Reclaiming the Left – by a Labour party member

I received this essay from a current Labour party member. It is someone I have not met but was able to verify who they were including their current occupation. Suffice to say they are a pinko, after having read this they are a pinko I could certainly enjoy sharing a beer with.

They have requested, at this time, anonymity. I have agreed.


liberal_crapReclaiming the Left

Caveat: I am a member of the Labour party so if you don’t want to read something by a filthy socialist, click away now.

Caveat 2: I sent this column here because I doubt the Standard would take it, and if they did, I’d be worried about anonymity.

The more I read, the more I hear, and the more I see, the more I think it is time to reclaim the left from the people that have taken it over. I am not talking about Waitakere Man. I am talking about getting rid of the hippies and “liberals” – I use quotes deliberately – that have taken over the left. The same people who have helped make the left almost unelectable, except in cases where the right shoots itself in the foot. If we weren’t dealing with an incompetent National government, we’d be facing losses in 2014 and 2017.

Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right is this: leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists believe that selfishness is morally right. As a leftist I obviously disagree that selfishness is ethical, but there are plenty of arguments out there (Ayn Rand being the most popular). The problem is that hippies and “liberals” have ignored this with their constant and distracting focus on individual rights, forgetting that individuals have a responsibility to the collective that outweighs those rights.

The classic example is unemployment. The right blows its dog whistle and talks about the bludging poor and people spending their dole on booze and ciggies. The left says “BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS”. I’m not going to criticism the idiocy of the rightists, because they’re rightists and don’t need any more criticism, but rather the leftists. Sure, there aren’t enough jobs, and the government needs to do something about it. But there are still plenty of people out there who aren’t merely unemployed, they are unemployable. There are people who blow their dole on booze and ciggies and won’t look for work. Leftists make excuses using fifty-cent words like hegemony and colonisation, ignoring the simple truth that as individuals we have the ability to overcome broader structural issues – all it takes is will and drive. We can’t all have a job, but we can all try our best to get one. And that’s what matters.

I often like to use the following thought experiment with my leftist friends. I am a big fan of work for the dole. I think there are plenty of opportunities to introduce a “Community Wage” alongside major public works projects. I think this can be done without distorting too many other markets too much (and if we do distort them, tough titties capitalists). When I talk to my left wing friends about it, you should hear the whinging.

“But what about their families?”

“Is it fair to put someone in some cabin in a logging camp?”

“How can they better themselves if they’re digging ditches?”

To which I say: so what? Real leftists ask themselves the following question: “What’s best for the collective (New Zealand)?” When you start getting into arguments that focus on the individual, you are using the same moral code as the rightists. And if you honestly believe in the sanctity of the individual to the extent that some hippies and “liberals” do, then if you’re intellectually honest you should become an Objectivist/Randian/Libertarian. Nothing annoys me more than half-wit “leftists” talking about liberalising cannabis reform and other things, then complaining about the free market. You can’t have one without the other – either you’re collectively minded or you aren’t.

Some of my leftist friends agree that we need work for the dole. I then ask them: “What if someone refuses to work?” The right often talks about the overhead costs of such schemes, and how much money is spent on enforcement. Well, it’s simple. If someone refuses to work, I say, they don’t get paid. Full stop. If someone is not willing to contribute to a stronger and better New Zealand, then we have no need for them.

Recent debate on the brain drain to Australia shows just how far the left has fallen. The right says Kiwis are leaving because they can earn more in Australia. The left agrees. What the left needs to do – David Shearer especially – is say this:

“If someone puts forty pieces of silver for themselves ahead of the contribution they can make to this country, then we don’t need them. Good riddance to the selfish.”

So, how can we reclaim the left? We can focus on what matters – as JFK put it “not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” We can institute welfare policies that focus on the collective good. We can build a strong army and police force, realising that our national identity relies on strong external and internal security. We can institute progressive economic policies in taxation that eliminate selfishness.

We can build a country where we think about others. And when we do that, when we throw the hippies and “liberals” onto the rubbish heap, we can reclaim the left. We can build a truly progressive political movement – not the homophobia of Waitakere Man and South Auckland Labour, but also not the “any cause in a storm” insanity of the Greens.

