What a dick

Written By: - Date published: 7:54 am, August 10th, 2013 - 128 comments
Categories: labour, sexism - Tags: ,

The stupidity of Phil Goff’s misogynist taunting of Chris Finlayson has been compounded by his refusal to apologise.

Unfortunately Phil has a track record for this kind of transparent and disingenuous rationalising of his bad calls. Having notoriously tried to claimed he accepted SkyCity corporate box tickets to the rugby in order to “express my opposition” to the Australian gambling giant’s dodgy convention center deal.

Here’s some advice Phil, when you’re in a hole stop digging, man up (see what I did there?), and admit you were wrong and you regret what you said. It’s this kind of high-handed self righteous response that undermines people’s trust in Labour and drives the membership’s dark mutterings about the “old guard”.

128 comments on “What a dick ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. red blooded 1
    10 August 2013 at 8:09 am

    Pathetic. I have to admit that I he and I were to meet up somehow he may well walk away having been beaten by a woman!

    I don’t expect this from Labour. Has he been disciplined in any way by. shearer or the whips (a stupid old-fashioned term)? If not, why not?

    This is the kind of glib put down that Key specialises in. Don’t go there, Phil. It’s partly why thinking people cringe when he talks.

    • felix 1.1
      10 August 2013 at 8:36 am

      “If not, why not?”

      Shearer can’t discipline him publicly because no-one must ever offend the dickhead vote. And he can’t do it privately either, cos Phil scored him the job.

      I guess that’s one of the troubles with having a weak ineffectual leader with no public support.

    • QoT 1.2
      10 August 2013 at 8:52 am

      I don’t expect this from Labour.

      Why wouldn’t you? What discipline did Damien O’Connor receive for his “gaggle of gays” comment, or Trevor Mallard for repeatedly calling Finlayson “Tinkerbell”, or Shane Jones for (on top of everything else) referring to women-only candidate lists creating a Parliament of “geldings”?

      There are two Labour Parties. One’s the party of Louisa Wall and progressive values. The other is the party of a decrepit Old Blokes’ Club. Unfortunately, the latter appear to be in charge.

      • tinfoilhat 1.2.1
        10 August 2013 at 8:59 am

        And on that note……..

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9025221/MPs-unite-to-keep-travel-perk-in-house

        nothing really changes that much down Wellington way.

        • muzza 1.2.1.1
          10 August 2013 at 10:17 am

          A beautiful illustration of the complete corruption inside out parliament.

          There is literally nothing these people won’t do for their own benefit, and literally nothing these same people will do, for the benefit of others!

      • marty mars 1.2.2
        10 August 2013 at 9:22 am

        + 1 So true QoT and these blokes will never change, they are hardwired and embarrassing to any left supporter.

      • Sosoo 1.2.3
        10 August 2013 at 9:29 am

        There are two Labour Parties. One’s the party of Louisa Wall and progressive values. The other is the party of a decrepit Old Blokes’ Club. Unfortunately, the latter appear to be in charge.

        That’s because more Labour voters put up with the former for the sake of the latter than the other way around.

      • Jackal 1.2.4
        10 August 2013 at 10:03 am

        In light of those examples QoT, saying “beaten on three occasions – each time by a woman member of Parliament” doesn’t really compare. Was Goff simply pointing out that Finlayson was beaten by woman on three occasions, to somehow be disparaging of woman or to celebrate that Labour female politicians had beaten a male National politician on three occasions?

        I guess the context of the comment matters here. Does anybody have a link to the video?

        • TheContrarian 1.2.4.1
          10 August 2013 at 10:13 am

          Video here:
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9023655/Phil-Goff-slammed-for-sexist-comments

          The implication is that he wasn’t just beaten – but by a woman no less!

          • Pascal's bookie 1.2.4.1.1
            10 August 2013 at 10:21 am

            Yep.

            And what makes it even worse is the Finlayson is really easy target for a sledge.

            ‘He managed to lose votes in 2011 compared to his 2008 vote,
            when Labour got its worst showing in decades,
            running on an anti-hobbit-hater platform,
            in Miramar.’
            Drop fucking mic.

          • Jackal 1.2.4.1.2
            10 August 2013 at 10:22 am

            Thanks TC. Was a pretty silly thing to say. Pity none of the few politicians who were in the house objected.

          • You_Fool 1.2.4.1.3
            10 August 2013 at 10:45 am

            Stuff reports Goof as saying the following afterwards:

            “It was just a statement of fact. I could have said ‘beaten by a Labour MP on three occasions’. I didn’t really think about it,”

            Which really shows Goof’s ingrained 1950’s mindset… The fact the first thing out of his mouth was “women” as though that made it worse to lose, when it could have been “labour” and been uplifiting, funny and starting to actually strike at the Nats…

            • QoT 1.2.4.1.3.1
              10 August 2013 at 11:42 am

              Exactly! If he wanted to make a point about Finlayson losing to Labour candidates … he would have said Labour candidates.

