic political ideological paradigms. From what I can see, their policies are far more coherent than the ‘third way’ shambles that Nationa/Labour have delivered us since the 80s.

           Coherent perhaps, but idealistic, parochial not real world.

           The neo-trabalism we have thanks to the Pakeha definition of biculturalism is not normal, nor should it be accepted.

           Aside from that being total gibberish, there is no consensus on what is “normal” for a post-colonial society. The tribalism was always there and part of Maori self-definition. What are you trying to say? Use your words.

           Mana want reduced economic inequality, equity, and cultural equality…its not that hard to get your head around.

           …The problem being that in power the two strange bedfellows would be implementing two very different processes to achieve it, and are I suspect lying to themselves about how the other interprets those goals.

           Also, this ‘Frankenstein’s monster sewn together for convenience’ is an illusion perpetrated by right wing bloggers and an ignorant media. Sue Bradford, John Minto, and Matt McCarten are all class focused but have a long history of activism for Maori rights. Hone is Maori focused, but has also focused on economic inequality.

           Um no, it’s based on an understanding of the politics of the participants and some common sense observation. Among the Greens Bradford was notorious for throwing tantrums when she didn’t get her way. Minto is stuck in the 1960s. Hone is certainly open about his prejudices but what about non-Maori poor?
            

           “Eventually it will fall apart.”
            
           True, just as labour did in the 80s…everything falls apart and then continues to evolve.
           The Greens, Labour and Mana can easily work together, if they have the opportunity they will, they will disagree with some things, but the coalition will work. If there weren’t differences between the parties, then they would all be the same party, duh.

           The Greens, Labour and Mana cannot “easily work together”. Hone couldn’t even work with the Maori Party – a party he was part of and he had more in common with. Coalitions generally involve the kinds of sacrifices I doubt Hone is prepared to make, and he is hated and feared by a substantial chunk of Pakeha Labour voters. Won’t happen.
            

           ” I’d almost be willing to bet money it won’t happen.”
            
           The word ‘almost’ shows you don’t even believe your own post.

           No, all it shows is I don’t like gambling and I acknowledge that there is a slim mathematical possibility of it happening.
           • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1.1

             1 October 2012 at 2:09 am

             Hone couldn’t even work with the Maori Party – a party he was part of and he had more in common with.

             So Hone couldn’t work with National Party apologists and sell outs. Your surprise at this suggests that your analysis and assumptions come rather short.
             • Populuxe1 …

               1 October 2012 at 2:15 am

               Have you missed the whole running conversation about the new capitalist friendly, third way, National Lite Labour, or are you being a dick? – because that’s who Hone would have to go into coalition with.
           • fatty 8.1.1.2.1.2

             1 October 2012 at 3:06 am

             “not real world”

             That’s classic political ideological paradigm defining the ‘real world’. It doesn’t need to continue like that, but it will if we keep voting in the same blue/red – purple team. Or even a coalition led by them.

             “Aside from that being total gibberish, there is no consensus on what is “normal” for a post-colonial society.”

             In NZ, biculturalism has become normalised to the point that only one political party has made it into government and does not subscribe to it -ACT. So yes, normal in NZ.

             “The tribalism was always there and part of Maori self-definition. What are you trying to say?”

             I’m referring to neo-tribalism. Where tribes are now corporatised, which increases inequality and cultural disharmony, for the benefit of middle class/rich Pakeha and a few Maori. Elizabeth Rata has written about it, chapter 3 of this book. Or if you can get a copy of this book, it is worth a read. Bryce Edward’s chapter in that book is kinda covered on his own blog here, he critiques biculturalism and how we have all conformed to it.

             “The problem being that in power the two strange bedfellows would be implementing two very different processes to achieve it”

             No, Mana are talking about more economic equality for all. But also improving cultural equality for Maori. They can both be done together, if we want to. At the moment National gives a token push for Maori rights that get swamped by the dominant culture, and there is a move away from economic equality. Labour gives a token push for Maori rights that also gets swamped by the dominant culture, and Labour move (slowly) towards economic equality.
             I’m not sure why you think we can’t have more economic equality and more cultural equality to a greater degree.

             “Among the Greens Bradford was notorious for throwing tantrums when she didn’t get her way. Minto is stuck in the 1960s. Hone is certainly open about his prejudices but what about non-Maori poor?”

             Yes, among the Green’s Bradford caused issues because she didn’t approve the way they were moving to the centre (as you noted above). This occurred outside of a coalition. Struggling to maintain the Green’s values was the reason for the disagreement. Bradford within a coalition worked fine with Labour before. Despite how she is portrayed in the media, Bradford is able to work with other parties. If Mana stray from their principles outside of a coalition, then Bradford would have issues with that. But Bradford has proved she can compromise when part of a coalition government.
             Minto is an activist, yes, activism of that sort is not as popular now as it was in the 1960s, but I don’t see what that has to do with the price of fish.
             Hone is very clear about what he would do for non-Maori poor, the founding principle of Mana is: ‘In short, we will fight to bring the voice of the poor, the powerless and the dispossessed into Parliament.’

             “Hone couldn’t even work with the Maori Party – a party he was part of and he had more in common with.Coalitions generally involve the kinds of sacrifices I doubt Hone is prepared to make, and he is hated and feared by a substantial chunk of Pakeha Labour voters. Won’t happen.”