Reclaiming the left in this manner would, in my mind, bring many people over from National. There are many in National who deep down are collectivists. They need to come back.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Ronnie Chow

    Very cogent . I hope John Key reads this .

    • Ronnie Chow

      So that he can double the size of the Police and the Armed Forces , ‘force to work’ the last holdout dole bludgers and raise national consciousness away from the endemic ‘us and the natives co-existence’ mentality .

      • phronesis

        The problem is that the left fundamentally believe in redistribution of wealth by force (not altruism). If we had stronger State enforcement the Left would eventually use it to fulfill its aims.

        • Ronnie Chow

          “The problem is that the left fundamentally believe in redistribution of wealth by force” Surely taxes would come under that umbrella ? All governments need to build infrastructure .

          I think we need more Police , and better trained Police . 2 up everywhere they go . Plus a bit of compulsory Israeli style military training , 12 months mandatory .(for the Police as well)

          • phronesis

            Not really. You see the left would use the taxation system not just to build infrastructure for the good of all citizens but ideological reasons such as to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. They could change the law against the majorities wishes and then use the police to suppress any opposition. The problem is that the police in this country, particularly under the last Labour Govt, were to political.

        • Again – look it up. Altruism is most consistently practised by the Left.

          • Hazards001

            Give yourself an uppercut dummy! It is not altruistic to spend other peoples money in a self perceived good cause. Unrestricted taxation such as being presented by the red/greens at the moment is nothing more than theft in another attempt to buy votes from the lazy and useless!

      • Mr_Blobby

        No we don’t need to double the size of the Police,arm them and leave the general public unarmed. the opportunity and temptation to use the already excessive power of the state to oppress the population, is to great.

        The only way to solve the problem of holdout dole bludgers is to stop feeding the fire with ever increasing sums of money(FUEL) time limit the benefit to a period, of say 6 months, for your working career.
        “us and the natives co-existence mentality” That implies that Maori actually contribute in a meaningful way to society, to me it seems more like a dependance mentality. Given maori as a race take much more from society economically than they ever put back into it , a net economic and social drain.

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    “Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right
    is this: leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists
    believe that selfishness is morally right.”

    I stopped reading at that point.

    Why have you stooped to publishing the ravings of deluded wankers?

    • I let you comment don’t i? How’d that landslide to Romney work out?

      • Adolf Fiinkensein

        That one’s getting a bit worn out.

    • Rodney

      “Why have you stooped to publishing the ravings of deluded wankers?”

      Because they’re written by right-wingers, like this one, and this is a right-wing blog.

      • Lopsy

        So why have you stooped to be here you supercilious, pompous twat?

        • Rodney

          It’s called freedom of expression. We MUST defend the rights of anyone to express an opinion, you supercilious, pompous twat.

    • MarcWills

      You appear to have the perfect qualifications to Moderate at The Standard – off you go then.

    • Lopsy

      It’s called freedom of expression. We MUST defend the rights of anyone to express an opinion. How else do we corner and catch them!.

  • Mr_V4

    “Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right
    is this: leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists
    believe that selfishness is morally right”

    What a load of complete f*cking crap. The idea you can’t be right wing and altruistic.

    • Mr_V4

      On second thoughts I should actually reword what you have written to:

      “Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right
      is this: leftists believe in altruism using other peoples money, rarely their own. Rightists believe in a freedom to choose where they spend the fruits of their labour”.

      • cows4me

        Right on Mr-V4 sir, keep it up.

      • Richard McGrath

        There is confusion over definitions here – altruism (as I see it) refers to self-sacrifice (or neglecting oneself while devoting time and energy in support of other things of lesser or no value). “Selfishness” refers to looking after the most important thing in anyone’s life – the things for which you above all others are responsible: yourself. For “selfishness” read rational self-interest. Don’t confuse selfishness with hedonism, which is mindless indulgence of one’s short term whims.
        Altruism is the dysfunctional abdication of responsibility for oneself. BENEVOLENCE, on the other hand, refers to charitable acts of kindness toward others without the self-neglect inherent in altruism. The difference is significant.
        Alex, Rand addressed the situation of child-rearing. She considered looking after children a supremely selfish act, as for most parents their own children are the thing they value the most next to their own life. But even then one’s own life has to take precedence. Just think of the instructions from the airlines when oxygen masks appear above passengers during a flight – adults are advised to fit their own masks first because if they are incapacitated, they won’t be able to look after their children.