              (And he would also have been buying into an argument I really hate about the value of electorate vs list MPs – an argument which is even more sigh-worthy coming from someone who, should Mt Roskill ever dump him, is in a very safe list position.)

            • BM 1.2.4.1.3.2
              10 August 2013 at 11:56 am

              “you throw like a girl”
              “you got beaten by a girl”
              “You’re an Indian giver”
              “That’s gay”
              “What a homo”
              “What a retard”

              These comments while no doubt insulting to some members of society, the person making the comment isn’t actually insulting those individuals.

              Most of these comments are just throw away lines with no hidden meaning and are still in wide use today even amongst young people.

              The way Goff handled it is where he really dropped the ball, should have just apologized and said no offense intended.

              • QoT …
                10 August 2013 at 12:14 pm

                You’re right, BM, there’s no hidden meaning. The meaning is pretty fucking clear for everyone to see.

              • marty mars …
                10 August 2013 at 12:22 pm

                Why should one group of people get to say what they like as an insult to someone by using another group as part of that insult? You admit that some in the group being used in this way may get offended, do you not see how the use of such terms reinforces the incorrect and derogatory nature of the insult for the people being used in this way. It perpetuates the misinformation and wedges society. They aren’t throw away lines at all but a subtle code of privilege based on laughable pretensions of superiority. As for goff saying no offense intended – why would he say the opposite of the truth?

                • BM …
                  10 August 2013 at 1:23 pm

                  He was sticking it to Finlayson not to Women.

                  When Goff insulted Finlayson, Id bet money what wasn’t running through his mind was this.
                  “Women are so much more inferior to Men, I’m going to point out he got beaten by a woman, hahahaha he’s going to be crushed, if he ever shows his face back in the debating chamber after that, I’d be shocked.
                  Take that you Tory dog.”

                  Apologize to Women for any offense caused.

                  • felix …
                    10 August 2013 at 2:29 pm

                    BM, sans that “thought process” theres nothing offensive in what he said.

                    So you’re actually in agreement with goff, he was jus2 being factual.

                  • Jackal …
                    10 August 2013 at 3:54 pm

                    Unfortunately it’s the throw away and unthoughtful comments that are ingrained in many people’s personalities that can often be the most damaging.

                    Although I don’t want to get all PC about it, there really does need to be a shift away from the subtle racist and sexist terminology that pervades our society. That culture shift to fix obviously damaging memes should be led by our politicians, not compounded further by trying to gain cheap political shots based on widespread prejudices.

                    At least this isn’t a regular faux pas on the part of Phil Goff I suppose. It’s also somewhat redeeming that Labour has started the debate about how to rectify the issue of low numbers of woman in politics. Let’s hope Goff has the chance to redeem himself by supporting any such progressive initiative that Labour has the courage to put into policy.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                10 August 2013 at 12:56 pm

                the person making the comment isn’t actually insulting those individuals.

                Yes they are or they wouldn’t be insults.

                • QoT …
                  10 August 2013 at 4:28 pm

                  Saying someone throws like a girl does not contain any assumptions or context about the throwing abilities of girls.

                  You’re just, like, noting that their throwing style is similar to that of a particular girl who has a similar throwing style.

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.5
        10 August 2013 at 10:05 am

        Ones the party of progressive values? Sorta, about some carefully chosen things. And not about lots else.

        As for the misogynist angle to Goff’s comments, let’s not miss out the fact that there is a lot more than that to the problem here.

        • QoT 1.2.5.1
          10 August 2013 at 12:15 pm

          Feel free to elaborate on that any time you like, CV, instead of dropping cryptic comments to prove you know more than everyone else.

          • Pascal's bookie 1.2.5.1.1
            10 August 2013 at 12:36 pm

            I think CV is implying Goff was highlighting Finlayson losing ‘to a woman’ as a way of saying he was even less ‘masculine’ than a woman, harhar fag.

            • Chooky 1.2.5.1.1.1
              10 August 2013 at 2:23 pm

              @ Pb…so he was trying to kill two birds with one stone….hmmm….and it backfired …spreading chicken shit everywhere

              sigh….another reason why we need Cunliffe as leader….to lift the game …and annihilate Key and Nact

            • Malcolm 1.2.5.1.1.2
              10 August 2013 at 2:35 pm

              Agree with Pascal’s bookie. The intent was homophobic.

              • QoT …
                10 August 2013 at 4:29 pm

                Well yeah, I got that. I just don’t know why CV didn’t come straight out (oh god I’m sorry for that crime against punning) and say so.