             CV has stated why the rednecks dislike of Hone is irrelevant. Its called MMP. Its why we know who Rodney Hide is.
             Here is Hone in his own words about what he stands for, what Mana stands for, and why.
             • Jokerman …

               1 October 2012 at 11:41 am

               great analysis f. 😉
             • Populuxe1 …

               1 October 2012 at 12:35 pm

               “not real world”
               That’s classic political ideological paradigm defining the ‘real world’. It doesn’t need to continue like that, but it will if we keep voting in the same blue/red – purple team. Or even a coalition led by them.

               Perhaps, but short of aliens invading, the second coming, or magic, it’s what we’ve got to work with and it won’t be changing anytime soon, so I’d like to work pragmatically in the now.
                

               “Aside from that being total gibberish, there is no consensus on what is “normal” for a post-colonial society.”
                
               In NZ, biculturalism has become normalised to the point that only one political party has made it into government and does not subscribe to it -ACT. So yes, normal in NZ.

               Given the examples offered by most other postcolonial societies, biculturalism seems the best of a bad lot, though it fails to address the multicultural reality of most 21st century OECD states. By your own admittion, however, Mana also subscribes to biculturalism. Anything else would be grossly unfair to one or other group in the equation.
                
                

               I’m referring to neo-tribalism. Where tribes are now corporatised, which increases inequality and cultural disharmony, for the benefit of middle class/rich Pakeha and a few Maori. Elizabeth Rata has written about it, chapter 3 of this book. Or if you can get a copy of this book, it is worth a read. Bryce Edward’s chapter in that book is kinda covered on his own blog here, he critiques biculturalism and how we have all conformed to it.

               It’s all well and good to bitch about it, but kind of pointless if no one can’t suggest a viable and fair alternative that all concerned will subscribe to. I see a lot of airy-fairy ivory or pounamu tower idealism and post-structuralist theory, but very little suggestion of credible alternatives.
                

               “The problem being that in power the two strange bedfellows would be implementing two very different processes to achieve it”
                
               No, Mana are talking about more economic equality for all. But also improving cultural equality for Maori. They can both be done together, if we want to. At the moment National gives a token push for Maori rights that get swamped by the dominant culture, and there is a move away from economic equality. Labour gives a token push for Maori rights that also gets swamped by the dominant culture, and Labour move (slowly) towards economic equality.

               Maori cultural equality is deeply concerned with self-determination and an as yet unclearly defined guardianship of the land by individual iwi (thereby creating inequalities within Maoridom itself). It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without eroding some of the basic equalities guaranteed by the State in a Socialist environment. 

               I’m not sure why you think we can’t have more economic equality and more cultural equality to a greater degree.

               I don’t think that at all – but that depends on the definition of “cultural equality” and I tend to think economic equality has priority.
                

               Yes, among the Green’s Bradford caused issues because she didn’t approve the way they were moving to the centre (as you noted above). This occurred outside of a coalition. Struggling to maintain the Green’s values was the reason for the disagreement. Bradford within a coalition worked fine with Labour before. Despite how she is portrayed in the media, Bradford is able to work with other parties. If Mana stray from their principles outside of a coalition, then Bradford would have issues with that. But Bradford has proved she can compromise when part of a coalition government.

               That’s a lot to have faith in when you don’t even know what Labour wound set out as non-negotiable terms of coalition.

               Minto is an activist, yes, activism of that sort is not as popular now as it was in the 1960s, but I don’t see what that has to do with the price of fish.

               Because the democratic system depends heavily on popular perception and likeability.

               Hone is very clear about what he would do for non-Maori poor, the founding principle of Mana is: ‘In short, we will fight to bring the voice of the poor, the powerless and the dispossessed into Parliament.’

               Not without considerable resentment. A poor, powerless and dispossessed “white mutherfucker” is still a “white mutherfucker” – you are asking a sector of the electorate to vote for someone who has been quite open and honnest (refreshingly so) about how much he hates them. Identity politics cuts both ways in public perception
                

               “Hone couldn’t even work with the Maori Party – a party he was part of and he had more in common with.Coalitions generally involve the kinds of sacrifices I doubt Hone is prepared to make, and he is hated and feared by a substantial chunk of Pakeha Labour voters. Won’t happen.”
               CV has stated why the rednecks dislike of Hone is irrelevant. Its called MMP. Its why we know who Rodney Hide is.
               Here is Hone in his own words about what he stands for, what Mana stands for, and why.

               Brushing off dislike of Hone as “redneck” is neither fair or accurate. A lot of very reasonable, liberal Pakeha were quite legitimately offended by some of Hone’s comments. And the poison spreads surprisingly far when many Tangata Whenua have a Pakeha parent, spouse or other close and loved whanau for example. In any case, unless Labour offers a coalition deal, this is all very hypothetical, and I still think Mana is very much a “last cab off the rank” possibility for Labour , if not the Greens.
               • fatty …

                 1 October 2012 at 12:58 pm

                 “it’s what we’ve got to work with and it won’t be changing anytime soon, so I’d like to work pragmatically in the now.”

                 I don’t subscribe to TINA…I’ve never been a fan a Maggie Thatcher and her propaganda.

                 “By your own admittion, however, Mana also subscribes to biculturalism.”

