Rhetoric For An Empty Stage: Sir Michael Cullen Offers Labour Some Suitable Synonyms for Socialist Terms

29
13

unnamed

THERE ARE FEW NEW ZEALANDERS better placed to speak knowledgeably about their country’s political future than Sir Michael Cullen. Finance Minister in Helen Clark’s ministry (1999-2008) he wrestled with New Zealand capitalism up-close and personal for nine years and is generally acknowledged to have emerged from the experience, if not unbeaten, then, at the very least, unbowed. The surpluses amassed under his stewardship armoured the New Zealand economy against the raking fire of the Global Financial Crisis; a barrage which could easily have sunk as less well-protected vessel. John Key and Bill English owe Cullen a lot.

Retiring from the hurly-burly of parliamentary politics in April 2009 to take up the Chair of New Zealand Post Ltd, Cullen has maintained a discreet public silence on both the new National Government’s conduct of political and economic affairs, and, more importantly perhaps, on the internal turmoil debilitating the Labour Party he joined 40 years ago.

Which is not to suggest that Cullen lost interest in his party, merely that he was wise enough to restrict his interventions to below-the-radar discussions with trusted friends and allies. When it came to the long-running feud between the supporters of David Cunliffe and the “Anyone But Cunliffe” (ABC) faction of the Labour caucus, Cullen came down firmly on the side of Mr Cunliffe’s opponents. He was an early supporter of David Shearer and, in the latest leadership contest, of Grant Robertson.

Cullen’s endorsement of Grant Robertson was the former Finance Minister’s first public intervention in the politics of the Left for many years – and he paid dearly for it. Widely tipped to lead the committee charged with reviewing Labour’s disastrous performance in the 2014 general election (the worst in 92 years!) Cullen was very publicly snubbed by Labour’s NZ Council, who gave the job to the more overtly left-wing party elder, Bryan Gould.

That rather petty decision to exclude one of Labour’s most experienced and intelligent kaumatua has now been remedied by Cullen’s recent co-optation on to the review panel. Whether the decision to rehabilitate Cullen was made before or after his delivery of a speech entitled “Labour: whither or wither?” is unclear. What cannot be denied, however, is that this 5,000+ word analysis of where Labour finds itself in 2015, and where it needs to be by 2017, more than justifies his inclusion.

The mission Cullen proposes for Labour is nothing less than to instil in the New Zealand electorate what the American political philosopher, John Rawls, calls the “reasonable hope” of living in a “practical utopia”.

It is difficult to conceive of a phrase which better sums up the historical aspirations of the New Zealand Labour Party. In a country that has never had much time for grand ideological systems, the notion of a down-to-earth, do-it-yourself, No.8-wire utopia; a practical utopia designed to meet the reasonable hopes and dreams of ordinary Kiwis, is as near to a perfect recapitulation of Labour’s mission as it gets.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

And the need to recapitulate Labour’s mission in a twenty-first century context; deploying words and concepts acceptable to a twenty-first century audience; is central to Cullen’s argument. He uses his own family history to demonstrate how, in the space of just a single century, the solidaristic working-class culture out of which both the British and New Zealand Labour Parties were born, has been broken up and dissolved – not least by the comprehensive social and economic reforms Labour struggled so hard to introduce.

As was famously said of those Labour governments, writes Cullen: “success in improving the lot of working people began to move many of them into the camp of those who at least believed, or could be persuaded, that they had more to lose than gain from further change. And, associated with that, the centre-right began a long process of capturing the language of politics – for example, by talking of a property-owning democracy.”

These are the voters Cullen urges Labour to woo and win in the run-up to 2017. “To form a strong, stable progressive government Labour still needs to aim to get around 40% of the vote.” For those party comrades who argue that the gap between Labour’s 2014 result and Cullen’s target can be made up by mobilising the non-vote, Cullen has nothing but scorn:

“The missing 15% is not going to come primarily from non-voting socialist fundamentalists as some in recent time seemed to believe. We certainly need to motivate as much of the non-vote as we can to vote for us. But the bulk of the increase has got to come from recapturing votes from National, as they did from us in 2008.”

