Two little Pagis squeal and squeak

Written By: - Date published: 9:25 pm, August 16th, 2012 - 179 comments
Categories: activism, internet, labour, spin - Tags: ,

It seems the Standard is off the Paganis’ Christmas list.

John Pagani tells the Listener that he much prefers Kiwiblog because it “has a more reasonable tone than, say, the left blog the Standard, whose idea of political is embittered and angry and it’s therefore hard to read.” Now that’s tragic and moronic, but hardly surprising. It also helps shed light on the inspiration for the otherwise unfathomable, bizzarely kamikaze PR ‘strategy’ of Labour under Shearer. In one of the best blog posts I’ve read for some time, Tumeke gives a superb account of just why Pagani really needs to go if Labour doesn’t want to lose the few remaining activists it has left.

Meanwhile in other completely unrelated news, Josie Pagani has noticed that there has “been a bit of comment about me on the Standard blog. I’m not going to reply there because the people who make the most defamatory comments do it anonymously, like the KKK putting on their white hoods… I’m also astonished at the sexism. Commenters repeatedly conflate my views with my husband’s.” Yes… you’d have to be a pretty sexist bastard to think Josie’s views were anything but completely independent of John’s. Totally. She goes on to give a very long and largely unreadable vacu-pap piece in defence of Shearer’s gutless dog-whistling.

I wonder how long it will take all the younger members of the Labour caucus to understand that Paganiism is going to cut their political careers much shorter than they’d hoped?

179 comments on “Two little Pagis squeal and squeak ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    16 August 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Are paganis those new bananas in the Woolston supervalue?

  2. xtasy 2
    16 August 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Having listened to Josie Paganie more than enough times on the Monday face off with Hooton or any other right winger, and also at the odd other occasion on “National Radio”, I have had to ask myself, what the hell associates that “person” with the Labour Party or even just humbly the labour movement?

    I see nothing much at all, as she is a total opportunist Blairite of sorts, wanting to tell people, well, move on, we must get into power again, no matter what, we have to make “compromises” with “middle NZ”, sort of.

    So who would make any sense out of such total drivel, but to be that of a willy nilly non committal know it all, pseudo academic “wannabe”, who has to prove anything about what she herself has actually substantially contributed to the party or movement she claims she stands for?

    The sooner the Labour Party gets rid of such hobos and idiots, the better for all. I am happy to see Cunliffe back, shaved or not shaved, at least committed, and who knows, he might have had a chat to “Helen” in New York on his travels, got a bit of mature advice, may hang in there, and wait for his deserved time?

    That is about all I feel that Labour can presently hope for, unless the youth brigades may decide to have a “palace revolt” kind of thing.

    I always preferred paninis to paganis anyway.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      16 August 2012 at 9:53 pm

      That is about all I feel that Labour can presently hope for, unless the youth brigades may decide to have a “palace revolt” kind of thing.

      Nah, Young Labour based in Wellington (as well as most of their recent grads) has been totally captured by beltway thinking. No hope there.

    • Mary 2.2
      17 August 2012 at 9:43 am

      “The sooner the Labour Party gets rid of such hobos and idiots, the better for all.”

      That’s a pretty big ask because it gets close to wiping the whole of Labour out and starting from scatch. Just look at Ardern’s comments this morning on Morning Report responding to the plans to drug-test beneficiaries. She pretty much said it’s okay to screw over beneficiaries for the occassional puff on a joint. She’s either missed the point hopelessley, or has given us yet another example of how Labour’s welfare policy and attitude towards beneficiaries is indistinguishable from National’s.

      • Don 2.2.1
        17 August 2012 at 6:47 pm

        Wiping out Labour and starting from scratch? Again? Labour was wiped out in the 90’s. They sold the last vestige of their sole when they gave their polling info to National during the Tamaki by-election. Anybody with any spine left then. Forget Labour. Join the Greens.

        • OneTrack 2.2.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 8:33 pm

          Yeah. We dont need jobs.

          • Don 2.2.1.1.1
            18 August 2012 at 8:25 am

            Jobs? from Labour? Where were you in ’87? In the 2000’s, Labour rode the credit bubble like everyone else. But they don’t care about jobs – well, not unless they are funded by the Arts Council. Who destroyed the DSIR? Who made Science Education too expensive so now we are run by media studies graduates?

            I bet you will find more people running businesses and employing people in the Greens than in Labour. The last person in the Labour party to run a business was Jim Anderton.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    16 August 2012 at 9:50 pm

    With a post title like this Mr Sprout, Josie is so gonna kick your ass! Or try anyways 😀

    I wonder how long it will take all the younger members of the Labour caucus to understand that Paganiism is going to cut their political careers much shorter than they’d hoped?

    Sometime late 2014. If not sooner.

    • gobsmacked 3.1
      16 August 2012 at 11:20 pm

      I wonder how long it will take all the younger members of the Labour caucus to understand that Paganiism is going to cut their political careers much shorter than they’d hoped?

      Sadly, that probably won’t happen.

      Assuming some older ones retire anyway, the failed Labour MPs can get their 20-something per cent again and all keep their jobs. They just have to rig the list, like last time.

      I suspect the reason the younger ones aren’t agitating more, is that they see National losing after 3 terms, and the likes of Robertson/Hipkins/Ardern getting into government, without having rocked the boat. (By 2017 they’d inherit a country in the shit, but their salaries will insulate them nicely).

  4. gobsmacked 4
    16 August 2012 at 9:56 pm

    For the record, I had no idea who Josie Pagani was, until she started on the politics spot on “Nine to Noon”. Previously the “left” was represented by Andrew Campbell, or Sue Bradford, both of whom I would sometimes disagree with, but at least they made cogent arguments. I think Mike Williams still pops up there as well. (Hooton of course is the regular rightie, and is evil but smart, and occasionally funny).

    So I have formed my opinion of Josie P entirely apart from her husband, and before this latest “bludger on the roof” madness. And my opinion was: “Please stop talking now”.

    • weka 4.1
      16 August 2012 at 10:04 pm

      Me too, didn’t know who she was, found her a complete yawn fest on Nine to Noon, and wondered what happened to the left commentator.

      • xtasy 4.1.1
        16 August 2012 at 10:19 pm

        Perhaps they should ask McCarten instead?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          16 August 2012 at 10:26 pm

          He can do his little Pro-Shearer entreaties, that’ll be nice for everyone.

          • xtasy 4.1.1.1.1
            16 August 2012 at 10:38 pm

            He’s been pretty critical of Labour and Shearer in his last Herald column!

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1
              16 August 2012 at 10:45 pm

              Critical of Labour yes. But he also gave Shearer a pass until 2014 saying that the electorate would not pay any attention to him until then, regardless. Then he called Cunliffe and Jones as lacking seriousness.

          • weka 4.1.1.1.2
            16 August 2012 at 10:53 pm

            Wishlist of left wing commentators?
             
             

            • xtasy 4.1.1.1.2.1
              16 August 2012 at 11:10 pm

              Hone Harawira (though lacking in some insight and knowledge, also articulation);
              Minto (too extreme and a fringe activist not appealing to most);
              Jo Carolan (far too extreme for most);
              Bradford (good for solid statements, not appealing for willy nilly newbies);

              So the “left” could do with “refreshments”, sort of, what about you?

              • Colonial Viper …
                16 August 2012 at 11:23 pm

                Hone Harawira is a far better rabble rouser and advocate for social justice than Shearer is.