                 Yes, but they strongly resist neoliberal capitalism…nobody else does that to that degree. Its not biculturalism that is the problem, its the fact that biculturalism is built on neoliberalism, which ensures economic and cultural remain vastly unequal.

                 “I see a lot of airy-fairy ivory or pounamu tower idealism and post-structuralist theory, but very little suggestion of credible alternatives.”

                 Yeah, those links were to explain about neotribalism. Mana’s policies are the credible alternatives / solutions.

                 “Maori cultural equality is deeply concerned with self-determination and an as yet unclearly defined guardianship of the land by individual iwi (thereby creating inequalities within Maoridom itself). It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without eroding some of the basic equalities guaranteed by the State in a Socialist environment.”
                 For about the 3rd time in 24 hours, Mana are not socialist.

                 “That’s a lot to have faith in when you don’t even know what Labour wound set out as non-negotiable terms of coalition.”
                 You say that as if Sheaer has a backbone…you maybe right, my guess is that if Labour do manage to get in, they will work with Labour. Hone has said he would work with Labour.

                 “Because the democratic system depends heavily on popular perception and likeability.”
                 Not in NZ, we have MMP. Often being hated by much of NZ can be an asset to getting into Government. John Banks, Rodney Hide, Nandor, Sue Bradford…all hated by most people and all part of stable coalitions.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   1 October 2012 at 1:29 pm

                   “it’s what we’ve got to work with and it won’t be changing anytime soon, so I’d like to work pragmatically in the now.”
                   I don’t subscribe to TINA…I’ve never been a fan a Maggie Thatcher and her propaganda.

                   Your opinion is largely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is the evil cow managed to stay in power for eleven years and mould Britian to suit her vision of how the world should be.

                   For about the 3rd time in 24 hours, Mana are not socialist.

                   They are to the Left, yes? Bradford and Minto are socialists, yes? And coalition with Labour-Greens will be a *ahem* socialist-ish environment, yes?
                    

                   Hone has said he would work with Labour.

                   Will Labour work with Hone?
                    
                   • fatty …

                     1 October 2012 at 6:37 pm

                     “Your opinion is largely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is the evil cow managed to stay in power for eleven years and mould Britian to suit her vision of how the world should be.”

                     My opinion is of the future, not of history. Please don’t play the redneck, playing dumb is getting boring. You can do way better than playing the redneck, back yourself.
                     My computer froze and I was unaware I’d posted up before I adjusted it, see below for my full response – “I don’t subscribe to TINA. However, you are right that it won’t be changing anytime soon. But I feel we should try and change it, otherwise we may as well just start smoking crack and give up.”

                     “They are to the Left, yes? Bradford and Minto are socialists, yes? And coalition with Labour-Greens will be a *ahem* socialist-ish environment, yes?”

                     Yes, no and yes.
                     Back to your original comment, which is quite different from those claims above, Mana are not socialist. ‘Socialist-ish’ is quite different

                     “Will Labour work with Hone?”

                     Yes, if it they need them. If Lab/ Green can do it without them, then probably not.
               • fatty …

                 1 October 2012 at 1:25 pm

                 “it’s what we’ve got to work with and it won’t be changing anytime soon, so I’d like to work pragmatically in the now.”
                 …I don’t subscribe to TINA. However, you are right that it won’t be changing anytime soon. But I feel we should try and change it, otherwise we may as well just start smoking crack and give up.

                 “By your own admittion, however, Mana also subscribes to biculturalism.”
                 …Yes, but they strongly resist neoliberal capitalism, nobody else does that to that degree. Its not biculturalism that is the problem, its the fact that biculturalism is built on neoliberalism, which ensures economic and cultural remain vastly unequal.

                 “I see a lot of airy-fairy ivory or pounamu tower idealism and post-structuralist theory, but very little suggestion of credible alternatives.”
                 …Those links were to explain about neotribalism. Mana’s policies are what I see as the credible alternatives / solutions.

                 “Maori cultural equality is deeply concerned with self-determination and an as yet unclearly defined guardianship of the land by individual iwi (thereby creating inequalities within Maoridom itself). It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without eroding some of the basic equalities guaranteed by the State in a Socialist environment.”
                 …Mana are not socialist.

                 “That’s a lot to have faith in when you don’t even know what Labour wound set out as non-negotiable terms of coalition.”
                 ….You say that as if Sheaer has a backbone! You maybe right, my guess is that if Labour do manage to get in, they will work with Labour. Hone has said he would work with Labour.

                 “Because the democratic system depends heavily on popular perception and likeability.”
                 …Not in NZ, we have MMP. Often being hated by much of NZ can be an asset to getting into Government. John Banks, Rodney Hide, Nandor, Sue Bradford – all hated by most people and all part of stable coalitions.

                 “A poor, powerless and dispossessed “white mutherfucker” is still a “white mutherfucker”
                 …he was talking about a culture in its historical context. I’m white and I know for sure he wasn’t talking about me. What disturbs me about that incident, and the ‘nigger’ statement, is that Hone needs to drop the n-bomb, or f-bomb to get on TV. I do understand how it gets taken the wrong way.

