Playing Sergeant Pepper

By
Chris Trotter
-
93
1

unnamed-2

“It was twenty years ago today,” according to the famous Beatles’ track, that “Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play”. Unfortunately, the files on my computer don’t go back quite that far. What I can show you, however, is how “the one and only” Helen Clark taught Labour’s band to play exactly fifteen years ago today. Read this excerpt from my “Politics” column, published in the weekly business newspaper, The Independent, on 19 December 2001, and you’ll be amazed at just how dramatically Labour has gone “in and out of style” between then and now.

“WITH FIFTY-ONE PERCENT SUPPORT in the latest CM Research poll, the Labour Party is cruising towards the Year’s end on an enormous wave of public support. What is the secret behind Labour’s winning political formula – a formula which has so far eluded all of its competitors? To hear Helen Clark, or Michael Cullen, or Steve Maharey tell it, the story of Labour’s success is a simple one: “Under-promise and over-deliver”.

According to this theory, New Zealanders no longer believe in big promises – so don’t make any. Nor do they expect “the gummint” to do very much of anything to help them out. So, keeping those small promises, and, even more astonishing, actually doing a little bit more than you promised, leaves the voters feeling pathetically grateful.

More cynical observers point to Labour’s utter infatuation with opinion polling and focus groups. Its apparatus for taking the public pulse is state-of-the-art, and provides the political leadership with more-or-less instant feedback. Knowing how the electorate is responding to Government policy allows Clark and her ministers to remain in lock-step with public opinion. As the French revolutionary, Danton, is supposed to have remarked, seeing a throng of Parisians passing below his host’s window: “Excuse me, I am their leader – I must follow them.”

But these explanations are simply not sufficient to explain Labour’s almost effortless domination of New Zealand politics. Somehow, Clark and her colleagues have plugged themselves – or perhaps that should read “found themselves plugged” – into the zeitgeist of the early 21st Century.

Nothing else can really explain Labour’s apparent imperviousness to 2001’s political disasters – and there have been a few: the Hobbs and Bunkle allowances scandal; the Peter Davis brouhaha; the scrapping of the Skyhawks; the fiscal implications of Michael Cullen’s Super Fund; the underwhelming impact of the Knowledge Wave Conference; the Colonel’s letter and the General’s shredder; Air New Zealand; the war in Afghanistan; Bathgate-gate. It’s a pretty long list, but in spite of them all Labour remains 21 percentage points ahead of its nearest rival. Clearly something else is going on here.

The French would call it ennui. Throughout 2001 a feeling of enervation has pervaded New Zealand society, a listlessness that renders outrage and anger altogether too exhausting. It’s almost as if the past fifteen years have left the population feeling numb, shagged-out, too tired to care. Political life is seen as being vaguely ridiculous – filled with people who very badly need to get out more. Political emotion – in particular – is almost universally seen as ersatz, fake, phoney, and too transparently manipulative to be taken seriously.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

This is where Helen Clark comes to the fore. Her dry – bordering on bored – approach to the business of government perfectly matches the public mood. Politics is a bloody silly business, the Prime Minister seems to be saying, but since somebody has to do it, it might as well be somebody intelligent, experienced and unflappable – like me. To which nearly four out of ten New Zealanders consistently respond “Amen.”

Clark’s ministers take their cue from “The Boss” – presenting a public face of stolid competence almost totally devoid of colour. Like the rest of New Zealand, they seem resigned to just getting on with it, and as far as most of the electorate is concerned, that’s just fine.

The whole essence of this style of government was summed up by one of the Prime Ministers spin doctors at the recent Labour Party Conference: “Sure it’s dull”, he said, “but that’s okay. Dull is good.”

Fifty-one percent of the country seems to agree.”

I’m just not sure whether all of that is “guaranteed to raise a smile” … or a tear.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

  1. Transpose “Clark” with “Key”; “Labour” with “National”, and it’s a pretty solid picture of politics, 2016.

    The only difference is that the list of political disasters under Key is somewhat lengthier.

    And yet the public still shrug…

  2. This item is completely irrelevant to our present predicament, other than that much of our present predicament dates back to Helen Clark’s refusal to deal with the crucial issues that were brought to her attention 15 years ago.

      • The Clark government is certainly responsible for a lot of the misery suffered today by an ever-increasing underclass in NZ. It did this, firstly, by bringing a stack of nasty and, importantly, quite fundamental attacks on the social welfare benefit system, much of which went under the radar. And then secondly, by failing to quell the shift in ideas about welfare that National destroyed in the 1990s. Labour’s welfare policies under Clark were a continuation of the Shipley/Richardson war-on-the-poor that the nats now gleefully took over leading from Labour in 2008. National can now do what it likes because that approach to welfare is accepted by everyone, including Labour. It’s cool and “correct” to hate the poor. Heck, Labour even votes with National on war-on-the-poor legislation now. And under Andrew Little there’s been not one suggestion things are going to be different.

        • Twaddle.

          If your mind doesn’t go back that far, it was a period if nearly full employment. Benefit levels, even thinned down benefits, could still pay rent. What was needed was a boost of incomes for struggling working families, or such was the reasoning. Different circumstances, different solutions.

          It’s true that Labour didn’t reverse the benefit cuts suffered under Ruth Richardson. But remember, those cuts were introduced in a Key-like effort to balance the budget during a period of recession after the 87 crash and thus caused much dislocation, particularly coming as they did without notice.

          By the time Labour came around, times looked better and there were other, higher priorities. After several years of prudent saving: the Cullen Fund, Working for Families, Student Loan help, along came Kiwisaver.

          I was one who argued that more should have been done within Kiwisaver, for the poorest, maybe even a mandatory system linked to the Cullen Fund, but I fully understand the government reasoning, without fully embracing it. (The last time that was tried…remember the dancing cossacks?

          Andrew is probably too cautious, maybe a tad too small-picture, but the mantra of under-promise and over-deliver is still not a bad one.

          • “By the time Labour came around, times looked better and there were other, higher priorities. After several years of prudent saving: the Cullen Fund, Working for Families, Student Loan help, along came Kiwisaver.”

            None of those things helped the very poorest. And on top of this Labour took away the special benefit, as well. If you had no job and/or no children you got shafted by Labour. You’re right about one thing: that when Labour came around there were higher priorities than reversing the benefit cuts, despite ‘times looking better’, not because ‘times looked better’.

            • “None of those things helped the very poorest.”

              How would you know? I remember one lady on TS not that long ago, replied and rebuked you, she detailed her circumstances and the support she had under the Labour government. Quite the opposite from this National government that you never criticize, ever. People feel that can get a shot at getting ahead under Labour, they certainly don’t under National, they get pushed back and squeezed.

              • how would you fucken ‘know
                words..?

                peddling yr revisionist bullshit..

                i lived it..raising my son at the time..

                and i will always loathe clark/those fucken neoliberal sellouts..for those reasons..

                  • i’m not talking about how i ‘feel’…

                    i’m talking about the facts of the matter..

                    clark did not lift a finger to reverse any of ‘strewth’ richardsons full on assault on the poorest..

                    she made it worse by axing special-benefits..

                    what bloody ‘facts’ are you talking about..?

                    you didn’t bloody well live it..did you..?

                    • You wouldn’t know, so you can assume all you like, but assumptions are often wrong. No party is perfect, there are a lot of things that Clark’s Labour could have done but didn’t, but they did introduce some support that did allow people to get ahead so howz it going under National then? Better? Putting my experience aside, everyone I know say they had it better under the Labs than the Nats that are making people jump through, often times, punishing hoops. The current Labour party is not the Clark Labour party or any other Labour administrations of the past. IMO Labour deserves a fair hearing like other parties Like I have said before, I cannot blame this current Labour party for previous Labour governments just like I cannot blame the current National government for Muldoon, Shipley Bolger, Sidney Holland and so on.

                    • “everyone I know say they had it better under the Labs than the Nats”

                      Well you obviously don’t know the poorest of the poor because the legislation Labour introduced that was aimed at that group speaks for itself. What do you think was at the heart of the CPAG action?

          • complete bullshit..!..nick…clark/labour declared war on the poor/the ‘undeserving-families’ as she called them while pimping her middle-call welfare for those ‘struggling on $75 graand a year’..(her quote..)

            (and a special weasel-words-award to you for ‘thinned down benefits’..eh..?..why..!..it almost sounds healthy..!..)

            and another one for ‘there were other,higher priorities’..aka pandering to uncaring tory swing-voters..who just lapped up her poor-bashing..)

              • Far from holding the nats to account, Labour’s propped them up. You say voting for nat government war-on-the-poor legislation isn’t propping them up? That’s why we need to stop this rot within Labour now. Little has said nowhere that this sort of behaviour will stop. Labour’s said nothing anywhere that its position on benefits and the poor has changed. I keep asking you for that proof when you say that he has, but he hasn’t, which of course means that you can provide nothing to back up what you say. All you can do is resort to lies and abuse like “you’re a nat troll”. You make me fucking sick.

        • Rubbish and “Andrew Little there’s been not one suggestion things are going to be different.” Not so Nat shill, you haven’t been paying attention.

          • Show me where Little says things are going to be different for beneficiaries and the poorest NZers, Loftie son? You will not because you cannot.

            • You have been trounced a number of times over your repetitive bull on TS as well. For example, a number of measures were raised on the Future of Work announcement that you could not be bothered with, including changes to welfare, so it is no longer demonizing and punitive. And that is just for starters. Not my problem that you refuse to keep up.

              • So now you have to resort to bare face lies, Loftie son? FFS, why can’t you just accept that this what Labour’s done? It’s all on the statute books, FFS! All you have to do is read.

                • I am not telling lies Chris, you are, ever thought of following up on your own advice, why can’t you ever acknowledge or even criticize what the current government has been doing for the last 8 years? Not a peep out of you over that. Because as you posted earlier on another thread, you think criticizing Labour is holding the National government to account. That’s what you said.

                  • “…you think criticizing Labour is holding the National government to account. That’s what you said.”

                    Yes, and that’s my point! You must hold the opposition to account in order to ensure that they do their job properly. Why can’t you understand that?

                • I am not telling lies Chris, you are, ever thought of following up on your own advice, why can’t you ever acknowledge or even criticize what the current government has been doing for the last 8 years?

            • For a start I am not a wee loftie or your son, so enough with that condescending attitude. You are being mischievous. Annette King is talking about health, and as she said to Vernon Small, (like most in msm, a nat sycophant) “stop putting words in my mouth.”

              “Just like the past eight elections’ is an old and tired nat shill meme that doesn’t mean anything, besides this current Labour party under Andrew Little is not the same as others past and is untested in government, so your assumptions could turn out to be completely wrong, as most assumptions usually are.
              Labour is not going to run on everything, and saturate the campaign as in 2014, as the campaign in Roskill proved, people will get a good picture of where Labour is heading. It is amazing how National supporters never demand the same level of detail and scrutiny of National, as they demand from National’s opponents.

              • Labour hasn’t given a jot of detail about welfare over the last eight elections. You’ll continue to receive condescension for as long as you lie and abuse, Loftie son.

                • That’s rich coming from a Nat who pretends to be something he is not. It’s clear where the lies and abuse is coming from. You.

            • So Labour doesn’t see health on the main priority list? Fair enough. But prey tell what are National doing right here and right now? I’ll tell you, seeing as I work in mental health. Nothing, actually they are doing worse than that. In real time funding( keeping up with inflation and over population growth) they have decreased funding whilst driving up immigration. The dam has burst and we have seen avoidable deaths as a result.

              Remember Chris, National are in power, have been for 8 years, what have THEY done, other than corrode debt levels?

              • +1 Bert wait for the response that tells you that what National is doing or not doing for the last 8 years is all Labour’s fault.

            • gonna go for the big-lie now are you..?..gonna claim that cursing the neoliberal-incrementalists in labour somehow makes me a ‘rightie’..?

              i’ve got more left/green in my bloody little finger than you apologists for them..

              done well out of it..have you..?

              • Words is a Labour-can-do-no-wronger. They’re a funny breed. There are, of course, slight differences between them, but I’ll refer to what Words does to paint the general picture. In fact, Words is probably the most archetypal of them all:

                1. Everything Labour says and does is good. When people say positive things about Labour Words runs around spraying pathetic “+1″s and “well said”s like confetti.

                2. Anything said that is even vaguely critical of Labour, even coming from obvious left wingers, is trampled upon swiftly with personal attacks including phrases like “you’re not paying attention”, “that’s rich coming from you”, “you love John Key”, you’re a troll for National”.

                3. When he’s really cornered about the nasty things Labour’s done he starts by denying it. Then when it’s pointed out that the proof is in the legislation that Labour passed he demands “links”. Then when it’s clear Labour’s done what you say they’ve done, for example supporting Key and Bennett’s war-on-the-poor legislation in 2014, he says Labour had to do it.

                4. When you point out the nasty things that Labour did between 1999 and 2008, that there’s been absolutely no evidence that things will be different in the future and that Labour has at no time made a stand clear stand for beneficiaries for the last eight elections, he again denies it, then asks for links, then finishes off by saying the current Labour is different from previous Labour governments or oppositions. You then ask for the the evidence and out again comes the personal vitriol, like “that’s rich coming from you.”

                5. That personal vitriol is also worth mentioning separately. A large part of it relies on criticising you for not attacking the nats. Words calls you a “nat troll” or a lover of John Key”. This sort of nonsense increases even when you point out the importance of ensuring a strong left wing opposition, and that how, for example, what Labour’s done with welfare benefits is in fact to support that nats’ attacks, and to normalise the negative attitudes towards the poor. But no, when things get to this level Words goes into complete shut-down mode which involves turning almost everything you’ve said around and blaming the you for not targeting the nats.

                6. When all else fails (and there’s quite a bit of overlap here with the stages outlined above) he resorts to bare faced lies about what you’ve said.

                7. The upshot is that Words and those of his ilk cannot engage on anything meaningful because anything that’s meaningful must include being open to discuss Labour’s shortcomings. Words refuses to do that. He is wholly and completely a shill for Labour. He is nothing else but that. And that makes him a danger in the extreme because by doing what he does there is no room to ensure that the opposition is strong and readt to take on the greedy hateful right wing scum that shit on the poor at every opportunity. By singing Labour’s praises regardless of what they say, what they do, what they don’t say and what they don’t do, Words is supporting collusion with that right wing scum because he isn’t focusing one jot on what’s required to fight them.

                8. The fact that Words does not accept any criticism of Labour at all, and that he blames the nats for absolutely everything that he does not agree with, makes him a troll. And a troll of the worst kind, I might add. This is because he gets away with his behaviour because of the forum he chooses to use: go on a left wing blog like TS or TDB, say Key and the nats are bastards and that Labour’s great and nobody blinks an eyelid. But when you look closely at his MO he’s not engaging or discussing, merely pushing his own barrow, which is “Labour good, National bad”.

                9. I agree that National’s bad, but if we’re ever going to learn from history in order to fix the future then that attitude is highly destructive. Labour-can-do-no-wrongers are very very dangerous to the objectives of the left. What’s interesting, though, is that when you look a little more carefully at what they say and how they operate they’re in fact trolls in their most purest form. And for this reason blog sites, regardless of their political tendencies, should not tolerate them.

            • [Comment deleted, if belatedly noticed. No more of that kind of language from either of you, Chris. – ScarletMod]

  3. You’d have to look at that list of supposed scandal and say — shit — the electorate’s skin has hardened significantly since then with regard to what constitutes government failure.

  4. if you are right in your comparison with the ennui of 2001 then Bill ( and bubbly Paula) will win….cant see it.

  5. Yet another Chris Trotter view of a bit of history that suits his overall goal which appears to be the destruction or invention of his mythical ‘conservative left’ that he has just created…Helen Clark was about as left wing as Roger Douglas…

    • I don’t think you get what Trotter’s saying. He’s not saying anything about whether Clark was a right winger or not. I personally think she was, but Trotter’s talking about something else: leadership, strategy, winning elections etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought Clark was a right winger, too, but that ain’t what he’s talking about.

  6. iT could have been 100 year reign except they ignored the most important of promises the restoring the level of pre richardson financial help. from there their the heads went so far up themselves they couldn’t see anything but a halo of their own self importance. when it came to the vote the public was conned that key was in fact the new messiah of the left, and the labour was what we had known all along since 84 …NEO’S

  7. Let’s consider the landscape outside any left or right paradigm or beliefs.
    Let’s leave the past behind for a bit and focus on the now and healthy plans and brilliant ideas to turn our economy around. They are out there.
    The same ole same ole rehashing is getting boring and not even that relevant today – is it ?

    Let’s dig a bit deeper and consider the secret government, the evil Deep State that controls most governments; most banks and the MSM.
    Let’s stop focusing on what is not very important and start to expose that which is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and needs questioning, exposing and possibly prosecuting.
    And while we’re at it, let’s ( ? ) have a few laughs about all this with Lee Camp’s latest — ” REDACTED TONIGHT ” just out :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcfjhEd38so

    Let’s focus beyond the disgrace that Helen Clark is, especially now as she deeply swims with the U.N. towards the World Government plans and agendas.
    ” Corporate elitist sell-out queen ” who brought us more 1080 and GMO’s — ETC. and bad blood history with the Maori’s among others.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6-rooWoPFc

    • The fact is, it makes no difference whether NZ is governed by ‘left-leaning’ or ‘right-leaning’ people, they are ALL working in conjunction with banks, corporations and opportunists to destroy the sustainability of NZ and bring about faster warming (leading to worse droughts, more torrential rain and flooding, rapid sea level rise, financial, economic and social ruin, and eventually extinction of most species on this planet, including humans…..probably around 2050, the rate we are going).

      ALL political parties promote the continued burning of fossil fuels, not just for what might be considered essential reasons like preventing children from dying from pneumonia, but for purely trivial purposes like Santa parades and motor racing.

      ALL mainstream political parties promote Fractional Reserve Banking and the charging of interest on money created out of thin air.

      It therefore follows that ALL political parties are criminal organisations.

      However, since the entire system has been set up to facilitate the short-term agendas of banks, corporations and opportunists, criminal behavior is legalized, and political parties and politicians are given ‘free passes’ to bring about destruction of NZ society and the eventual ruination of everything.

      It is bizarre beyond belief.

      Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 continues to rise at an ever faster pace, ice at both ends of the planet melts (or fails to form) and environmental catastrophes increase in frequency and magnitude by the year.

      The current ‘leadership’ transfers ALL the horrendous costs onto coming generations. And if National were to be replaced by Labour we would simply get more of the same. More business-as-usual with no regard for the repercussions. And ‘no one’ cares.

      I personally believe we have until about 2020 before critical energetic and financial tipping points at reached, but we have clearly already gone past numerous environmental tipping points and are headed for absolute catastrophe, which will arrive quite soon.

      Instead of taking action to prepare for the ever-worsening environmental predicament and its various manifestations, politicians demonstrate a completely irrational determination to do nothing except promote business-as-usual that makes everything far worse faster.

      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

      • Exactly – as usual I agree with you and appreciate all you write and your wisdom. It is true that all political parties are criminal organizations but I believe there are a few rare spirits trying within the system to make some good changes.
        2020 is coming soon – Industrial Hemp could turn everything around and move us away from oil but the will to promote and fund it is just not alive and well here in NZ.

        Sometimes I have a dream that the masses come together and take over our govt. and quickly and massively make some serious and healthy changes. Then I wake up.

  8. The pre 2008 GFC era made the Clark government look good – probably better than it really was.

    Clark was a ruthless political operator who kept it all together, mostly through fear. The combination of H1 and H2 was not to be messed with! She ruled by playing off the various factions within the party against each other.

    The downsides of Helengrad:

    Firstly she didn’t undertake significant renewal and so left the Party with a long list of characters who were well past their sell-by date and no talent coming through the ranks

    Secondly she left the party with little cash and no viable mechanism for funding.

    Lastly, she left the Party without a philosophy for the future: Helen sucked Labour dry and then left.

    • Was Health in better shape under Clark: Most definitely.
      Was Education better under Clark : Certainly
      Was Child poverty
      Homelessness
      Housing affordability
      Migration
      Clean rivers
      Etc
      Etc
      Etc
      better under Clark? 100% it was.

      So the Govt pre GFC era was most definitely better than the present National government, given the destruction by National and Key of the stated services.

      So yes, the smiling assassin has sucked National and N.Z. for all it’s worth and is probably getting his hidden trust removed before he is eventually caught with his hand in the till.

      Lastly. Love her or hate her, Clark created nine straight surpluses, low debt and an affordable country. Can the same be said of Key and National?

      Just a few examples of National:

      The Orivida scandal
      The Saudi sheep farm scandal
      The Gerry Brownlee airport and Kaikoura scandal
      The National Party MP Mike Sabin resigns from parliament story
      Novapay
      Dirty Politics
      Teatape
      John Banks
      etc
      etc
      etc

      • OK let’s compare scandals:

        Dover Samuels, minister in the Clark government getting a child pregnant who was in his care

        A sexual assault involving a young man and a Swiss Ball

        A minister buying flowers and a 4×4 truck hire for his boyfriend whilst travelling in Australia.

        Helen’s forged artwork

        Misuse of funds during an election (the so-called Labour ‘credit card’)

        The speeding ministerial car and subsequent blaming of a junior officer

        Forgotten those skeletons?

      • You’re forgetting that our three year terms mean that often the consequences of what one government does isn’t seen entirely until a bit later. Many of the consequences of the nasty things Clark’s government did to our social welfare system were felt by people after 2008 and continue to. The special benefit was abolished in 2004 but grand-parented out, and this was followed by some really nasty shit in a 2007 amendment Act which compounded the effects of earlier attacks. Then, because the nats carried on with that agenda Labour’s contribution gets covered up and conveniently ignored by the Labour-can-do-wrongers. It really is quite sickening how that group who call themselves “Lefties” can just ignore history like that. Nobody’s saying the nats are blameless, far from it. It’s in fact because of what the nats continued to do after 2008 that’s masked the nasty filth Labour exerted upon the poor beforehand. What Labour did, particularly between 1999 and 2008, to the poorest of NZers is important because there’s nothing to show they’ve changed. It’s diabolical how so many people, within the so-called left, either refuse or simply fail to understand that.

        • So all things aside, the so called right, either refuse or simply fail to understand that the nasty filthy Nats and their previously corrupt leader have systematically destroyed the low debt the previously extremely competent Labour government left them.
          To use your analogy, sure Labour are not perfect but clearly National and the National- can-do-no-wrongdoers have changed the face of New Zealand for good.
          Clearly if you have to explain this Chris, then you have lost the argument.

          • “Clearly if you have to explain this Chris, then you have lost the argument.”

            Sending my post back with a few words swapped around doesn’t cut it. That’s precisely one of the ways Words pathetically responds. As for “explaining is losing”, you’ve been reading too much of blubberboy.

            Why don’t you try addressing points instead. We don’t need another Labour-can-do-no-wronger.

            • Chris blaming Previous Governments is typical of right wingers. Taking no responsibility and blaming it on others without quantitative evidence is a very weak argument.
              Your immature posts surrounding “Lefties” and Labour-can-do-wrongers and “blubberboy” and “nasty filth” renders anything you post as useless. You need to grow up! Go back and read my post on the abysmal record of the last 8 years under a National government, rather than the previous 9 years. Then go back beyond those 9 years of Labour and you get the same mess under Shipley.
              I also cannot address any of your points as you don’t make any.

        • As the saying goes, “you can’t change the past but you can affect the future’

          Given English and the nasty Nats policies that have created much angst during the past 8 years, are not going to change, then we need a new government that will affect the future.

          “You’re forgetting that our three year terms mean that often the consequences of what one government does isn’t seen entirely until a bit later”

          Then god help us all, because we will all suffer over the many many years to come, due to the effects of the obnoxious, arrogant, privacy hacking National government.

          • I was talking about how Labour-can-do-no-wrongers don’t acknowledge Labour’s contribution to current woes. Equally important is the need to learn from the past in order to change the future. But of course, I’m talking to a Labour-can-do-no-wronger which by definition means you will not accept this. Labour-can-do-no-wrongers can’t accept any of the nasty things Labour’s done so they are unable to learn from them. What’s even worse is that Labour-can-do-no-wrongers also can’t accept when there’s absolutely no evidence that Labour aren’t going to continue doing those same nasty things.

            • Or as you quite rightly point out, as a National can-do-no-wrong doer, you fail to recognise that the present Left wing block may well make change that is beneficial for our country. Because how can you possibly foresee the future? Or is your continual denial of this disgustingly arrogant National party’s destruction of our once great country and constant put down of the left bloc all you have to offer. Let us use your analogy and ask why do you not admit that our current woes go back to Muldoon or Shipley or Bolger? You also need to read my whole post, rather than those blue rose tinted glasses. As I said, just like National, Labour were not perfect. By the way, am I replying to Michelle Boag?

          • +1 Bert well said on all of your comments. Take note how Chris tries to avoid discussing “National” at all costs by twisting it back round to Labour. Looks like Chris is a National can do no wronger.

          • +1 Bert well said on all of your comments. Take note how Chris tries to avoid discussing “National” at all costs by twisting it back round to Labour. Looks like Chris is a National can do no wronger

    • “Firstly she didn’t undertake significant renewal and so left the Party with a long list of characters who were well past their sell-by date and no talent coming through the ranks”

      I agree.

      And a lot of her people may have been brilliant and useful out in the regions but totally lacked the mindset and skills needed at national level.

      A reasonable management team, H1 and H2, but seriously lacking in vision, inclusion, and ability to ensure quality continuity. A level 5 leader she was definitely not. (See Jim Collins “Good to Great” for the definition.)

      How dare I say so? Look at the ensuing debacle once she’d gone.

  9. Arses gathered around a hole?

    Does that make them arse-holes?

    Dissect as much as one likes. It doesn’t change the fact that virtually every single $-six figure + entitlements politician, no matter the colour of their stupid ties, is a fucking liar and a swindler in some way or other.
    Nat’s, Lab’s, Greens, ACT’s or what ever other Ding Dong fly by night sundry con artist politician who can scramble to the top of the pile of money we get taken from us while our quality of ‘ life ‘ is eroded will continue to get away with it until they ‘ retire’ after a life time’s work for the ‘people’. Well, all I can say is they’re pretty shit at it and I want my fucking money back.
    Those fuckers! That collection of fat arsed, well dressed, over alcohol’ed pretentious fuckers drive to OUR parliament in OUR fancy cars, the ones we bought for them, past homeless and decaying human beings living in humiliation and devoid of dignity in the gutters, with dry eyes and fat wallets.
    Is the mere fact that we try to make some sense out of that by discussing the in’s and out’s of the old dogs arsehole here is tantamount to being complicit in their lies and theft?
    See a politician? Make the fucker run for their lives.
    While there’re kids living hungry, violent and unhappy lives as their parents tank for the want of enough money to buy food, a fag and a bottle of beer…While there’re old people praying they die before their money runs out, as youth rots in prisons, as our best minds get exported by a corrupt system populated by professional liars and useless money fiddlers, as we all spend time here, wasting time here, there they are. Sitting, smiling, laughing, living the high end life we can only dream of as we buy our lotto tickets and pray to God and the Devil.
    What’s wrong with a Toyota Starlet and $60 k a year as a starter package? Why did we sit back and watch on at such vile waste, as Kiwi kids go to school hungry?
    I mean ? WTF ? A mind boggling $11 million US dollar NYC apartment ? http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/69701478/nz-government-shells-out-11m-on-new-york-apartment-for-un-representative
    On and on and on it goes, year in , year out. We fret and worry and swallow pills to assuage our fears and anxiety while those dirty fuckers get clean away with it.
    And if we dare to complain, march or protest? They can, and will, hit us, tear gas us, hurt us, spy on us and snoop into our lives, can imprison us and may even kill us .
    God’s own Mate.
    And why? Because we fucking let them.

    • Your analysis, Countryboy, leads to the conclusion that since all power corrupts, anyone with power should be rejected.

      Okay, but if you got your way…just let’s say that you talk about laissez-faire economics? You haven’t seen anything.

      Alternatively, as all advantage is theft, we should vigorously tear down anyone who has more than we do.

      I’ve go my eye on a sweet cave. I will defend it , though the Heavens Fall.

    • “Because we fucking let them”

      Because we don’t take them seriously.

      We tut at their pecadillos, laugh about their silly japes and uncouth utterances, and show too little interest in the chunks of heavyweight legislation that the late night brigade whack through under ‘urgency’.

      Maybe it’s time to reinstall an upper house, or some other effective check, on both individuals and parties who have a rush of power to the head.

      Or redesign the whole process of legislation creation, and providing the counterbalancing voice to conservative industry and boisterous international ambitions. This old nineteenth century system, built to entrench power and empire, is overdue for replacement.

Comments are closed.