The Labour Party capable of reclaiming these lost sheep, Cullen argues, will have “a clear philosophy, an intelligent strategy, appealing and relevant policies, effective and coherent leadership, and, above all, better emotional connection with a majority of the population.”

To secure that connection, Cullen suggests “capturing the ownership of some emotionally resonant words and concepts which we have all too easily allowed our opponents to expropriate.” He lists these words and concepts as:

· Choice

· Aspiration

· Responsibility

· National Pride
These concepts, says Cullen, need to be “associated with and to suffuse our more traditional ones of fairness, equality, opportunity and (more recently) sustainability.”

Easier said than done, one might reasonably object. Because, on the face of it, the concepts Cullen is promoting all possess a distinctly conservative flavour.

It is all very well to argue, as Cullen does, that “Choice” can be re-translated to mean “a form of democratisation but only where it is available, as far as possible, to all.” But, for most voters under 40, the word will continue to mean “what I want”.

The concept of “Aspiration” faces similar difficulties. Can it really be redefined to mean “opportunity for all”? For most New Zealanders, aspiration is what John Key’s life-story embodies. It’s all about a little boy raised in a state house by his widowed mum, who went on to make $50 million and become New Zealand’s prime minister.

The concepts of “Responsibility” and “National Pride” are likely to prove even more resistant to redefinition. Cullen, himself, concedes that” “there is a tendency on the left to think that this is just a cover for beneficiary bashing or some other kind of judgemental approach to life.” Well, yes, there is, and with very good reason!

But Cullen indisputably has a point when he says: “At the very heart of social democracy surely lies the notion that we have responsibilities to each other. That is, that we are social beings who wish to pursue the common good – again the idea of a practical utopia. We reject the idea of atomised individuals perpetually striving to climb over each other, that what matters above all is where we end up within a hierarchical society (in essence, alas, a practical dystopia).”

Cullen is equally eloquent when it comes to the concept of “National Pride”: “In brief, we need to own a new national pride around our identity as a proudly diverse nation, around what we can do to create a better world, and around a focus on independent, morally-based action in a dangerous world that we cannot opt out of.”

When he speaks like this, Cullen recalls his younger self. As a history-lecturer at the University of Otago in the 1970s he thrilled his students with lectures on the English radical tradition; of a world turned upside down. Clearly, it is a tradition that Cullen is reluctant to disown.

“The notion of inherent equality allied with the common good stretches far back into the English radical tradition which, at least for some of us, is part of our heritage. As far back, indeed, as 1381 when John Ball posed the searching question “When Adam delf (i.e. dug) and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” (A reproduction of the woodcut by the great Victorian socialist artist, Walter Crane, asking exactly that question, once held pride of place in Cullen’s university office.)

But if the sort of world in which “what matters above all is where we end up within a hierarchical society” is one deplored by Cullen as dystopian, then why did he allow himself to be made a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit? Being lectured to about the central tenets of social democracy by someone called “Sir Michael” is just a little disconcerting.

Equally unsettling is Cullen’s studious avoidance of the central role played by the trade unions in the development of both British and New Zealand social democracy. Only twice in his paper does Cullen make reference to trade unionism.

The first reference is to the New Zealand worker’s supposed lack of faith in unions – as evidenced by National’s decisive victory in the snap-election of 1951:

“Increasingly, sections of the working class began to see at least trade unions other than their own as inimical to their interests. The public reaction to the 1951 waterfront dispute typified that development.”

The second reference occurs as part of Cullen’s explanation for the Clark-led Labour Government’s failure to roll back the neo-liberal revolution:

“But the neo-liberal revolution was central to intensifying trends that were already clear. In terms of legislation, the most important and decisive was the Employment Contracts Act which decimated the trade union movement, at least in the private sector. And so profound was the success of the Act in completing a long term change in public sentiment that it was impossible to fully reverse its effects after 1999.” [My emphasis.]

