Sexist pigs and lipstick

119 comments on “Sexist pigs and lipstick ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stuart Munro 1

   21 August 2017 at 8:54 am

   Gareth maybe doesn’t understand that ‘all that matters is policy’ hasn’t been true for the last nine years. The Gnats, by using a corrupt speaker and lying their arses off have avoided talking about policy at all. Which, once it is understood they mean to privatize healthcare, is understandable in terms of retaining their illegitimate grasp on power. It’s only once the Gnats are gone that policy will have a chance.
   • Enough is Enough 1.1

     21 August 2017 at 10:19 am

     I think it was Barak Obama that first used that phrase lipstick on a pig to belittle a female opponent.

     https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/09/10/was-barack-obamas-lipstick-on-a-pig-comment-an-offensive-attack-on-sarah-palin
   • cathy 1.2

     21 August 2017 at 10:24 am

     for someone that most closely resembles a rat peering through a scrubbing brush that’s very rich
     • Stuart Munro 1.2.1

       21 August 2017 at 10:33 am

       He was rude – but the idea that content matters is not altogether empty. It’s going to cost him though – the Whaleoil approach only appeals to scrotes.
   • Matthew Whitehead 1.3

     21 August 2017 at 10:53 am

     Even if it’s true that policies are all that matter, if Morgan’s policies were a pig they would need to be humanely euthanized. They’re almost all geared around economic impact and the needs of business, not social impact and the needs of wage-earning kiwis who aren’t owner-operators. I would vote for Labour ahead of TOP if someone put a gun to my head and gave me those two options, and I am very policy focused for a voter.

     For an example, he managed to make even a capital gains tax a loser, by having it tax unrealised capital gains. That’s ridiculous. It’s not actual income until a sale has happened or a dividend is paid. Tax the capital gains on realisation/sale of assets, (because then the gain is confirmed and measurable) and rather than carving out exceptions for the family home, just set a tax-free bracket for capital gains and let people front-load capital gains onto, say, the next five years or so, so that ordinary people switching homes can just promise to pay full tax on any other capital gains they get in the next few years to offset taxes from selling their house, or you’ll end up in a jungle of money-go-rounds, taxing people on paper gains and then rebating them on paper losses, and frantically calculating if the exemptions apply.

     And don’t get me started on what happens to investments in companies if we start taxing unrealised capital gains- this is exactly why Joyce is pretending that all CGTs tax unrealised capital in economic debates, (when Labour has taken no stance because they’re going to listen to actual experts who will tell them not to do it the stupid way) because it essentially makes corporation tax even higher than it already is in terms of how investors behave, which means they’re often financially better off simply saving their money rather than putting it into businesses.
     • lprent 1.3.1

       21 August 2017 at 1:52 pm

       Good comment. I am afraid that I hadn’t bothered to dig enough into TOP policies to see that particular bit of stupidity.

       As you say, taxing unrealized capital gain is daft for a pile of reasons. But the windfall it would provide for lawyers and accountants arguing about the real value of a property (or a business) would be very high on my list.
     • Stuart Munro 1.3.2

       21 August 2017 at 2:03 pm

       Yes – I’d noticed that about his CGT, and of course the flat tax is a rightwing wet dream. But at least his policy is in the open – the current government know their policies are indefensible and so they send Tony Ryall around wrecking things they mean to sell without a public debate. That’s as close to criminal as a government can sustain without overt secret police use.

       His water policy still ends up alienating the common use right, about the only thing that would stand up unmodified is his marijuana policy.

       But his critique of the housing debacle is long overdue – even if his solution is selfserving rightwing twaddle, the crisis didn’t creep up slowly, and for all their professed economic acumen neither major party did anything real to forestall it. I did a bit of homework on it back in 2002 and concluded that CGT was necessary – whoever the ‘experts’ were then should be sacked and sued for charlatanry – this whole crisis should never have been allowed to develop. It has impoverished or is going to impoverish a whole generation and no government ever has a mandate to do that. So I’m guessing that’s the pig he’s referring to.
       • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.2.1

         21 August 2017 at 2:44 pm

         I agree open policy is good, but you don’t need to go to TOP for that. The Greens have open policy, and a critique of the housing market. Labour have genuine blame in the genesis of the crisis, but I honestly believe they would have done much better in arresting it, and deserve credit for having more ideas and more useful approaches than the government, even if they’re still unwilling to be as aggressive as they should be in solving homelessness.

