Why don't the gutless hard right put Alan Gibbs money where Muriel Newman's mouth is?
What a sad, sad, sad gutless pack of wimps the Hard Right are! Those Cathy Odger acolytes, those Deborah Hill (desperately needing a) Cone sycophants, those Whaleoil wannabes - NONE of them can organise themselves into forming a new Hard Right Political Party - how embarrassing. Hone, Sue and Matt could organise a New Left Party, yet the hard right despite their 70 person meeting at Alan's sprawling mansion last year still can't organise themselves? Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave at the humiliation.
And don't tell me ACT is your party of choice, everyone knows National will slash Rodney's throat if his party vote can't lift above 1% which looks more and more likely now the Sensible Sentencing Trust is as damaged as that despicable David Garrett. The hypocrisy of ACT and the Sensible Sentencing Trust means they will not be able to gain the 3.6% they managed in 2008, sure rednecks are stupid but when their precious 'tough on crime' sensibilities are shown up to be a political joke they get all sulky.
David Farrar explained to me at the backbenchers predictions show in December that the right wing strategy for Epsom consists of telling Epsom voters if they don't vote for Rodney, Hone wins. What David is banking on is that Epsom voters hate Maori more than they hate sexist bullies, even if David's low assessment of Epsom voters is correct, Rodney can't use the Sensible Sentencing Trust to provide the bloated party vote, so Rodney suddenly becomes excess baggage.
ACT go bye bye now. Cathy Odgers will weep long and hard.
So the political landscape needs a new hard right party - surely amongst you climate denial nutters, you Coastal Coalition freaks who think Vikings settled NZ and the Free Marketeers who still hump the leg of Milton Friedman despite the recent economic collapse showing Free Market deregulated dogma works about as well as Paul Henry would as a race conciliator you can't organize yourselves into a new political party?
I've read your ridiculous blog sites and echo chambers, you all think you could get 5% as easily as launching Lindsey Perigo's new TV show (which is yet to find a sponsor), come on you right wingers, if you don't have the balls at least borrow a pair from Odgers (in a none gender specific type manner - i certainly don't wish to annoy the feminists).
If the Left in NZ can launch a new Party, how humiliating for the Right not to be able to.
Put Alan Gibbs money where Muriel Newman's mouth is.
posted by Bomber @ 7:40 am
6 comments
6 Comments:
Uhmmm...Bomber...there isn't a new left party...and if there was there wouldn't be a need for a new right party because the horses in the middle will run screaming from anything remotely connected to Sue Bradford, John Minto, Hone Harawira and Matt MCCarten are involved with...including Labour that would have to get in bed with them.
You are 1000% right Cam. Right now, there is no New Left Party. Right now.
btw - Minto isn't a candidate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"If the Left in NZ can launch a new Party, how humiliating for the Right not to be able to. "
Since this seems to be the crux of your argument, that there is currently no New Left Party kinda takes the wind out of your sails.
Moreover, the existence of Libertarianz (for the free-marketeers) and Family First (for the conservatives), and the (possible) resurgence of NZ First seems to alleviate the need for a new right-wing party.
I guess what you meant, though, was "the Right suck for not creating a party that can get into parliament". But then your argument should go:
"If the Left in NZ can launch a new Party (that is represented in parliament), how humiliating for the Right not to be able to," in which case your argument is even weaker because we're yet to see what kind of popularity this as-yet-unformed Left Wing party even has (and despite your claims that all 300,000 or so beneficiaries have good reason to vote for them, Whale's point is far more convincing).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neo-liberalism is best defined as involving three elements: stabilisation, structural adjustment and export-led growth. The first involves fighting inflation through reducing the money supply, cutting public spending and raising interest rates. Structural adjustment involves imposing a functioning market economy in which the market determines the most efficient allocation of resources and the state plays a subsidiary role. Export-led growth is seen as the path to sustainable development and so the private sector is encouraged to diversify and find new markets for its exports. To facilitate this, barriers to trade on both exports and imports are greatly reduced. (See Duncan Green, Silent Revolution: The Rise of Market Economics in Latin America, London, LAB, 1995,pp.4,5.) In discussing neo-liberalism the following should be kept in mind...
"Neo- liberalism does not properly speaking constitute a body of theory which is original and coherent. This dominant ideology is composed principally of practical propositions, 'reinventing' liberalism but introducing formulations and proposals which are much closer to political conservatism and to the kind of social darwinism, and so far removed from liberal beliefs of the 20th century. Furthermore, these 'ingredients' are combined in different ways, thus producing many and varied neo-liberalisms".
...now NZers have seen what that 'change' actually meant see their role in a kawanatanga-governance context with 'whoever' leads "whatever" government for the benefit of maori and the gains for them have been many.Whanau Ora, and there have been costly compromises whanau ora is much reduced the minimum wage too low the 3 month window to sack these employees is unfair and of course the creme de la creme tax cuts for the rich and a rise in gst favours the rich.The Maori are the tangata whenua-the people of the land-and have therefore a moral right and precedence in Aotearoa.That right has been ignored and trampled on by the Pakeha, who have progressively partly by force of arms but much more by trickery bribery and legal and financial chicanery dispossessed the tangata whenua of their birthright (the land) the argument over land which is at the heart of the 200,000 words THE MATRIARCH and goes back to the beginnings of European settlement in N.Z and the simple part of it is that although Pakeha have progressively acquired land they have always argued amongst themselves about the rights and wrongs of that and many Pakeha sympathise with the view which is taught in schools today that the Maori have been shamefully dispossessed imposing upon them a law a culture a religion a system of values an education and a language alien to their own.Justice demands recompense and a reversal of this process.
Looked at in detail this 'simple' image of N.Z history is a "long, slow rape".And is at best a half-truth.Especially insofar as it ascribes conscious and malicious intent to the Pakeha and unwillingness to the Maori.
We may have killed with muskets sale of more than use of with European diseases with money with intermarriage -even 'with kindness'...
...and I begin to suspect and it is also I think no favour to any homogeneous group to foster its collective paranoia since the film of history can't be re-run to suit the modern liberal sympathetic values of the government that declares it must compensate where past wrongs are clearly manifest...
...the most deadly weapon in the European armoury being its liberal conscience...
...N.Z now resounds with the rhythmic stamp of the haka, the swirl of grass skirts and the twirl of the poi and the knock of the wood-carvers hammer and the tirelessly repeated wail of the karanga...
Post a Comment
<< Home