Given that the destruction of organised labour has always been, and continues to be, the key objective of neoliberalism: the one great “reform”, out of which all other neoliberal “reforms” flow and endure; Cullen’s flawed historical observations, and his failure to address the future of organised labour in his recent lecture, are absolutely critical omissions.

What they confirm is that, in spite of his sage and often persuasive advice concerning Labour’s electoral rhetoric, Cullen, and the faction of the party he represents, is not yet ready to challenge the singular foundational achievement of the neoliberal era: the expulsion of the New Zealand working-class from the nation’s political stage.

29 COMMENTS

  1. Once again You make claims for neo-liberalism which has little to no evidence. The only aspect of Labour policy that neo-liberals really care about us ensurING flexibility. If this can be achieved working with Unions then that is fine.

    • The “ONLY” aspect of Labour policy neoliberals care about is “ensuring flexibility”? “ONLY”? This is “only” the key neoliberal doctrine demolishing upward social mobility and pushing us further towards neofeudalism. It’s kinda important.

      Cullen is right about language. Translated from neoliberal Newspeak, “flexibility” means “job insecurity”. It means more and more jobs being part-time, fixed-term, contract positions where workers have no negotiating power whatsoever regarding hours, wages, workload, working conditions, etc., and no guarantee of having an income in the future. The effect on families, work-life balance, dreams and so forth is/will be incalculable.

      The “only” policy neoliberals care about indeed.

    • And once again you prove that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The only flexibility that neoliberalism cares about is the flexibility of business to screw it’s employees. This has been shown time and time again both here and elsewhere, and it takes a staggering amount of willful blindness on your part to not recognise that.

      Business had the option of working with Unions, but when the time came they preferred to destroy them rather than work with them. Again, this is ongoing both here and in the US, where there is a concerted effort to destroy what is left of the Unions with more “right to work” legislation.

      Your ignorance in the face of repeated evidence is staggering.

      • Goseman is just a simple mined NatZ troll ignore it and it will go away.

        On Michael Cullen,

        We can talk with some qualification on his character.

        By the way we met as a concerned community Group no less than six times with Michael Cullen over four years discussing rail and road problems from 2003 to 2007.

        He is a fine man with a soft manner and is highly respected believe me.

        As he speaks quietly he offers hope to all while offering great respect to us when we met with positive encouragement.\

        Many politicians do not treat public mind groups like ours as he did.

        Labour Party lost a great pillar of reasonability when Michael retired.

        He can offer very reasonable compromises and suit all parties in win win resolutions, something the John Key does not do at all that we have any evidence of.

        If I was John Key and wanting to take all NZ with his present policies I would grab Michael and have him steer his lot through the minefield ahead with TPPA,/War/flag/RMA, and other stupid policies but I hope Michael does not loose his self respect working for the National Party with no compassion at all.

    • Gossly’s atatements, as usual, lack clarity.. Like most diletante’s, makes meaningless criticism without a shred of relevant preamble to clarify just what these “claims” are… I’ve noticed this trend lately of the tory trolls making less sense, and simply venting for it’s own sake…. The writing’s on the wall…. They know their hero’s a pup… Just can’t admit it like grownups…. this actually an informative, and useful article, for those who like to think things through….

  2. Once again You make claims for neo-liberalism which has little to no evidence. The only aspect of Labour policy that neo-liberals really care about us ensur

  3. Interesting perspective. I have respect for Cullen in the sense he did an excellent job of the economy and reducing debt and put NZ into a strong economic position that National are busy destroying.

    Neo liberalism is now out of control. If Labour wants to get in, this is what they need to focus on.

    Since only a fraction of the elite benefit from it, National seem busy putting in cronies in media, government, local government, universities and internal and external consultants to control their neoliberal doctrine.

    This is clear by the recent OIA request that found that Susan Devoy publicly paid race relations was receiving detailed instructions on what to do in her job, including don’t pick up the phone etc.

    Now Campbell Live being axed. Not content to neuter the content but now ‘the final solution’ get rid of it altogether and replace it with a soap or comedy.

    The same international names keep appearing too. Warner Bros for example. Not only do we have corporate welfare with tax breaks to Warners, we now have employment changes for them, our armed defenders arresting people for them and justice system persecuting their opposition DotCom all on the NZ tax payers teat. a

    Now we find Julie Christy making a fortune selling to Warners, becoming a director of media works and now axing the most popular presenter in NZ to replace it with one of Eyeworks aka Warners Bros owned production companies shows.

    Are Warners a NZ company and pay their fair share of taxes in this country? I very much doubt it! But they seem to be a mighty beneficiary of the NZ taxpayers corporate welfare in many areas!

  4. The Kiwi Battler.

    Remember that term?

    Used to be around a lot during the 1960’s and 1970’s. That was an era during which BOTH National and Labour party’s adhered to Keynesian social democracy.

    The most successful and wealthy per capita era that this nation had ever known.

    And then in 1984 ( UNDER A LABOUR GOVT !!! ) the traitor Douglas appeared as the finance minister under the prime minister ship of David Lange. It was not Lange’s particular choice as time progressed…as the events that followed demonstrate.

    Douglas , ….and his Mont Pelerin society neo liberalism …had been rejected earlier on by Norman Kirk. In fact….Douglas was warned when he approached Kirk that if he ever spoke about this again , – Kirk would kick him out of the Labour party.

    It is impossible to embrace the core tenets of neo liberal ideology and speak about social democracy in the same breath.

    It is akin to stating that white is in fact black.

    It is interesting the use of words here.

    CHOICE :

    In neo liberal code means simply by curtailing workers rights they are then free to choose to strip meal breaks , enact zero hour policy’s , flat rates instead of time and a half , double time and triple time.To deduct from an employee’s wages any loss that the business incur’s through their own fault. To surreptitiously expect workers to work 16 hour shifts…based on fear of job loss if declined.

    All of these things have happened in the company I worked for.

    And you were sacked if you joined a union.

    ASPIRATION :

    Simply by driving down wages by wielding the Employments Contract Act , means that there then becomes a mad race to the top where most will simply not make it. They retain only the illusion of it. Thusly many ‘ aspire ‘ to desperately keep ahead of low wages and rapidly rising costs by being self employed.
    But we can only have SO MANY plumbers before we start to squabble for the contractual crumbs amongst ourselves. Meanwhile the lies about ‘aspiration ‘ are a source of great merriment to those large multi corporates and the Business Roundtable that know full well that as they rake in the profits and bleed this country dry the rest of the gullible unwashed scrabble for the crumbs still believing their propaganda.

    RESPONSIBLITY :

    An interesting one- as it sounds very mature and respectable….until one realizes it is a red herring to cover up the irresponsibility and treason of the very neo liberal ideologues who have encouraged the impoverishment in the first place.And while they are effectively acting like modern day pirates plundering this nation willingly – and relying on peoples general naivety – they preach ‘responsibility ‘ . Not out of any high moral agenda – but simply to put the ‘ guilts’ on people .
    It would be interesting if they took some responsibility for this nations impoverishment and loss of S.O.A ‘s and loss of sovereignty for the last 35 years.

    NATIONAL PRIDE :

    The only word in this list that has not been tainted by neo liberal dogma. And even then …can be misinterpreted by the gullible as they fail to see that what is really meant by neo liberalism is ‘ being tied up in Free Trade Deals such as the TTPA and part of the GLOBAL community ‘ – thereby straight away ceding all national sovereignty through inability to pass and maintain our own sovereign terms and conditions through legislation.