                 “Brushing off dislike of Hone as “redneck” is neither fair or accurate. ”
                 True…we will see if a coalition forms.
               • Jokerman …

                 1 October 2012 at 7:20 pm

                 thoughtful
       • weka 8.1.1.3

         1 October 2012 at 11:15 am

         “I am yet to be convinced that a Labour-Greens coalition would be anything but dysfunctional,”

         My comment was that voting for anything other than a L/G coalition is a wasted vote. Whatever criticisms that the left has about Labour or the Greens or Mana, the most important thing is to prevent another NACT govt. They’re doing enormous damage and it has to be stopped, or at least slowed down. The only way to do that is for the Left parties to have enough votes to from government.

         People giving their vote to the Alliance, or not voting, or spoiling their voting paper are giving assent to NACT to form a govt. We don’t have the luxury of voting our personal preferences. NZers really need to wake the fuck up about tactical voting under MMP.
         • Kotahi Tāne Huna 8.1.1.3.1

           1 October 2012 at 11:18 am

           Yep. As useless as Shearer may be, he’s a country mile better than the corrupt incompetence of the National Party.
         • fatty 8.1.1.3.2

           1 October 2012 at 12:36 pm

           “My comment was that voting for anything other than a L/G coalition is a wasted vote.”

           Do you see a vote for Mana as a wasted vote?
           • weka 8.1.1.3.2.1

             1 October 2012 at 12:46 pm

             Not at all. I hope that Mana will have enough votes to be needed in a confidence and supply agreement at least (can’t see them as part of a formal coalition to be honest, the way that Labour are currently, but haven’t looked very closely at the numbers either).

             However, people that want to vote Mana need to think more strategically than Labour or Green voters (although there is strategy there too). Part of the problem is that how to vote isn’t always that obvious until closer to the election. 

             The Left parties really need to co-operate this election and look at accommodating each other in different electorates.

             NZF are the big worry. 
             • Tiger Mountain …

               1 October 2012 at 1:03 pm

               Mana is a party some thousands can vote for positively rather holding their nose. It is a hybrid grouping that has got people previously alientated, particularly younger ones, involved in old fashioned politics. In small battles often unreported Mana gets in there, pokies closed down in Otara, GI ‘ethnic cleansing’ state house tenants supported, Petronas sent packing, hunger striker Sam Kuha supported, countless local hui, marches and rallies about mining and National’s ‘war on the poor’.

               Hone plus Sykes plus Minto would be strong in the house. But the real advantage Mana has is its on the ground organising. You are talking out your rear Populuxe1 if you can dismiss Dr Elizabeth Rata and not be bothered to research the origin of Hone’s ‘mo’fo’ remarks.
               • Populuxe1 …

                 1 October 2012 at 1:10 pm

                 I understand them just fine – I have advanced university degrees dealing with that sort of material – but when people come out with arguments like that, effectively saying to the electorate “if you don’t understand or disagree, you are ignorant or a redneck” they come across as an elitist wanker. I like to play the redneck just to see if some people can come out of their ivory tower for a few minutes.
                 • fatty …

                   1 October 2012 at 6:47 pm

                   Thats a weird way to spend your time Pop.
                   If you have advanced degrees dealing with post-colonial material, then how do you come to the conclusion that Mana are socialists, or are you playing the redneck?
                   • Jokerman …

                     1 October 2012 at 7:35 pm

                     Hone has my vote, oh generously proportioned one.(for percy reasons)
                     Voting is often personal, funny that.
         • Steve Wrathall 8.1.1.3.3

           2 October 2012 at 2:14 pm

           “They’re doing enormous damage and it has to be stopped…”
           They are spending a larger % of GDP than any year under Helen. You should love Key.
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 8.1.1.3.3.1

             2 October 2012 at 2:19 pm

             lol, that’s your dumbass prejudice being unmasked, Wrathall – you know, the one where you pretend to have the first clue what left wingers think or want.
           • weka 8.1.1.3.3.2

             2 October 2012 at 2:29 pm

             Why is that a good thing and anyway it doesn’t excuse the damage they are doing.
             • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

               2 October 2012 at 2:32 pm

               He thinks left wingers will think it’s a good thing because we all love “big government”. On Planet Wrathall.
     • Vicky32 8.1.2

       1 October 2012 at 6:47 pm

       Wasted vote. Party voting ….. the Greens will help prevent another NACT catastrophe.

       Surely you jest! That’s what caused last year’s catastrophe. Just about everyone I talked to voted blue-green (by which I mean, that they thought Labour was too pro-bludger) but they liked the Greens refreshing approach to business and mining…
       • felix 8.1.2.1

         1 October 2012 at 7:09 pm

         “That’s what caused last year’s catastrophe.”

         Think it through Vicky. What was the other option?

         Hint: It’s not “blue-red.”
     • millsy 8.1.3

       1 October 2012 at 11:30 pm

       Mana are idiots. They stick the eyeshadow of ‘tino rangatiratanga’ the lipstick of ‘treaty settlements’, the mascara of ‘The Treaty’ and the blusher of ‘Whanau Ora’ on the pig of privatisation.

       The Greens, while part of the way there, dont seem to get that moving towards alternative fuels, renewable/clean energy, energy efficent transpor, and organic agriculture require a combination of R and D stimulus like the space program during the 60’s and a green version of the ‘Think Big’ projects during the 1970s and 80s. They seem to think that we should just pass a few laws and levy a few taxes. Plus, they have not yet made it clear whether they would allow local authorites to run PT services ‘in house’. Not to mention that they have never really made an effort to reach out to the hunting/fishing/tramping types.

