Shadbolt jailed for bullshit

31 comments on “Shadbolt jailed for bullshit ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Chemist Peter 1

   1 January 2008 at 7:15 pm

   In 2008 please make sure you give National 2 ticks in the General Election. Get rid of the corrupt Labour led Government we currently have.

   For Name and address please whistle Dixie and I may oblige.

   Happy New Year

   Chemist
2. Psycho Milt 2

   1 January 2008 at 8:48 pm

   “But the biggest bit of bullshit in his argument is his “firm belief” that National would do better by trade training…”

   You bet. Maybe National would be happy to have the taxpayer fund SIT to provide free education to all comers? Why sure! That’s what National’s all about!

   Seriously, what drugs is the man on?
3. burt 3

   1 January 2008 at 8:51 pm

   To think that Shadbolt was jailed or using the word “bullshit” just shows how much society has changed in relatively few years.

   However out of interest are you seeking to discredit him for this and therefore use the ad hominem argument that what he now says about the EFL is also “bullshit” or are you telling us how he’s always stood up for what he believed in and as an x-Labour supporter that we should listen to him?
4. Aj 4

   1 January 2008 at 11:13 pm

   Shadbolt is an embarrassment to Southland. He doesn’t understand the difference between an individuals right to free speech and paid political advertising
5. Monty 5

   2 January 2008 at 7:59 am

   I am just so pleased that soneone as high profile as Shadbolt is out there keeping the EFA issue alive – look out for another slump in the polls for labour when the next poll is brough out (in Feb 08)

   In the meantime I see the Herald is also doing their bit in keeping the issue alive as well.

   I know the socialists are desperate to let the EFA die – but it keeps ticking away in the media. More political mis-management by the Labour party.
6. burt 6

   2 January 2008 at 11:11 am

   Aj

   Shadbolt is an embarrassment to Southland.

   Southlanders voted him in as Mayor, so how can he be an embarrassment to southland? He is however an embarrassment to Labour… well that’s not really true either – Labour are an embarrassment to NZ politics with their power at any price and policies of envy politics.

   The EFA is just another example of their extremely poor political management and Shadbolt is simply the messenger in this case. I guess as this is the standard shooting the messenger is to be expected.

   However you should try and differentiate the message from the messenger.
7. DS 7

   2 January 2008 at 1:48 pm

   “But the biggest bit of bullshit in his argument is his “firm belief” that National would do better by trade training – it was National’s Bill Birch that repealed the Apprenticeship Act in 1992, and Labour’s Modern Apprenticehip Act that has led to the spectacular growth in trade training since 1999. Tim’s got concrete between the ears on that one.”

   Agree entirely. Shadbolt’s cutting off his nose to spite his face: his new Tory mates will gut his precious SIT if they ever get the chance. Honestly, some people need a refresher course on the 1990s (specifically 1990-1993) before they open their mouths about how wonderful the Nats are.
8. burt 8

   2 January 2008 at 4:01 pm

   DS

   It seems Shadbolt needs a refresher course, oh that’s right he’s been getting one for the last 8 years under Labour… Doooh!

   Time for a change.
9. GOM 9

   2 January 2008 at 5:14 pm

   “He doesn’t understand the difference between an individuals right to free speech and paid political advertising”

   Best laugh I’ve had this year…Don’t understand the Act AJ? Q.E.D.

   Kicked in the arse by empty rhetoric!
10. Kimble 10

    2 January 2008 at 5:28 pm

    “Honestly, some people need a refresher course on the 1990s…”

    That was that National government at that time. Perhaps you need a refresher course on what has changed since then.

    “He says its in defence of free speech, but the first set of ads featuring Tim did not break the Electoral Finance Act, only the last one that advocated a change of government.”

    Calling for a change in government is now not covered by free speech? You can say what you like, but god help you if it is a call for Labour to lose power!

    You guys here at The Stranded are really starting to let your authoritarian colours show.
11. Eric Olthwaite 11

    2 January 2008 at 5:38 pm

    “He could also spend their money to argue for a change of government, if he registered – so where’s the beef?”

    That is the beef, as he said. You should not have to *register* to exercise your right to free speech.
12. DS 12

    2 January 2008 at 9:46 pm

    “That was that National government at that time. Perhaps you need a refresher course on what has changed since then.”

    Nothing’s changed, except that the nature of the electoral system currently limits radical change. If (heaven forbid), the Nats do get an absolute majority in 2008, they’ll ram through whatever they damn well please.

    We are talking about the party of the Employment Contracts Act, Crown Health Enterprises (remember those?), and skyrocketing tertiary education fees. John Key’s “moderate” image, should the Nats ever again wield unbridled power, would last about as long as Jim Bolger’s 1990 promise of a “Decent Society”. How appropriate that the likes of Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith are still lurking in the shadows.
13. burt 13

    2 January 2008 at 11:14 pm

    DS

    As likely as Lange’s and Prebble’s lurking in Labour’s closet in 1999.

    Did it stop people wanting a change? No.
14. DS 14

    3 January 2008 at 12:11 am

    Lange (who had already done repentance) left parliament in 1996. Prebble was leading ACT at that point, and the other “hate figures” of Douglas and Bassett were long gone.

    The 1999 leadership figures for the incoming Labour-Alliance government were Clark, Cullen, and Anderton: basically a who’s who of people who had been in the 1980s government as *anti-Rogernomes*. Goff was the highest ranking remaining Rogernome, but he was bundled out the country with Foreign Affairs.