    IN SUMMARY :

    As stated earlier there is no ‘meeting of the minds ‘ , no ‘ halfway point ‘ or compatibility between Social Democracy and neo liberalism. None whatsoever. It is an illusion. The only way that there can be ‘ NATIONAL PRIDE’ is to have a sense of autonomy , ability to pass our own legislation free from such pernicious Trade deals such as the TTPA , a return to collective bargaining and a govt that has a ‘hands on ‘ approach instead of leaving large swathes of its population exposed to the so-called ‘wisdom ‘ of market forces – and the destructiveness that this has incurred on our country.

    In short – a return to TRUE SOCIAL DEMOCRACY , and – a return to a modernized Keynesian – based economic foundation. Nothing less than this will heal this country’s poverty and sense of NATIONAL PRIDE.

    And one of the first things to be laid upon the block would be the foundational , destructive and subversive policy of the neo liberal :

    The Employment Contracts Act.

    • Well done there I’m suitably impressed with your clear layout to the folks of what Neo Liberals are all about Wild Katipo.

      Sorry that twat Gooseman doesn’t understand all this.

      Ignorance is bliss to the neocons.

    • That is well summarised!

      Watching Q+A this morning, where that idiot economist was interviewed, who came up with the term “Rock Star Economy” for New Zealand, I did again despair, that the public continue to be served the same BS over and over again.

      Oh, now we are meant to be more patient again, with a pay-rise and improved living conditions, patient again, as workers have mostly been for the last three decades!

      Trickle down, trickle down it comes down one’s leg, down through the trousers, nowhere else do I see a trickle down.

      And the dollar parity with Australia is a sign of a “strong economy”, yeah right, maybe rather for more speculators using the Kiwi Dollar as one of few where you can still rake in some interest, while interest rates in most countries are much lower or even in negative territory in some places.

      We hear stories of Philipino and other building workers being ripped off in Christchurch, we heard not long ago about service station staff getting their minimum pay docked if customers took off with filled tanks without paying, we have meagre pay increases due to mass immigration keeping wages down, we still have amongst the highest supermarket prices and certainly home prices and rentals in the developed world.

      I do still at times listen in to various radio stations, and even Duncan Garner on Radio Live did last week quote an Australian sending in an email or a text, calling New Zealand government propaganda BS, as he knew (as a visitor to here) that many goods and services here cost significantly more than in Australia, while wages and salaries are well below Australian ones also.

      And last year Australia still had over two percent economic growth, as far as I know, maybe not “Rock Star” growth, but reasonable for a country facing a “crisis”.

      Our government tells us how “poor” Australia is, while they are still substantially better off in general, and it is largely only Kiwis not able to claim benefits there, who return home, as mines and so are not employing as many as they used to.

      If you want sensible reporting on NZ’s economy, do not listen to such biased “economists” like the one they had on Q+A, read more competent overseas literature on how Australia and New Zealand fare.

      Once the Christchurch rebuild will be over, and once the Chinese are self sufficient in dairy and other industries, we will be stuffed, given present economic policy.

      • 1000% Mike in Auckland,

        That creep sounded like a slimy car salesman didn’t he with an Aussie accent too.

        Where did they get these lying creeps.

        I had to go turn him off as I almost threw up.
        TV1 wake up and ask a real economist so try BERL Ganesh?

        Oh wait a minute Key’s lot don’t like Ganesh as he tells the truth not lies, silly of me.

        We need all opposition Parties to place a court injunction to seize their right to operate half of our public media of NZTV/RNZ and be free from national Government interference NOW PLEASE.

    • Yeah lets go back to the sixties where sexisum and homophobia rules supreme. Compulsory unionism anyone, so popular then. Forget your namby pamby foreign shit, it’s spuds and stakes mate. Then off to the Races, catch the rugby and skull back shit loads of beer. Yes if only we could go back to thoes classy days.

  5. A couple of points:

    First: Cullen didn’t “amass surpluses which armoured the New Zealand economy against the raking fire of the Global Financial Crisis”. He just overtaxed New Zealanders, blew most of it on a ponderous bureaucracy and invested most of the rest offshore.

    Next: Key bought off Cullen with a nice soft job and a title. A title his own government had previously ditched.

