The No-Dinner Dinner

Written By: - Date published: 10:32 pm, September 28th, 2011 - 30 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

Ever seen one of those celebrity fundraiser dinners and wondered how much money was going on the fancy food that could have been going to the cause?

Well, Labour’s latest offering is giving you the chance to cut through the middleman with the ‘no-dinner dinner’.

The tongue-in-cheek menu is a bit of a laugh:

We’ve got Bennett Mutton Dressed as Lamb in an Avocado and Minto Sauce, or Extremely Boring Meat-and-Two-Veg Aux Dunne w/ an Undertone of Sanctimonious Sauce.

Light, Fluffy, Dissolve-to-Nothing Key Souffle w/ Limited Complexity Chateau Holmes Pinot Gris 2010, and Succulent Joycey Pork in a Barrel w/ Thompson’s “Foot in Mouth” Sangiovese.

Check out all the menu options here.

30 comments on “The No-Dinner Dinner ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. insider 1
    29 September 2011 at 1:01 am

    This is almost as funny as that song those female mps did at conference a few years back 🙂

  2. Policy Parrot 2
    29 September 2011 at 2:16 am

    This could never happen in the National Party. Half the reason for party functions is the opulent/extravagant menu served up. Not to mention the opportunity to showcase the latest dinner suits and gowns. Its about being a better class, and being able to prove so. Their politics is the art of preservation of their way of life.

    • Bazar 2.1
      29 September 2011 at 5:21 am

      “This could never happen in the National Party.”

      Indeed, a menu that is is all talk, but when it comes to serving, no real substance behind it.
      Fitting that its from labour then isn’t it.

      *Puts on flame retardant suit*

  3. higherstandard 3
    29 September 2011 at 8:35 am

    Brilliant this’ll get the money and votes flowing in ………………….. snigger.

  4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4
    29 September 2011 at 8:59 am

    “Bennett Mutton Dressed as Lamb”

    So, they went for criticising her appearance?

  5. Joe Bloggs 5
    29 September 2011 at 9:10 am

    another vote-weiner for Labour.

    Hearty congratulations to Trevor Mallard – the best campaign manager National could wish for!

  6. BWS 6
    29 September 2011 at 9:48 am

    How many hours of strategic brilliance went into this unfunny personality-attack filled bile, instead of communicating Labour’s policies with the electorate? Didn’t Labour learn last time that just attacking your opponents, and not saying one positive thing about your own plans, is a fast way to self destruction?

  7. Bob Stanforth 7
    29 September 2011 at 10:35 am

    I honestly cannot think of a better way to sum labour up. No, really. Yes, I’m sure it was meant as a ‘light hearted’ moment. Its not. Its mean spirited and petty.

    Perfect. You must be very proud. How to demonstrate leadership in waiting. Does anyone in labour realise how stupid and venal this makes them look? And Eddie, you’re happy to post this effort? Your standards really have dropped haven’t they?

  8. Puddleglum 8
    29 September 2011 at 10:39 am

    Hang on a minute. Right wingers trying to have their cake and eat it too?

    I thought the constant refrain from the right was that the left fails to appreciate the ‘funny’ side of Paul Henry comments, the PM’s coal mine reference, the PMs cannibal reference, the PMs Letterman appearance, etc., etc. and that any left organised event is boringly tedious.

    Now that someone on the left demonstrates some humour it’s all ‘tut, tut, tut’ and ‘how inappropriate’. And we were led to believe that Key’s Letterman appearance was not lame but ‘a real hit with Kiwis’ who, so we were told, like their humour as trite as possible but, now, this humour is, apparently, just hopeless and the implication is that it would never strike a chord with voters (Good grief – and the left are blamed for double standards!)

    We even get the previously silent right wing ‘PC brigade’ complaining about attacks on appearances. Where were they when Helen Clark or Stephanie Mills needed them?

    Personally, I particularly liked the ‘Succulent, Joycey Pork in a barrell’ comment, given the offer to Mediaworks of a ‘helping hand’ leading into an election year. I have never heard any remotely believable justification for such an apparently corrupt decision. It deserves – at the very least – constant lampooning. 

    • Bob Stanforth 8.1
      29 September 2011 at 10:44 am

      You may find this odd, but making sweeping generalisations does not an argument make. The Right? Please. Hows about the ‘leaders in waiting’ show some maturity. Funny isnt personal. Its pathetic.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 8.1.1
        29 September 2011 at 10:52 am

        How silly of us to expect you to live up to the standards you set for everyone else, Puddleglum.

        • Puddleglum 8.1.1.1
          29 September 2011 at 2:48 pm

          Hi Oleole (etc.), people should of course live up to the standards they set for everyone else, at a bare minimum. That’s long been recognised as pretty central to the validity of moral prescription. 

          I presume from your one-liner that you mean that it is hypocritical of me to complain about some people’s defence of previous ‘humorous’ behaviour (e.g., condoning Paul Henry’s comments, the PM’s comments) while appearing to condone this example of ‘humour’?

          I don’t see how you get to that conclusion.

          You’re certainly right that my main point was the hypocrisy involved in any attempt to excuse or minimise the significance of either supposedly offensive (e.g., Paul Henry’s comments about Stephanie Mills) or lame (e.g., the PM’s Letterman appearance) humour in one circumstance while condemning or emphasising supposedly offensive or lame humour in another.