       The Alliance may never get back into Parliament, but hey, Labour doesnt looks like its resurrecting MJS, WN and AN just yet., and besides it was because of them that Ports of Auckland are still in public ownership , and without them we wouldnt have KiwiBank.

       And if you think everything is going to be so wonderful with David Cunliffe as Labour leader, I suggest you think again. After all, he did say in 2008 he had private health insurance…and last year as finance spokesman, he promised to continue with Nationals civil service cuts.
9. BLiP 9

   30 September 2012 at 10:18 pm

   .

   David Zzzzzzzzzz Shearer . . .

   Can’t make my mind up about this bloke. Seemed nice enough at the Mt Albert post-billboard-take-down after-match function. Haven’t really heard much from him since. I doubt there’s any amount of sheer logic and warm human caring that is going to shift his position on this nasty wee slice of back-hand beneficiary bashing. Certainly not a public back down, anyway. He’s gotta show the punters he’s down on the bludgers and, unfortunately, his target audience sitting in the public bars and cooking at barbeques aren’t very happy with the bludgers either. National Ltd™ policies and media presence has installed a mean, petty public mindset which spies on neighbours but smiles and waves at banksters and the privateers buying our education resources. The public gaze is off the ball. Thanks Fourth Estate. To appeal to this new mindset is to reflect its values in public, and be staunch about it. Labour also has to stifle the blind prejudice which perceives the party as run by dull dykes, uppity natives, screaming queens, panty-waisted dillettantes, career loafers, and, even worse, academics. Time to dumb it down and get a bit macho about things, swing his balls about and show who’s boss.

   Thing is, the words coming out of Shearer’s mouth – when they keep me awake – seem in stark contradiction with the chap I met in June 2009. I guess he’s in with the spin-meisters getting polished up for the hustings. I’m guessing he’s enduring that pre-election image-manufacturing and leadership grooming: that dehumanising process where the end result, the image merging from via multiple channels, is that of an automaton.

   I would like to hear from him in person some time. Media performance and PR bullshit posts on The Standard don’t cut it for me. Anyone know when he’s next going to be speaking in South Auckland . . . has he been to South Auckland?
   • QoT 9.1

     30 September 2012 at 10:43 pm

     Time to dumb it down and get a bit macho about things, swing his balls about and show who’s boss.

     Goff tried that, and it failed abysmally. The problem is that trying to play to the audience we assume left Labour for National – i.e. Waitakere Myth – is pointless, because the only way for Labour to differentiate itself from National is to say vaguely leftwing things (like “let’s have more paid parental leave” and “let’s stop discriminating against beneficiaries through Working for Families”) which instantly negates whatever ground they might gain by aforementioned ball-swinging.

     And by avoiding those nasty progressive topics, Labour just makes it indistinguishable from National except for which face you see on the telly, and people seem to still prefer Mr Aw-Shucks Key (for now) to Mr Mumblefuck Shearer.

     Ironically, the one dude in Labour’s front bench who I think could go toe-to-toe against Key in the “dude you want to have a beer with” stakes is Cunliffe, who (I pray) would prefer to win through an actual debate of ideas.
     • BLiP 9.1.1

       30 September 2012 at 11:08 pm

       .

       Meh – Cunliffe’s a banker – had enough of those ; )

       How would you seek to get messages into Punter Land?
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1

         30 September 2012 at 11:34 pm

         Meh – Cunliffe’s a banker – had enough of those ; )

         WTF do you mean Cunliffe is a banker?
     • weka 9.1.2

       30 September 2012 at 11:38 pm

       Mr Mumblefuck…. that’s the laugh out loud of the weekend.
   • Dr Terry 9.2

     1 October 2012 at 8:20 am

     Well, so many people thought (still think) Key “nice enough” (at the least!). Is being a “nice bloke” sufficient qualification for Leader?
     • Rhinocrates 9.2.1

       1 October 2012 at 8:22 am

       It’s abundantly clear now that Shearer isn’t even a “nice bloke.”
10. fatty 10

    30 September 2012 at 10:51 pm

    Did anyone see series four, episode four of ‘the thick of it’ today?
    The similarities between that episode and the current Labour Party are uncanny.
    Labour needs a Malcolm Tucker.
    • just saying 10.1

      1 October 2012 at 9:02 am

      Would LOVE it if you would supply a link fatty.
      When I tried to see the show I was blocked because my server is outside the UK
      • felix 10.1.1

        1 October 2012 at 10:00 am

        http://watchseries.eu/serie/the_thick_of_it
    • Bill 10.2

      1 October 2012 at 9:43 am

      I watched episode two in a state of disbelief. I had no option but form the view that the NZ Labour Party is in reality a parody of a satirical take on the UK Labour Party.
11. Scintilla 11

    30 September 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Labour don’t want to be in power this term, still smarting over Seabed & Foreshore – they want the Nats to grapple with water rights. No contest between DS & DC and Labour really aren’t trying very hard to be an indefatigable Opposition. Even that old codger Winston “Key flip flops like a wet jandal” Peters lands more hits than Shearer.
    • Populuxe1 11.1

      1 October 2012 at 12:39 am

      I’m not sure that the spastic goat rodeo clusterfuck of National will let Labour have the option. Labour had better be ready to hit the ground running.
12. hush minx 12

    30 September 2012 at 11:16 pm

    I haven’t commented for awhile – been too depressed by watching the once proud Labour team fall under its own weight of self delusion. But reading this post reminded me that there are others who feel similarly critical. Thank you for reminding me that’s it’s ok not to like what Labour currently stands for(as represented by its leadership duo) and that it is ok to hope that things could improve if the caucus embrace the opportunity to promote change. We, and lots of nzers who don’t read blogs like this need, them to take that next step so we can vote this national government out in 2014. And blip-i thought cunliffe was a management consultant type, not a banker. At the very least he seems to have his head in the right space regardless of his work experience. Must be that ‘son of a preacher’ sense of social justice defying the big bad world of capital!
    • BLiP 12.1

      30 September 2012 at 11:27 pm

      .