                • xtasy …
                  17 August 2012 at 12:15 am

                  Prb he lacks knowlege, info and substantial sources to argue, that cuts him short. O so many could sort it out but he is not interested, as he is a one man player, that is the prob, mate!

              • weka …
                16 August 2012 at 11:41 pm

                Still waiting for Laila Harre to get public again.
                 
                Martyn Bradbury makes good listening, speaks truth to power and doesn’t quite scare the horses.
                 
                Harawira, I like him, and would love to hear his views more often. There are some awesome Maori women whose voices we should be hearing from more often too.
                 
                What’s Nandor Tanczos up to?
                 
                Really what RNZ should do is have Comment from the Left, Centre, and Right. Then we might get some actual perspective instead of 2D. They can have a Labourite as the Centre one 😉 (and save us all from the Dunnites).

                • xtasy …
                  17 August 2012 at 12:17 am

                  Laila is tied up with agendas few know about, is willy nilly and of little substance, apart form her union. She betrayed Alliance too to a degree, an activist told me, so she is now, like many others, following personal agendas, whether justified or not, it makes no difference: Lost!\

                  • weka …
                    17 August 2012 at 12:31 am

                    She’s working for the Greens now.

                    • xtasy …
                      17 August 2012 at 1:53 am

                      know that, I hope she’ s got honest, accepts the challenges and sticks with them for good, as they can do with some smart guidance. She’s capable, but she has wasted her skills, also partly for self interest, as I was told. A challenge can always lead to be proved and others to be convinced. Give her a go thus.

                • xtasy …
                  17 August 2012 at 1:58 am

                  You can never expect much from radio nz, fairly. They are a “public broadcaster”, the last one we have! So they have to create a “balance” (between right and left – or “wrong” as they would perceive).

                  So try to be fair or soft with them as anything else is abysmal.

            • tc 4.1.1.1.2.2
              17 August 2012 at 8:48 am

              RNZ use Pagani because she’s ineffective, waffles people to sleep and can’t joust with whomever is on the other side, it’s all part of the Nat influenced MSM with Griffin controlling the RNZ board.

              That’s why Hotten’s a permanent just in case they forget and get someone decent to represent the left.

              It’s a masterclass in command and control which’s what the top dollar CT bills get you.

    • joe90 4.2
      16 August 2012 at 10:22 pm

      Latte/Chardonnay technocrat.

      http://www.progressive.org.nz/People/people.html

      Josie Pagani is equally comfortable mingling with international diplomats or mustering her sheep. She returned last year after nearly three years in Paris where she worked for the OECD advising governments on communications and aid effectiveness. She is a former communications manager at NZAID, New Zealand’s first aid agency. Before that Josie worked as a press secretary in ministers’ offices, including the office of Jim Anderton, Matt Robson and the Prime Minister Helen Clark.

      Josie is the mother of two children and lives with her husband on the Kapiti Coast where she rides horses, plays the piano and speaks French (and some German and Maori). Today she works as a communications consultant.

      • xtasy 4.2.1
        16 August 2012 at 10:42 pm

        Chardonnay circles aye. Meet the high end diplomats, some of whom are the folks “friends” met with way back, aye? Here goes the “circle of friends”, we are “all in it together”, but not with that (dis-enfranchised)”scruffy looking” folk out there?

        That is Blairite crap, hang them all, thanks, have a REAL revolution, to throw them out, the establishment is crap. But I see again, a totally NEW party and organisation is needed, that Labour crowd is beyond repair, for sure. You must be an idiot beyond healing not to realise that!

      • xtasy 4.2.2
        16 August 2012 at 11:15 pm

        I would lie to ride horses in my spare time, but I never owned a horse, never owned my own house or flat, never will as my economic circumstances dictate, never am likely to earn money to afford paying off a mortgage, and I already speak fluent German, English and a fair amount of French, have good economic and business skills, and I just cannot overcome myself to prostitute my skills to work for next to nothing, to sell it for corporate interests, to be a mercinary and to make others rich and powerful, and a tthe same time make an ass of myself. Sorry, something with the system is rotten. Also especially NZ bosses I met were amongst the worst in the world. So do better, NZ, we may need a collective, or at least more social and responsible, sensible, intelligent approach to engage people, IT IS NOT HAPPENING!

        • xtasy 4.2.2.1
          16 August 2012 at 11:17 pm

          That is besides of some serious health issues I have, which keep me from even being “material” worth employing. Maybe it is easier to “opt out” altogether, suicide, I sometimes think about this shit society!

          • weka 4.2.2.1.1
            16 August 2012 at 11:27 pm

            I think it’s very important to find ways of being kind to ourselves. You sounds like you’re working in some very stressful areas xtasy. Do you take time to look after yourself too?

          • gobsmacked 4.2.2.1.2
            16 August 2012 at 11:28 pm

            Xtasy, don’t let yourself think like that. (I don’t want to derail the thread, but it sounds like you have much to offer, and there are support networks out there, I hope you can find something that suits.)

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.1.3
            16 August 2012 at 11:28 pm

            Nah mate stay with us we need you when it comes to the soon-to-be-formed battle lines, you might not fight at the front but someone will need to train the new recruits, clean the wounds and apply new bandages, organise and procure supplies and make sure that morale is maintained throughout the forces and officer corp.

            • pukeko 4.2.2.1.3.1
              17 August 2012 at 7:44 pm

              Whiore hume.

              • prism …
                17 August 2012 at 8:20 pm

                pukeko
                I looked up whiore hume and one meaning is “A coward was [called] ‘he whiore hume’ (tail between the legs).” It’s cool to speak Maori and use it but it’s hard to get anything positive from that.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.2
          17 August 2012 at 2:49 am

          …and I just cannot overcome myself to prostitute my skills to work for next to nothing, to sell it for corporate interests, to be a mercinary and to make others rich and powerful, and a tthe same time make an ass of myself.

          You too?

          Thing is, I actually suspect that it’s like that for many people in this dog eat dog world that we’ve created over the last few decades.

    • David H 4.3
      17 August 2012 at 8:37 am

      Naaa Hootens, like a Hooray Henry All noise, bullshit, and no substance.

  5. captain hook 5
    16 August 2012 at 9:59 pm

    yeah I listen to her on the ‘panel’ and its like she’s read it all out of a book
    has she /he ever had a real job in their life?

    • Bob 5.1
      16 August 2012 at 10:34 pm

      That same question can be asked of most of the Labour Caucus! No wonder they are so out of touch with the workers they are supposed to stand for, they have never spent time working with them.

      • Carol 5.1.1
        17 August 2012 at 7:48 am

        I think Josie P has been out and about and met a few different kinds of people. She talks of campaigning for Labour and talking to members of the public around the country.

        It’s not so much that she hasn’t been “in touch” with different kinds of people, or that she only has book knowledge, it’s the lens she uses to view the world and make sense of her experiences….. and it looks to me like a Blairite, soft-neoliberal lens.

        • David H 5.1.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 8:44 am

          She sounds to me like one of those people who are always volunteering (you know they are useless). And you just have to keep on making excuses for them, Here we have got a 2 for 1 package deal buy one, and unfortunately you get the other one free.

  6. captain hook 6
    16 August 2012 at 10:00 pm

    oh and btw if he is so enamoured of kiwiblag then the question must be asked if he votes National?