              • Rhinocrates …
                10 August 2013 at 9:40 pm

                There’s this awful beer-soaked bloke-ness that I find off-putting. Somehow I’ve got to support them on their terms alone and show that I’m a “real man too” otherwise I’m excluded from the team.

                It’s O’Connor on the “gaggle of gays”, it’s Mallard’s obsession with “boobs”, it’s Jones on “geldings”, it’s Goff on “women”, it’s Foreskin’s Lament again.

                “WHADARYA?!”

                No, sorry, fuck off. You’re not my party. If you don’t love the people I love, then fuck you.

      • Rosetinted 1.2.7
        10 August 2013 at 11:26 am

        Old Boys Club – sounds like a good name for some feisty young band who wants to poke the borax at pollies and The Man. And old men know wahat the borax term means. Another possible standout name!

      • Visubversaviper 1.2.8
        10 August 2013 at 12:24 pm

        Absolutely,
        That is why some of us have to hold our noses and just support the people in the Party who are progressive and leave the others by the wayside. We have been to the Mt Albert Labour electorate debates for years, but with Shane Jones and Chris Hipkins on the team, they are not getting our $$$ this year.

  2. One Anonymous Knucklehead 2
    10 August 2013 at 8:09 am

    Run, run, as fast as you can,
    You can’t catch me,
    I’m Waitakere Man!

  3. BM 3
    10 August 2013 at 8:24 am

    It’s pretty light weight stuff.
    But it’s a very stupid comment to make especially for such a senior mp who’s been in the game for decades.

    • muzza 3.1
      10 August 2013 at 8:41 am

      Which why you know its been made on purpose, as a deliberate attempt to attract attention..

      Which it has!

      • BM 3.1.1
        10 August 2013 at 8:50 am

        You think Goff made this comment for some other reason.

        What do you think it is?

        • muzza 3.1.1.1
          10 August 2013 at 8:57 am

          Goff is an experienced agent, who actively built a career acting against the interest of this country, much like may of the past and present politicians.

          Goff, as you point out is too experienced, to have not understood the effect of his comments.

          Goff is a terrible sell out, and will do what is necessary, to protect “The Crown”

          • BM 3.1.1.1.1
            10 August 2013 at 9:03 am

            Not quite sure what you mean by “The Crown”

            Is that a faction within Labour?

            • muzza 3.1.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2013 at 9:06 am

              The Crown is the establishment, the owners of our parliamentary and monetary systems.

              Goff, just like the rest of them, is an agent of The Crown!

              Straight forward!

  4. James 4
    10 August 2013 at 8:30 am

    Goff has always been like this. It’s his true colours. Like Mallard calling out tinker bell.

    Classy. And +1 to oak

  5. Linz 5
    10 August 2013 at 8:31 am

    I happened to hear it live before changing channels, and I couldn’t believe my ears. Bring back the man ban.

  6. karol 6
    10 August 2013 at 8:47 am

    Yep.

    The Labour caucus leadership combines neoliberal apologetics with masculine dominance. The 1980s called and asked for this team back.

  7. Rhinocrates 7
    10 August 2013 at 8:47 am

    Looks like he’s been quaffing pints of Brut 33 with Old Spice chasers again. Watch out, he’ll put on a chest wig and gold medallion next.

  8. ochocinco 8
    10 August 2013 at 8:48 am

    Why should Phil apologise?
    Phil has been winning elections for years. What have Sutton and the others achieved for Labour?

    Have they put any runs on the board?

    At the end of the day, it’s people like Goff that might just bring Labour back to its working class roots (Labour is a party of class not gender identity) and get us back on the Treasury benches.

    You think the rightists care? Or more likely that they are giggling that the left worries about such silly inconsequential things and is tearing itself apart again.

    Someone earlier said “thinking people cringe when Phil talks”; I don’t, I think he’s one of the few real MPs we have left, one who served admirably in important posts (defence and foreign affairs) and fought a great Dunkirkian campaign in 2011.

    • QoT 8.1
      10 August 2013 at 9:00 am

      Phil has been winning elections for years. What have Sutton and the others achieved for Labour?

      Perfect illustration of the whole problem which the women-only candidate lists were meant to help fix, i.e. safe seats being predominantly held by older white dudes who would win if they were dead while younger, more diverse activists are sent out to fight futile battles in National strongholds.

      And then use those futile battles to tell them to shut up so the old white men can keep collecting a nice Parliamentary salary. Who cares about raising the profile of the Party (seriously, what has any male Labour MP done in the last two terms to boost Labour’s reputation on the scale of marriage equality?) and getting out the party vote if you’re sitting pretty in Mt Roskill or Hutt South?