    • Cadwallader

      This is slightly over-simple…NB: my comment above.

    • Bunswalla

      Yes let’s ask Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet shall we? I understand some people ay disapprove of his business practices, but giving US$40 billion away kind of makes up for it, and disproves the theory that you can’t be right wing (shall we call it capitalist?) and altruistic.

      Ditto for the Sage of Omaha, who only ever invests in companies that build or make things that people need, and who also gave away $10b.

  • Gazzaw

    A great analysis of labour’s current woes and there’s no doubt that the deniers over at the standard would refuse to publish such treasonable material. Suggestions such as working for the dole, expanding the armed forces & police and throwing the liberals on the rubbish heap is enough to sway many a middle ground voter. It won’t happen of course but there’s a lot of food for thought there for JK and the Nat strategists.

  • Pokerface

    Hmmm… mixed emotions. Swap “responsible” for “selfish” rightists. What makes most rightists sound selfish is frustration with the whinging liberals. Plenty of “selfish” two-faced lefty Leaders out there.
    When we run out of other people’s money, whoever holds the reigns will have to apply a few of these ideas.

  • Mr_V4

    Of course there would be no selfishness by those employed by the state to make sure selfishness is eliminated.

  • Alex

    “Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right is this: leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists believe that selfishness is morally right. As a leftist I obviously disagree that selfishness is ethical, but there are plenty of arguments out there (Ayn Rand being the most popular). ”

    Now this sort of shit makes my blood boil.

    This equating leftism with “altruism” and rightism with “selfishness” is the heart of the leftist problem in NZ and elsewhere. It gives rise to the leftist ever so annoying sense of moral superiority; and to the anti-democratic attitude held by someone them that anyone opposed to leftism must be inherently “bad”, and therefore there is no obligation to accord to the opposition the basic rights of not interfering with property, not personally abusing people, allowing them the opportunity to express a different opinion.

    As a “rightist”, I’m totally against selfishness — whether it be beneficiaries who think themselves entitled to lifelong benefits without even trying to work, or upper income people who think it’s ok to engage in dodgy “tax minimisation” schemes when everyone else has to cop it.

    The essential difference is that rightists believe in empowering individuals, individual responsibility as the cornerstone of society, that the state’s power should be limited, and that legislative action should be limited to situations where it is necessary to protect other peoples’ tangible rights or (in exceptional cases) where there is demonstrable evidence that only the State can avoid or mitigate some tangible mischief (as opposed to social engineering).

    When and if the leftists in this country actually start to respect the centre-right, acknowledge that their viewpoint is legitimate and reasonable, and that voters are not stupid fools who take up this “dog whistling” (as if leftists never engage in such rubbish) hook, line and sinker, only then will the left finally be in a position to contribute to this democracy.

    • “As a “rightist”, I’m totally against selfishness”

      Many of you here don’t understand the terms “selfishness” or “altruism” in the context that this is introduced by the article.

      “The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.

      The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”

      • Alex

        Yawn. The leftist author is using “selfishness” in a pejorative way, and not in the Rand-approved way. The mere citation of Rand doesn’t alter that fact.

        • Here’s the sentence: “As a leftist I obviously disagree that selfishness is ethical, but there are plenty of arguments out there (Ayn Rand being the most popular).”

        • You wrote: “As a “rightist”, I’m totally against selfishness”

          Well how the fuck can you be against looking after yourself? Cock.

          • Alex

            We do not care a whit what Rand says; she was a boring attention seeking weirdo. Nor do we need screeds of proselytising that seems to appear everytime the divine name of “Rand” is uttered.

            It may just amaze Objectivists that after entering into relationships with people we love and taking our familial obligations seriously etc, some of us cease being self-centered children obsessed about our own interests, and start thinking aboiut others’ welfare (in many cases over and above our own).

            Those of us who mature to that point then let considerations of others’ welfare influence our political choices. You don’t need to be a leftists to realise that individually we can’t be happy and satisfied if members of our community are unhappy, unfullfilled etc.