    • Carol 6.1
      16 August 2012 at 10:06 pm

      Indeed. I really don’t understand how a leftie could prefer the “tone” there to here….. unless it’s just because there is more criticism of John P here than there – maybe he’s not really that left wing after all?

      And as for the anonymity thing? Would it make any difference if some of us said the same things at a public meeting? Most people probably still wouldn’t know anything much about is.

      If they can’t stand the heat, they shouldn’t put themselves in such a public position.

  7. weka 7
    16 August 2012 at 10:10 pm

    She must be getting pretty desperate if she has to compare TS commenters to the KKK. Or maybe she’s just a nasty offsite troll.
     

  8. captain hook 8
    16 August 2012 at 10:11 pm

    the thing is they are really milksop careerists who want it both ways and in the end aren’t worth anything.

  9. BillODrees 9
    16 August 2012 at 10:25 pm

    What a pair of useless Tossers!  

    If both of them have the ear of Phil, Annette, Trevor, Grant and two Davids (not the Cunliffe one) we are truly in a mess, of proportions that the most pessimistic of  the party faithful were afraid to consider possible.  Jesus, Mary and Joseph! All of sudden Mike Moore becomes attractive. 

  10. gobsmacked 10
    16 August 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Since John Pagani prefers Kiwiblog, here’s the link …

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/john_pagani

    You can read a preview of what’s coming soon from Shearer, by reading DPF’s posts about Pagani working for Goff (DPF is biased, of course, but there are original sources linked as well). I really recommend having a look. Note the comments on teachers, and welfare, and cosying up to National. There’s a clear pattern here.

  11. millsy 11
    16 August 2012 at 11:12 pm

    Josie Pagani is not as influential as she thinks she is.

    The fact that she was so far down the Labour Party list that if she got into the House, we would be a one-party state, kinda speaks volumes about her actual influence in the party.

    Im not really all that worried about her.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      16 August 2012 at 11:21 pm

      There’s influence in the party, then there is influence on the electorate through appearances like National Radio.

      Gawd frakking help us if New Zealanders listening believe that Pagani represents what the Left of politics has to offer in this country.

      • gobsmacked 11.1.1
        16 August 2012 at 11:34 pm

        Commentators are, by definition, unsuccessful candidates or failed politicians (Pagani, Jackson, Tamihere, Farrar, Franks, Slater, etc)

        A few exceptions – Mike Williams is one. But not many.

      • weka 11.1.2
        17 August 2012 at 12:03 am

        Yeah that’s my worry, RNZ’s influence on middle class NZ. What happened to RNZ’s role of getting people to think?

        • tc 11.1.2.1
          17 August 2012 at 8:54 am

          RNZ is under the nat MSM machine, Plunkett shipped off by dangling a juicy carrott, Mora/Crump/Laidlaw/Ryan left alone as not threatening, even helping sometimes. I’m surprised Mary Wilson on Checkpoint’s not been nobbled but then you wouldn’t imagine her going quietly.

  12. Sufi Safari 12
    16 August 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Sprout and friends once again delivering the irony in thick “embittered and angry” measure.
    Recent posts by Mike Smith, Jimmy Reid and Jenny Michie have been raising the level of introspection on this site from the vituperative to the truly reflective and even constructive. It’d be great if you could join them.

    Also, you guys should talk to someone in the Leader’s Office. Your perspective of John Pagani’s role is way off. Disagree with his politics, fine, but I think if you take a moment you’ll find he’s hardly earned the role of whipping boy for all your disillusionments.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      16 August 2012 at 11:46 pm

      Don’t write off anger mate. Anger moves nations. And Mike Smith and Jimmy Reid were happier with the status quo than unhappy with it. With all due respect to good guys, how many people did they move with their pieces? Sweet F.A., I suspect.

      PS “Paganiism” does not have to come from the Pagani’s personally. Its simply a label which describes the weak kneed unprincipled, cosy up to the comfortable centre-right middle class, underclass bashing apologist approach of some elements of the “Left”.

      • Sufi Safari 12.1.1
        17 August 2012 at 12:19 am

        Anger can be a superb motivator. Or a huge turn off.

        If you’ve been to any manner of left-wing protest recently you’ll have seen (or been) a small mob of angry folk bashing your heads against mainstream apathy. Further alienating the message from that mainstream and reinforcing the sense of alienation that drives the anger in the first place. It’s painful to watch and even more distressing to be a part of.

        Which isn’t to say an angry mob can’t be raised… if you’re a truckie opposed to RUC changes, or someone who doesn’t want their kids to be given legal protection from assault, or a Destiny Church-goer who has had enough of the gays, or if you have boobs and are on a bike (but then you were probably less angry and more naked).

        Until the left can inspire a compelling sense of anything, whether it’s anger, hope, pride or belonging, your anger is not going to move anything as truculent as a nation.

        But by all means come to the Standard and roar your terrible roars and gnash your terrible teeth, I just think it’s funny how you get so wild when someone rolls their terrible eyes and calls you on it.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 1:25 am

          Until the left can inspire a compelling sense of anything, whether it’s anger, hope, pride or belonging, your anger is not going to move anything as truculent as a nation.

          Hey mash for brains

          In case you haven’t paid attention in the last 6 months

          Its Labour and its current leadership who can’t “inspire a compelling sense of anything”

          • Sufi Safari 12.1.1.1.1
            17 August 2012 at 1:35 am

            Okay, so I am basically writing off anger at this point. You haven’t moved me and I’m ready to call it that you’re not going to move a nation.

            Have you paid attention to the last six years?
            I can’t think of a single instance of large-scale anger-driven protest that I can get on board with. None that I would class as being of the left.

            I understand your grievance. I share it. I just don’t agree that wave after wave of vitriol is going to do anything for you. Or for the left. Or for the Labour Party. Or for the country. If I am wrong, and your rage improves the prospects of any one of those listed, I will gladly withdraw and apologise.

              • weka …
                17 August 2012 at 1:55 am

                btw, anger and vitriol are not synonymous in this context. You are conflating the two things.

              • Sufi Safari …
                17 August 2012 at 2:09 am

                Apparently Colonial Viper’s fears are founded, I haven’t paid attention in the last six months. You’ve rather skewered my argument there, and your point about anger and vitriol is well made. It’s a distinction I hadn’t considered, which I think makes my position overall a bit problematic. Good food for thought. Thanks.

                • geoff …
                  17 August 2012 at 9:08 am

                  sprout: comment deleted

                  • Galeandra …
                    17 August 2012 at 9:21 am

                    Debate if you can rather than abuse someone; this comment is simply offensive and suggests you can’t offer any ideas worth reading

                  • Sufi Safari …
                    17 August 2012 at 9:25 am

                    Hi geoff. Thanks for contributing so concisely to my original thesis.
                    Have a swell day.

                    • rosy …
                      17 August 2012 at 9:40 am

                      Classy reply Sufi – a virtual high five to you – there was no need for geoff to write crap like that, actually there’s never a need to write that.

                • weka …
                  17 August 2012 at 10:44 am

                  Hi Sufi, I think even with the more vitriolic protests, there is value. It’s partly that protest is being left to the most angry people and often the young who have the energy to mobilise in radical ways. It’s important that this keeps happening, because we desperately need young people to stay politicised. It also keeps the issues in the public eye, better than most other things. Radical activists have always led the way – think the Sprinkbok tour, anti-nuke, the Maori renaissance, some of the older environmental protests.
                   