      Hmmmm . . . David “First Boston” Cunliffe vs Donald “Corn Beef” Brash. Interesting.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        30 September 2012 at 11:44 pm

        David Cunliffe worked for BCG. Not for Credit Suisse/First Boston.

        As far as I know. Where did you get your information. I think you are wrong.
        • BLiP 12.1.1.1

          30 September 2012 at 11:59 pm

          .

          I stand corrected. Thank you.

          David “Boston Consulting” Cunliffe.
          • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1

            1 October 2012 at 12:14 am

            Yep. Extremely well known internationally for providing absolute top class strategy work to corporates, NGO’s, governments and other large scale clients. They are not bankers or financiers.
            • BLiP 12.1.1.1.1.1

              1 October 2012 at 12:30 am

              .

              How can one offer absolutely top class strategy work for corporates without a consideration of the banking and financial aspects . . . you sure BCG isn’t one of them “team building trust fall encounter weekend” scam merchants masquerading as “management consultants”?

              Nah – just teasing. And, anyhow, fuck the banksters, and the businessmen, and the management consultants, and the diplomats, and the media stars, and the time-wasting career groomers (hi, Sam) scattered throughout Parliament. Time for some teachers, nurses, cops, farmers, builders, and labourers to step up, if you ask me.
              • Colonial Viper …

                1 October 2012 at 12:50 am

                Time for some teachers, nurses, cops, farmers, builders, and labourers to step up, if you ask me.

                If existing political party hierarchies are willing to promote ordinary sensible people to become candidates and MPs.
            • insider 12.1.1.1.1.2

              1 October 2012 at 11:56 am

              Their senior leadership are nearly all ex bankers…
13. mike 13

    1 October 2012 at 2:00 am

    Succinctly put QoT. That Shearer is actually defending this anecdote shows that either:

    A) In spite of the onslaught of criticism from his own base he just doesn’t get it. Or,

    B) He’s just saying what his spin team tells him to say.

    Either way he’s bleeding Labour votes to the Greens over this. And he’s gaining none because the tossers who agree with his roof painter line are true blue.
    • Draco T Bastard 13.1

      1 October 2012 at 3:18 am

      Either way he’s bleeding Labour votes to the Greens over this.

      He’s bleeding a number there but I also think that a few are dropping into the non-voter category.
      • mike 13.1.1

        1 October 2012 at 4:42 am

        Yep, when the two biggest parties in the house are both talking shite it doesn’t exactly inspire.
      • Bored 13.1.2

        1 October 2012 at 9:33 am

        The bleeding benefits National: if Labour voters go to Green that’s a zero gain. The message Shearer gave to ordinary Bene Bashing Joe was “Bennett is right, they are bludgers! I must vote National again”! Unfortunately the Joes’ out there represent a big voting block (was this Paganis strategy to win them over)?
    • xtasy 13.2

      1 October 2012 at 1:20 pm

      It is simple:

      Shearer and those in charge within Labour do still adhere to the idea and agenda, that they need to win enough “middle NZ” (middle class) votes to get back into leading a government.

      As that “middle NZ” has been intensively “conditioned” (brainwashed) by means of extremely poor, often not fact-based, emotive and sensationalistic, negative media reporting, also by the nourishment of sentiments of envy, injustice and lack of competent government action, which National worked on for years when in opposition, which it certainly re-enforced since winning the election to govern since 2008, most in the public have that perception, that there is large scale abuse of welfare happening.

      Not even MSD has any figures saying that there is large scale abuse, but the wider public do in high numbers believe this.

      It is called propaganda, and Shearer and Labour see a necessity to not just put up with it, but even engage in it, just to try and win over any prospective voters in “middle NZ”.

      That is the standards politics have come to in New Zealand, like in many other countries. True information just does not “cut” it anymore (if it ever has).
      • Draco T Bastard 13.2.1

        1 October 2012 at 7:27 pm

        +1

        Getting some truth out there is what we of the left need to be doing. Unfortunately, the major “left” party is pushing the BS out instead.
14. xtasy 14

    1 October 2012 at 2:04 am

    Social Security Act 1964:

    54 Sickness benefit: standard eligibility requirements

    (1) A person is entitled to a sickness benefit if he or she satisfies the criteria in subsections (2), (3), and (4), and—

    (a) is not in full-time employment, is willing to undertake it, but because of sickness, injury, or disability is limited in his or her capacity to seek, undertake, or be available for full-time employment; or

    (b) is in employment, but is losing earnings because, through sickness or injury, he or she is not actually working, or is working only at a reduced level.