            But let me not discuss objectivism any further — it still remains the creed of pompous guys with neglible social skills.

            But more to the point: the Leftists’ article above is yet just the usual left wing psuedo-intellectual, and “we know better” than the average unenlightened voter, wank-fest. The author is yet another symptom of the underlying problem in the Labour party, namely that a supposedly working class party has been highjacked by, not onlu gaggles of gays and self-serving unionists, but also the meddling middle classes. The last (together with the gaggle) should go to the Greens where they belong, and let the working classes have their party back.

      • Mostly_Harmless

        Objectivism is a tiny subset of right-wing ideology. What is true of objectivism need not be true of the right as a whole.

    • Cadwallader

      The essential difference as I understand it, is that “selfishness” is the opposite of “selflessness” which is said to mean that selflessness is a surrender of individual sovereignty to the needs of the parasitic classes. The terms are not intended to convey rapaciousness on the “right” side nor meekness on the “left” side.

  • ratesarerevolting

    Why would you want to retake the left when it is over run with retards such as this ?

    It’s rotten to the core time to start over.

    • Ronnie Chow

      Not just retarded . Stockholm Syndrome personified…from The Standard…


      13 January 2013 at 1:36 pm

      It is business as usual under National and the MSM Draco. They refuse to tell the true cause of this, which would likely be a direct result of National’s economic policies i.e. joblessness, poverty and hopelessness. If they were drunk, why were they drunk. If they attacked the police, they had to have a reason. Unless the case is picked up by the MSM, unfortunately we will never know.

  • phronesis

    This Muppet needs a dictionary. The left is opposed to altruism. Altruism is when you FREELY give something you have to someone else. The left wish to TAKE from those who have and give to those who vote for them. Altruism is a core value of the right and is demonstrated by the sort of charitable giving that you see in America. The left hates this because they don’t believe that the wealthy and successful should get to choose what cause gets their money.

    • “The left is opposed to altruism.”

      Rubbish. You need more than a dictionary

  • andrew

    thanks for publishing this Whale. Whilst many of may disagree with the content, its excellent that you allow your blog to be a place where even those of differing views feel comfortable enough to submit a post!

    • Pokerface

      Hopefully, the author of this article will read carefully some of the responses and join an “altruistic” Party further to the right.

  • Timboh

    Statistical evidence was recently released about the type of person more likely to donate to charities or do charitable work. Not surprisingly the most likely backed by evidence are politically right leaning people.

    So much for the altruism of the left. Of course what must be noted is the evidence was about using your own money and/time.

  • Oh yuck that made for awful reading and by the looks of it misinterpreted the two divisions of the true Left Wing:

    Social Liberals: along with the Common Good: in which both most of would adhere to if we acknowledge the State can have a role in somethings beyond the absolute basics – but still respecting our freedoms, private property and civil rights stemming from “Liberalism” as such

    And Social Conservatives: which currently are New Zealand First and Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (see even Wikipedia things Colin Crag is a left winger not a right winger :P )

    What was the reader promoting if I went straight down the academic lines: well if I look at the definition of Common Good for which Social Liberals are meant to adhere too: “Another definition of the common good, as the quintessential goal of the state, requires an admission of the individual’s basic right in society, which is, namely, the right of everyone to the opportunity to freely shape his life by responsible action, in pursuit of virtue and in accordance with the moral law. The common good, then, is the sum total of the conditions of social life which enable people the more easily and straightforwardly to do so. The object of State sovereignty is the free choice of means for creating these conditions..”

    Pooo that a classic “mind fucking” explanation but if I read that right I can see “admission of the individual’s basic right in society – meaning the right of everyone to the opportunity to freely shape their lives by responsible action (and to add the Biblical sense seeming most Western Law of Justice came from the Bible one way or the other) in accordance with Moral Law (what is absolute right and wrong (Ten Commandments anyone?))