                  I think the internet has changed protest and activism too. Bill (TS author) has some good insight into this. People think that signing a petition online, or posting something on social media is sufficient, and there seems to be middle-classification of activism where certain kinds of protesting are now seen as distasteful. That’s a real shame IMO.
                   
                   

                  • KJT …
                    17 August 2012 at 11:13 am

                    There is also the chilling effect, on protest, of seeing legal protesters being assaulted and dragged off in a police van.

                    Not to mention the likelihood of personal details being illegally outed to the media if you dare to criticise a politician.

                    I have to say it for Labour here. Labour only refuses to publish critical comments on Red Alert.

                    • weka …
                      17 August 2012 at 11:20 am

                      You say that as if it’s a good thing KJT. Doesn’t that just make RA a propaganda space? If people on the left can’t critique Labour policy there, Labour are in effect saying they don’t care what people think.

                    • KJT …
                      17 August 2012 at 5:03 pm

                      Only by comparison with NACT’s/Bashers methods.

                  • Sufi Safari …
                    17 August 2012 at 11:57 am

                    Hi Weka. I’ve watched a lot of protests consisting of the same 20-50 people milling around King Dick chanting the slogan of the moment and at best being ignored by the people inside the buildings and at worst being conflated with their cause in totem by politicians and staffers who saw them all last week and more easily see them as malcontents than as the vanguard of a movement.

                    That experience colours my perspective of protest (and of many MPs in similar measure). But I think I agree with you more than disagree.

    • gobsmacked 12.2
      17 August 2012 at 12:04 am

      you guys should talk to someone in the Leader’s Office.

      We’re trying to, but it’s a one-way conversation.

      It would be fantastic if “someone in the Leader’s Office” would engage and debate. They even have a Labour MPs blog for that very purpose. Seen it lately?

      Labour/Shearer seem to have decided on a strategy. If they really want feedback on it, there are dozens of avenues. But they don’t, do they?

      • weka 12.2.1
        17 August 2012 at 12:14 am

        You mean the blog where they censor comments?

        • Bob 12.2.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 12:20 am

          Are you talking about this one or Red Alert? They are both as bad as each other.

          • weka 12.2.1.1.1
            17 August 2012 at 12:26 am

            This isn’t a Labour blog Bob. And AFAIK it doesn’t censor comments except where they are libelous. It does moderate behaviour, but pretty liberally, and such moderation is normal on blogs that don’t want to be a tr*llfest. Red Alert appear to actually refuse comment content they don’t like.

            • David H 12.2.1.1.1.1
              17 August 2012 at 9:08 am

              @Weka 12:26am Bullshit they do censor mainly delete anything that calls for any politician to be held accountable, or the calls for stepping down

              • weka …
                17 August 2012 at 10:37 am

                David, are you talking the Standard or Red Alert? I’m saying TS doesn’t censor content (other than to prevent libel) but RA does.

                • SHG …
                  18 August 2012 at 3:05 pm

                  “The Standard” censors anything it feels like at any time for any or no reason whatsoever.

                  Their playground, their rules.

      • Sufi Safari 12.2.2
        17 August 2012 at 12:22 am

        By “trying to”, do you mean via blogs?
        If so, then for all the reasons that this thread is beautifully ironic, I humbly submit that you’re doing it wrong.

        • the sprout 12.2.2.1
          17 August 2012 at 12:27 am

          true enough.
          we should really be communicating with Labour via Kiwiblog – it seems that’s where most of the ideas are coming from.
          ironic indeed

          • Sufi Safari 12.2.2.1.1
            17 August 2012 at 12:33 am

            Still doing it wrong.

            • Colonial Viper 12.2.2.1.1.1
              17 August 2012 at 1:27 am

              Hey Safari. Thanks for your tutoring. You can go away now.

              • Sufi Safari …
                17 August 2012 at 1:40 am

                That was supposed to be a good-ish natured jab at Sprout’s wry Kiwiblog joke in the face of my blanket assertion that blogs were the wrong avenue. I tried it out with more detail and it read clumsily, and I couldn’t bring myself to add a lol or emoticon. But you’re right, it does read somewhat imperious. Please accept my apologies, it was not my intention in this instance.

        • gobsmacked 12.2.2.2
          17 August 2012 at 12:27 am

          Via every available outlet, if you’ve noticed the last few days.

          People have e-mailed their MPs, or others in the party. People have been all over the blogosphere – almost every left/liberal/Labour blog has been asking “WTF?” (in a variety of language).

          And Shearer sent us a nice e-mail … which said nothing. The next one is due tomorrow. Breath not being held.

          • Sufi Safari 12.2.2.2.1
            17 August 2012 at 1:14 am

            Don’t think those emails are being ignored (if the blog posts run true to type then probably assume that they are being). Also don’t assume you’re in the majority (actually you probably can on this one, but not always).

            Those emails from Shearer will continue to say nothing until the party has a vision. Which is a problem. But another problem would be if you were looking for acknowledgement of your grievances in those emails. The gallery (and the blogosphere) would whip themselves into a frightful frenzy over the prospects of a coup that may be very welcome on these pages, but does only harm from an incumbent’s perspective. And whatever persuasion of David you prefer, that’s the right way to approach the office. The leadership shouldn’t fall at the hands of speculation about the leadership, which is why the Garner piece is so disappointing (and why so many of Cunliffe’s antics last term were equally disheartening). So you’re right not to hold your breath, but if vindication is what you’re after it might pay to temper your expectations too.

            Anyway, my point in the first place was more about the perceptions of how the leader’s office worked, and how far off the mark perspectives like the original post are.

            • weka 12.2.2.2.1.1
              17 August 2012 at 1:20 am

              I can’t follow what you are saying. The original post doesn’t talk about how the leader’s office works.

              • Sufi Safari …
                17 August 2012 at 1:23 am

                Now that’s tragic and moronic, but hardly surprising. It also helps shed light on the inspiration for the otherwise unfathomable, bizzarely kamikaze PR ‘strategy’ of Labour under Shearer.

                You should pay more attention.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 August 2012 at 1:29 am

                  Classic beltway-centric superiority complex.

                  • weka …
                    17 August 2012 at 1:40 am

                    Lol, is that what’s going on? I’ve been reading SS’s posts and finding them nonsensical. I guess I’m just not in the right club.

                • weka …
                  17 August 2012 at 1:37 am

                  That’s a big vague isn’t it? If you want to present some PR for Labour, wouldn’t it be better to try and engage with people here rather than just repeatedly telling them they’re wrong?

                  • Sufi Safari …
                    17 August 2012 at 1:56 am

                    Fair point both of you. It was vague and came across as superior. Sorry about that.

                    The excerpt I pulled…

                    Now that’s tragic and moronic, but hardly surprising. It also helps shed light on the inspiration for the otherwise unfathomable, bizzarely kamikaze PR ‘strategy’ of Labour under Shearer.

                    …as I read it was implicating Pagani as central to the current malaise in the Leader’s Office. Which may be an exaggeration in my mind of what it really said, but was cause for my contention that Pagani’s role was being overstated, which I think would be unfair to both Pagani and to the leader’s office. It’s probably immaterial in the big picture, but I thought I’d make a small stand for veracity while I was here.

                    In other matters, I think (hope?) if you reflect on my less curt posts, that I will be largely exonerated from the charge of running PR for Labour. Just some different viewpoints.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 August 2012 at 2:11 am

                      …as I read it was implicating Pagani as central to the current malaise in the Leader’s Office.