    An applicant for a sickness benefit—

    (a) must be aged at least 18 years, in the case of an applicant without a dependent child:

    (b) must be aged at least 19 years, in any other case.

    (3) An applicant for a sickness benefit must meet the residential requirements in section 74AA.

    (4) An applicant for a sickness benefit must have—

    (a) no income; or

    (b) an income of less than the amount that would fully abate the benefit.

    Link:
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0136/latest/DLM361900.html

    So, dear Mr Shearer and some other “smart talkers”: Does being on a sickness benefit rule it totally out that a person may be able to do some odd work for certain hours, like for instance painting a roof?

    Obviously NOT.

    Maybe look at the actual legal and other facts, before ranting on about “fairness”, “paying your way” and so forth. Also, doctors and other health professionals do not hand out medical certs for cash on the hand or like cookies from a cookie jar! They are bound by law, their codes and standards to act responsibly and based on factual medical diagnosis.

    But the medically unqualified man in the street knows better, yeah right!?
15. David H 15

    1 October 2012 at 2:18 am

    I posted this in open mike. But it belongs in here.

    Yes I too watched in numb horror, Has no-one in the Labour party worked it out yet??? Or maybe they have. BUT when we have a pull apart after the 2014 debacle that will be the election where the NZ Labour Party comes a woeful 3rd with fuck all seats behind a confident Green Party and A thieving NACT party in for the final round of theft and incompetence.
    We will be able to point the finger at OLD and PAST IT politicians clinging on with their fingertips. Pushing their own private agendas, just so they can suck at the public teat for another 3 years where they will have to do fuck all to get the money they are supposed to EARN!

    Now we all know who these old and past it ones are, so a little nudging in to the retirement rather than defeat.camp would be good.

    And will someone please please point out to shearer and his backers (Robertson) included is that he is not, and never will be, Prime Minister material, and neither are they, simply by the damage they have let happen to NZ, and it’s economy. By their self interest.
16. Uturn 16

    1 October 2012 at 10:52 am

    Have I missed the moment of proof from Shearer that the guy on the roof was a sickness beneficiary? Was that ever proved?
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 16.1

      1 October 2012 at 11:12 am

      As I said above, I don’t think the roof painter exists. In the first(?) incarnation of the story, he was cleaning his roof, not painting it.

      So not only has Shearer invented the whole scenario, he’s so stupid/rightwing he thinks it’s a vote winner.
      • MrSmith 16.1.1

        1 October 2012 at 1:01 pm

        It read as an analogy to me.

        If Shearer can win without getting to specific, all the easier for him later. At the moment he has to build a public image, some won’t like this, but how many will look at the detail before they vote.
        • Uturn 16.1.1.1

          1 October 2012 at 2:39 pm

          So in short, Shearer is arguing to defend his support of the projection of a collective national shadow onto a tiny portion of the population. Jesus, what year is this? This is bad, bad, news.
          • MrSmith 16.1.1.1.1

            1 October 2012 at 11:06 pm

            It’s not that bad Uturn as most people aren’t that stupid, except your average kiwis.
        • weka 16.1.1.2

          1 October 2012 at 2:51 pm

          If Shearer was Maori bashing instead of beneficiary bashing, would it still be ok for him to build his public image that way? 
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.2.1

            1 October 2012 at 11:11 pm

            well allow me to join the speech writing team dudes:

            Well we know that most Maori families are honest hard working folk, but when I was out door knocking in my electorate the other day, this nice clearly employed white guy in a business shirt (beautifully ironed by his wife/gay civil union partner) pointed out to me a failed Maori family across the street. He said (and I never saw this for myself) that they seemed to drink away the week days with their dole money, their unemployed kids seem a bit too friendly with patched gang members, they leave their youngest child hungry without shoes or lunch to go to school, and Mum usually seemed to leave home with a limp and sunglasses and scarves on, even on warm, cloudy days. And he, rightfully, said that this wasn’t on. Why couldn’t they be more like him?

            Now I don’t know about you but I don’t think the behaviour of that Maori family, if indeed what was relayed to me is accurate and why wouldn’t it be, is particularly fair to the rest of us productive, tax paying citizens, when they are soaking up all the resources of our country and giving roughly fuck all in return.

            All I’m saying here is that, you know, most Maori families are great people, and actually some of them are my friends, but others on benefits are just plain rotten; it’s just not what this thing that we love called a social contract is about.
          • MrSmith 16.1.1.2.2

            1 October 2012 at 11:36 pm

            Weka racism is the worst kind of prejudice on this planet as far as I am concerned and I don’t appreciate you using it as a comparison, you are smarter than that.

            I try and look at things through the average joe’s eyes, and what I see is Key came to power as the rich banker from a poor home. Now Shearer, well most people don’t know a thing about him and could care less, but when the time comes for them to tick their little box he needs to mean something to them, hope, trust and fairness mostly, and lets hope if he ever gets his shit together he lives up to that.
            • QoT 16.1.1.2.2.1

              1 October 2012 at 11:43 pm

              MrSmith, I don’t really like the Oppression Olympics. Labelling any one kind of oppression as “the worst” is incredibly demeaning to everyone else who suffers, and incredibly limiting to those who experience an intersection of oppressions, e.g. women of colour who have to deal not just with racism, not just with sexism, but a whole extra load of shit based around society’s assumptions about and treatment of women of colour.