    I could stretch it as far as the National Party’s main motto: Individual Freedom, Individual Choice, Individual Responsibility (Holy Shit National are a pack of Social Liberals chasing and adhering to The Common Good :P )

    The essay writer would have us believe in shunning the individual as it is selfish yet Social Liberalism AND the common good effectively entrenches the individual

    If you want me to screw with your mind further their is a piece on Basic Catholic Teaching that points to the Common Good in our history… Go figure Catholics being social liberals if true to their word…

    Well that is my tl:dr but had to refute our essay writers claim in the left and right (sounds like he like most of Labour are still social authoritarians trying to tell us what to do, how to think and have no private property unless it can be taxed to death)

  • Gee

    Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right
    is this: leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists
    believe that selfishness is morally right”

    The altruism of the Left is best exemplified by Taito Phillip FIELD for his selfless help to immigrants and by Trevor MALLARD selling freebee Rock-show tickets to desperate though poor teenage girls in the backbar of a shady hotel.

  • thor42

    “leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists believe that selfishness is morally right.”

    Complete BULLSHIT.

    Leftists believe in **stealing** other people’s money to give to bludgers – no matter how little effort said bludgers make to improve their situation.

    Gee – it’s *easy* to pretend to be all “altruistic” when it’s not *your* money that you’re throwing around.

    Leftists also believe that money solves *everything*.
    That is *bullshit*. Throwing money at a bludger won’t make them less of a bludger.

    Rightists believe in *self-responsibility, self-improvement and self-discipline.* All of those terms have “self” in them, but ALL are laudable attributes.

    Alex is correct. We on the right believe in individual responsibility and empowering individuals. That INCLUDES government getting *out of the way* and letting individuals *stuff up* themselves.

    How else do they learn????

  • Wallsingham

    Forget about the Waitakere Man. Labour is riddled with factions of the discontented, ambitious and frightened. Anonymous, unsubstantiated and provocative scratchings only go to prove this.

    The left is inclusive of all. The right apparently sees ‘haves’ or racial exclusivity. Labelling “hippies” and “liberals” as the problem is the smoke and mirrors, the political fog distracting from the real problem. At the bottom of New Zealand demographics is a sizeable Polynesian lumpen proletariat. Who represents them right now? And yes the economy is part of the solution! Along with acknowledgement of facts as they are.

    Whoever creates the wealth, it cannot be in the hands of welfare bashers, demagogues and blamers! Fiscal treasure-the exportable, expensive smart things- come with state education, accessible health, imaginative innovators and with government investment.

    Many National voters already are uncomfortable with rising unemployment, asset sales and what the prescient see as Labour policies preventing a racial insurrection of the have nots verses the haves!

    • Ronnie Chow

      “Labour policies preventing a racial insurrection”

      Fear , is the reason we have the Waitangi Tribunal . Non-Maori Polynesians will never rise up (unless led by Maori) , because they recognize the opportunity that NZ offers , in comparison to the poverty in the Islands .

      • Wallsingham

        Racial insurrection too strong! OK try politicised prison riots at Paremoemo?Or hot summer night, alcohol-drug infused, gang related, urban ghetto fires? Perhaps a racial incident involving the police and firearms? Now imagine all three at once.

        The Waitangi Tribunal is a two edged sword. Few Maori at the grassroots have benefitted. Few Maori lawyers at the top have benefitted greatly. Guess which constituency represents Mana? Harawira is a moderate who wants to work in the system.

        Second now third generation, non- Maori Polynesians are negative social statistics in jobs, housing, education and health. They also make up a disproportionate percentage of our prison population. They grew up in the ghettoes, their culture is not NZ but black American and they resent the poverty, injustice and ignorance. Ask Bishop Tamaki.

  • Mr_Blobby

    I don’t want to get into a long diatribe about this but I will make a few observations as a Labour supporter.
    1. The left has lost it’s way, it has been hijacked by a lot of different looney fringe groups like the gays, unionists etc
    2. Whale is a closet Labour supporter , one day he will come out of the closet.
    3. National is so far to the left in their attempts to stay in Power, they should consider a name change. The only truly right party is what ACT used to be before it imploded.

    4. We don’t need more Police. What we need is clear unambiguous self defense laws and the right to bear arms.The last thing we need is an armed paramilitary Police with an unarmed citizenry.

    5. We need to live within our means, that is spend less than we earn as a country. It should be Law, that Governments are required to balance the books.The same goes for local councils and increases should be inline with inflation not outstripping it every year.

    • cows4me

      Treason Mr-Blobby, treason.
      And one more thing, the left hasn’t lost their way they just haven’t figured out how to steal more wealth from those that produce and give those that vote for a free lunch.

      • Mr_Blobby

        Your absolutely right cows4me “they just haven’t figured out how to steal more wealth” but MonKey has, he is using the US (Wallstreet) play book word for word. But tell me how is borrowing more to pay for day to day living expenses going to reduce our burgeoning debt and make us a wealthy country again.

    • 1. The left has lost it’s way, it has been hijacked by a lot of
      different looney fringe groups like the gays, unionists, Maori etc

      The forst Labour Govt was led by a homosexual man i. Savage.
      Its was chocka full of unionists and some bad bastards at that.
      It had its share of maori’s.
      Why don’y you people learn our history and repeat it correctly.
      Nothing has changed except during the Lange Douglass reign.

      • Economist

        Not even then.

        Ruth did a man’s job. Not Roger the communist. Ruth.

  • rouppe

    The trouble with work for the dole is:

    1) Real employers with real jobs that require real commitment to the employment by the employee suffer because of the lack of will, commitment and care that will be shown by those who turn up for interviews in pyjamas.

    2) So then you “make work”, which will probably be public sector type jobs. So they’re just there to soak up unemployment figures, not actually be productive for NZ Inc.

    Remember the days with tens of thousands of railway workers? Remember that rail crew that spent 10 years as a maintenance team on a line that had been discontinued? I think Roger Douglas or Rodney Hyde in their early years were telling that story.

    I wouldn’t want to go back to that. I do think that those sent to interviews by WINZ should have a feedback form sent back, including photo’s. Folk that turn up to tick the box because they’re told to rather than actually trying to get the job really tick me off. There ought to be financial penalty for turning up late, poorly groomed, or with poor hygiene (i.e. they smell).

    It goes against everything I respect that there is such a demand for agricultural workers and we have to import foreigners because young people are too lazy and selfish to go work. I shifted from Rotorua to Hamilton to study, then to Wellington to work. Sitting on your arse in Ruatoria cause there aren’t jobs there is no excuse for remaining on the dole when work and training exist elsewhere

    • Mr_V4

      I think it would be worthwile at least trialing a scheme.

      The current minimum wage would become the “private sector minimum wage”.

      All those drawing an unemployment benefit would have to find a job under a govt created scheme which would pay a public sector minimum wage (say $4-5/hr less than the private one) instead of the benefit, and expected to work at least part time. A pool of jobs could be created aimed at improving the general amenity value of our towns/cities/waterways/parklands etc

      Chch could be the ideal opportunity, ie plenty of empty sections that could be grassed over/tidied etc. Abandoned suburbs that need to be converted to parklands etc.

      Be interesting to see if people take the opportunity or move elsewhere.

    • SJ00

      There is an old guy in my town, who as far as I know walks the main street everyday, with rubber gloves on, a pair of tongs and rubbish bags. He isn’t getting paid, well apart from the pension I presume, but does it. Why can’t the people on the dole get made to lets say do this for an hour every day. 1 hour. Picking up rubbish. You can’t argue its hard work. Or time consuming. Yes its busy work that ultimately wouldn’t lead to a job. And I would almost be happy ‘paying’ people the dole if that was all they did. It creates a sense of pride in their community keeping the streets clean (most councils don’t do this other than collecting rubbish bags or emptying bins). It gets them into the habit of turning up to ‘work’. Hopefully it gets them thinking ‘I don’t want to be picking up rubbish in front of everyone, maybe I should try harder to get a job’. And maybe it does nothing but keeps our streets clean. End of the day, throwing money at someone who doesn’t have to do anything to earn that is wrong. There are plenty of things people can do that don’t take the place of other people doing other jobs. And if they give us an hour a day thats not too much to ask is it? And if it is, then how about we don’t give you our money that we have to go out and work 40+ hours to earn.

      • “Why can’t the people on the dole get made to lets say do this for an hour every day.”

        The politicians have killed that off long ago – Health and Safety Regulationss.

        A kid can’t even sell lemonade outside her house.

    • Hazards001

      Damn right

  • Mostly_Harmless

    Quite a good essay – pity it discredits itself by using such a straw-man definition of the difference between the right and the left.

  • Dion

    Collectivism. They tried that in Cambodia didn’t they? How’d it go?

  • Notrotsky

    Gweg Pwesland ??

    • Not likely. Whale said he would be prepared to have a beer with the author.

      • Mr_V4

        I thought it could have been JT, but then realised there are no references to ‘frontbums’.

        • Hazards001


    • Wallsingham

      What’s the story with GP? Is he some Machiavelli type or a chucklehead? Why write his name in mincing lisps?

    • Nope not Greg Presland…it doesn’t felch David Cunliffe…was surprised at the source…but seems to be trying to be sensible so best to encourage that in the other team

      • Wallsingham

        Mr Slater, Sir, I don’t believe you are unsophisticated, naive or lack rough and tumble political, street smarts but I too wonder about the real motivating factors behind your source?

        • Lopsy

          Methinks todays Labour Party is like a confused, hormonal teenager, self conscious in public and full of inner conflict so I’d stick my neck out and say the author is genuine. It’s full of emotional and shallow prescriptions so typical of the archetypal politician of the left. Sorry Cameron, I too could have a beer (Chardonnay) with this person but I suspect I’d be the one buying.

          • Wallsingham

            Praemonitus, praemunitus

          • Lopsy


      • axeman

        gweg pwesland … still a snivelling cunt

        Jun 19, 2011 … Greg Presland is a snivelling cunt One of Labour’s Hollow Men is Greg Presland aka mickeysavage. He is a snivelling despicable pinko.

      • axeman

        Jun 16, 2011 … Greg Presland is a snivelling cunt One of Labour’s Hollow Men is Greg Presland aka mickeysavage. He is a snivelling despicable pinko.

    • Wallsingham

      OK. I get it. Gweg Pwesland time server, goffer, pretentious nincompoop just waiting for DC’s time to come then he can move up the list. Ah vanity you have many names.

  • JC

    Why does the writer think Labour needs reclaiming? I think it and the left in general are doing enormously well given they offer nothing but proven crap.

    I got the US Presidential election horribly wrong because I simply refused to believe that the home of Capitalism, Western religion and freedom would ever allow a second term to a munter like Obama.. but what I refused to see was a brilliant unraveling of the strands in US society to create minorities who could be swayed with specific messages. Take the risible ads on “Julia” who could be born, raised, educated and supported all her life by the State with no requirement to “pay back”.. the Republicans laughed at it but millions quietly loved it.

    So all Labour needs to do is quietly unpick the strands of society to create dozens of minority groups that can be respliced as Brand Labour. Its wicked and evil and horribly divisive but as Obama showed its effective.. even when Presidents with less than 50% approval almost never get second terms.

    Labour, Greens, Mana and NZ1st have already picked away half of the societal rope, so another (governing) percent or two shouldn’t be difficult even for a dysfunctional Labour.

    The more I think about it, the more I begin to see the splintering of Labour into factions as a strength at this time as the lines of communication remain open to many minority groups and as we can see today the ever helpful media has opened up another grouping in support of a ban on air rifles.. the Nats will seemingly bat this one away but in reality the left will gain a little bit more support if they choose to pursue it.

    Look at the Obama team.. its chasing gun control and ostensibly losing heavily, but in a general election that stance will move some small percentage towards the Democrats in four more years.

    So I’m saying that the writer of this post may be mistaken.. his team may be hopeless but there are any number of “Julias” out there to give it the next election.


  • GregM

    Too many TLDR comments,I will keep mine short.
    As long as the left continues to assert that anyone who does not agree with them is “selfish”, they will continue to be irrelevant.

  • Troy

    Who cares about the Labour party – they’re all a pack of wankers, thus, i clicked away from the article as suggested by the author. Reading a filthy socialists view of the world around him interests me not therefore back to the verminous hole he can take his thoughts.

  • Elizabeth Bourchier

    This piece was not written by any genuine Labour Party member.
    I suspect it was written by one of David Shearer’s lackeys.
    One of the band that expects SoE directorships if Shearer gets elected. Duh!

  • Pingback: Left good, right bad « Your NZ()