                      Not talking about the MPs here, but it would help if some of the bloody staff realised that the answer does NOT lie at the bottom of the next bottle of Sav.

                      And Pagani isn’t a cause, so much as a symptom. That’s pretty clear to everyone here (or at least it is to me).

            • Olwyn 12.2.2.2.1.2
              17 August 2012 at 8:52 am

              Not sure what you are getting at with regard to “Cunliffe’s antics last term” since I did not notice any antics. Cunliffe is an elected, senior member of parliament, who won his seat with a big majority. He is entitled to hold, defend and promote a position on the party and its direction – more entitled than, say, an unelected consultant. If this is what you are getting at, I would not describe it as an antic, but as the fulfilment of a responsibility. A political party is not a mere management team, and the agreement behind collective responsibility should not rely on “put up or shut up” resignation from senior members.

              • Sufi Safari …
                17 August 2012 at 10:05 am

                Hi Olwyn. I don’t disagree that any MP is entitled to “hold, defend and promote a position within the party”. But all too often what’s actually going on is MPs holding, defending and promoting their position within the caucus. I don’t think that undermining your colleagues is a constructive way to approach rebuilding the party or reconnecting with the electorate, and that goes for Garner’s sources as much as it does for Cunliffe and cohorts.

                My experience of David Cunliffe is that he’s a really nice guy, very effective at connecting with people, conscientious and enthusiastic. From where I was standing, he was also a guy who spent more energy plotting for the leadership last term than he spent on his portfolios, supporting policy development, or campaigning for the Party.

                To my mind, that made him more damaging to the party in the 2011 election than any influence John Pagani managed to achieve (or has since), both in direct impact on electorate perception and in the opportunity cost of an under-performing Finance spokesperson. Of course, that is merely my perspective, but for what it’s worth it might also go some way towards explaining why there is such a gulf between the membership and the caucus when it comes to support of David Cunliffe.

                • Olwyn …
                  17 August 2012 at 10:33 am

                  I am certainly no insider, so can only read the situation through external clues and my own perspective, which is left-leaning. As an outsider I did not see leadership ambitions at play, but I suspect retrospectively that Cunliffe, in believing that the party should be more to the left in its orientation than it has been since Helen Clark, stood his ground on this and annoyed people in doing so, rather than agreeing to be a red candle on a blue cake.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 August 2012 at 1:57 pm

                  he was also a guy who spent more energy plotting for the leadership last term than he spent on his portfolios, supporting policy development, or campaigning for the Party.

                  Cunliffe increased his majority in New Lynn by 25%, from 4,000 to 5000. In a year that most Labour candidates slid hard. That’s not bad “campaigning for the Party” I would have thought.

                  To fill in time however, why don’t you have a reread of who Fran O’Sullivan said was “spending energy plotting for the leadership”.

                  This week’s deal was essentially put together by long-serving MP Trevor Mallard – who performed the numbers role when Helen Clark ran her coup against then leader Mike Moore.

                  But much of the real strategising started several months back when Shearer and close caucus allies such as former Labour list MP Stuart Nash seriously began talking about a post-election leadership tilt.

                  Influential members of the “commentariat” – particularly those of the right-of-centre persuasion – were informally briefed.

                  Shearer was promoted as having a modern international outlook; pro-business, pro-science and innovation, and not prone to the phony cloth-cap ideology that Goff had to dip into…

                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10773689

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 August 2012 at 2:05 pm

                  First you say this

                  I don’t think that undermining your colleagues is a constructive way to approach rebuilding the party or reconnecting with the electorate

                  and then you go on with this

                  that made (Cunliffe) more damaging to the party in the 2011 election than any influence John Pagani managed to achieve (or has since), both in direct impact on electorate perception and in the opportunity cost of an under-performing Finance spokesperson.

                  Simply unbelievable hypocrisy.

                  • Sufi Safari …
                    18 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

                    Neither Cunliffe nor Pagani are my colleagues and I’m not working to rebuild the party or reconnect with the electorate. I’m not sure hypocrisy is a fairly levelled accusation in this instance. But I do like how you removed the first three words from the second quote to help further your point.

                    Fran’s piece doesn’t ring true to me, although as much as I’d like to believe otherwise that doesn’t make it any less likely. But either way, the existence of a second stream of machinations doesn’t preclude the first. From what I saw (again please read that as the caveat it is meant to be) Cunliffe’s activities predated any thought of Shearer’s promotion by several years.

                    Still, Cunliffe’s success in New Lynn is testament to his skills as an electorate MP. He is personable and intelligent, and he built a dedicated team of supporters and volunteers around him, that continues to be an asset to him every time anyone raises the matter of the Party’s leadership. And I think all that electorate success would be just great if he was a backbencher in a marginal electorate. But he wasn’t, and my point about campaigning for the Party was more related to his willingness to engage with the broader campaign than his ability to return himself safely in New Lynn.

                    I still hold to the belief that the sniping and leaking and conniving that is coming from both sides of this apparent divide is equally unhelpful. But then perhaps that’s still partisan territory, hoping for stability in the leadership at a time like this…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 August 2012 at 3:26 pm

                      From where I was standing, he was also a guy who spent more energy plotting for the leadership last term than he spent on his portfolios, supporting policy development, or campaigning for the Party.

                      How could you have made the above observations if you weren’t also around Cunliffe during his portfolio work, his policy development work and his Party campaigning work? ie working with Labour Party MPs? That to my mind makes you a work colleague.

                      But I do like how you removed the first three words from the second quote to help further your point.

                      For clarity, the first three words you wrote were “To my mind”, which is a phrase used to make clear that the statement following is an opinion. Which (to my mind) was obvious from the statement itself.

                      Fran’s piece doesn’t ring true to me, although as much as I’d like to believe otherwise that doesn’t make it any less likely. But either way, the existence of a second stream of machinations doesn’t preclude the first.

                      If you were around Labour MPs enough to come to strong declarative conclusions about Cunliffe, you shouldn’t be coy about what O’Sullivan said about Shearer, Mallard et al. Tell us what you saw.

                  • Sufi Safari …
                    18 August 2012 at 5:49 pm

                    That to my mind makes you a work colleague.

                    You’ve inferred too much… or maybe I’ve just overstated the extent of my exposure. We were never colleagues.

                    If you were around Labour MPs enough to come to strong declarative conclusions about Cunliffe, you shouldn’t be coy about what O’Sullivan said about Shearer, Mallard et al. Tell us what you saw.

                    I thought that’s what I’d been doing.
                    Anyway, I’ve got into bagging Cunliffe and that’s not really what I intended. He’s a capable guy with a strong case for leading the party at some stage and my opinions on whether he should be or how he achieves it are entirely immaterial. My initial point, rather lost in my subsequent ramblings, was that I think the kind of stuff that leads to pieces like Garner’s blog post is unhelpful. Whoever it comes from.

      • David H 12.2.3
        17 August 2012 at 9:05 am

        Red Alert????? I get one in my inbox every morning. From the WAREHOUSE.

  13. xtasy 13
    17 August 2012 at 12:22 am

    If I’d tell you tomorrow to take an organisational step, to organise and unite all disaffected, the unions, the low paid workers and so forth, how many do you think will turn up? Maybe 3 dozen is my answer! Because most of YOUR organisers FUCKED most of all this up with too many stupid marches never resulting in much of fringe grouup turnouts. So the LEFT is now associated with FRINGE orgos of sorts, and that is your fucking problem, all of you.

    In other countries it never got quite so bad, so the problem there is less severe.

    NZ needs to reconnect, wake up, re organise, re focus and get back to bloody basic workers and human rights that is the only solution, but sadly too many discuss trivial question time and other nonsense topics on this and other forums. Yo u are in danger of being LOST!

  14. Huginn 14
    17 August 2012 at 12:41 am

    You say:
    John Pagani tells the Listener that that he much prefers Kiwiblog because it “has a more reasonable tone than, say, the left blog the Standard, whose idea of political is embittered and angry and it’s therefore hard to read.’

    But the link you give has this:

    Then again, as left-leaning political-consultant-turned-commentator John Pagani notes, Farrar’s apparently easygoing tone might be among his greatest advantages. “He has a more reasonable tone than, say, the left blog the Standard, whose idea of political is embittered and angry and it’s therefore hard to read,” says Pagani, who has sparred often with Farrar on Newstalk ZB. “He is actually a seasoned political operative who intuitively knows pressure points for his opponents and much of what he publishes is cunning and designed to create political pressure, like a good parliamentary question.”

    Which is not the same at all.

    • xtasy 14.1
      17 August 2012 at 2:04 am

      That is why astute, alert and smart people detect this nonsense straight away, take a solid stand and shoot such crapology adherents down before they could ever even open their mouthes that lack the early morning anti bacterial mouth wash, so to say.

      Resulute, aware and sensible action is needed, but too many Labour leaders and activists either are of the convenient sleep in types (missed that uni days ended years ago), or they cannot be bothered to make a damned effort. If I want some bloody change and direction, I would have to bloody make an effort, which goes beyond blaming others and take bloody action!

      I think that is where some acticists in Latin America are way ahead of NZ, because they have no bloody alternative to get up, take action and bloody fight!

    • Carol 14.2
      17 August 2012 at 7:59 am

      Oh, dear.

      Instead of writing what they think, arguing the issues directly, and wrestling with the rationale for politics and policies, Standardistas are meant to be a bit underhand and manipulative and act like some focus-grouping corporate operators?

    • Jenny Michie 14.3
      17 August 2012 at 9:27 am

      Thanks Huginn. That’s exactly the point I was going to make. I think we’ve all drawn rather a long bow from that.

  15. Morrissey 15
    17 August 2012 at 6:51 am

    Josie Pagani once came out all guns blazing on NewstalkZB’s “The Huddle” and completely outclassed—and silenced—Cameron Slater and Larry Williams.

    So she CAN do it if she sets her mind to it. Sadly, however, most of her energy seems to be taken up with finding ways to be nice and agree with the likes of Matthew Hooton and David Farrar.

    I blame that useless husband of hers.

  16. Descendant Of Smith 16
    17 August 2012 at 7:22 am

    I can only reiterate my simple question of a few days ago:

    Does the Labour Party actually believe in an 8 hour working day, 40 hour working week as a matter of both principle and policy?

    I do not see believing in this as extremist left wing – and in fact many workers still enjoy this today – sometimes in surprising places. This was normal for most people when I started work and it’s not for my kids.

    This erosion of working rights for my children I see as very important.

    What I do see this as, is a fundamental tenet of the Labour Party. It’s one of the few things proclaimed loudly on the website.

    It’s not a difficult question to answer.

  17. mickysavage 17
    17 August 2012 at 7:53 am

    I think that I am the “sexist thug [who] reads chicken entrails from my husband’s tweets to get an insight into my views”.  What I said was

    “After thinking about Josie Pagani’s bene bashing comments yesterday on Radio New Zealand I thought I would check out hubby John Pagani’s activities.
    It seems that his blog is down.  I wonder when that happened.
    He has recently sent a couple of tweets.  One of them says “Martin Hawes on buying shares in Mighty River.Excellent analysis. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7466680/Ignore-hype-when-investing”
    The Hawes article he links to is a cold hard financial analysis of the share float of MRP that does not mention Iwi claims or the risks that they pose.  Hawes’ conclusion is that ”[o]n all of these measures, MRP comes out well. It is in a good, stable industry providing energy from renewables, but with growth prospects as it sells its expertise in thermal power to other countries. It has strong finances and very good governance and management.”
    It would appear that Pagani thinks buying MRP shares is a good idea.
    Is he still speech writing for the Labour Party?”

    I plead not guilty to being a thug or to conflating her views with his.  But I do think that she was been bashing on National Radio.  And I am really keen to find out if John thinks buying MRP shares is a good idea.  

  18. IrishBill 18
    17 August 2012 at 8:12 am

    I disagree with both Paganis on just about everything however I’m uncomfortable singling them out for a bashing like this and share some of Sufi’s thoughts in comment 12. I don’t, however, think the leader’s office is in any great hurry to start talking to TS.

    • Huginn 18.1
      17 August 2012 at 8:43 am

      +1

    • King Kong 18.2
      17 August 2012 at 9:11 am

      I would genuinely like to know how much of Labour’s activist base and supporters you think the Standard represents.

      Demanding that the leader of the opposition consult with this blog is either the stuff of delusional fantasists or you guys know something about how important you are that I don’t.

      If it is based on readership numbers then that would require John Key to seek a weekly audience with Whaleoil.

      • King Kong 18.2.1
        17 August 2012 at 9:16 am

        Have I been banned?

        [lprent: Not that I can see. Have you done something for which you think I should ban you? If so could you please link to it and explain why. The rough and ready ruleset is in the policy.

        You probably just got caught by one of the auto-moderation rules that r0b wants me to review or one of the automatic systems – in which case you comment would have been been reviewed soon after.

        If you want to check that a moderator has banned you. Then use the search – Set advanced to comments only and put in “@author King Kong” (without the quotes) will bring up this. And it doesn’t waste moderators time. ]

    • lprent 18.3
      17 August 2012 at 2:26 pm

      I know what you mean. However I have been constraining myself since reading Josie’s post with it’s group demonising (ie take a few individuals behaviour and smear an entire group with it) not to mention her outright lying.

      Incidentally I had a peek at why I’d banned John off this site (which is what I guess that Josie is referring to) and the similarities as far as a moderator are concerned are rather more striking than the differences between the two. Group smearing, personal attacks based on self created strawman, playing the victim, etc are all well known tactics on blogs. I suspect that their respective gender is insufficient to overcome their similarities – mainly consisting of being puffed up arrogant fools in my opinion.

      I don’t really have much sympathy for either of them. Like the spout, I suspect that they have made the right choice of preferring the sewer at kiwiblog rather than here, because they will get challenged here and the policy means that their views will get challenged in detail. Their political leanings appear to me to reside at KB as well from what I can see.

  19. vto 19
    17 August 2012 at 9:08 am

    I’ve got an idea – how about Labour tell the country what its policies are what it will do when in power. I know its a novel idea, but give it a go. You could start with… hmmm… let’s see..

    What Labour will do to ensure the minimum wage becomes a living wage…

    What Labour will do about asset sales – those on the block now and all future asset / capital item matters…

    What Labour will do to stop New Zealanders having to compete with 4 billion people who don’t even live in the country when it comes to buying land? They could start by clarifying the benefits to NZ of foreign landlords…

    What Labour will do about Rape Crisis…

    … bloody pussy footing around arguing with each other and pulling each others hair. Pathetic. Nobody cares about that shit. People want to see housing take less of their weekly pay packet, schools keep on keeping on in their past good fashion, their minimum wage provide them an ability to live…

    Either Mr Invisible needs to start shouting and open his eyes wider, or Cunliffe should just start ignoring his egghead colleagues and speak loudly and frequently from his heart, which he has done before. Preferably both of them at once. Go on. Try it. You might be surprised at the result.