      • ochocinco 8.1.1
        10 August 2013 at 9:22 am

        Marriage equality is, as I’ve said before, both worthwhile and utterly worthless.

        The right thing, yes, but has done NOTHING FOR THE CHANCES OF RETAKING TREASURY IN 2014.

        It’s just another tidbit from the top table, a chunk of bread mixed with a slice of circus.Meanwhile government departments got slashed, welfare got tightened to a ridiculous extent, the RMA is going to be destroyed, the convention centre is going ahead, we’re getting a pointless holiday highway… but don’t worry because gay people (many of whom are rightists) can GET MARRIED.

        Incidentally, Phil Goff’s electorate got more asset sales signatures than any other Labour electorate. Don’t think he was sitting on his arse.

        PS an activist can’t be diverse as an activist is singular.

        • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1
          10 August 2013 at 10:27 am

          Yeah instead of getting worthwhile legislation passed while in opposition labour should hoon around uncomfortably on motorbikes vrrrrm vrrrrm *looks over shoulder to the camera, thumbs up, “Am I cool yet?” *

          And to yhink if they hadn’t worked on marriage equality, Labour could have stopped the government’s agenda in its tracks with magic or guns or something I don’t know.

        • Pasupial 8.1.1.2
          10 August 2013 at 11:03 am

          “…younger, more diverse activists are sent out to fight futile battles in National strongholds.”

          vs.

          “…an activist can’t be diverse as an activist is singular.”

          This is obviously beneath QOT’s contempt, but I do like to see language used well. “Activists” in QOT’s comment is referring to a group of activists, rather than pertaining to a single activist (“activist’s”). Your grammar correction is not only redundant but inaccurate.

          Also, how did that number of signatures collected by Goff’s people compare to those gathered by the Greens in the same electorate?

        • QoT 8.1.1.3
          10 August 2013 at 11:46 am

          The right thing, yes, but has done NOTHING FOR THE CHANCES OF RETAKING TREASURY IN 2014.

          Yes … because many, many senior Labour MPs and Labour-affiliated commentators put immense effort into undermining it!

          The marriage equality debate could have been an opportunity for the whole party to position itself as progressive, as (God forgive me for the marketing jargon) on-trend, cutting-edge … But no. We had to have Stuart Nash moaning about it being a “distraction”, we had to have Su’a William Sio pandering to bigots in his electorate.

          If marriage equality did nothing for Labour’s chances, it’s Labour’s problem, not marriage equality’s (or Louisa Wall’s) problem.

          • Puddleglum 8.1.1.3.1
            10 August 2013 at 11:01 pm

            “The marriage equality debate could have been an opportunity for the whole party to position itself as progressive”

            Exactly.

            What disappoints me most about the current Labour leadership is the lack of ability to articulate the broad connections between economic exploitation and other forms of exploitation. For goodness’ sake, this is left wing 101 – ‘capitalism’ (and all socioeconomic processes based on dehumanisation and domination) oppresses our humanity in all its diverse aspects.

            It’s behind the excessive differentiation of gender roles and the consequent demeaning of women’s roles. It’s behind the homophobic ridicule of those men deemed not masculine enough. It’s behind the indifference to environmental degradation and pillage.

            As a left-wing party, Labour needs to show how these are all part of the same socioeconomic arrangement. Labour, if true to its name, should definitely ‘front’ the socioeconomic drivers of suffering – but it should be able to show how those drivers either directly cause or massively exacerbate other forms of oppression and exploitation.

            Sure, there may be a right-wing feminism, gay rights movement, etc. but Labour should still be able to show that its left wing analysis is fundamental to solving those issues.

            Labour should be able to get both ‘Waitakere Man’ and the most ardent feminist or gay rights activist saying ‘Yes, this is the party for me’.

            It is not impossible. E,g., …

            “If you want me to tell the women and gays who go down our mines, who work in our forests, who stack shelves at 2:00am in our supermarkets, who get paid the minimum wage, who rely on our welfare system that they are lesser citizens than those alongside them then you’ve got another think coming!”

            And it could be said in as blokey a tone as you care to imagine …

            • Rhinocrates 8.1.1.3.1.1
              10 August 2013 at 11:34 pm

              +1

              • Rhinocrates …
                10 August 2013 at 11:43 pm

                Effing WordPress blocked me….

                I meant to say…

                +1

                The party should be bringing people together, articulating an ethos for everyone, not blindly following spin doctors, focus groups and sightings of Waitakere Men. (who seem increasingly to be like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, an apparition subject to obsessions and hoaxes, with various blurry film and camera images that look a little implausible when examined closely).

                I guess that’s New Zealand’s Bigfoot, eh? Waitakere Man. Somewhat out of focus, seems to be in some sort of Metallica T-shirt and goatee, driving a Holden ute… but on closer examination, they might be a flock of seagulls.