         Don’t underestimate how many problems Clark’s government had to solve. I think they were not paying enough attention to the problem, but I think that’s also because they had a rather big laundry list of things to get through thanks to our smooth transition from Rogernomics into the Mother of All Budgets. If Key hadn’t succeeded in ending their reign, I think they probably would have made a lot more effort on this than National did, although probably not enough.
         • Stuart Munro 1.3.2.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 2:58 pm

           I’m curious as to what the effect of TOP in parliament might be, as long as it doesn’t preserve the current kleptocracy. I am less sanguine that Clark Labour was ready to grapple with the consequences of rogergnomics however, though of course anything would’ve been better than Key – I think they’d’ve been a palliative when an intervention was – is in fact – required.
       • mikesh 1.3.2.2

         21 August 2017 at 6:41 pm

         The flat tax, as I understand matters, would only be introduced alongside a UBI. Together the two measures would be equivalent to a progressive tax system similar to what we have at the the present time, but simpler to operate.

         Overseas experience suggests that a CGT would do nothing to prevent the housing crisis developing. Morgan´s CCT idea is certainly not ¨right wing twaddle´ and he assures us that it would be offset by tax cuts sufficient to ensure that the bottom 80% of us would be paying no more tax than we do at present. The top 20% he says would pay more but that they can afford it. The CCT, if introduced, might crash housing prices, but I´m not convinced that that would necessarily be a bad thing.
         • Stuart Munro 1.3.2.2.1

           21 August 2017 at 7:20 pm

           You are mistaken – the flat tax is Christmas for high income earners, absence of a CGT is a major driver of the speculation that has inflated house prices beyond the reach of median earners – Morgan’s CGT as Matthew pointed out includes unrealized gains – fine for speculators, but no good for single home owners on limited incomes – they would be pushed out. A CGT is necessary but needs to address such issues much more carefully.
           • Graeme 1.3.2.2.1.1

             21 August 2017 at 8:02 pm

             Morgan’s Capital Tax, (it’s not a CGT it’s a straight out tax on capital or equity) might be fine once we reach the mythical nirvana that he aspires, but it’s going to be a bloody and destructive path to get there. He doesn’t seem to have thought that process through very well, if at all.
             • Stuart Munro …

               21 August 2017 at 8:27 pm

               Quite right – I only gave it a once over lightly I’m afraid – enough to see a possible flaw.
           • mikesh 1.3.2.2.1.2

             21 August 2017 at 10:07 pm

             I agree this could be an unwanted side effect, and there might need to be put in place some means of mitigating it. However, the CCT idea is in principle a good one.

             I don´t see that it would be good for speculators though.
             • Stuart Munro …

               21 August 2017 at 10:32 pm

               Really a job for an economist to point out all the possible flaws – and I imagine Gareth has brainstormed the obvious ones. But matters like the status of foreign capital and transfers (eg I open a bank account in Oz) will quickly dilute the elegance it might have in a model economy. Would Amazon pay tax on its share value? Its sales? Its turnover? What about bank assets? These questions would have to have some kind of answers before the policy could be evaluated.

               Might give Brian Easton grist for a decent column, but it would represent a heroic change to existing tax structures rather than an incremental one. It would struggle to find a majority, much less a mandate.
               • mikesh …

                 22 August 2017 at 8:44 am

                 I think Morgan´s CCT is based on assets actually located in NZ.

                 In this instance though I think we are mainly with the effect it would have on households.
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   22 August 2017 at 8:59 pm

                   You can’t assess his policies without that information because capital will run to wherever the tax advantage is, including offshore if necessary.

                   But I think we can fairly surmise from Gareth’s failure to criticize the corruption of the current government that he approves of it, and thus all this policy palaver is just a distractor. TOP only means to be a Judas party to replace the likes of Dunne. Their policy is really neither here nor there.
           • mikesh 1.3.2.2.1.3

             21 August 2017 at 10:19 pm

             High earners are already paying what is, to all intents and purposes, a flat tax – on income above $70,000. The higher their income the less important becomes the $9,200 tax they pay on income below $70,000.
           • mikesh 1.3.2.2.1.4

             22 August 2017 at 12:31 pm

             A flat tax would only be ‘Christmas’ for high earners if the rate was relatively low. There is no reason however to infer that a low rate would be chosen if a UBI was introduced at the same time, since that would mitigate the effect of a high flat otax rate on low income earners.
     • mikesh 1.3.3

       21 August 2017 at 7:14 pm

       Nowhere in his policy does he advocate taxing unrealised capital gains.
       • Stuart Munro 1.3.3.1

         21 August 2017 at 7:27 pm

         Page three paragraph one “We need to charge tax on imputed rent.” – That’s tax on unrealized income. No mention of any other carve outs.
         • RedLogix 1.3.3.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 9:06 pm

           Exactly. Mathew has this 100% wrong.
         • mikesh 1.3.3.1.2

           21 August 2017 at 9:59 pm

           It´s actually a tax on imputed income, not unrealised income.
           That´s not the same thing. And in any case it´s certainly not a tax on capital gains, either realised or unrealised.
     • RedLogix 1.3.4

       21 August 2017 at 9:05 pm

       Idiot comment. It’s not a tax in unrealised capital gains. It’s nothing to do with capital gain. Go away and read the policy before commenting on it.
2. Keith 2

   21 August 2017 at 8:57 am

   Another egotistical millionaire who thinks he is infallible.

