Quitting spots on popular Radio stations appears to have become a new sport amongst some women.
Several days ago I posted about Â the leaking skull Unite Union general secretary Robert Reid’s incoherent utterances about Israel:
â€śNew Zealand does have to have a stronger line, and makeâ€¦absolutely say that whatâ€™s happening in Gaza is just beyond the pale. I mean, 1500 people dead already, 9000 injured, people locked in as David Shearer said, basically an open air prison and just being bombed every day of the week since this campaignâ€™s been on. New Zealand has to step up and say more and part of saying more is to get over this thing about saying on one hand Israel, on one hand Hamas, the brutality, the war crimes that are happening are happening from the Israeli side and Israel has to be made to account for what is happeningâ€ťÂ
It seems pretty obvious where his uneducated diatribe is coming from, straight from the cranium of the Council of
Trade Terrorist Unions (CTU) president Helen Kelly. Anyone that states that the war crimes are coming from one side and one side only has either been sitting in front of Al Jazeera all day or being fed misinformation from somebody else. Surely there has to be nothing more embarrassing in public than repeating something that someone else has told you that is patently wrong (think Winston Peters). Read more »
You can tell the election is nearing and the left is in trouble when Annette King and her cheerleader Ian Powell of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (their union in plain language) team up on RNZ to pour out co-ordinated criticisms with ridiculous claims of ponzi schemes, another novopay and â€ś crisisâ€ť.
Unions horror of a third term for the Nats has seen the Executive of the Association of Senior Drs (ASMS) under Mr Powell totally abandon any pretence of political independence or impartiality, and insert themselves into the CTU/PSA/ Labour/Green attack machine.
But I donâ€™t think their busy hardworking membership of Senior Doctors quite know this.
A – Helen Clark,Â personal donation
B – Don Pryde, EPMU president, on behalf of EPMU
C – Helen Kelly – CTU president,Â personal donation
Pick David Cunliffe's two "secret" donors!
- Don and Helen (B & C) (57%, 803 Votes)
- Helen and Helen (A & C) (25%, 358 Votes)
- Helen and Don (A & B) (18%, 248 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,409
You have to wonder why things like this get tweeted, it gives us a clear idea about the cosy relationship between the Labour party and the unions…not only do they command a strong vote in Labour’s leadership contests, but they are also paying well for that privilege.
Now Trevor Mallard is issuing instructions to his proxies in the union for voting come the election.
@helenkellyCTU with voting for 2 weeks b4 Election Day maybe unions can encourage members to vote early + together – maybe during lunchbreak
â€” Trevor Mallard (@TrevorMallard) May 18, 2014
The left is in disarray as Shane Jones edges towards the exit door. There is still a month of this while Jones still sits in parliament and there isn’t a thing Labour can do as commentators and journalists pick through the entrails of an eviscerated Labour party.
Shane Jone’s controversial departure has exposed divisions in the Labour Party, with opinion split on his qualities as an MP and the impact it will have on election prospects.
Supporters say he broadened Labour’s appeal while critics say he was overrated and the party is better off without him.
Left-wing political scientist and commentator Dr Bryce Edwards said the split has been apparent in the wave of commentary in mainstream and social media since the news broke.
“You’ve got a lot of people debating about whether he was a plus or a minus for Labour, whether he was a working class hero for Labour and whether he attracted that so-called blue collar vote, and whether he was a misogynist.”
Edwards labelled it an “identity politics dispute”.
“People are really talking about what Labour stands for and with Jones going does that mean that Labour has more or less ability to speak to so-called middle New Zealand and to traditional Labour voters? And there doesn’t seem to be any strong consensus on that.”
Former Labour MP John Tamihere said Jones represented a Labour constituency that was increasingly being sidelined as interest groups gained greater control.
“The real debate isn’t about Shane Jones, it’s about certain sector groups in Labour having far too much say in advance, well in advance of their constituencies in the street.”
The party was becoming dominated by “liberal academic elites” more focused on social engineering issues such as the so-called anti-smacking law than issues such as creating jobs which had a broader voter appeal, he said.
Jones had “cut through” on the latter, earning support for his campaign against the Countdown supermarket chain, where his accusations of bullying of suppliers led to a Commerce Commission inquiry, as well as his pro-development stance. Tamihere said he reached out to voters turned off by factional politics.
Former Labour candidate Josie Pagani agreed, saying those in the party who had rejoiced in Jones leaving “are guilty of sectarianism at its worst”.
The division in the party was between those focused on social mobility and those focused on social engineering – “we’ll make you better off versus we’ll make you a better person,” she said.
The Labour Party was there to support wage earners and promote better jobs and higher wages “and that’s the thing that unites everybody”.
Given the dire situation of Labour’s leadership and state of the party at the moment, they have been needing nothing short of a miracle to turn the polls around from the reverse momentum they have been currently experiencing under the leadership of David Cunliffe. One thing that I have seen echoing from this blog to social media to talkback radio is the apparent lack of policy, which almost seems to be replaced entirely by attack politics. Two days ago Labour leader David Cunliffe released a policy that they probably thought was a ‘game changer’, unfortunately it was exposed to have more holes than a block of swiss cheese outside a rat hole.
Stuart Nash yesterday went on the offensive explaining away as to why the policy was a winner, as he responded to a reader:
I have also worked in the forestry and wood processing industry, and it is an example of a sector of the NZ economy that has so underperformed as a result of massive underinvestment in value-added processing. You say you know what the problems are, but you don’t list any… I am suspecting that you don’t really know.
I would have thought the problems were pretty obvious to someone that has worked in the forestry and wood processing industry. For the last 10 – 15 years sawmills around the country have been closing down. Why is that? It is because the overseas market wants raw logs. You meet that market, or you lose it. They don’t want our sawn timber, and Labour’s policy will squeeze New Zealand out of the international market resulting in even bigger unemployment. There is only so much sawn timber the local market will absorb, Â and no half thought out idea of only constructing buildings under four storeys out of timber or the Christchurch rebuild will save this policy from failure. The silly part is it would be still optional to builders/construction firms as to the materials they used as it wouldn’t be implemented by force, in effect making the policy a dead duck and a waste of time. To suggest Â that part of the economy is under performing as a result of lack of investment is foolhardy: the demand isn’t there, so neither is the investment. If private investment won’t do it, that suggests the market isn’t there and it is bad business. You know, like subsidising large car manufacturers.
Nashy didn’t much like Mike Hoskings comments on it either,
If Hosking’s commentary was based on a reasoned analysis of Labour’s forestry policy then he would be taken seriously, but as per usual, he doesn’t let the truth get in the way of misinformed bile. He is articulate and intelligent, but he absolutely has an ideological axe to grind. That’s what makes him dangerous.
And it was pretty obvious as to why he took exception, as Hosking meticulously picked the policy to pieces like a vulture to expose the bare bones of what an incompetent idea it would be.
The other significant problem was that on one hand you have CTU President Helen Kelly screaming from her office that forestry death rates are too high, the government is doing nothing to fix it, while on the other hand you have David Cunliffe wanting to create more jobs to get people off welfare and into one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. How many lazy slackers are going to want to do hard forestry work, let alone avoid getting tangled with a chainsaw or have their block knocked off by a flying log due to inattention, being stoned or hungover from the night before. It is not the kind of job that accommodates Â slackers, halfwits, poor time keepers Â or self inflicted long weekends.
What does Helen have to say about it? Nothing. Not a peep, not a whisper, not a murmur.
It is much like the manufactured ‘manufacturing crisis’, this policy simply does nothing but provide bad solutions to non existent problems. Â If this policy was David Cunliffes big ‘game changer’ policy, he’s in for a rough campaign. Wait for the next round of musical chairs on the Labour front bench.
If Labour got in and implemented this policy the forest owners and logging contractors in Russia, Washington State and Oregon will be laughing all the way from the side of the hill to the port with double the capacity of raw logs for export.
It has never been a strong point of CTU President Helen Kelly to stick to facts and avoid spin, but to ignore and manipulate the facts and accuse others of spin is downright revolting and dishonest. One has to laugh at her comment though, as she couldn’t make it sound more applicable to her if she tried.
A bit later she goes on to whip out her damning stats to slay the mother of any argument, but whoops, they don’t quite work in favour of her argument.
Via the tip-line
The new CEO of the BSC, Lillian Small, has once again been smacked in the arse by her boss El Presidente Patrick Lee-Lo.
This time Paddy has gone ahead and undermined any â€śnew memberâ€ť initiatives Lillian Small may have hoped to run, by declaring his support for the Living Wage campaign in the cleaning industry mag InClean. The SFWU and CTU must have been in the ear of Paddy over the Christmas holidays, re-educating him on his union roots.
Itâ€™s not online, but a member of the Fish Gang has scanned it and sent it in via the tip-line.
In a typical scumbag union tactic, Paddy blames the customer/client for not paying a Living Wage to their cleaners.
While the unions will be ecstatic with Paddy, whatâ€™s the bet BSC members getting tucked for $20k a year will be less than enthused at El Presidenteâ€™s comments. Â Read more »
Youâ€™ve got to hand it to troughersÂ Helen KellyÂ andÂ Phil Oâ€™Reilly. Following some public expressions ofÂ doubtÂ Â ‘what the f*ks going onâ€™Â by Judith Collinâ€™s last year, andÂ some digging round by the Taxpayersâ€™ Union, ACC, the CTU and Business NZ saw the writing on the wall with theirÂ nice little money earner. Â So what did they do? Â Quickly extended the contract before it all went public!
Despite the ACC telling media yesterday that it decided ‘late last year’ to can the programme, we learned this morning that the contracts were renewed in December. The end date is nowÂ 31 December 2014.
It appears that ACC only changed its tune since theÂ Taxpayers’ UnionÂ publicly exposed the rort.
Remember, itâ€™s not theÂ Taxpayersâ€™ UnionÂ who labelled the training scheme a waste of money, itâ€™s ACCâ€™s own experts. Telling the public that they will scrap the scheme but waiting for the new contracts to expire is not good enough. They conveniently failed to mention that the contracts have just been renewed…Â Read more »