    • First: Cullen didn’t “amass surpluses which armoured the New Zealand economy against the raking fire of the Global Financial Crisis”. He just overtaxed New Zealanders, blew most of it on a ponderous bureaucracy and invested most of the rest offshore.

      That’s quite a bizarre spin you’ve put on Cullen’s track record, Andrew.

      New Zealander’s weren’t over-taxed. The rise in tax for top income earners was put to the electorate in the 1999 election – and Labour won. That’s called a mandate.

      What “bureacracy” are you talking about, Andrew? Funding healthcare, education, police, and other state services which National cut in the 1990s? Healthcare funding was in such a parlous state that people like Colin Morrison and Rau Williams either died on waiting lists or were denied healthcare entirely. That is what our taxes went for; healthcare.

      As for “investing most of the rest offshore”, it’s hard to know what you’re referring to – your rant is all over the place.

      But let me share this quote with you:

      “The level of public debt in New Zealand was $8 billion when National came into office in 2008. It’s now $53 billion, and it’s forecast to rise to $72 billion in 2016.”

      Source: http://www.national.org.nz/mixed-ownership.aspx

      “Firstly let me start by saying that New Zealand does not face the balance sheet crisis of 1984, or even of the early 1990s. Far from having dangerously high debt levels, gross debt to GDP is around a modest 25 percent and net debt may well be zero by 2008. In other words, there is no longer any balance sheet reason to justify an aggressive privatisation programme of the kind associated with the 1980s Labour Government.” (4 March 2005)

      Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0503/S00102.htm

      Who said those words?

      John Key.

      Methinks you’re just a wee bit insanely jealous that Labour’s fiscal track record is somewhat superiour to your precious National Party.

      Have a nice day.

    • And secondly, Andrew, far from being “over taxed”, New Zealanders have had seven tax cuts since 1986;

      1 October 1986 – Labour

      1 October 1988 – Labour

      1 July 1996 – National

      1 July 1998 – National

      1 October 2008 – Labour

      1 April 2009 – National

      1 October 2010 – National

      Hope you’re enjoying your day. 🙂

      • Frank! That is most unlike you!

        Just for two – GST up and fuel taxes up. And the minuscule amount given to the least paid does not cover the erosive effect of these two nickel’n’dime taxes.

        Don’t know where it goes, either…

        ‘Tax cuts’=robbing Peter to pay Paul. Sometime. In the misty future.

      • By over taxed I mean running surplus budgets year after year, which equates to taking money from working New Zealanders for which they clearly had no use. Just punitive and stupid. It cut our economic growth.

        And where did the Cullen Fund money go? Offshore. That over taxation I was talking about mostly finished up the back pockets of Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. Very little was invested in New Zealand jobs and industry.

        Yeah, SIR Michael Cullen – a real working class hero!

        As regards the bureaucracy, the Clark government increased the number of civil servants by over 45,000 during its tenure, over 11,000 of which were in Wellington alone. Rather than actual ‘delivery’ of services, all they did was add layers of pointless bureaucracy to slow growth even more.

        • I call BS on that, the only reason they increased the amount of public servants was because as per usual National reduced them to a level where they could barely provide the service they are meant to hence the levels needed to increase

  6. My god chris that load of words reminds me of the diatribe of 84 and 87′
    and then 9 long years under cullen raping the country… do you really want a neoliberal scumbag advising on how the kiwi battler looks to the future…

  7. I pretty much entirely agree with what you have written here Chris. Two phrases in particular stood out for me. One pointed to the need for “… a better emotional connection with a majority of the population,” while the other suggested “…independent, morally-based action in a dangerous world that we cannot opt out of.” These two phrases, put together with the distancing from the unions, suggest either naivety or a cleverly phrased affirmation of the neo-liberal political/economic split. Given Sir Michael’s pedigree, the latter seems more likely.