    • OneTrack 19.1
      17 August 2012 at 9:04 pm

      Since the Greens are going to be in charge, how about they tell the country EXACTLY what they are going to do. There is a lot of warm fuzzy stuff – how about some details.

      For a start, Green-tech – where is the money going to come from, how much will it cost, what are we going to do and who are we going to sell it to?

  20. captain hook 20
    17 August 2012 at 9:08 am

    tiddlywinks anyone?

  21. Sanctuary 21
    17 August 2012 at 9:33 am

    First of all, Kathryn Ryan has a huge say in who appears on Nine-to-Noon as a political commentator, and if Chris Trotter is to be believed she’d rather die than allow a real left winger to regularly appear on her show. The constant offering up of pasteurised middle class soft liberals as “from the left” is deliberate RNZ (self?) censorship, the effect of which is to drag the centre to the right when they are paired with a hard right professional propagandist like Hooten.

    Secondly, Pagani (x2) both have become the symbols of the utter disconnect between an out-of-touch parliamentary party and the activist base. They are the symbols of the no bad kings, just bad advisors syndrome that is the last refuge of hope before civil war and the attacks on them amount to a sort of grand remonstrance (http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur043.htm) contrasting the “dutiful and loyal counsels and endeavours of your (activists)” with the conspiracy of the Paganis and other unnamed evil counselors who are dragging the unwitting Shearer into National-lite centrism, and Labour with it.

    Of course, the reality was Charles I knew exactly what he wanted.

  22. ak 22
    17 August 2012 at 9:34 am

    Bomber’s on the money.

    Infighting is the eternal curse and cancer of the left, and here are two privileged paid employees pouring petrol on the fire in tankerloads.

    Inexcusable.

    And begs the question as to whence the initial spark.

    Labour/Alliance was the most promising Left development in decades. Until it spectacularly self-immolated over nothing.

    From memory both Paganis worked for the Alliance at the time.

    Now they’re calling committed Left activists embittered, angry, sexist, KKK thugs and shilling the sewer.

    Nasty pattern emerging.

    • blue leopard 22.1
      17 August 2012 at 2:33 pm

      @ak
      Thoroughly agree.

    • Gosman 22.2
      17 August 2012 at 3:02 pm

      Yeah the left is good at self immolation.

      It’s fun to watch from a diferent poilitical perspective I must state for the record.

    • Colonial Viper 22.3
      17 August 2012 at 5:03 pm

      From memory both Paganis worked for the Alliance at the time.

      Now they’re calling committed Left activists embittered, angry, sexist, KKK thugs and shilling the sewer.

      Time to put Zarak and Gaeta back in their place.

      • pukeko 22.3.1
        17 August 2012 at 7:40 pm

        Kāti te riri, whakarērea hoki te ārita; kei mamae koe, kei tākina kia mahi i te kino !

      • Mike 22.3.2
        18 August 2012 at 2:08 am

        I don’t think death threats are an appropriate way to make your point
        This has already become far too personalised as it is.

        • lprent 22.3.2.1
          18 August 2012 at 2:11 am

          I thought it was a reference to some characters in a daft scifi tv series that I generally avoid? What makes you think it is a death threat…

          Edit: Ok – I have just looked at whaleoil. I see that he has been indulging in his usual paranoid conspiracy theories and joining up way too many dots. Out of all of the possible meanings of having a few nasty characters in a TV show, he has selected the one that he prefers.

          He really is an juvenile idiot with a bit of a paranoid conspiracy complex..

          Next thing you know he will be implying that I’m gay because I have a “girls name”. Opps he has already done that. Or that an author here is someone in real life because they have a similar first name r0b vs Rob.. Umm he has done that as well.. Or he will decry everyone on a sickness benefit as some kind of bludger before going on one himself – perhaps he should give that to David Shearer…

          Basically the guy never grew out of being a schoolboy.

          • Inventory2 22.3.2.1.1
            18 August 2012 at 8:27 am

            lprent – I would have thought that Colonial Viper’s comment would have been pretty obvious in its intent once you put it into context with the Battlestar Gallactica reference:

            “After regaining control of Galactica and defeating the mutiny, Adama has Zarek and Gaeta executed by firing squad.”

            Obfuscate all you like; there’s only one way to read Colonial Viper’s comment

            Feel free to add me to the list of life bans. I’d hate to be like John Pagani and be wasting your time; or mine, for that matter. But one day you might wake up and realise just how much damage The Standard is doing to the cause of the Left, and to the Labour Party in particular. Take your time though; after the 2020 election will be fine.

            I bid thee farewell.

        • quartz 22.3.2.2
          18 August 2012 at 6:32 am

          Well you should stop making them then, Mike.

      • locus 22.3.3
        18 August 2012 at 8:32 am

        To liken the arguments of people who disagree with you as ‘like the KKK’ is Godwinism and reflects on the abuser’s intellect and morality.

        Of course anonymity on a blog does permit people to argue more disagreeably than they might on FB, but making defamatory comments using your real name on FB is no less odious than doing so on The Standard.

        To say that The Standard “deals out lifetime bans to anyone who disagrees with them” is ill-informed and begs the commenter to be pilloried. As for the accusation of sexism, the same law applies.

        To suggest that anonymous criticism by TS commenters of people using the ‘welfare bludger’ dogwhistle is playing into the hands of those who want to see Labour lose the welfare debate, is well…. irrational.

        Seriously, if a self-professed left-winger can’t bring themselves to read or engage in debate on the Standard because they find some commenters offensive, this suggests to me they have no interest in views that don’t match their own and don’t care about learning more about what drives left-wing thinking..

        As has been pointed out by many TS commenters, Shearer’s story about the guy who saw his neighbour up on a roof while on a sickness benefit was a manipulative attempt to portray Labour as a party that doesn’t tolerate welfare bludgers.

        It’s a shame that the Leader of the Labour Party is accepting advice (or personally deciding) that taking this line is the best way to win votes. Couldn’t he have found a better way to ‘speak’ to judgemental or prejudiced people about Labour’s toughness and intolerance of fraudsters?

  23. captain hook 23
    17 August 2012 at 9:42 am

    the thing is the two little pagis think they can play politics and hide behind their salaries without ever getting their hands dirty or facing any consequences from the proletariat.
    remember them?
    time for the P’s to stand up and be counted or try another game.

  24. Stephen 24
    17 August 2012 at 10:07 am

    I am completely opposed to the kind of rhetoric, strategy and policy that the Paganis advocate. I think I’m probably on the hard left side of the Labour party tent. But seriously: “two little paggis?” This pretty much proves their point. Are you 12 years old?