              For us to believe Shearer told the roofpainter anecdote as “an analogy”, you have to (a) call David Shearer a liar, because he has stated it is a true story and (b) assume David Shearer has no fucking clue how to speak clearly, in which case could he please stop pretending to be a politician.
17. deemac 17

    1 October 2012 at 11:22 am

    the problem is, every other voter I speak to (and I speak to plenty) seems to know one of the one or two percent of beneficiaries who are rorting the system. Telling them it doesn’t matter in the great scheme of things just doesn’t wash with them when they are struggling.
    As to other jibes, people are entitled to their opinion, but to claim Shearer was “shoulder-tapped” when he previously stood for an unwinnable seat before winning – not being handed on a plate – the selection for Mt Albert is just ignorant. Oh and FYI the reason Kris (not Chris!) Faafoi was not a party member before becoming an MP was that his job meant he could not belong to a political party. Still, nothing like prejudices is there?
    • weka 17.1

      1 October 2012 at 11:29 am

      “Telling them it doesn’t matter in the great scheme of things just doesn’t wash with them when they are struggling.”

      So don’t tell them that. Instead give them the figures about who is rorting the system at the top end. And if that doesn’t move them, ask them why they think it is ok for the top end rorting to go on.
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 17.2

      1 October 2012 at 11:31 am

      Right, and every other voter I speak to (and I speak to plenty) seems to think Māori are inferior, and telling them it doesn’t matter in the great scheme of things just doesn’t wash with them when they are struggling.

      Perhaps if you didn’t agree with the sentiment you might find it easier to rebut.
    • xtasy 17.3

      1 October 2012 at 1:07 pm

      deemac:

      Now, would a doctor or other health professional, who will her-/himself also be paying taxes to cover welfare expenses, who have duties and responsibilities, who in general will know the patient they deal with fairly well, then go and spend 15 to 30 minutes interviewing such patient, fall for any unconvincing excuse or whatever a “maligner” may try to come up with, and complete this form then?

      http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/media/315801/work%20capacity%20med%20cert%20v12a.pdf

      http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/media/315801/work capacity med cert v12a.pdf

      Without such a certificate nobody will get a sickness benefit, and after the first one the next one is due in 4 weeks, and then one due at least every 90 days. If WINZ does find contradictions or is not convinced, the client will have to go and see one of their (“trained”!) “designated doctors” for a second opinion, which usually overrides anything any doctor or expert stated before her/him. Surely some of them are biased against a beneficiary (see ‘Principal Health Advisor’ Dr David Bratt’s many “famous” presentations).

      http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP CME/Friday/C1 1515 Bratt-Hawker.pdf

      http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf

      (see pages 13, 20, 21, 32, 35, where the leading “health expert” of MSD and WINZ compares benefit dependency with drug dependency!)

      The problem is: There are a fair number of “know it all” “wannabe experts” out there, who like to have a scape goat to point the finger at. They are not the medical staff knowing the full picture, but they think they know what goes on, being an expert also about the All Blacks and rugby, so that is why “they” think they should be the coach, not Henry or Hansen.

      Yes, sometimes doctors get things wrong too, but put this into realistic perspectives.
18. The Chairman 18

    1 October 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Not only does Shearer disappoint, but what is being proposed in the speech by Cunliffe is also flawed and concerning.

    Did anyone else here pick up on the flawed rational being promoted?
19. The Chairman 19

    1 October 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Here is one example:

    Cunliffe claims not to be advocating dolling out taxpayer money to business, yet goes on to give examples of doing just that.

    Financially helping a private company without having a related stake and the opportunity to benefit from potential future returns is dolling out taxpayer money to business.

    Private companies don’t develop products or services to then share with the rest of the country. Those developments will be sold to consumers with the private companies looking to maximize their return.

    The trickle–down claimed seldom eventuates.

    Scandinavian countries have strong unions that help insure a more effective trickle-down – we don’t..
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      2 October 2012 at 12:05 am

      Sorry mate there is a huge difference between doling out money to private foreign owned corporates and investing resources in upcoming NZ owned SMEs who create the majority of the jobs and innovation in this country.

      Plus, if all you want a reassurance of is a public or worker stake in every SME which receives government assistance, why can’t that be arranged.

      The basic truth of the matter is that developing industries always need a large amount of government support. Large entrenched monopolistic foreign owned players need to be supplanted by NZ owned SMEs.

      Scandinavian countries have strong unions that help insure a more effective trickle-down – we don’t..

      It’d take a lot of in-house clearing and some new legislation but this could be fixed too.
      • The Chairman 19.1.1

        2 October 2012 at 7:40 am

        It’s one thing to claim there is a difference, but can you define it?

        A stake could be arranged, unfortunately that is not what is being proposed, hence the concern.

        The truth of the matter is the local private sector is far to small, largely lacks the drive (boat ,batch, BMW mentality) and resources to generate the national growth required, hence Government is required to expand further into commerce.

        Dolling out money (regardless if it’s to local SMEs or foreign owned corporates) without taking a related stake amounts to corporate welfare.

        Legislation could be changed to strengthen unions, however that isn’t what’s being proposed.

        While the speech has many points of merit, a number of solutions are flawed.
20. NickS 20

    1 October 2012 at 10:18 pm

    Too tired to process post, but that title made me /squeee pretty badly when I saw it 😛

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS