What would he have thought?

Written By: - Date published: 8:39 am, November 20th, 2011 - 57 comments
Categories: caption contest, election 2011, labour, leadership, uncategorized - Tags: ,

hattip: William Joyce

57 comments on “What would he have thought? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    20 November 2011 at 9:43 am

    “Time to put an end to neo-liberalism in NZ, forward with democratic socialism!”

    • The Pink Postman 1.1
      21 November 2011 at 3:54 pm

      The news fom the UK is not encouraging.Camerion is about to” Deal o the Workers ” It the same policy as the Nats have here.There is no doubt that all over the OECD countries the Right is organizing. Unions and workers are going to suffer .

  2. burt 2
    20 November 2011 at 11:02 am

    “The great socialist dream has repeatedly failed but we can keep our jobs in parliament if enough people are stupid enough to believe it will work this time”

    • Craig Glen Eden 2.1
      20 November 2011 at 11:06 am

      So this is capitalism at its best? shiiiiit.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2
      20 November 2011 at 11:20 am

      The great socialist dream has always been sabotaged by capitalists and then, when capitalism fails yet again, the capitalists go to the people to be bailed out.

      It’s not socialism that’s the failure but capitalism.

      • burt 2.2.1
        20 November 2011 at 11:38 am

        Yes it gets sabotaged by capitalists… the bloody capitalists always rescue the economy from decades of deficit and perpetual debt…. Yes yes… we know – you socialists like it when the people are poor and the govt is rich but for some weird reason the voters turf the socialists out of office sabotaging the great dream of mediocrity.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1
          20 November 2011 at 12:39 pm

          Did you miss all the bailouts of the capitalists by the people over the last few years? Did you miss all the depressions and recessions that have occurred under capitalism? Or perhaps the increasing poverty that capitalism created and that socialism had started to correct – until the re-introduction of laissez faire capitalism in the 1980s?

          History repeats because we keep failing to learn the lessons that it teaches.

          • burt 2.2.1.1.1
            20 November 2011 at 1:06 pm

            History repeats because we keep failing to learn the lessons that it teaches.

            Indeed, we repeated 1990 again in 2008 by letting a Labour govt deliver a failed economy in recession to National…. Did you notice the similarities ?

            • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.1.1
              20 November 2011 at 2:17 pm

              1990 was a fuckup because the 4th Labour Government, aka, the first Act Government, followed the same policies that National and Act are now following. Of course, this was on the heels of the fuckup of Rob’s Mob in power.

              But the bit you don’t want to admit is that the previous centuries of failure (recessions, depressions, increasing poverty and Climate Change) are down entirely to capitalism.

        • mik e 2.2.1.2
          20 November 2011 at 1:55 pm

          Michael savage rescued NZ from oblivion in the 30s
          Muldoom stuffed the country
          Now borrowing Bills English is stuffing it again 0.1% Growth per annum is bill Englishs record Over 5 years.
          Michael Cullen got the economy growing 30 times more at3%+ per annum by spreading a bit of money around not just a few like the dipstick from dipton!
          Burt stick with Ernie on sesame st kiddie stories are more believable than your lies
          BBC world economics reporter research in the US shows high taxed socialist states are growing low taxed laissez fair states in recession or depression. Not one laissez fair state growing fact.

          • burt 2.2.1.2.1
            20 November 2011 at 11:13 pm

            Have you forgotten Micheal Cullen’s miracle formula had us in recession at the start of 2008, having generally under performed our trading partners leading up to that point. Unemployment was rising and so was borrowing right through 2008. Are you incapable of understanding that National were handed a pup in 2008.

            The dream is over, that’s all it was – a dream. Cullen buggered it up, that’s all there is too it. In hindsight wasn’t it a really stupid thing to fix thresholds for so long that 75% of high school teachers ended up classified as rich in the tax system? Simply plucking the goose with the least amount of hissing is convenient tax policy, but that doesn’t make it good tax policy. Your mans a muppet mik e.

        • DS 2.2.1.3
          20 November 2011 at 4:51 pm

          1949? Labour leaves National with a booming economy.

          1960? Labour, having corrected National’s Balance of Payment’s Crisis, leaves National with a booming economy.

          1975? Labour gets overwhelmed by the international crisis, which National proceeds to make worse.

          1990? The BNZ was bankrupt, but the country wasn’t.

          2008? Labour leaves National with a booming economy.

          Compare that with the messes Labour inherited whenever it gets its turn.

          • burt 2.2.1.3.1
            20 November 2011 at 10:37 pm

            1990? The BNZ was bankrupt, but the country wasn’t.

            OK, we just had the mother of all budgets for fun then… Kiwi’s must have been nuts to vote in a National govt if the country was doing so well under Labour.

            2008? Labour leaves National with a booming economy.

            A booming economy…. Keep taking the pills… Let me guess the voters grew weary of the boom times under Labour and voted for some self flagellation as punishment for having a booming economy, just like the silly buggers did in 1990 when the silly old BNZ was having it’s meltdown in times of plenty.

            It’s clear you can be convinced of anything said by a red flag waver, hows that working for you?

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.3.1.1
              20 November 2011 at 11:14 pm

              Key and English selling our country out. If we’d kept key assets like Telecom and Contact energy, we would be many billions of dollars richer, as a country.

              • burt …
                20 November 2011 at 11:32 pm

                NZ Post pre the sale of Telecom… you think that was working? Let me guess Railways was a model of efficiency and late model rolling stock when we sold it… As for power company profits – the state generators reported obscene profits while pensioners froze under Labour. Have you lost your mind! What possible good can using these examples do for the credibility of your argument.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  20 November 2011 at 11:42 pm

                  Meh, any publicly owned operation can run just as fast and as sharp as a private one. And its good to have some fat in every business operation.

                  BTW the foreign owners ran down Telecom and Tranzrail. The money from cutting re-investment and general capital run down should not be considered real profits.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  21 November 2011 at 12:02 am

                  NZ Post pre the sale of Telecom… you think that was working?

                  What’s NZ Post got to do with the sale of Telecom?

                  BTW, NZ Post, C&M Branch (Telecom) was making multi-million dollar profits (even though it was NZ Post its books were separate) throughout the 1980s while upgrading most of the exchanges to digital, increasing bandwidth throughout the country and generally doing the best that could be done for NZ. Over $300m/year by the end of the decade and the sale of Telecom. Telecom was close to debt free.

                  7 years later, billions had been pulled out in “profits”, Telecom was in hock up to it’s neck (the profits were pretty much borrowing that we get to pay for) and work on the network had dropped down to maintenance level instead of continuous upgrading resulting in the government having to spend billions to get the network back up to standard.

                  The history of Telecom after the sale is a perfect proof that profit is a dead weight loss and privatisation is a failure.

                  Let me guess Railways was a model of efficiency and late model rolling stock when we sold it…

                  Rail could have been improved, and probably was being improved, without selling it. If we hadn’t sold it then we would have had to buy it back and start spending billions on fixing it up.

                  s for power company profits – the state generators reported obscene profits while pensioners froze under Labour.

                  Turning state infrastructure over to faux competition and a profiteering motive was a really bad move. Costs huge amounts and fails to achieve its purpose – supplying it’s service at cost.

                  What possible good can using these examples do for the credibility of your argument.

                  Well, it’s better than your total lack of argument.

    • Colonial Viper 2.3
      20 November 2011 at 11:24 am

      Socialism (for the rich) works well for Fonterra and for the Business Roundtable.

        • bbfloyd 2.3.1.1
          20 November 2011 at 12:42 pm

          jeez you talk a load of crap burt! you couldn’t have got your history more wrong if you tried…. “capitalists” , or more accurately termed “national party fascists” have consistently undermined the progress made by the only truly democratic governments new zealand has had… the lie that they had anything to do with new zealands emergence as a “wealthy” country in the second half of the twentieth century is no more than tory propaganda spread through the newspapers and radio on the orders of the owners of these organisations…..

          the “truth” is actually the opposite of your fantasizing….. without the labour party, new zealand would be regarded as tasmania’s poor relation, and the aussies would be breathing a huge sigh of relief that we turned down the opportunity to amalgamate with them…

          normally your posts provide me with at least a small amount of amusement, being as facile and obvious as they are, but this idiocy shows a streak of stupidity that has surprised me….. i really did think you were just being an arsehole just for your own amusement…maybe we are looking at another chauncey gardener……

          • burt 2.3.1.1.1
            20 November 2011 at 1:05 pm

            8 weeks is all it took to divide the moment…. I think everyone should have an iPad2 – but this is my private property…. ha ha ha. Look how your glorious flat society divided and failed in just 8 weeks and you think that socialism is a valid long term option for government… Have you seen father xmas or the tooth fairly recently – you must believe in them as well….

            • felix 2.3.1.1.1.1
              20 November 2011 at 1:18 pm

              Whatever it is that you think has failed has been trying to exist within a capitalist system.

            • mik e 2.3.1.1.1.2
              20 November 2011 at 1:57 pm

              THE right will have to stuff the economy more, so more people will feel the pain of a stagnant or recessionary downturn with policies like the right have it won’t take long!

            • Uturn 2.3.1.1.1.3
              20 November 2011 at 1:58 pm

              Dunno what owning an ipad2 has to do with Socialism. Are you confusing the concepts behind the contradictory quote that “all property is theft” with buying a consumer good and Socialism on the whole? The quote doesn’t refer to the idea you can’t buy goods and say they are yours, it refers to the idea that capital resources cannot be used against the people of a nation. It doesn’t mean someone can come and drive your car, as of right, when you aren’t using it. There is Socialism, as in how the State allocates and manages resources and there is socialism as in the attitude and interactions of the people at a domestic level.

              • Colonial Viper …
                21 November 2011 at 12:22 am

                Aren’t iPad 2’s made in heavy handed state intervention Red China? Oh burt, how could you support such a thing!

            • bbfloyd 2.3.1.1.1.4
              21 November 2011 at 2:54 pm

              bort…. as a political analyst i think you would make an excellent grave digger….. as soon as you realise that they have to have “depth” you will be fine….. no more smelly workplace….

      • DavidW 2.3.2
        21 November 2011 at 9:31 am

        Viper said “Socialism (for the rich) works well for Fonterra and ….”
        Well old bean, you are perfectly at liberty to find a product, refine the systems surrounding it’s production, suffer through bad times , surround yourself with like-minded producers and from a co-operative, invest millions in product research and development, marketing and factories, lose more than a few members through suicide when the market or the weather turn against you, and then when you manage to string three or four good years together have a bunch of envious weasels whinging loudly that they deserve for you to subsidise their consumption and take a piece of the success.
        Never has the growing knowledge gap between town and country been more evident than that statement. Phew!

        • Colonial Viper 2.3.2.1
          21 November 2011 at 2:58 pm

          And guess what. A co-operative approach prevailed through all those hurdles (without even mentioning that the founding roots of Fonterra is as a government regulated board), so don’t talk down to socialism, co-operative enterprise and mutual institutions. They work.

  3. Bill 3
    20 November 2011 at 11:46 am

    “Okay, the evidence is in. Should have listened to those ‘pesky’ anti-parliamentarians. Seems this route wasn’t the way to usher in a new world after-all. We got co-opted goddammit!”

  4. mickysavage 4
    20 November 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Micky (the real one!) would be shaking his head at the attack on the social weflare system, the bashing of beneficiaries for political gain when the fault lies with the system, not the individuals.

    He would be appalled at the state of our streams and waterways and astounded that the biggest polluters are selling a basic food for hundreds of times it used to cost yet they pay little if any tax.

    He would be dismayed at the way the trade union movement has been undermined and incredulous that people do not understand the correlative link between weak unions and low wages.

    He would look at National wonder at the properties of modern spin. Whereas back in the 30s and 40s they used to say what they thought now their speech is so sampled and spun and polished and refined that the visciousness and beligerence is hidden. He would also look at a party that used to be made up of white men and see a party with some diversity but diversity only for PR purposes.

    He would look at Key and see him as just the latest snake oil salesman that conservative politics throws up. All spin and no substance.

    And he would look at New Zealand and despair that something so wonderful could have become debased so badly.

  5. TEA 5
    20 November 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Gee’s man !
    So glad the climate has warmed up some, it was so bloody cold back then !
    hehehe . . . .

  6. dd 6
    20 November 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Probably wouldn’t have liked seeing this kind of converstation

    “You had Bernie Monk representing the families the other day, saying, ‘It is shocking that one year on from Pike River, you still have only one underground mine inspector in New Zealand’.”

    Key reponse: “….all I can say is there’s a Royal Commission of Inquiry. When that Royal Commission reports back, if we are the government, I’d give those miners and New Zealanders my word I’ll take that Royal Commission very seriously.”

    • Fortran 6.1
      20 November 2011 at 1:11 pm

      I heard on RNZ today that Bernie Monk now only purports to speak for “some” of the miner’s families.
      Whereas we have been led to believe that he speaks for all the families – no longer.

  7. chris73 7
    20 November 2011 at 12:58 pm

    He’d be shaking his head thinking how did the welfare state end up the way it is (shaking his head at both parties)

  8. Pete George 8
    20 November 2011 at 1:01 pm

    He’d be aghast at his Labour party’s disarray, and how poorly it has modernised.

    • the sprout 8.1
      20 November 2011 at 1:51 pm

      whereas the imminent demise of UF would niether surprise nor bother him

    • mik e 8.2
      20 November 2011 at 2:02 pm

      He would be spewing on how its been betrayed by the follicely challenged with out labour the hairpiece would’nt exist

    • Dan1 8.3
      20 November 2011 at 2:09 pm

      Pete,
      I look at the policies that Labour has brought forward for this election, forward looking policies that focus on the economy in the future, that focus on children, that focus on Jo Average, and more, and think that Michael Joseph would be very happy with the gutsy performance by Phil, and would not be surprised at the swing in store for the 26th.
      Grandmother, with a Gisborne/West Auckland background, had a photo of Michael Joseph on the wall. Grandfather, as a foreman in the MOW, always told the story of lawyers and doctors who were forced to work in employment camps until Michael Joseph’s Keynesian politics came to the fore.
      I look at the fellow you follow, and wonder if Michael Joseph would congratulate him on the simularity of hairstyle but little else.

  9. deservingpoor 9
    20 November 2011 at 1:57 pm

    New Zealanders need someone to constantly remind them that people living in poverty or dying on the streets is actually bad thing. Otherwise they revert to the lizard brain that wants to see poor people sent to labour camps to ‘learn the value of hard work’.
    In 1984, the Labour government abdicated their traditional role in this narrative. They regained it to a point in the 90s but then while in government, decided that it should all be about policy and that they didn’t really need to engage in the growing social narrative that the poor are just the result of their own bad choices and they should be made to suffer the consequences of that. Rather than publicly nipping this in the bud and publicly saying “what the fuck is wrong with you barbarians?” they let it fester and now we have people like Burt and Big Bruv and their compatriots on Stuff and talkback radio, who are currently one step off demanding that the poor should wind up in the colisium.
    MJS would struggle to believe just how nasty our once egalitarian society has become.

    • Uturn 9.1
      20 November 2011 at 2:08 pm

      +1

      He probably wouldn’t have struggled to realise the nastiness though. NZ has been screwing the poor since the English turned up here. In fact not just the poor, but anyone they could. If you think Key sells pipe dreams, you should read about the lies early developers sold. Fraud, greed, racism, and misogyny are old tricks

      • Vicky32 9.1.1
        20 November 2011 at 6:23 pm

        NZ has been screwing the poor since the English turned up here.

        Point of order, it’s the Scottish who are to blame, not the English! 🙁

  11. anne 11
    20 November 2011 at 2:15 pm

    The basic rights and needs of people have been denigrated by successive national style of politics,
    their core values dont change.
    During the late clark years she deviated away from core values and supporters and that was the reason for the labours demise.
    Key and his government are tearing away at the very fabric of society with a couldn’t care
    less attitude,it’s my way or the highway with the door to openess firmly closed.
    Capitalism is failing world -wide and people are waking up to wide spread greed and fraud and
    signaling enough is enough,the younger generation are making the stand more so than the older
    generation who have largely accepted their fate.
    Many would not ‘be unhappy’ if this country turned back to a decent,inclusive society,instead
    of the ‘dog eat dog’ society that eminates from the ‘capitalist’ shackles.
    ‘Mickey’ would be ‘unsettled’ and ‘concerned’ at the long and winding path that nz politics
    has taken,when it draws a clear line in the sand between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’

  12. deservingpoor 12
    20 November 2011 at 2:28 pm

    “NZ has been screwing the poor since the English turned up here.”
    Agreed that the whole claim to be an egalitarian society was always pretty dubious. I think what would surprise MJS would be the extent to which kiwis have now stopped bothering to even pretend.

  13. Alwyn 13
    20 November 2011 at 3:27 pm

    I think he would be saying
    “I’m going to vote for United Future. Their leader has a haircut just like mine.”

  14. NattyM 14
    20 November 2011 at 7:03 pm

    When it comes to the economic reality that this current travesty of a government inherited from the last Labour Government in 2008, the Tories who write in this column are any one of the following:
    – completely ignorant, and/or
    – deceived by their own propaganda,and/or
    – deliberately spreading lies and misinformation
    Careful economic management by Michael Cullen meant this country had a healthy surplus but he was constantly criticised by the Tories that he wasn’t spending enough! The Tories take power, break numerous promises, give their rich mates undeserved and unaffordable tax cuts and ensure we’re in the economic doggie doos. Bereft of ideas Bill English reverts to the tried and true Tory formula – attack the public service and beneficiaries.
    Unless we can reduce the right’s majority next Saturday, let’s wait for groundhog day and a reun of the morally bankrupt, vicious and ultimately useless policies of the 90’s and even more Kiwis deserting this country for Oz.

  15. Danny Lodge 15
    20 November 2011 at 10:38 pm

    “wtf”?

    Is that in response to his beloved party polling in the mid 20’s 🙂

  16. mikesh 16
    20 November 2011 at 11:03 pm

    I think he would be surprised that the Reserve Bank, which he took the trouble to nationalize, had now been made independent. He would also be surprised to find that the BNZ, which he also nationalized, was now owned overseas.

  17. freedom 17
    21 November 2011 at 9:02 am

    No-one likes giving their money to a Banker, so why would you give your Vote to one?

  18. DavidW 18
    21 November 2011 at 9:36 am

    MJS believed in hard work and the power of Christian living. Welfare in his frame was an ultimate backstop so yes, he would be gobsmacked at the extent that the population has been convinced that goodness comes from the state and you don’t really need to look after yourself for the bottomless purse of Government will provide.
    These are aspects of the original MJS that the contributor who has adopted his name seems to have forgotten.