      • Sosoo 8.1.2
        10 August 2013 at 9:35 am

        The problem is traditional Labour voters staying at home because their interests are continually put on the back burner in favour of identity politics issues that they don’t really care about, and that don’t affect them personally. Some of these people no doubt wonder whether folks like you are saboteurs funded by National and its business backers.

        • weka 8.1.2.1
          10 August 2013 at 9:52 am

          Class politics as presented here are also idenity politics.

        • IrishBill 8.1.2.2
          10 August 2013 at 9:54 am

          traditional Labour voters

          I love this line. There’s nothing that screams centre-right urban middleclass like an argument based on the assumption that all those provincial working-class voters are bigots. As a working-class man who has spent most of his life in the provinces I can tell you that a) you’re wrong, and b) I find it fucking offensive.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.2.1
            10 August 2013 at 10:37 am

            The problem is traditional Labour voters staying at home because their interests are continually put on the back burner in favour of identity politics issues that they don’t really care about

            If you re-read what Sosoo said, your response may have jumped the gun, IB. I’ll rephrase the Sosoo quote how I read it:

            “The problem is that typical working class and socialist minded former Labour voters are staying at home. This is because their class interests are not being represented by todays Labour Party. However, issues of identity politics, which they feel unaffected by and uninterested in are.”

            Note: “unaffected by” and “uninterested in”, not “animosity towards”.

            • Pascal's bookie 8.1.2.2.1.1
              10 August 2013 at 10:42 am

              It isn’t the fault of identity politics that Goff doesn’t get off his chuff and put ‘traditional’ stuff on the agenda. In fact, I’d wager most of the ‘traditional’ stuff would get stronger support from those who support the identity issues than it would from the blokey blokey ‘non-PC’ types.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 August 2013 at 10:49 am

                Oh I agree. The “traditional stuff” and the “identity stuff” should both be strongly and courageously pushed by Labour, and they can definitely go hand in hand.

                For whatever reason however, it doesn’t actually happen.

            • IrishBill 8.1.2.2.1.2
              10 August 2013 at 10:44 am

              Maybe you’re right. My apologies to Sosoo if I wrongly inferred a “Waitakere Man” argument.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 August 2013 at 10:54 am

                My personal belief is that most NZers would let Labour “get away with” a much more progressive “identity politics” agenda, if they saw the “traditional Labour class-political-economy” agenda being pushed just as hard and as courageously.

                It’s the stuff of dreams though.

                • ochocinco …
                  10 August 2013 at 11:05 am

                  Amen.

                  The core of left wing thought is economic rights, not necessary political rights.

                  “Liberals” have hijacked the left because they decided being objectivists was uncool and figured being a “chardonnay socialist” was cooler.

                  • IrishBill …
                    10 August 2013 at 11:24 am

                    So let me get this straight. You think it’s okay for Goff to be casually sexist because he represents a left wing economic view?

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    10 August 2013 at 8:50 pm

                    Haha. Goff was one of Rogernomic’s biggest fans. He has betrayed and turned his back on the left in almost everything he has ever done. He was a chardonnay bloody socialist who decided to find his Waitakere man roots when it suited him. He belongs in ACT, along with the other neanderthals, but he’ll hang around in Labour to support Shearer or whoever guarantees him a seat. Yuck. Even when he stepped down as leader, he betrayed the supporters by installing Mumblefuck.

            • marty mars 8.1.2.2.1.3
              10 August 2013 at 12:02 pm

              That is a generous interpretation cv – when I read Sosoo comment it said to me that, The traditional labour voter doesn’t care about ‘identity politics’ because the issues don’t directly affect them and they don’t care about those issues anyway. Those issues being correcting inequality and injustice. I always find that line strange because I cannot see how anyone is not affected by someone elses inequality or injustice.This huddle mentality is the opposite of what is needed imo. And I can’t reconcile that selfish, insular approach as being aligned with a traditional labour voter – most if not all of the good things bought in by labour governments have been because they have been thinking of others not just themselves. imo the reason labour voters may be staying at home is because they don’t believe anymore – the rhetoric and actuality from the party are very different and that misalignment is obvious – the hearts have been lost although the heads may still be in the game.

        • QoT 8.1.2.3
          10 August 2013 at 11:53 am

          Fuck I hate this line.

          Class politics have never been put “on the backburner” because of identity politics.

          The big gains in identity-politics areas – ignoring weka’s very good point that class politics are identity politics – have almost always been through Private Members’ Bills, not Labour-in-Government Bills.

          The reason class politics have been put on the backburner is because some fucking idiot white dudes bought into the idea that class politics weren’t vote-winners. That being More Like John Key was the way to go. That pushing the idea of the “deserving poor” as compared to “bludging beneficiaries” would get the votes of Middle New Zealand.

          Don’t fucking blame women and queer folk and people of colour for the consistent, deliberate efforts of the Phil Goff and David Shearer-led Labour Party to paint themselves as “good economic managers” who would be “fiscally responsible”.

          The party can’t even design a solid, leftwing state housing policy – they have to make it about encouraging the private sector, framing $300k houses as “affordable”, and then slapping Michael Joseph Savage’s face all over it.

          That’s got nothing to do with identity politics and everything to do with a party still in denial about the damage it did to our country and its own soul via Rogernomics.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.3.1
            10 August 2013 at 12:29 pm

            That’s got nothing to do with identity politics and everything to do with a party still in denial about the damage it did to our country and its own soul via Rogernomics.

            That’s exactly right. Identity politics isn’t at fault. But as the political-economic frustrations and stresses within society continue to increase AND find no outlet via the elite in Wellington, you can expect more push back over these and other identity issues.

            To put it in historical terms. As economic inequality grows, civil liberties and civil equality always suffers.

          • Mike Steinberg 8.1.2.3.2
            10 August 2013 at 9:17 pm

            ***fucking idiot white dudes bought into the idea that class politics weren’t vote-winners.***

            Using racist and sexist references such as the above is not helpful.

            • QoT 8.1.2.3.2.1
              21 August 2013 at 10:33 pm

              John Pagani, David Shearer, Phil Goff and Chris Trotter aren’t white guys?

              (Late to the party I know but I had cause to revisit the comment above, and this was too precious …)

    • IrishBill 8.2
      10 August 2013 at 9:01 am

      Someone earlier said “thinking people cringe when Phil talks”; I don’t, I think he’s one of the few real MPs we have left, one who served admirably in important posts (defence and foreign affairs) and fought a great Dunkirkian campaign in 2011.

      You just about had me fooled until that last para. The Civilian would be proud.

      • ochocinco 8.2.1
        10 August 2013 at 9:23 am

        No parody at all. Goff managed to save the Labour party from what might have been a sub 25% showing in 2011 with an excellent rearguard action.

        And defence and foreign affairs are the *key* agencies of the state as history shows. Even the most Randian of Randians has never suggested privatising them.

        • IrishBill 8.2.1.1
          10 August 2013 at 9:47 am

          I heard he saved them from a sub 5% result. Or maybe even 3%. Indeed, that 27% (the lowest in Labour’s history and well below polling expectations) was clearly 22-25% of pure Goff goodness.

        • richard 8.2.1.2
          10 August 2013 at 12:39 pm

          I’m inclined to think that the poor result for labour was entirely the fault of Goff and his cronies. There will be many like me who have vowed to never vote labour while Goff, King and the remainders of the traitors from the 84/87 labour governments walk this earth. 1984 was the last time I voted labour and nothing has convinced me to vote for them again.

        • Murray Olsen 8.2.1.3
          10 August 2013 at 8:55 pm

          Isn’t Shearer quite keen on private militias to do UN work? More Randian than the most Randian of the Randians!! Wow, you’ll have sorryhands voting for him next.

    • tinfoilhat 8.3
      10 August 2013 at 9:05 am

      Wonderful parody !

    • Saarbo 8.4
      10 August 2013 at 1:40 pm

      27% in 2011???

  9. irascible 9
    10 August 2013 at 9:11 am

    Rather than create a media beat up over what is, after all, a debating point made on clearly evidential proof, we should be concentrating on the substantive matters affecting NZ like the willingness of the current”leader” – PinoKeyo – of the country to pay taxpayers money to bribe companies to remain here while busy selling off the state assets to the self serving asset strippers who run those companies he paid out millions of dollars to.
    My count is that he paid $60million to Warner Bros and sold our legistature to them to remove workers rights and now $30 million to Rio Tinto to create an impression that Meridian Energy is ready to be sold off into foreign ownership.
    My count is that this self same PM along with his mate English have been steadily privatising our Social Welfare system while we stand around and whip ourselves ove an inconsequential debating point made in the house against another ineffectual Cabinet Minister propping up an incompetent smile, wave, scuttle & run John Key.

    • IrishBill 9.2
      10 August 2013 at 10:02 am

      Rather than worrying about some minor corruption in a small pacific island shouldn’t we be focussing on the big issues like climate change, prism, and world hunger?

      Or perhaps we’re intelligent, politically aware adults who can concern ourselves with several different issues at once? I for one think some commenters should concern themselves with the house rule that telling authors what to write about isn’t looked upon kindly.

      • aj 9.2.1
        10 August 2013 at 11:15 am

        To defend irascible (if I may) and my comment, he is not trying to tell this author what to write? I take his comment to be about the relevance of this story compared to other issues.