   You can only form a coalition with this turkey as long you accept he is always right.
   • marty mars 2.1

     21 August 2017 at 9:22 am

     + 1 he’s in for some basting today – i’m reminded of the turkey flying episode of wkrp in Cincinnati and les commenting as they ‘fly’ from the helicopter – the horror, the horror.
   • mikesh 2.2

     21 August 2017 at 6:51 pm

     If you think he’s wrong then outline your reasons. Otherwise I would suggest you desist from making inane comments.
3. Reality 3

   21 August 2017 at 8:58 am

   Same old theme from some (not all) men – how dare a woman be attractive and smart and clever and inspirational and real.
   • Cinny 3.1

     21 August 2017 at 9:11 am

     Yes, yes 😀 How dare anyone be attractive, clever, intelligent, switched on, charismatic and popular with the public.
     Especially if they are the leader of a competing political party. Jealous much Morgan? lolololz grow up Gareth.

     Yes Jacinda completely mesmerizes a crowd when she speaks to them, but it’s not her beauty that does it, it’s her words, her sentiment, her beliefs and outlook that does it among other things.
   • crashcart 3.2

     21 August 2017 at 9:57 am

     If this is what you read into what he said then you have only given it superficial thought. Either that or you are really happy that you have a reason to be offended by Morgan.

     Once again this statement has nothing to do with Jacinda’s looks. As he tried to explain to those who only want to get offended, it is about the fact that establishment Labour literally only changed the look of the party by changing the leader and bill boards. No policy change.
     • Cinny 3.2.1

       21 August 2017 at 10:10 am

       What I read into it, is a person that appears to jealous of the attention his counterpart is getting and his own desperation to get into the news cycle. Putting the topical tweet re lipstick aside, his twitter feed targets her more than anyone. A party is more than one person, but then there is gareth, seymour and dunne.

       Interestingly enough his metaphor has now been deleted from his twitter, however the photo still remains.

       Even more interesting is the airplay this is getting, Sean will be happy with that result.

       Afghanistan info is blowing my mind this morning.
       • crashcart 3.2.1.1

         21 August 2017 at 10:15 am

         I think the reason he targets Labour and Jacinda is that he see’s them as the most likely party to be willing to work on ideas around lowering house prices and a UBI. NACT are so the polar opposite to this.

         He has tried to push them to use the opportunity of a change of leader to change some of their policies. So far all Labour seem to want to do is change their bill boards. This looks to be working but is only superficial. Hence the lipstick on a pig.
         • lprent 3.2.1.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 2:03 pm

           Superficial may work at 5 weeks from an election. And frankly if things are working despite expectations, then why bother changing until they are not.

           Jacinda personally is extremely capable from my read of her. Of course she has never been a minister, so I can’t comment on that (But my bet is that she will be superb at it).

           It is how the rest of the Labour caucus that operates that worries me. While I think that they are better at long term thinking than the careerist fools in the National caucus. I think that they suck at working together and spend far too much time focused on their own narrow issues rather than what we pay them for.

           Hopefully they will find the cabinet room and needing to perform for the PM to give them plum positions helps them get off of their arses more and start doing a better job.
     • dukeofurl 3.2.2

       21 August 2017 at 10:12 am

       Dont dig the hole any deeper.

       First rule: Dont use sexists analogy’s- just dont
       • crashcart 3.2.2.1

         21 August 2017 at 10:19 am

         But its not a sexist analogy. I have heard it used when someone puts a coat of paint on a house to sell it with out doing any real work. Same with painting a car or any other form of cosmetic change.

         If you are making a cosmetic change to something that is inherently flawed then you are only trying to sell an image. Pig flawed. Lipstick cosmetic. If you want to make that sexist then its gonna be a long life ahead of you trying to sanitise the English language.
         • Robert Guyton 3.2.2.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 11:02 am

           By “don’t dig any deeper” dukeofurl means don’t dig any deeper, ‘k?
           • marty mars 3.2.2.1.1.1

             21 August 2017 at 11:14 am

             + 1
         • Molly 3.2.2.1.2

           21 August 2017 at 11:13 am

           Has he spoken about the car paint of Bill English, or the house of David Seymour?