    Anyway, Labour by 1999 had spent a decade repairing itself ideologically. National has done no such thing: all it is doing it is simply trying to dress up its underlying neo-liberal ideology in warm fuzzy clothing, hoping that the public and media have grown too complacent and too forgetful of what it did last time. The media’s veritable obsession with tax cuts shows that they, at least, have forgotten. Ten years ago, “tax cuts” was a dirty term (almost as bad as “privatisation”), and for good reason, since everyone back then knew that there was no such thing as a free lunch with those things. Now it’s all “yay, tax cuts!” and to hell with the consequences.

    Talk about a King Stork and King Log situation.
15. burt 15

    3 January 2008 at 9:18 am

    DS

    Now it’s all “yay, tax cuts!” and to hell with the consequences.

    Not quite… Labour tax cuts are not inflationary, and some magical method will be used to make sure that it’s not the biggest tax payers who get the biggest tax reductions…. So it’s not bugger the consequences, it’s tell lies about the consequences and spin the reality so dim-witted Labour voters don’t realise they are voting for National party policy….

    Keep up – Labour have become the National party you are so scared of!
16. burt 16

    3 January 2008 at 9:41 am

    DS

    Ten years ago, “tax cuts” was a dirty term

    I disagree, Labour used the policies of envy to convince a large number of people that any rich prick earning more than $60K/year should pay more than their fair share to support the economy. Many many people earning well less than $60K didn’t stop to think that since Labour had not indexed the threshold, and had no plans to adjust it to keep pace with inflation, that it was only a matter of time before more and more people were defined as nasty rich pricks.

    Today, 75% of high school teachers are rich, paying the extra tax to support…. themselves. How crazy is that? Richy enough to pay the top tax bracket, poor enough to receive WFF – twisted.

    Labour haven’t learnt much and their supporters seem to have learnt less. The EFA once again locks specific amounts into legislation with no legislative process in place to ensure the amounts are adjusted.

    God forbid Labour reign for another 9 years, but if they do how will the 2008 spending thresholds look then ?
17. Kimble 17

    3 January 2008 at 11:04 am

    “Nothing’s changed, except that the nature of the electoral system currently limits radical change.”

    Yup, nothing at all has changed since 1990. Wait. This just in. A hell of a fucking lot has changed since 1990.

    “If (heaven forbid), the Nats do get an absolute majority in 2008, they’ll ram through whatever they damn well please.”

    If National gets an absolute majority, they wont ram anything through. They wont have to. They, as the democratically elected government, will pass law with the mandate handed to them by voters. You guys have a problem with that?
18. burt 18

    3 January 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Kimble

    The guilty always accuse the innocent of the things they have either done or wanted to do.

    “ram through whatever they damn well please”… No amount of logic or reason will convince partisan Labour apologists that this is exactly what Labour have been doing for the last few years.

    Retrospective validation – Rammed under urgency.
    EFA – Rammed under urgency.

    Two constitutional level pieces of legislation rammed through in a partisan manner – but hey – it’s National we need to fear – yeah right!
19. dave 19

    4 January 2008 at 8:30 am

    Gee The Starndard blogggers are a minority on their own blog! DONT VOTE LABOUR!!!!
20. burt 20

    4 January 2008 at 10:19 am

    dave

    Good point.

    Don’t vote Labour
21. burt 21

    4 January 2008 at 11:23 am

    ooops

    That should have been…

    Don’t vote Labour
22. Graeme Edgeler 22

    4 January 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Burt – the EFA did not go through under urgency.

    Whilst I for one would like it to have had some level of strict scrutiny, and actual debate on a number of its important decision, it got a fairly normal legislative process.
23. Kimble 23

    4 January 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Graeme, I understand that “under urgency” is a technical term and isnt applicable to the EFA but would I be wrong in recalling that it was quite a close call? The legislation very nearly had to be pushed through UU, right?
24. burt 24

    4 January 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Thanks Graeme.

    My bad.
25. Psycho Milt 25

    4 January 2008 at 12:53 pm

    “Nearly?!”

    Are you feeling a bit desperate Kimble, to be clutching at straws like that?
26. burt 26

    4 January 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Psycho

    How many of the MP’s holiday plans were disrupted because the house had to sit for additional days to pass the foul EFA? It wasn’t technically urgency but it was rammed through against public opinion. Something that National was being accused of planning to do earlier in this thread.
27. Kimble 27

    4 January 2008 at 2:54 pm

    “Are you feeling a bit desperate Kimble, to be clutching at straws like that?”

    Not clutching at anything, I was just confirming with GE that it was a close one. As I recall, it was passed on the last day, or second to last day, that it was possible to pass it for it to take effect in 2008. Just looking for confirmation.
28. Rumpole 28

    4 January 2008 at 4:27 pm

    If tim does spend ratepayers money with their approval to lobby against voting Labour it will be an interesting decision on prosecution as I doubt a Southland jury could be found to convict and I reckon any judge directing conviction would be headed for the cemetary PDQ.
29. burt 29

    4 January 2008 at 4:56 pm

    Feudal NZ returns. Tuhoi move over, the Celtic blood that runs through southland is going to beat you to overthrowing the govt!
30. dad4justice 30

    4 January 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Never under estimate us Southern Men !

    Ready for ACTION SIR !!

    Celtic platoon – FORWARD MARCH !!!
31. Aj 31

    9 January 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Burt
    “Southlanders voted him in as Mayor, so how can he be an embarrassment to southland?”

    Have a read of the lead article in today’s SDT and the editorial, he doesn’t have the support of his own council or the paper

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS