I bet you didn’t know that New Zealanders are really just a bunch of socialists.
John Key said we are, so it must be true.
According to Wikileaks cables in the media today John Key met with visiting charge d’affaire Glyn Davies in 2008 and told him National could not adopt conservative policies because a “socialist streak” runs through all New Zealanders.
Next time Alan Peachy rails against Labour as “those socialists” in one of his raving speeches in the house (which always reduce me to fits of laughter), I will enjoy reminding he has a socialist streak too.
More on wikileaks in the media here.
Tis true sadly. How else can you explain Labour’s current polling numbers being so high if it wasn’t?
@Just Right – if it’s not true, then why did JK say it?
Darien – did JK say that NZers are a just a bunch of socialists? Of course not. So why do you claim that he did?
What he did say, apparently, if the cables are to be believed, is that there’s a socialist streak running through NZers. Isn’t that true, and blindingly obvious to most?
I’ve commented, ad nauseam, that I believe that most NZers support a welfare state, which is a socialist-like construct. I certainly do, although I’ll be voting Nat in the election. What the majority don’t support is the provision of lifetime support for the lazy and feckess. There’s a huge difference.
JK could equally have said that there’s a strong Christian streak running through NZ. Most of us aren’t regular church goers, but many of our social norms are based around Christian values.
Rather than using this ‘revelation’ as the attempt to score a few points the Labour hierarchy should use it as the opportunity to reflect. JK has recognised that the majority of NZers don’t wholeheartedly support his views, and has acknowledged that he can’t impose them on the population and is therefore stearing a more consenual path.
Perhaps his current popularity has something to do with this approach? Perhaps Labour’s corresponding unpopularity is down to a fear that, should you come to power again, we’d be treated to extremism which pays no regard to the views of any but a small minority?
What I imagine he was saying in a less eloquent form was that NZ has detrimental embedded welfare that is damaging our society and may take a generation or more to reform.
Be ready for an onslaught of right wing saboteurs Darien.
@Darien, there are socialists and then there are SOCIALISTS. One is about fairness, the other is about envy. ‘Big’ socialists have their hands in other peoples pockets (Labour Policy) little socialists like to help each other and do so regularly without question or recognition, but they also like people to help themselves as much as possible, and fundamentally don’t like being legislated and told what to do.
@Anne – thanks for reminding me about this little gem in the paper today!
@Dave – no you tell me. I believe in fairness.
@George – a bit sensitive about the :”s” word perhaps?
Darien – not at all.
I’m happy to acknowledge that my current beliefs contain strands from a wide range of different sources, Socialism included.
Would it not also be true to say that there are significant ‘conservative’ or ‘capitalist’ streaks running through our society? I think so. But would Phil G or anyone else in the Labour hierarchy be strong enough to admit it, and having done so to allow it to moderate any extreme plans they had?
@Dave – I’m presuming you see yourself as a little socialist then?
If it is true that “all New Zealanders” have a “socialist streak” running through them, and it must be true because the Prophet of Parnell said it, and we must not question the Prophet, then that must mean Don Brash, Roger Douglas, Roger Kerr, John Banks, and old Johnboy himself, are closet scoialists. How come this amazing revelation is not on the front page?
@jennifer – nice – you made me lol.
Jennifer – I think there is a basis for what you say about John Key. Otherwise he would have been far more pro active in reversing the disastrous policies of the last Labour Government eg WFF, Interest Free Sturdent Loans, Buying Train Sets etc. which are dragging this country down.
Hopefully after the 26 November he will acknowledge the mandate he has been given by the voters and get stuck into making New Zealand a productive country rather than a socialist welfare state it has become.
@pdm : good luck with that one.
@Darien – see http://bit.ly/nIuFql – JK willingly admits to the comment and that it shows we are a caring nation. It makes it rather hard to paint the Nats as the ultra right wing monster when their policies are so obviously based on socially aware conservatism.
It seems that more of us like the caring attitude delivered with a clear platform for growth and economic development rather than a continuation of a failed welfare state policy that creates dependency and restricts growth. Caring with hope perhaps?
It must be hard for the left to see positive, popular policies of the centre right being so willingly accepted around the world in a way that shows so clearly a dislike of failed left wing policies of the past. People prefer to be seen by politicians for what they can do and could be rather than having welfarism and dependency forced on them because politicians assume they are not capable of any more than that.
darrenw: you have your ‘gullible’ shades on again. Now what words did I use to describe Key earlier today? That’s right, slithers and slides…
John Key cares? Lol. He takes from the poor and gives to the rich which includes himself of course. With the help of his cohorts he removes all the ladders so that the poorer and more vulnerable members of our society have less chance to ‘better’ themselves. Then, he and his cohorts introduce policies that will punish them for being poor and vulnerable and not bettering themselves.
Ahhh yes, John Key cares alright!
oh dear darrenw, you have your ‘gullible’ shades on again. Now what words did I use to describe Key earlier today? That’s right, slithers and slides…
John Key cares? Lol. He takes from the poor and gives to the rich which includes himself of course. With the help of his cohorts he removes all the ladders so that the poorer and more vulnerable members of our society have less chance to ‘better’ themselves. Then, he and his cohorts introduce policies that will punish them for being poor and vulnerable and not bettering themselves.
Ahhh yes, John Key cares alright!
Dear moderator,
I had trouble getting my comment up on this thread. Could you please delete one of them. Thank-you.
Trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of people to pay for it. Every time my accountant sends me an outrageous bill I feel all warm and fuzzy that it is covering his student loan. Every time we go into repaint a wrecked rental property we thank the lord that the welfare state is giving us more work.
The quote from the article from John Key that is utterly characteristic is this. When asked about the phrase in the diplomatic cable…
Key said he could vaguely remember the meeting and said his comment was during a discussion about very right-wing policies.
Difficulties with his memory, it’s like the time had memory issues after the release of ‘Hollow men’. Amazing.
And New Zealand does have a socialist streak – Look at Steven Joyce – rushing corporate welfare through for Telecom with the Broadband deal and giving Radio Works a loan in the millions. That’s Steve Joyce looking out for his old comrades. What a socialist.
@David – you poor man.
Damn it, I thought I had been feeling a bit under the weather, and wondering why I have not been improving. I’ve caught a bad dose of socialism. Highly contagious, and of course some people get it much worse than others, but even my mild dose is crippling. It is obvious of course who gets “socialism” worse. For these people it must be utterly debilitating. They are unable to work, they moan, and rely on others for their income. The worst succeeded are of course the unionists, and the beneficiaries.
Symptoms include wanting to spend other people’s money, total lack of self responsibility, envy of all who do better, hatred of rich pricks, and the most obvious sign – voting for Labour, or in severe cases voting for Greens.
Oh well the good news is that NZis recovering after decades of this epidemic which has struck NZ down and was especially bad from 1999 to 2008. we are building up immunity to this disease called “socialism” as is proven by the current polling of the left parties. By November is will only afflict about 1 in 5 people.
Monty admits to having socialism!
!
@ Sean
Given that both the Telecom and Mediaworks deals require repayment of loans, in what way are they socialist?
Am particularly interested in you fact base for the assertion that awarding the UFB/RBI contracts to Chorus equal ‘corporate welfare’ when the government isn’t incurring risk under either proposal.
@Anne please outline the policies that will drive the outcomes you seem to think will “remove the ladder” – the implemented or proposed policies of the government are strengthening this ladder for those genuinely interested in personal and community development far more effectively than the tax and spend welfarism endured in the past and proposed by the opposition.
Drop the ideology and look at reality, practicality and pragmatism
The same old bull from the right. Growing the economy? Labour did, National isn’t and won’t. People on Welfare? Labour reduced unemployment, National has increased it hugely and has no clues on job creation. Privatisation? We’re now paying almost double what we were before and are now being told we’ll have to pay for upgrading the system in advance. National has no social conscience, it’s the greedy greasing the palms of the greedier.
@marsman –
@marsman your selective memory is doing you no favors. We have got through the worst global economic situation and a large natural disaster extremely well. Power prices rose more under Labour than they have under National, We are seeing growth now as national’s policies take hold and we escape the legacy of Labour policies.
Unemployment numbers have more to do with the global economy and the earthquake than they do macroeconomic policy. With the old policy platform we would have been a lot worse off. Stop hiding behind the glory days of a strong global economy and face the facts – tax and spend bankrupts countries – full stop.
@ darrenw. Where is the growth you are seeing? In the pockets of the rich?
George W – when did the government turn into a Bank for corporations?
Steven Joyce let a bill to MediaWorks for $43million ride. Why, MediaWorks is a private corporation, why should they not pay what is due when it’s due? What inspired Joyce’s to give the outfit that owns his old company Radioworks a sweetheart deal?
On Broadband – Joyce lied about his communications with Telecom prior to the awarding of the one and half Billion dollars. Joyce’s decision was a sweetheart deal for Telecom, clearly demonstrated by the market at the time. Joyce entirely stitched it up for Telecom, including changing the law for them. And I say Joyce because the process he used was extremely flawed.
From Joyce according to his means, to each accord to their greed.
@Marsman – growth is across an entire economy not just a section of it and we all benefit. Welfarism is taking from the rich and giving it away for no productive gain. It seems you either do not understand macroeconomics or would prefer to see the country follow the likes of Spain down the road of bankruptcy.
I just don’t get socialism. The wealth of the world is not like a finite sized cake to be divided up in equal portions. Wealth is created by making something useful or providing a needed service to others. It has nothing to do with money. Money is just a token to represent how much wealth you have been responsible for creating.
Unless governement is involved; rich people are rich because they’ve generated more wealth. Either they created the wealth, or were given it by someone else that created it (parents etc). If we eliminated all rich people everyone would be poorer, not better off.
It is only when governments get involved that people who do not generate wealth get wealthy. It’s only with the threat of force that people who generate wealth have that wealth taken and given to others who do not. I’m not just talking about welfare either. It can equally apply to rich bankers being bailed out or prefential contracts being awarded to people with special interests in the governent (look at Dick Cheney in the Bush administration). It’s only ever with government help that the underserving get rich. And socialists want to give all the power to governments?
Oh Anne, just because someone has a different point of view than you or yours, it doesn’t make them wrong. You don’t have to be such a hater all the time you know.
I just don’t get socialism. The wealth of the world or a country is not like a finite sized cake to be divided up in equal portions. Wealth is created by making something useful or providing a needed service to others. It has nothing to do with money. Money is just a token to represent how much wealth you have been responsible for creating.
Unless governement is involved; rich people are rich because they’ve generated more wealth. Either they created the wealth, or were given it by someone else that created it (parents etc). If we eliminated all rich people everyone would be poorer, not better off.
It is only when governments get involved that people who do not generate wealth get wealthy. It’s only with the threat of force that people who generate wealth have that wealth taken and given to others who do not. I’m not just talking about welfare either. It can equally apply to rich bankers being bailed out or prefential contracts being awarded to people with special interests in the governent (look at Dick Cheney in the Bush administration). It’s only ever with government help that the underserving get rich. And socialists want to give all the power to governments?
Oh Anne, just because someone has a different point of view than you or yours, it doesn’t make them wrong. {deleted, likely to lead to disorder, Grant}
@darrenw – speaking of Spain, our youth unemployment rate is following in their fine footsteps under National.
Great job (oh, wait, no job!)
Glad to see you are a firm believer in the trickle down theory of lord knows what…
Always knew Key was a dirty Red !
Not to mention that big, soft, namby-pamby, bed-wetting, liberal-lefty, Brash.
@Tim Our youth unemployment rate is symptomatic of losing youth rates and a flagging (but surviving) economy that sheds jobs for the least experienced first. We are in a position to recover – something we should all be grateful to the government for – Spain isn’t.
@ darrenw. Where is the growth over the entire economy, is it just round the corner?
Welfare is NOT taking from the rich, it is taken from a common fund that we all contribute to and given to those who find themselves unwaged.
Darien, you still haven’t acknowledged George’s original point.
{balance deleted. Do not tell lies. You are in moderation, you will be banned if you keep this up, Grant}
It’s true what they say about the censorship here.
Did Key say we are a “bunch of socialists” or not? Because that is what the Darien states.
Some (not I as I wouldn’t want a ban) might construe Darien’s statement as a lie.
[You'll get a ban if you keep arguing with the moderators. Final warning - Chris]
John must have developed his socialist streak during the several weeks spent in a state house in his formative years.
I know this, as I keep hearing about how he is a product of the NZ welfare state.
I am sure his keeps his socialist streak well-polished, as he relaxes in his US holiday home/ his European flat/ his Auckland mansion/ Premier House. Glad to know he is still one of us.
@ Sean
Probably a bit late on the thread but in response;
George W – when did the government turn into a Bank for corporations?
Steven Joyce let a bill to MediaWorks for $43million ride. Why, MediaWorks is a private corporation, why should they not pay what is due when it’s due?
I assume you mean Gregor W
The govt has always acted informally as a ‘bank’ when it chooses to defer payments, levies, market risk etc. for longer term gain.
This happens frequently and is not at all unusual; the buyback of AirNZ, NZRail, any business who comes to terms with the IRD over tax bills in arrears or the best example, Kiwibank.
What inspired Joyce’s to give the outfit that owns his old company Radioworks a sweetheart deal?
No idea. Again, I don’t see a loan as ‘sweetheart’. It is to be paid back with interest I understand. Does that make my mortgage a ‘sweetheart deal’ with my bank?
On Broadband – Joyce lied about his communications with Telecom prior to the awarding of the one and half Billion dollars. Joyce’s decision was a sweetheart deal for Telecom, clearly demonstrated by the market at the time. Joyce entirely stitched it up for Telecom, including changing the law for them. And I say Joyce because the process he used was extremely flawed.
Your first point is a matter of conjecture. I understand Clare Curran has submitted a request to the Speaker for information so I’m sure this will come out in the wash.
Also, it’s not 1.5bn for Telecom. It covers both RBI (Vodafone + Chorus) and UFB (Chorus + other Regional Fibre companies).
Please advise how the market has recognised UFB as a ‘sweetheart deal’. Are you a stock analyst? Have any analysts noted it as a sweetheart deal (generally meaning a deal without risk) for Telecom? Could it be that TEL stock has been significantly undervalued and that regulatory security and participation in UFB has provided stability?
Joyce had to change the Communications Act to allow Telecom to split. This is not nefarious. It is the law. Without a change to the Act, Telecom would have been prohibited from being involved in UFB in any way by the structure of the company (operational rather than structural separation) in order to meet the government’s requirements. So in effect, you’re blaming the government for making a law change that allows Telecom to meet the governments requirements arounf full arms length trading. Which makes no sense.
And what basis do you use for your assertation that the process was extremely flawed? Were you involved in either the tendering process or negotiation? Do you understand the details?
Or as I suspect, are you merely parroting the party line as as put forth by C. Curran (generally extremely inaccurate – something which I have challenged her on numerous occasions, as yet not response) without any actual knowledge.
You’ve been given several warnings. Now you are banned for being offensive and trolling. Clare