           Made mention of the new glad rags of Peter Dunne, or the aftershave of Winston Peters?

           Most importantly, did he make comments about the policy releases of Labour over the last few weeks?

           And if he did, then any other comment is superfluous, and judging by the content of this one – indeed, sexist.
           • crashcart 3.2.2.1.2.1

             21 August 2017 at 2:33 pm

             Being that English, Seymour, Dunne, and Winston have not just changed its a bit bloody ridiculous to opine that he hasn’t asked if those parties changed policy with change of leader recently. I know it seems like a great idea to make comparisons but at least they should make a little sense.

             As to policy of Labour. Why yes he has. Shortly after the change of leader he offered to remove TOP from the election completely if Labour were willing to take on TOP’s policies. He pointed out that they have very limited and half measure policy around house price reduction and welfare reform.

             Lprent above points out that its working and why change. Well here’s a novel idea. It’s not about a game of rugby and who wins or loses on the day. That’s important but if we get a Labour party that is going to do more of steady as she goes with a slight shift to port then what is the bloody point.

             I get it the outrage machine is in full swing and I am fighting the white here. I just can’t believe the absolute hysteria that the use of a common phrase in the appropriate context has caused.

             I await the Glib comment about digging holes without applying any sort of rational refutation to my comments. Have at me.
             • Molly …

               21 August 2017 at 10:14 pm

               Don’t make the assumption that I am a Labour voter. I’m unlikely to be one for this election.

               “I know it seems like a great idea to make comparisons but at least they should make a little sense. “
               All those male leaders have released little new policy in the past few weeks – and he has not bothered to critique them? Why not? And would he have used the same phrase for them? I doubt it.

               Talking about policy is all well and good. But he doesn’t apply that to himself here. He uses emotive – and sexist – language instead of repeating the reasons why he believes that with the policies released, Labour provides more of the same.

               The disregard for the need of any type of self-reflection shows his arrogance. The sheer refusal to consider he should have chosen his words more carefully, indicates his privilege.

               You seem determined to be an apologist for Gareth Morgan, by giving strict interpretations of what was meant.

               Eg. My partner and I have been together for over thirty years, and have four children, who quite accurately could be called bastards. My opinion of the person that does so – without caring to use any of the other also accurate descriptions of them – would be so low as to be dismissive.

               Whatever his intention and meaning, his choice of words was inappropriate.
           • ankerawshark 3.2.2.1.2.2

             21 August 2017 at 3:40 pm

             100 + Molly.

             I thought Jacinda batted it back brilliantly (its becoming a habit of hers 1. Mark R, 2. Julie B, 3. Gareth M)…………Saying she didn’t find it offensive and she has put Mr Morgan on the mailing list to receive Labour’s policies.

             Gareth M is coming across as a know it all brat. His response to Jacinda’s election as leader was that she had 48 hours to adopt all TOP’s policies and if she did they would drop out of the election…………………Does he not realize how patronizing and know it all he sounds.

             I had some interest in TOP, but actually in this case personality is driving me away from the policies.
         • In Vino 3.2.2.1.3

           21 August 2017 at 11:39 pm

           Crashcart’s point has been ignored. I think Gareth is politically naïve enough to not have thought in advance that he could have said this about John Key, and it would have been taken as he meant it. BUT women use lipstick, so it was idiocy to say it about Jacinda.
           If he realised that and still did it deliberately, he has misjudged people in general and will suffer for it.
4. CLEANGREEN 4

   21 August 2017 at 9:00 am

   This man Gareth Morgan has stuck his foot in his mouth there!!!!!!

   He has gone way too far bordering on libel!!!!.

   Jacinda is a true heroine and certainly not what he very offensively said.
   He should now publicly apologise to Jacinda but she as a real heroine would shrug this off.

   This man is definitely what he claims wrongly that Jacinda is as he got the issue the wrong way around and should never be trusted as a leader.
   • mikesh 4.1

     21 August 2017 at 7:23 pm

     He hasn´t said anything about Jacinda. The pig in question referred to the Labour Party. Jacinda understood that so she wasn´t particularly offended. I wish others were capable of understanding that sort of thing.
     • Mrs Brillo 4.1.1

       21 August 2017 at 10:45 pm

       You are correct, mikesh, and Cleangreen does not understand English metaphor.

       Morgan was talking about a superficial spruce up for the Labour party, but a lot of wallies looking for an excuse to criticise him have shouted Sexism! and had a fit of the vapours. I know sexism when I see it, and this isn’t it.