        • IrishBill 9.2.1.1
          10 August 2013 at 11:21 am

          His comment is a thinly coded claim TS writers shouldn’t call out bad behaviour by Labour politicians. Let me repeat. Nobody. Tells. Us. What. To. Write. On. Our. Own. Blog.

          • irascible 9.2.1.1.1
            10 August 2013 at 1:16 pm

            Absolute bollocks Irish Bill. I was commenting that there are far more important things we shouldbe focussing on rather than this minor and, to my mind, unimportant issue that is diverting people from the gradual undermining of the welfare state, the sale of our assets and the sale of our legislature to the highest bidders by thisKey owned government.
            At no point am I telling anyone what to write or not write I am simply restating the point that I my mind it is not an issue worth a media beat up. Neither does it reflect a mysoginist view point by Phil Goff… it was, after all a statement of fact…. The National Party politician doesn’t cut the mustard when put up against competent and intelligent women when campaigning.

            • IrishBill 9.2.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2013 at 11:53 pm

              I don’t think it’s minor that a senior member of the next government is casually sexist. Claiming it’s a statement of fact is naive. Tell me, if Goff had been taunting Steven Franks by stating “you were beaten by a gay man!” would that have been alright by you?

    • QoT 9.3
      10 August 2013 at 12:03 pm

      a debating point made on clearly evidential proof

      Totally. If it’s factually true it can’t be offensive, and Goff was just trying to be as precise as possible. 🙄

  10. Boadicea 10
    10 August 2013 at 9:20 am

    “Nobody in the House took offence at it, least of all my female colleagues.”
    If the women in the Labour caucus weree not offended by Phil’s slur I’m gobsmacked.

    Phil is saying that a a guy should feel doubly humiliated by a defeat at the hands of a woman, inferring it is a lower quality challenge.

    The Women MPs in the Labour Caucus need to respond to Phil. Shearer did untold damage with his handling of the man-ban. Phil will entrench the that damage if the Women MPs do not publicly pull him up.

    • weka 10.1
      10 August 2013 at 9:47 am

      “Phil is saying that a a guy should feel doubly humiliated by a defeat at the hands of a woman, inferring it is a lower quality challenge.”

      Not necessarily. He may well have respect for his female colleagues’ skills, but in the world he moves in, being beaten by a woman is bad irrespective of the skill/strength of the woman. It’s a double bind for men of his ilk, and will only really disappear with attrition.

      And yeah, he is a dick.

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        10 August 2013 at 10:11 am

        “Phil is saying that a a guy should feel doubly humiliated by a defeat at the hands of a woman, inferring it is a lower quality challenge.”

        More to the problem than that, unfortunately.

    • Rhinocrates 10.2
      10 August 2013 at 9:10 pm

      least of all my female colleagues

      Gosh, how gallant of him to speak on their behalf! Such a gentleman!

  11. burt 11
    10 August 2013 at 9:22 am

    Refusal to apologise… Seems like a bit of a trait for labour leaders….

  12. Pasupial 12
    10 August 2013 at 10:16 am

    Political contortionist Goff has once again shoved both his feet in his mouth at the same time – a trick he has obviously passed on to his successor. But this (from the same link in Eddie’s post):

    “…Mr Key’s superstitious habit of repeating “white rabbits, white rabbits, white rabbits”, on the first of each month. The early morning ritual is believed to bring luck, he said yesterday.”

    Explains a lot about ShonKey’s disdain for truth. If he doesn’t like one fact he can always find; another, or another, or another,.. until the OCD finally allows him to rest: When he’s located “evidence” that confirms his preconceptions.

  13. Te Reo Putake 13
    10 August 2013 at 10:35 am

    While it’s an obviously stupid comment, I note that it’s already disappeared from the media and poor old Farrar has been roundly lampooned by his regulars for trying to make mileage out of it. Too PC for the likes of David Garrett, etc.

    Ultimately it won’t do Goff or Labour any harm at all.

    PS, ochocinco is correct. Poor though the Labour vote was, Goff came within a seat or 3 of being PM, despite a media campaign to convince Labour supporters not to bother voting because the election was a shoo in for Key. Goff deserves credit for taking it to Key and for lifting Labour’s vote on election day. Yes, I said lifting; the internal Labour polling in the fortnight before the election suggested a worse result than Goff actually delivered.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      10 August 2013 at 10:59 am

      That’s my understanding too. Running a decent party vote campaign instead of one playing hide-the-leader (thanks Robertson/Mallard) would probably have won Labour that election.

      It literally needed maybe 60,000 votes, out of a couple of million, to swing from National to Labour.

