International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Labour thinks we’re all stupid’

Buying Power

So if the left believe that a party receiving lots of large donations is being bought by special interests, why exactly do they take so much?

  • Labour got $431,917 in big donations. Their biggest individual donor was the Vela Family who gave them $100k. The unions gave $117,500 and individuals (mainly from arts/culture sector) gave $134,830. Also a total of $60,000 from corporates and lobby groups, $10,587 from Helen Clark and $9,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission.
  • Greens were 4th largest for total big donations on $184,693. These were all individual donations with MPs putting in 70,725 and others $114,238.

So I guess “let’s get the big money out of politics” really meant “let’s get the big money out of our opponent’s pockets”?

Thank goodness we got rid of those corrupt bastards. Imagine the damage to this country had their power play worked – it’s absolutely unthinkable. I mean, what would they have done the next time around having gotten away with that?

Like they say, governments and nappies should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Labour: Shut the poor out of good schools

Today in the news:

Mr Morris said these regulations had pushed up the value of “Grammar zone” homes, and had caused a drop in the percentage of Maori and Pacific Island students at the school.

He said that figure was now 3.5 per cent; it was about 10 per cent when he joined the school in 1993.

You’d think this was an unintended consequence – you’d be wrong.

…Under National’s policy a child could get turned away from the school next door in favour of a talented athlete [or a talented pupil] from the other side of town. That is fundamentally flawed. Labour’s policy means schools have to cater for local students before letting students from outside their area in. Parents do not have to send their children to the local school – but they must have that right.

Labour’s policy has meant that the only way to get your child into a top school is to live in the zone. That means that top schools have the demand, pushing up the value of houses as parents rush for a guranteed place, pushing the poor out.

Now, previously,  you could live next door to a school and not be able to get in. Can you see a poor but talented student being in that situation?

You woudn’t think that pushing the poor into poor quality services would be a Labour policy, but in this case, it’s all about “being fair” over rewarding excelence.

Turns out, a lot of their policy is like that.

Helplessness, by Labour

Whaleoil has found a new website by the Labour party, which is part of their campaign to embarrass the government over dropping the Labour/Green housing insulation scheme.

They have this sorry tale.

Simon and Jane live with their two teenage children in a house in Wainuiomata, Wellington. In many ways theirs is a typical Kiwi home – a single level weatherboard house in a pleasant street which catches plenty of sun. But when the weather turns cold so does their house.
Simon says: “Keeping the house warm is a constant battle in winter … we camp out in the lounge.”
It is very expensive to heat houses, he says. “I know of people’s power bills that are horrendous … $600 a month.”

One can only assume their house is is cold because they don’t use heaters at all.

If they did, perhaps then they could quote their own power bill.

Jane says she has to provide jumpers for her friends to wear when they come to visit.
“I know insulation makes a huge difference. I have a friend who lives in a Housing Corp house which has just been insulated. It was always cold and impossible to heat and now the whole house is warm. It has really changed their lives. Instead of sitting around feeling Third World-like they are nice and cosy,” she says.

Labour’s deliberately kept it ambiguous as to whether or not this unlucky couple own their own home.

But either way, their only solution to this problem is to sit around an marvel at the insulation installed in a government-owned house.

  • If they rented, they don’t seem to have bothered looking at the costs of moving to an insulated house.\
  • If they own, they haven’t looked at getting quotes to insulate their house. Pink Batts can be purchased for about $120 a bale (much cheaper on Tradme) and placed a ceiling space with very little trouble. There are several companies who will put insulation in your walls for a reasonable fee like this one.
  • You can even do it yourself. But I guess that involves a very difficult and lengthy Google search – perhaps the government should be supplying people with computers so they can do that? Don’t state houses come with built in Google searching?

But there is not even a hint that they might take responsibility for their own living arrangements by pursuing options like these.

Simon completed an adult apprenticeship in building in 2008 just as the building market started to slow. He says: “If something could be done that would be great, for people living in cold houses and for a lot of people in the building industry, like myself, who are struggling to find work.”

Now we know that this is a jack up. The guy’s finished a building apprenticeship and is now presumably a fully-qualified builder, yet he’s still not able to put insulation into his own house.

(Let alone my oft-quoted point that no self-respecting builder is going to find fulfillment in pushing various recycled materials into wall cavities all day.)

I just noticed another thing too:

Here’s the couple that Labour shows us.

Here’s the couple that private companies show us.

Heck, those people who paid to get their house insulated look so much happier than the ones that just got Phil Goff to come and explain that “National is Evil”.

I guess “Go” beats “Goff”.

Update: And here’s a nice picture of a political-studies-lecturer-turned-politician-for-life explaining to a fully qualified (yet helpless) builder how insulation works.

Here’s Phil’s CV in case I missed his qualifications for this particular task. Maybe someone else can spot them?

1968-74 Worked seasonally as a freezing worker

1975-78 Lectured in political studies at University of Auckland

1980-81 Worked as an organiser for the Insurance Workers Union

1981-90 MP for Roskill

1984-90 Minister of the Crown – portfolios included Housing, Environment, Employment, Tourism, Youth Affairs, Education

1991-93 Lectured in political studies at Auckland Institute of Technology.

1993-96 MP for Roskill

1996-99 MP for New Lynn, Opposition Spokesperson on Justice, Courts & Corrections

1999- MP for Mt Roskill

Minister of Foreign Affairs & Trade

Minister of Justice

Front Bench Member

Gentlemen, Start your Thesaurus

There’s a word at the tip of my tongue, but I can’t remember it.

See, The Standard is complaining that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (NZ Branch) known as The National Party and Associates (Herald, Sensible Sentencing et al) are running a “Death by a Thousand Cuts” campaign against Helen Clark’s glittering (glittering I tell you) legacy.

(Now, this in spite of this very blog removing the pages of material indexing Kiwiblog showing years of less than stellar actions on behalf of our revered former PM.)

Now, I think I have a pretty good memory of the last 10 years (among my other delusions) and I have one thing to say about that.

It’s a small thing that made it’s way into every single Labour Party statement for the first 7 years of Helen’s reign, without fail, still appearing less frequently after that.

“During the 1990s, the previous government…”

Update: Clarified the third paragraph

How useful is the nanny state?

No Right Turn attacks the opponents of the nanny state:

Complaining about the “nanny state” has been a key theme of National’s campaign, even if they have to make up things to complain about. But here’s something which might want to make people think. Tomorrow night is Guy Fawkes night (yes, when we celebrate an audacious attempted act of terrorism / enact a mindless anti-Catholic ritual / set things on fire for the hell of it). And for the second year in a row, fireworks will only be on sale for four days, only in packs, and only to over-18’s – a perfect example of Key’s “nanny state”. But as a result of this, my newspaper is completely empty of the “child loses eye to fireworks” stories we usually see. In fact, according to a Newstext search I just did, there have been no reported injuries so far (there has however been one dead horse).

Now, I’m a conservative. I’m not a libertarian. That means that I believe in a sensible, but minimal amount of regulation.

The problem people have with the nanny state is not regulation per se, but the fact that everything is regulated “for our own good”.

Yes, in the case of fireworks, I support this – it’s worked. It’s saved millions of dollars in fire callouts for starters. I blogged about this last year.

But why does the goverment find it nessessary to stop parents from smacking their children? Why does the goverment see fit to dictate how efficient my light bulbs must be, or how efficient my hot water must be?

The biggest looser if I have inefficient hot water is me, though higher bills. Ditto for lights. I have made it clear that I have in fact replaced all my light bulbs since starting this blog, purely because it saves me money. I am looking at my hot water now, but again, I am the direct looser if my system is inefficient.

Now, should a parent smack their child using reasonable force, there is actually by definition no harm whatsoever to anyone. At best, this saves 1 lawyer every two years from having to argue a case for child abuse. Of course, the fear is that this law will mean that good parents will be persecuted by CYFS and perhaps the police.

So state regulation can be beneficial, harmful, or just pushing people to do what they know is in their best interest.

Clearly if you get rid of the latter two categories, we would all be better off. But somehow the government doesn’t seem to trust us anymore to make simple decisions, even if those decisions make us better off. So instead of legislation covering problem areas, we have legislation in every possible area, needed or not.

Worse, every time people are not trusted to make a decision, the mentality that “someone else” should be responsible gets more ingrained, the expectation of “safety” from ill becomes greater. And the government finds yet another area there people are not doing what they are supposed to be, and we get another law.

That’s the nanny state. Treating adults like babies, removing decisions at every turn “because it’s for your own good”. Whether or not any given regulation works or not is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Labour’s Gaul is, as always, Unmitigated

“Labour’s environment spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said if National had the bills ready for introduction it should publish them now so the public could see exactly what it intended doing.

“If it has nothing to hide, it should show voters its bills,” Mr Mallard said.”

Um, that would be the party that has announced a “mini budget” for December without revealing any details.

Those Durn Rich People, they’re everywhere.

This is why I don’t read many lefty blogs.

” but what’s the bet the text poll favours the party whose voters are wealthy enough to:

a) be at home on a weekday evening,

b) own a cellphone, and

c) be in a position to piss away money on a phone poll?”

I never thought of being at home in the evenings as a sign of wealth. I’d have thought most high paying jobs often required long hours, while beneficiaries sat at home 24/7.

Nor do I know anyone who would consider the ability to own a cell phone as qualifying as “rich”. Don’t we actually have more cellphones than people in this country? Heck, while you’re at it, most TVs cost more than a cell phone, why not include that?

In fact, a quick check of Trade Me reveals a “as new” phone for a buy-now of $20.

Now, I wasn’t paying attention last night, but I’m guessing the poll was no more than $1.

So for $21 you could probably participate in this poll. (With most people already owning a phone, you could in fact vote 21x with that money.)

But to Labour supporters, having $21 to spend counts as “rich”.

Hm, come to think of it, doesn’t Labour want to tax “the rich”?

Maybe “the rich” is defined as “those who don’t vote Labour”. These days, that definition comes close to the group commonly known as “the general public”.

Pathetic, or Just Pathetic

The Standard respond to John and Bill’s identical response to their latest pathetic attack. (The both called it pathetic and left it at that.)

They, or Crosby|Textor, have obviously previously constructed a line. Just in case.

What they failed to mention is that that line about Crosby|Textor was written by Blue State Digital and tested on the public by UMR.

Then Helen signed off after consultation with Michael. They didn’t ask Mike, as he’d just lie to someone later about it.


Today Michael Cullen tried to imply that John Key’s employment in Merrill-Lynch meant that, because that company failed 8 years after he left, he was unfit to be PM.

Frankly, when Key called this for what it was – pitiful – I don’t think I’ve ever seen the guy with a wider grin. Key normally has a good grin, but he was laughing so hard at this bizare and desperate attack I was worried that he would require medical treatment.

In other news, several students failed an Otago chemistry* paper this year, meaning that Cullen must now resign as finance minister if he expects to maintain his personal integrity.

*Cullen was a history lecturer

Why is this even a question?

Indeed, why is it?

I don’t accept the characterization of Palin as a lightweight. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Palin is much of a lightweight as Obama.

This is still an incredibly easy question to answer.

If the choice is between a certain lightweight and the possibility of a lightweight, which would you choose?

If someone gave you a 100% chance of losing ten dollars, or the possibility of losing ten dollars, which would you choose?

If you were offered the choice of a) a certain punishment of having to read Andrew Sullivan for 24 straight hours, or b) the mere possibility of having to read his tripe for 24 agonizing hours, which would you choose?

Why is this even a question?

…Somehow, the Democrats have managed to convince some members of the public that this is Obama vs. Palin. But it’s not — and when the debates come around, that will be clear.

And Sarah Palin is going to absolutely mop the floor with Smarmy Joe Biden. If you want to see her in action in a debate, check out PrestoPundit’s video of the 2006 gubernatorial debate.

Excitable/hysterical pundits notwithstanding, this is not a woman without substance. And that’s the real answer to the commenter’s question. Sarah Palin is no “lightweight” anyway. So calm down and get ready to fill that bubble in for McCain-Palin.

Sounds like the debates are going to be great. I look forward to them.

But that’s not the stupidest spin that Obama is pushing, oh no. How stupid can he get?

This stupid:

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said.

Funny, that. Over the “last couple of years” is actually about how long Sarah Palin has been Governor of Alaska, not Mayor of Wasilla.

When I first saw that story linked on Drudge today, my immediate thought was: I bet Alaska has a larger budget and greater number of employees, by leaps and bounds. Luckily, the McCain camp was on the ball and had the same thought, and their retort is included in the version of the story above:

“It is a testament to Barack Obama’s inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin’s executive experience managing a budget of over $10 billion and more than 24,000 employees,” said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

What she’s too kind to say is that it is also a testament to Barack Obama’s honesty.

He knew exactly what he was doing when he gave that misleading little quote.

Andrew Sullivan has hardly been showering himself with glory either.

P.S. Speaking of executive experience, here’s our new favorite whipping boy Andy Sullivan:

People keep forgetting. McCain has little to no executive experience. He’s been a Congressman and Senator his whole career. He got the nomination by default.

First of all, that’s just a lie. The Republican nomination was a hard-fought battle, and as unbelievably stupid as Andrew Sullivan has been over the past few days, he surely knows this.

Love this aspect of the left, where they pretend that their opponents are less experienced than they really are. It tends to have nasty effects in the long run when someone discovers too late that they bought into their own propaganda.

Tag Cloud