       I think he makes a valid point. Same old party, same old policies, new leader, new sloganeering. Lipstick on a pig. Superficial change.
       I’ll still support Labour, but I reserve the right to tell the truth about any party -including Labour.
5. Psycho Milt 5

   21 August 2017 at 9:02 am

   As no one else seems interested in leaking this I understand umr latest poll has TOP at 4%

   Ah, so we’re approaching worst-case-scenario: rich man’s vanity project siphons off upwards of 4% of mostly left-of-centre voters and gets them redistributed among the other parties, with 40% of it heading National’s way. Sean Plunket still doing his best to fuck the left.
   • swordfish 5.1

     21 August 2017 at 9:56 am

     Spot on

     Far more concerning than Lefties voting NZF
     • Graeme 5.1.1

       21 August 2017 at 8:13 pm

       Have you got any figures on where TOP are drawing their support from SF? They strike me as appealing to reasonably affluent liberals who probably voted ACT or National.
   • Hooch 5.2

     21 August 2017 at 9:58 am

     Yeah as soon as I saw plunkett involved in TOP I decided to ignore them. He’s a full on rwnj. Pimping the tppa for national after he got booted off the radio.
     • Booker 5.2.1

       21 August 2017 at 10:58 am

       Plunket is involved in TOP?
       • Psycho Milt 5.2.1.1

         21 August 2017 at 11:13 am

         He’s their campaign manager.
         • Booker 5.2.1.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 12:46 pm

           Err… that changes my view of them – for the worse.
           • weka 5.2.1.1.1.1

             21 August 2017 at 8:41 pm

             Communications bod rather than campaign manager I think. Not that that’s an improvement of the situation.
   • Nic the NZer 5.3

     21 August 2017 at 7:41 pm

     Never understood why TOP is supposed to appeal to left wing voters. They have clearly always been a policy wonk party with neoliberal tendencies.

     http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36686#more-36686
6. mauī 6

   21 August 2017 at 9:10 am

   It will be a rise in the polls for TOP amongst the lefty outrage. Folks like their politicians real, not carefully stage managed a la James Shaw, and frickn hell his comment is aimed at Labour in general not Princess Leia.
   • marty mars 6.1

     21 August 2017 at 9:25 am

     You can cuddle top as they go down – don’t wookie yourselves on the way though eh hand solo ☺
     • crashcart 6.1.1

       21 August 2017 at 9:59 am

       Hey Marty how about you actually counter what he said rather than act all condescending. What the hell is with the Star Wars reference?????????
       • Carolyn_nth 6.1.1.1

         21 August 2017 at 10:04 am

         Morgan claims TOP is more about policy, but resorts to attention-getting through outrage to get attention.

         That’s a sign that TOP is failing and irrelevant.
         • crashcart 6.1.1.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 10:11 am

           See here’s where I disagree with you. I would personally use this term and have in the past. I wouldn’t do it to start the outrage machine because I would not expect it. From every thing I have seen from Morgan and the way he has responded he thinks the same.

           Is TOP failing? They probably won’t get 5% so in that context yes. A lot more people are talking seriously about the policies they put forward. Being that Morgan has offered to withdraw his party from the election if Labour were to take on their policies then I think they are actually succeeding in what they set out to do.
       • marty mars 6.1.1.2

         21 August 2017 at 10:06 am

         If you dont get it – dont get it.Edit – sorry – In relation to his princess Leia line I tried to riff off that

         I’m sure mauī took my jibe in the fashion it was given/intended – a lighthearted smart arsery flavour but not malicious.
         • crashcart 6.1.1.2.1

           21 August 2017 at 10:20 am

           Fair cop I totally missed the princess Leia thing. Makes waaay more sense sorry.
       • lprent 6.1.1.3

         21 August 2017 at 2:09 pm

         What the hell is with the Star Wars reference?????????

         Ask Maui. Marty responded at exactly the same level – except his made more sense. He called maui a self obsessed wanker with poor social and communications skills and probably of little interest to woman – which definitely seemed to me was quite appropriate.

         Personally I would have moderated with a troll hammer
         • crashcart 6.1.1.3.1

           21 August 2017 at 2:36 pm

           You waited 4 hours after Marty pointed out what it was for and my admission of mistake before jumping in. Well done man.
           • lprent 6.1.1.3.1.1

             21 August 2017 at 2:47 pm

             I’m kind of busy. Have a project that I am trying to get through despite finishing working on it at 0600. Also worrying about core temps on the server

             For a change I was reading top to bottom in a post rather than moderators reverse date/time order. Basically having lunch and not wanting to moderate in case I spoiled the coffee. Bad enough that I’m still coughing from last weeks little cold.