    • bad12 24.1
      17 August 2012 at 10:22 am

      Yeah right, children everyday go to school hungry, rheumatic fever is inflicting kids in swathes,in the far North and other hot-spots 3rd world diseases creep into the health statistics,

      The Pagani’s advice to Labour Leader Shearer,( and i don’t discount that he possibly thinks this way anyway), is that the poor are undeserving and ripping off the system,

      And YOU want us to play F**king nice, F**k you,

      One of the Pagani’s at least has been openly slagging beneficiaries any chance She gets as well as openly slagging those who would stand up in support of those beneficiaries,

      One of the J. Pagani’s is a public figure using the media to push the J. Pagani political message, that particular PIGani deserves every f**king slagging that PIGani f**king gets…

      • Jagilby 24.1.1
        18 August 2012 at 2:34 am

        Interesting how people are banned for far less than this vitriolic diatribe.

        I guess being “on message” excuses this behaviour.

    • Colonial Viper 24.2
      17 August 2012 at 5:10 pm

      But seriously: “two little paggis?” This pretty much proves their point. Are you 12 years old?

      Oh come now, the art of political satire can’t be completely dead.

  25. vto 25
    17 August 2012 at 10:30 am

    Does anyone know if either of these strange pagani bananas has ever been on a benefit? Or David Shearer?

    Because like most things on the planet, until you have experience in something it is near impossible to speak with any authority on it.

    So, have they?

    • Carol 25.1
      17 August 2012 at 10:46 am

      vto, in the wide range of crucial political issues, we can’t all have direct experience of relevant activities.

      IMO, the more important quality is empathy – being able to imagine what it would be like for those in a worse situation than the one we are in.

      I would expect Labour Party people to have a lot of empathy for the least powerful in society, and that it wouldn’t be over-ridden by a desire to placate those who are better off and lack such empathy.

      • weka 25.1.1
        17 August 2012 at 10:56 am

        They could also have people who give them advice, who know what the fuck they are talking about eg one of the beneficiary advocacy organisations. Or someone in the disability sector who understands SB issues.

      • vto 25.1.2
        17 August 2012 at 11:04 am

        Of course Carol, we can’t all have experience of everything.

        I guess in my mind I was referencing it to the personal accusations they made against beneficiaries. The statements made indicated a level of personal knowledge and experience, which they clearly seem to lack completely. And if they so lack that experience then they need to moderate or qualify their accusations, lest they come across as fools.

        Some things in life are particularly heavy and really need experience to understand and pass decent comment on. Two biggie examples would include childbirth and war. Others slightly down the scale may include death of a young child, or the soul-sapping destruction of societal rejection such as unemployment.

    • bad12 25.2
      17 August 2012 at 11:02 am

      Larffffs!!! i doubt any of the Labour Caucus have ever been on a benefit and therein lies part of the problem of the glaring disconnect between Labour and a huge swathe of the New Zealand population,

      Theres a huge gulf in the debate where for their own purposes it has as usual been dragged down to it’s lowest common denominator,

      Labour, as National have done for years simply adds fuel to the fire of preconceptions about beneficiaries which are the province of a small slice of the red-neck vote in this country,

      Where the debate should be raging, and, we at the Standard should perhaps be mindful of steering that debate where possible should be in the question of AVAILABLE WORK,

      In other words, its a f**king given that the economy we have had imposed upon us CANNOT and NEVER WILL deliver anything like full employment in this country,

      It then becomes dishonest and disgusting for the likes of Shearer and His schism of Labour to begin to denigrate beneficiaries for supposed small time character flaws,

      The discourse need be shifted, how such a shift is accomplished is somewhat beyond me at present,nevertheless WE need be focusing the mind of the likes of Shearer upon the FACT that the ism that He wishes to use as economic management for this country DOES NOT and WILL NOT provide anything in the way of employment for the population than what it currently does,

      Further to that WE need to have Shearer and His fellow travelers move in that DIRECTION PUBLICLY differentiating from National in that the discussion can then turn to how we best resolve this issue of UNDER-employment,

      My view is that WE either move to an economy where the hours worked are rationed out among those who can work OR we begin now a discussion on how best to keep those WE DENY work to upon some form of economic basis where they too can interact with the economy based upon some NORM of income which we all understand…

      • Carol 25.2.1
        17 August 2012 at 11:13 am

        My view is that WE either move to an economy where the hours worked are rationed out among those who can work OR we begin now a discussion on how best to keep those WE DENY work to upon some form of economic basis where they too can interact with the economy based upon some NORM of income which we all understand…

        Yes, that. Any form of beneficiary bashing, or of separating the “deserving” or “undeserving” poor, is (among other things) a diversion from the main issue of the employment structure.

        • Colonial Viper 25.2.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 11:22 am

          And the employment structure is a direct result of a system which says that the only worthwhile work to be done in society is that which makes a return on that capital for the owners. All other roles in society are degraded.

          • Tracey 25.2.1.1.1
            17 August 2012 at 12:27 pm

            All cleaners, everywhere should go on strike for one week. Then some folks will really know what “shit hitting the fan means”.

            • Colonial Viper 25.2.1.1.1.1
              17 August 2012 at 12:29 pm

              I remain pissed off that the top union leadership did not band together and enforce nationwide stop work action against the ECA in the early 90’s.

              They could have sorted out a whole tranche of this neoliberal BS if they had, useless bastards.

  26. Tracey 26
    17 August 2012 at 12:26 pm

    Frankly kiwiblog can be equably derisive and lowbrow as some here. I find the level of their vitriol, particularly toward women, maori, gays etc scary. I read Farrar sometimes, but not the threads, for the reasons stated above.

    However given the recent pagani advise to attack sickness beneficiaries I can see why he feels more comfortable at kiwiblog

  27. Tracey 27
    17 August 2012 at 12:36 pm

    I find it scarier that National’s daily polling must be saying that the “people” agree with the release of this information. Which means that many in NZ believe the right to privacy is only for those in employment, or in employment without injury, or in employment other than teaching.

    We should be as concerned about the direction our fellow citizens wish to travel too.

  28. chris73 28
    17 August 2012 at 5:46 pm

    and labour wonder why they ain’t in power…

    • xtasy 28.1
      18 August 2012 at 12:38 am

      chris73: Your line of thought and question are the perfect summary and close to this thread! It could not have been better worded and placed!

  29. Carol 29
    18 August 2012 at 6:54 am

    On Josie P’s truck driver who felt that neither National nor Labour were there for him. Did she ever explain what the truck driver ACTUALLY wanted from a political party? Or was the fact that he was male in a manual job meant to say it all?

  30. infused 30
    18 August 2012 at 1:13 pm

    I don’t think you guys realise what this place has become. Don’t dare argue with the admins, insta ban.

    • IrishBill 30.1
      18 August 2012 at 1:28 pm

      Perhaps we can be a touch sensitive but that’s a stance that’s founded in the days when we started up and had real troll problems which lead to every thread descending into a flamewar. I’ve barely banned anyone in the last year or two and you’re clearly able to comment here despite the fact you hardly ever agree with the moderators.

      I actually think we could do to firm our moderation up as I’ve not been happy with some of the behaviour of commenters (on the left and the right) for a few months but I’m not around enough to implement that kind of moderation fairly.

    • Colonial Viper 30.2
      18 August 2012 at 1:34 pm

      Arguing with admins is a ban on most web forums.

      • IrishBill 30.2.1
        18 August 2012 at 1:38 pm

        Well I’m an admin. In fact I’m one of the longest standing admins here, and I’m happy to have anyone argue with me as long as it’s done in good faith.

    • SHG 30.3
      18 August 2012 at 4:06 pm

      Hell, I got banned for posting the results of a Roy Morgan poll with negative numbers for Labour.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/keys-vicious-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-461844

      That’s… a touch sensitive.

Links to post