      • Alanz 13.1.1
        10 August 2013 at 12:22 pm

        At the previous GE, Goff-the-leader’s picture disappeared, poof.
        At the next GE, Shearer-the-leader will vanish altogether, regardless of whether people see, hear or read about him.
        Labour’s new slogan for 2014: Not Your Party Any More.

  14. fender 14
    10 August 2013 at 11:16 am

    Well I don’t think Key has a penis…..and “he” beat Goff in 2011….

  15. Brett Dale 15
    10 August 2013 at 11:20 am

    Phil goff would be the type of person, who would probably see nothing wrong with ad 15. Below the KFC video.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/kfc-commercial_n_3731971.html

  16. Tiger Mountain 16
    10 August 2013 at 12:16 pm

    From watching the video, Phil Goff’s statement to that make no mistake, peculiarly nasty tory, Finlayson seemed to acknowledge womens hard road in parliamentary politics not put them down.

    It is not the language many of us would use, but in context and the flow of that debate it is not the atrocity others upthread have described it as.

    Goff did ok in his last ditch stand at the election really, but it is the fault of the entire Labour Party that Helen Clarks ‘handover’ was not challenged immediately.

    • QoT 16.1
      10 August 2013 at 12:26 pm

      The only person who’s used the word “atrocity” in this thread is you. Interesting.

    • weka 16.2
      10 August 2013 at 12:43 pm

      So why didn’t Goff come out and say that afterwards, instead of belittling people who raised the issue of misogyny?

  17. Sable 17
    10 August 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Personally I’ve always loathed Phil Goff. He comes off as arrogant and loud mouth in spite of or perhaps because of his humble background. Poor boy made good-sound like anyone else we all know…

  18. Saarbo 18
    10 August 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Glad to open The Standard and see this Post, spot on Eddie. This has been pissing me off since I heard about it yesterday, this from Goff, on the back of Shane Jones “filly’ comment from a couple of weeks ago. What an absolute disgrace and embarrasment these two fucken wankers are to the labour party, and I suspect that these two dickheads are behind the installing of a fucken dumb puppet leader that doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.

    At November’s Conference Goff stood up and shouted out his support in his big fucken wanker voice for the TPPA. Shane Jones openly admits to watching Porn on his lonesome in his hotel room, disgusting little fucken wanker. Are these TWO Labour Party material, I cant help but think that they sound like classic National Party types, you know, Aaron Gilmore, Todd Mc Lay, Simon Bridges types. They’re in the wrong party, Labour needs to be more discerning…in fact a Man Ban seems like a perfect idea if this is the sort of useless males we end up with. Fucken Twits.

    • Saarbo 18.1
      10 August 2013 at 1:34 pm

      Apologies if my swearing offends, no rugby anymore, season finished 2 weeks ago, no other outlet, will come right in march, when season restarts…

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1
        10 August 2013 at 9:36 pm

        Ahem. AFAIK nowhere was it proven that it was “on his lonesome.”

        • Saarbo 18.1.1.1
          11 August 2013 at 8:58 am

          haha, i dont know whether one should go there either way…he’s still a “wanker’ in the broader interpretation of the word.

  19. tricledrown 19
    10 August 2013 at 1:53 pm

    God no wonder National is the biggest polling party to much navel gazing goff is a goof get over it time to refocus on how to
    Win the next election national won’ t need any help with the left continually imploding

    • Sable 19.1
      10 August 2013 at 2:14 pm

      I personally don’t think the left’s imploding its more a case of left leaning voters looking for policies that represent their interests and not finding them in Labour.

      Since 1985 Labour has looked more and more like National with the result being a reshuffle as traditional Labour supporters look for alternative parties to back. First there was the Alliance and out of that emerged the Greens who seem to be taking votes away from Labour and possibly National as we move towards the election.

      I was once a staunch Labour supporter but they no longer represent my interests so I have moved on. Labour need to understand that saying they are a left leaning party does not make it so, actions must speak as loudly as words. Its no longer a two party race in NZ politics and complacency will see you out of office.

      • Paul 19.1.1
        10 August 2013 at 7:17 pm

        Yup that’s pretty much it. Labour leadership 1984-2013 does not represent the working class of NZ and has forgotten its socialist origins.
        Reckon the Nats would be imploding if the leadership of the party had been captured by a socialist cadre.

  21. Rhinocrates 21
    10 August 2013 at 7:12 pm

    I’ve always found Goff a thoroughly vile individual – not only offensive, but unctuously, ingratiatingly so. From his devotion as an acolyte of the Blessed Lord Roger, through the Zaoui affair, Opertation 8, to his embarrassing spams of me-toing 2008-11 – “Ari Smith should be shot” “I’d like pork Liz Hurley too, phwoarrr!!”

    He is exactly like Key – smug, self-interested, completely without a moral compass… he just lacks Crosby-Textor.

Links to post