             So I responded to 6.1 and never got down to 6.1.1.2.

             The only reason I saw this one was because I just started reading responses to me in a work avoidance behaviour. Maybe I should try more coffee instead 🙂 Or just go back to doing moderating arsehole style…
             • crashcart …

               21 August 2017 at 3:00 pm

               Asshole style definitely has its advantages when it comes to efficiency. I don’t know that I would like to be on the receiving end of it though >.>
   • AsleepWhileWalking 6.2

     21 August 2017 at 8:05 pm

     Real like only a multimillionaire can be
7. UncookedSelachimorpha 7

   21 August 2017 at 9:19 am

   I’m not sure Morgan is being sexist there, ‘lipstick on a pig’ is an established metaphor that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Ardern’s appearance or gender.
   • red-blooded 7.1

     21 August 2017 at 9:45 am

     Really? I never heard it said about John Key…
     • arkie 7.1.1

       21 August 2017 at 9:54 am

       New Zealand First Party education spokeswoman Tracey Martin said the Government’s renaming of charter schools – now referred to as partnership schools or kura hourua – was “just like putting lipstick on a pig”.

       Herald 2012

       This is another example of the idiom being used, this time in reference to the actions of the John Key Government.

       To say that Morgan was being sexist in the OP is a bit of a stretch.
       • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1

         21 August 2017 at 10:20 am

         Thats an an example of a ‘specific poor policy’ given a colourful metaphor

         Morgan was talking about a person- a woman. They aren’t inanimate things

         The difference makes it go from colourful to sexist
         • arkie 7.1.1.1.1

           21 August 2017 at 10:39 am

           He was talking about Labour policies and the fresh face that Labour have put on them. Jacinda Adern is the lipstick in the metaphor, the establishment Labour party is the pig. Is it sexist because we have decided lipstick is exclusively a women’s product?
           • Robert Guyton 7.1.1.1.1.1

             21 August 2017 at 12:52 pm

             Having supporters trying to explain what Morgan meant is sure indication that he dropped himself in it. An elegant reposte would have soared on its own updraft; this one sank like a stone and trying to raise it from the depths with little comment-ballons on a blog is just funny.
             • Ross …

               21 August 2017 at 6:28 pm

               Robert,

               I am not a supporter of Mogan, far from it. But I don’t think his was a sexist comment. Some people are maybe looking to be offended.
               • Robert Guyton …

                 21 August 2017 at 6:41 pm

                 Ross
                 I too am not a Morgan supporter, though I wish him well in his endeavors. It may well be that his intentions were honourable when he uttered those fateful words, but he’ll have learned by now that there’s more to it than, “but that’s not what I meant !!
                 Once he found himself in that position (it can happen to any of us), it’s usually best to wear it and show you’re not a stubborn fool. Jacinda, from what I’ve seen of her so far, has that knack. She gracefully declines to take offence and wins the admiration of people who themselves might succumb to the temptation to snap back. Pretty clever.
         • mikesh 7.1.1.1.2

           22 August 2017 at 11:10 pm

           Is the Labour Party a woman??
     • Stuart Munro 7.1.2

       21 August 2017 at 9:58 am

       That would be because Key’s vileness was more than superficial.
     • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.1.3

       21 August 2017 at 10:06 am

       Here is the Wikipedia description of the expression:

       “To put “lipstick on a pig” is a rhetorical expression, used to convey the message that making superficial or cosmetic changes is a futile attempt to disguise the true nature of a product.”

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_on_a_pig
     • Brutus Iscariot 7.1.4

       21 August 2017 at 12:07 pm

       You’ve got data on every term ever used to describe John Key?

       I do remember “Shylock”, from a Labour candidate.
   • Robert Guyton 7.2

     21 August 2017 at 11:11 am

     Morgan may or may not have been “being sexist there” but now he’s attracted a lable he didn’t need and won’t profit from, imo:
     “sexist old dude who hurled unfortunate ad hominem attacks at his opponents” and there will be others on the way. Foolish miss-step, in my opinion. Using language that carelessly around a very popular person doesn’t seem at all smart.
     • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.2.1

       21 August 2017 at 11:47 am

       True!
8. Nick 8

   21 August 2017 at 9:21 am

   He’s being very ‘Catty’
   • joe90 8.1

     21 August 2017 at 3:32 pm

     ^groans^
9. Ovid 9

   21 August 2017 at 9:21 am

   “All that matters is policy” is an incredibly technocratic approach to take. Especially when the premiership often involves responding to the unexpected. Natural disasters, international crises, domestic crises for that matter.