          But notice that my comment doesn’t do that itself.

          I agree with you, for example, that the ‘mutton dressed as lamb’ ‘joke’ is too personalised, offensive and uncalled for – which is why I bemoaned, in my comment, the lack of support I perceived for Stephanie Mills and Helen Clark when they were similarly being attacked. The whole point of my mentioning it was to point out that this is the same kind of ‘humour’ (offensive). How is that being hypocritical? Again, how does pointing out a rhetorical shift in general commentary on an event amount to applying standards to others that I’m not applying to myself?

          The other parts of the ‘menu’ were, so far as I could see, certainly as humourous as John Key’s jokes about cannibalism or coal mines, if not more so. Yet, supposedly, they further consign Labour to vote losing while Key’s jokes, supposedly, are all part of his vote-winning appeal (I agree that they are part of his appeal to the general public, despite – or maybe even because of – their lameness.). How is it hypocritical to point this out? How am I supposedly applying different standards to myself here than those I apply to others?

          Also, apart from the Paula Bennett comment, the rest conformed to the long tradition of normal political satire which has always focused on public individuals and lampoons them for their political behaviour (think political cartoonists) – quite rightly.

          In that sense, those humorous comments make important political points and are quite different from the supposed humour of a Paul Henry. That’s why I highlighted the play on Steven Joyce’s name because, as I explained, it kept in focus a significant and dubious decision by this government.

          Once again, how is that not living up to standards I set for others? 

      • Puddleglum 8.1.2
        29 September 2011 at 11:08 am

        You’re right, Bob. Sweeping generalisations do not make an argument – but they can make a point; which was what I was doing.

        In effect, anyone who was inclined to excuse Paul Henry and the PM in the instances I noted but is now inclined to criticise Labour might want to ponder that point. If the cap doesn’t fit, Bob, then don’t wear it.

        I’m actually no fan of Labour and think that the humour here was not strong, but it’s clear to me that, in the run up to an election, criticising the humour at a Labour party function has an element of political intent behind it. Given the context, that intent can quite legitimately be said to arise from ‘The Right’ and from ‘right wingers’.

        As for ‘Funny isn’t personal’, there goes an entire history of satire – all the way from Swift, most English language nursery rhymes and just about every political tv satire ever written. 

        • Bob Stanforth 8.1.2.1
          29 September 2011 at 3:58 pm

          All worthy points, except you forget one highly salient point – comedians yes, leaders (or rather, wanna be leaders) of countries, no. A large can of grow up should be applied.

          • Puddleglum 8.1.2.1.1
            29 September 2011 at 5:03 pm

            Agreed – but there’s been a long list of leaders here who’ve made jokes at the expense of their political rivals: Lange, Muldoon, Cullen and our own John Key (e.g., the ‘Phil-in Goff’ remark in Parliament after the last election).

            Let’s be honest – ‘attack humour’ is omnipresent in our political system.

            As for maturity, you could argue that none of our ‘leaders’ have ever been mature enough to lead, I suppose, but you wouldn’t be correct to claim that a lack of maturity has ever barred anyone from being a leader: The electorate doesn’t seem to have been that discerning on that point, at any rate. 

            • Bob Stanforth 8.1.2.1.1.1
              29 September 2011 at 5:16 pm

              Fair call – but my point still stands. labout wants to be considered leaders – act like it. As demonstrated during the recent “I hate the Mad Butcher” tantrum from a labour MP who should really know better, a higher standard is required. Yes, the electorate, like markets, are fickle and unpredictable. But act like an arse, expect to be treated that way.

  9. Anne 9
    29 September 2011 at 11:39 am

    Dear oh dear, the RWNJ nasties can’t take it when the humour (satire) is directed at them.

    As for the menu:
    I have a recollection of a certain National member of parliament in the 90s doing a similar job on Labour with a wine menu. Did Labour whine and moan and turn nasty? No, they took it on the chin and grinned. But that’s the difference between the two parties. Labour can laugh at itself as well as their opponents. The Nats have neither the wit nor the maturity – as evidenced by some of the comments here.

    • Bob Stanforth 9.1
      29 September 2011 at 4:02 pm

      Oh dear Anne, is that it, is that really the very best you can do, to defend this puerile shite? Simply calling everyone who calls labour on this a RWNJ is lazy and simple minded. And even putting wit in the same sentence as this childish attempt at humour is laughable in itself.

    • higherstandard 9.2
      29 September 2011 at 4:03 pm

      “Labour can laugh at itself as well as their opponents. The Nats have neither the wit nor the maturity – as evidenced by some of the comments here.”

      What like Darien Fenton blacklisting the butcher and commenters here hoping for his death ?

      Or like you calling Owen Glen a goon today on another thread ?

      Yes all very witty and mature indeed.

      As an aside this menu is a bit of a laugh but not nearly as funny as Paul Henry’s ‘ that was a moustache on a lady” it’s all in the delivery.

      • mickysavage 9.2.1
        29 September 2011 at 4:21 pm

        Higherstandard
         
        You have no standards.  You are a troll  You have engaged in all sorts of weird behaviour and it is strange that you are now calling others out on stuff you have no compulsion about doing.
         
        You should go and get real work or a life or something.

  10. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10
    29 September 2011 at 11:58 am

    “humour (satire)”

    Comedy (gold).