    The Rawlsian “reasonable hope” he advocates, without mention of a plan to grasp the levers that would permit its implementation, is not far removed from Mr Bolger’s “decent society” but with less excuses, more water having gone under the bridge since then.

    I know from Sir Michael’s previous speeches that he sees us as a small country that cannot do much that large international economic movements do not permit. But I would would prefer to see a Labour Party pushing at the limits of what it can do on behalf of New Zealanders, and seeing what it can get away with – rather than acquiescing in how things stand while trying to win our hearts with uplifting rhetoric.

  8. Thank you, Mr Trotter, for nominating Michael Cullen for the “Tony Blair Third Way Award”!

    I cannot read anything much else out of his speech and suggestions, but to continue with a more moderate form of what we have, called by many “neo-liberalism”.

    Changing words and phrases, dressing up an old donkey as a race-horse is not going to make it, I am afraid.

    Let us rather leave the Nats at it for another year, to further ruin this country, on supposed “growth” largely based on an earthquake rebuild, on increased immigration to boost the labour force and consumer demand, to allow middle and upper class home owners use their equity to borrow more, to spend on consumer goods or more properties, to “develop” their wealth portfolio.

    The cart must already stick deep in the mud, when Auckland’s Deputy Mayor does in a moment of despair at the housing un-affordability crisis, not solved with these “Special Housing Areas” only offering about 9 percent of “affordable” homes for first time buyers, make an appeal for “cross party dialogue” to solve it.

    She has no more answers, shallow Len has no more answers, the government does not give a shit, and now houses in Auckland sell for three quarters a million on average.

    Increased migration keeps wages down, and pushed up demand for consumption, cheap petrol keeps the government in a situation where they do get away with not doing much to address climate change, milk auction prices dropped ten per cent again last week, a Nelson mussel farmer warns about a crisis in their industry, as a consequence of climate change.

    Leave them to it a bit more, and when the unemployment rate will soon go up again, when people cannot afford to even rent a home anymore, then the explosion may just be around the corner, and Labour may get appeal with a truly alternative program and message, rather re-warmed Blairite crap, I think.

    No, Mr Cullen, you had your time, most of the time you were an apologist, we do not need your advice, thank you!

    • Apologists !!!!

      Yes ! Yes ! Yes ! A thousand times YES!

      THIS , – is what its all about !

      Lukewarm , dishwater ‘ don’t rock the boat ‘ apologists !

      And we’ve all had enough of them as we all have to watch the house of New Zealand burn to ashes .

      Enough of this , I say !!!

      Enough !!!

  9. We need anyone with talent on the opposition we can get, as most are so ineffective or brain dead today in Parliament.

    Just watch question & answer and debate where the speaker David Carter just shuts opposition down but lats Key cronies all dribble on and on.

    At least Michael Cullen used all mechanisms to shut down National speaker Lockwood Smith when in 2009 that type of speaker over reach begun with the first speaker of the house who resigned for an overseas appointment later.

    Cullen sure did have a long memory of proper correct protocol that he would recite to the speaker which left Lockwood Smith umbfounded for any response and he would have wiped the floor with David carter the little slime ball.

  10. There’s been a lot of big words used by some here, which quite frankly, does not help clarify what’s been going on and what’s happening now.
    Having listen to Michael Cullen in the house and listening in now and then in recent times I am left wondering where the talent has gone!
    But we seem a long way away from the 1960’s that I remember as an egalitarian time. We had only two “so-called” rich streets in our whole city. Everyone had a job and while the people I knew where not wealthy, most Mums stayed at home looking after the children while Dads earned a living wage. State Advances helped me into my first house. Then gradually, mainly under national Governments, it got stripped away. It seems to me the downturn started with Rob Muldoons micro-managing of the economy and his think big projects. Which later gave rise to a few buying them up and stripping them. A couple of those people now live in Singapore and doing very nicely thank-you. John Keys time has seen even worse trends. Next election he will leave behind a huge mess of the sort Muldoon left behind for a Labour Government to deal with.

Comments are closed.