   A leader of the nation can’t just declare “right, we’ve had an earthquake, that means we should carry out option 3(b)(ii) in our civil defence plans. End communication”. Personality and leadership matters.
   • Reality 9.1

     21 August 2017 at 9:42 am

     Ovid, what a dry, humourless world Morgan must inhabit if policy is the only thing that matters for him. So a smile, a kind word, empathy for others, a hug, a laugh, are human traits that he thinks are not important? Almost feel sorry for him.
10. millsy 10

    21 August 2017 at 9:23 am

    Better Jacinda’s lipstick than Gareth’s porno moustache.
    • weka 10.1

      21 August 2017 at 11:34 am

      There is something extremely funny about that comment, my breakfast nearly ended up on the keyboard.
      • Tricledrown 10.1.1

        22 August 2017 at 9:16 pm

        Winston’s toothless sheep comment was spot on.
11. Booker 11

    21 August 2017 at 9:23 am

    His choice of words was poor and he should have seen it could be seen as comment on Jacinda rather than a comment on the Labour Party. But the herald has gone full celebrity gossip politics on this one – it was their lead article on their home page. It’s clear to anyone with a reasonable understanding of English that Gareth was focused on talking policy – and what’s in the herald article? Not a sign anywhere of anything with substance. We’re going nowhere fast with a media like this.
12. Cinny 12

    21 August 2017 at 9:25 am

    Even funnier, he’s looking for right wing anti labour votes, split that nat party vote Gareth, because I really don’t think you will crack 5%.

    I wonder how many people will attempt to justify his choice of words?

    Funnier still, I don’t think Jacinda will give a toss about it all.

    Beautiful picture of Jacinda and Aunty at the gig yesterday, two inspirational women, loved that photo, kudos to the photographer for catching their emotion and vibe in the photo. Such a special moment
    • marty mars 12.1

      21 August 2017 at 9:28 am

      Me too that photo was so special – it said so much without words – absolutley beautiful, inspirational and moving.
    • Heather Grimwood 12.2

      21 August 2017 at 1:25 pm

      Yes a memorable photo…have drawn attention of several to it this a.m.
13. Reality 13

    21 August 2017 at 10:03 am

    Labour has declined to comment. No need to and have kept their dignity.

    TOP has now tried to say it is not a sexist comment, it can apply to males or females. Well last time I was shopping at the mall I actually did not see any males wearing lipstick! Nor the time before that.
    • Ross 13.1

      22 August 2017 at 8:25 am

      Reality

      Its a metaphor FFS. Just like “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. And, yes, a sow is a female pig! LOL
      • Reality 13.1.1

        22 August 2017 at 8:40 am

        Ross, “lipstick” puts a feminine context on what was said and no matter how Morgan tried to deflect by saying he used a metaphor, give people credit for being able to see through this. Even Bill English and Paula Bennett did.

        Guess Morgan will be happy he got some attention.

        He might be wealthy and smart in some respects, but he is not a “rally the troops” type that’s for sure.
14. Delia 14

    21 August 2017 at 10:04 am

    He does not want to be in govt, just opposition what is the point of his party? I hope his sexism is revealed for all to see.
15. tomorrow&tomorrow 15

    21 August 2017 at 10:26 am

    Mrs Morgan needs to slap him hard, then lock him in the shed till the end of September.
    • greywarshark 15.1

      21 August 2017 at 11:30 am

      t&t
      That’s sensible. He is very close to getting on a positive roll and on the cusp making a mess like German Joe did. When the spotlight is on you every word, every wart shows up.
16. McFlock 16

    21 August 2017 at 10:32 am

    Well, it was a bit tone-deaf as a comment, but wtf is Plunket on? His response is worse than the original comment.
    • Sabine 16.1

      21 August 2017 at 11:12 am

      actually without that wankers comment in the first place the other wanker would not have anything to say.

      It is the year 2017, don’t you feel hopeful for the future of all the non penis waving NZ’lers?
      • McFlock 16.1.1

        21 August 2017 at 11:37 am

        Yup, including the ones who have ’em but don’t waggle ’em.

        But I’m just amazed that Plunket would be twitter-arguing the point so badly. Morgan wasted party funds by hiring him, if that’s all the guy’s got.
        • Sabine 16.1.1.1

          21 August 2017 at 11:54 am

          might it be just a bit of whistleblowing.

          who knows, but you know what, i am tired of this shit. So fucking tired of still protesting the same shit.
          • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1

            21 August 2017 at 12:04 pm

            I got pretty low after the last election.

            But I’m hoping that after this election we’ll have a government that will actually listen to protests, if it leaves something that needs protesting about.

            I’m not expecting perfection, by any stretch of the imagination. But at least we might have some possibility of action, rather than the shrugged shoulders and middle finger we get at the moment.
17. Sabine 17

    21 August 2017 at 11:11 am

    Gareth Morgan a pig without lipstick who should be neither seen nor heard.
    • AB 17.1

      21 August 2017 at 1:16 pm

      Gareth needs to show that he’s more than just:
      Putting a suit on a snake
      Giving Viagra to a drunk
      Sticking a wig on a bald coot
      ..or any male-focused variant that suggests that although Gareth seems to have seen the light on a number issues over the last few years there’s still something underlying that’s not quite right yet and more than a touch off-putting.

      I find it a pretty nasty, sexually-loaded metaphor – lipstick being an exclusively female thing. If Gareth is that interested in pigs, perhaps he could get on the phone to Dave Cameron to check whether his experience was improved by the presence or absence of lipstick on the pig?
18. ropata 18

    21 August 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Why don’t these millionaires like Gareth Morgan, Bob Jones, Kim dotCom go find a small island somewhere else to project their egos onto
    • Andre 18.1

      21 August 2017 at 12:30 pm

      Because there isn’t an island anywhere big enough to fit more than one of those egos, and there aren’t enough islands for them all to have one each.
      • Sabine 18.1.1

        21 August 2017 at 1:32 pm

        Is not Peter Thiel building such a floating device.
        they could all go meet up there and bond over manly talk while counting their money.
19. Ad 19

    21 August 2017 at 12:44 pm

    OMG English has come out defending Ardern and blasting Morgan.

    As Split Enz said: One slip, you’re dead.
    • AB 19.1

      21 August 2017 at 1:41 pm

      Farrar’s numbers must show women moving away from National – perhaps to Labour. Bill is attempting to show ‘solidarity’.
      • Dspare 19.1.1

        21 August 2017 at 2:41 pm

        Ad
        So is Morgan a; “Dirty Creature of habit”, or a; “Little horror here to stay”?
    • timeforacupoftea 19.2

      21 August 2017 at 6:32 pm

      Haaa English !
      Seen English likes texting in the dead of night, it must have been a nightmare from all those full mouth ewes he drenched when on the family farm in his youth that had him up commenting about Jacinda I would think.
      • Robert Guyton 19.2.1

        21 August 2017 at 6:45 pm

        Didn’t English once call Helen Clark a “mad cow”?
        • Dspare 19.2.1.1

          22 August 2017 at 1:55 pm

          There is a notorious photo of him in a tractor holding a placard: “The Mad Cow Shouldn’t Have Signed”. That was during the; “cow fart protests”, at a time when Clark was PM. Ironically enough, it was Shipley who signed Kyoto; so it possible that he was actually criticizing the only woman to ever to have been PM for his own party. Either way it makes his condemnation of Morgan look rather hypocritical.

          https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/08/22/english-calls-morgans-lipstick-on-a-pig-comment-outside-acceptable-boundaries-of-political-criticism-really/
    • Ross 19.3

      22 August 2017 at 1:33 pm

      Bill English defends Todd Barclay too. I am not sure I’d want Enhlish’s support. He wants votes, and if he thinks defending Ardern will bring him votes he will do it.
20. RedLogix 20

    21 August 2017 at 9:08 pm

    Also have to be amused at the faux outrage over a common place metaphor … and then the OP goes and calls Morgan a “dick”. Which absolutely is a sexist flame. The double standard here ridiculous.

    On the other hand I never particularly liked the lipstick metaphor myself, never used it personally, so it’s good to see it will never, ever pass moderation here again.
    • Union city greens 20.1

      21 August 2017 at 9:13 pm

      But then you would say that having nailed your colours to a misogynist, rich prick mast. Heh.

      You’re gonna be busy spinning your ‘fake news’ tonight lol.
    • Mrs Brillo 20.2

      21 August 2017 at 10:57 pm

      I agree. And my feminism dates back more than 60 years (I’m not counting childhood) and I can spot sexism from 100 metres away in the dark.
      People are are seizing on any pitiful excuse to shriek sexism. They should learn the language they are supposedly writing in, and learn how metaphor works.

      I seem to remember the Left asking what is the difference between (name right wing female politican of your choice, but especially Judith Collins and Ruth Richardson) and a rottweiler. Answer: lipstick. I’m sure that’s been used more than once since the 1980s. Neither side has exactly clean hands on the lipstick issue!!
21. John Stowell 21

    21 August 2017 at 10:33 pm

    Policy is indeed what matters, unfortunately we have to vote for parties.
    • In Vino 21.1

      21 August 2017 at 11:46 pm

      No, people vote for the personality they like.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS