A letter to David Shearer from a WO reader

A reader writes to David Shearer. I was going to froward it one but I thought I should share it, because it has a great deal of truth to it.

Dear Cameron,

This letter is from and absolute NATIONAL supporter – I don’t know if you pass on commiserations, but if you do, here goes. (Thanks)

I know we have all joked about David Shearer through his time as leader of the Opposition, but in all good heart I feel sad that he had been so badly let down by his caucus. 

It seems to me that he has been undermined from day one. I hope his party members are ashamed at their behaviour and embarrassed that a GOOD MAN has been treated so disrespectfully.

I hope he can now enjoy his life and his family knowing that he has tried as Michael Jackson sang ” to make the world a better place”. God bless you and your family David all the best.

(P.S. sorry for laughing at you, but that as they say is politics).

Chris

 


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.

  • johnbronkhorst

    Shearer lied about his NY bank account, lied about GCSB discussions with John Key……………and he was the BEST and most honest that labour have!!! It’s all down hill from here….re honesty and integrity!!

    • blokeintakapuna

      …but at least they have some union “leadership” to help them with “effective productivity”
      When manufacturing a “manufacturing crisis” manifests as a manufactured crisis, which becomes a self-made crisis – it’s like life imitating art…

      • johnbronkhorst

        “effective productivity” 2 words, together or apart, that neither labour or the unions understand or know the meaning of!

    • kevin

      Yep, it seems ‘they’ tainted his integrity.

      • johnbronkhorst

        “lay down with dogs and you will get fleas”

  • mark

    Ive seen a few of these comments around now. Shearer was a “good guy” and we should feel sorry for him. Now usually I would agree this sentiment, no reason to kick while someone is down, but with in this case I say no and here’s why.

    Labour and all the socialist parties and anyone with that mindset, seek to control others. They use the force of govt and the hammer of taxation and regulation to contort society into some warped version of what they believe is right.

    The use divisive, class warfare type rhetoric to persuade the economically illiterate to believe that somehow they are being screwed by “rich pricks” aka 1%ers and that if “we” can get in power “we” will show our anger!

    This is just the lowest form of politics IMO and only appeals to the worst in human beings. They either know this and don’t care or are so clouded by hate for some reason that via their own sense of morality it is justified. Either way in my book it is inexcusable.

    So to David Shearer (and pardon the expletives) I say a big FUCK YOU!! You got off lightly as far as I’m concerned. Hopefully the next venomous arsehole that follows does not fair so well!!

    • Well said Mark!!!!

    • Polish Pride

      Mark unfortunately you have a lot to learn about the true nature of the current form of politics. Whether it is left or right the story is the same. It is all about control. It is about taking control in order to implement policy that at the end of the day redistributes wealth from one group within society to give to another group within society.
      Just so you know going forward. The Rights version of this is often watering down of labour laws and using immigration policy to drive down the cost of labour. The resulting effect of this is that ‘the man’ receives less and less for an honest days work. Who benefits? Business and company owners or shareholders. They spout the propaganda of the right that this is the way the economy should be managed and that by doing so the wealth will trickle down, more jobs will be created and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth as any well run company or business will look to maximize efficiency, minimize expenses with the end goal of maximizing profit.
      The reason CEOs are paid such handsome sums in this day and age is because they work for shareholders and are the ones tasked with implementing these policies. They have a number of tools at their disposal in order to do this of course. If it hasn’t already been done this will be removing of any workers that aren’t essential and removing the middle management layer. Next there is automation and offshoring. Looking at areas within the business for automation enables the business to cut more workers and off shoring enables jobs to be cut and sent overseas where the cost of labour is significantly cheaper. The reason that CEOs are paid so well and often have significant bonuses built into their renumeration packages is so that they too benefit from the changes they need to make and so they don’t suddenly go and get a conscience of any kind.
      Then there is corporate welfare which essentially takes money from middle income salary and wage earners and gives it to private companies.
      There are other policies too.
      The point is that when you break things down, their is a class war The class war IS played out in Left vs Right politics everyday.
      I’d cover off the failings of Left wing politics but I suspect that you and most others on here already have a pretty good handle on them.
      The point is that it doesn’t matter whether you are talking about the Left or the Right. Either way the game is about wealth redistribution and both sides have their favoured groups to take from and give too.
      It is harder to see the bludgers on the right as they are often hiding behind corporate facades but they are there and to Cams credit, he has no problem shining some light on them when they stick their hand out asking for some tax payer or rate payer dosh.
      Lastly both Left and Right wing policies are seriously flawed and thus so is the system but more people need to wake up to this reality before it will change.
      A good example of this is the myth about trickledown. It doesn’t really happen. It is direct contradiction to the profit motive and so it never will. If it did Mc Donalds workers would all be driving around in Mercedes and BMWs.
      .

      • mark

        Polish

        I understand politics very well, not just our national politics but international politics. I have to for my job.

        You are right about it being about control and that the right and left (as you are defining them) are similar in some ways. But I vote for National. Why? Well the same reason if someone gave me a choice of cutting off my thumb or 2 legs and one arm, I would choose the thumb. Both are painful but one is “less bad” than the other. I don’t agree with many policies, you mention corporate welfare which I agree 110% we should NEVER do. Bureaucrats picking winners and losers is about the worst way of governing that there is. I commented on this when the smelter deal was done on this site. But ironically Labour/Greens seem to do even more of that sort of stuff. Just for their pet projects.

        But Polish unlike some on the left and right I am consistent with this. I do not think the govt should take money from Peter to give to Paul in any instance. I don’t think you are consistent judging by your comments. You would pick winners and losers based upon what you happen to believe.

        On your points about workers. Your view of economics is somewhat typical for somebody of your political thinking. Firstly the rich are getting “richer” and the poor are getting “poorer” is not quite accurate. While income disparity gaps are widening we are all getting poorer. This is because despite our CPI not reflecting this inflation is constantly picking all of our pockets. The poor and to a lesser extent the middle class are disproportionately effected by this because they have a higher % of their net worth in cash. Poor have 100% cash more times than not. Rich people tend to have a small % of net worth in cash and therefore are sheltered from the effects more. This is perpetuated by central banks ,who are given power by govts around the world which I also think is verging on criminal. This is why the poor are getting “poorer”. The best way to help the poor in this regard would to have a “open window” commodity backing of currency, be it gold or similar. Then when they earn money its value wasn’t being drained constantly. Actually over time it would increase as production processes became more efficient.

        Regard labour laws unions etc. I have no problem with people unionizing. That is their right to and if a business wants to negotiate with the union fine. However I think a business owner shouldn’t have to negotiate if he chooses not to. And if it came to it the workers should loose their jobs. Laws forcing business owners to negotiate is just welfare given to workers. I don’t see how it illegal for businesses to collude on price but yet union members are free to collude on wages. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is inconsistent.

        Public sector unions I don’t believe should exist though because there is no profit motive in public sector and the fact if the unions help elect the person they negotiate with and there is a massive conflict of interest which ends up with the taxpayer paying more.

        CEO’s should be payed whatever the shareholders want to pay them. They are private companies. In many cases a good CEO will make his remuneration seem trivial. And no I’m not just talking about firing the “poor down trodden workers” for a few extra bucks. Any idiot can do that but making a business run efficiently is not as easy as it sounds. I’m sorry if you think companies should be there to serve you altruistic goals, but they aren’t. They are there to provide goods and services at the lowest price possible. Off-shoring is only a reflection on the fact the govt labour laws, overbearing union and absurd regulatory cost make it impossible to do business in many countries. People wail about it all the time but the reality is if they did do those jobs here the product would be so expensive no one would buy it, the company would be broke and then there would be no jobs.

        Mechanization is a function of a modern capital-equipment-rich society. Should we get rid of the guy driving the digger and have 20 guys with spades? How about get rid of the spades and have 100 people digging with their hands? Lots of jobs “created” there. It is better because we can produce more efficiently meaning people’s ability to consume higher quality goods at a lower price is increased.

        Your last point about a McD’s worker driving a BMW is kind of silly. Firstly a bet quite a few do drive BMW’s they are just the shitty 3 series you pick up for a couple of grand, not smart with the cost of parts. Secondly why do you think a worker doing an unskilled job that you could teach anyone to do with no prior skills in a couple of hours or days should be able to afford a $100k car? Pay them $200k a year? What do you think a burger would cost then? How many Mcd’s would there be then? How many starter jobs for young kids would there be then? They aren’t paying low wages to be mean they are paying them that so they can actually make a viable business. Without that there are no jobs.

        I understand I’m not going to change you mind on this and you will not change mine but I thought I would respond anyway. Sorry about the long winded answers. Back to work now =)

        • Polish Pride

          Well first up I probably owe you an apology, clearly you do know and understand quite a bit about politics.

          You raise a very interesting and fair point about businesses not being able to collude on price but that workers can.

          The McDonalds example was presented purely in the context of trickle down. The point being that businesses will generally pay what they think a job is worth and what the market is saying it is worth. The business being hugely successful does not mean that the wealth will ‘trickle down’ to workers and there are plenty of examples to show that doesn’t happen. This was more to illustrate one of the many flaws in the right wing mantra.

          As for my personal politics well it is one of disenfranchisement with the entire system. I have as much disdain for the politics of the left and the many flaws it also has as I do for the right.

          Your digger example is probably a good example. I am not interested in more jobs. In fact just the opposite . We have reached a level of technology and automation that allows us to (if we have enough foresight and choose to) automate a large percentage of jobs currently performed by people in society. to take what you said earlier, doing this would enable us to produce more efficiently meaning people can consume higher quality goods, the only cost (Not monetary cost) of which is the resources being used to make them.

          I believe we should be transitioning to a system that works for man instead of the opposite which we have now. We need to move away from ‘maximum’ employment being a good thing and look to free society from having to work. In my view we should be transitioning to a Resource Based Economy.

          There is a lot more thinking in the background that has brought me to this conclusion. Much of it based on Maslow’s Hierachy of Needs and how the current system isn’t effective in maximizing the number of people able to meet their individual needs and wants. In fact money originally intended as a mechanism for exchange has become one of the biggest barriers to this.
          The rest we are pretty close in thinking on, only I don’t vote as a form of protest due to my views on the effectiveness of the current system.

          • Damn fine and well written arguments from both of you.

  • Brendon Taylor

    He was a good guy who was lead down into the depths by his caucus, who by rights if he wasn’t so nice, would have ended up in the back benches after he was chosen to lead, but to offset his niceness he needed their meanness but instead of focusing on National, they scrapped with daggers in each others backs, from day one, then it spilled out into public view & they plummeted, Im afraid David was a victim of his own niceness because his best bet would have been to bounce any detractors & just plain naughty boys & girls in his shadow cabinet out & filled his it with like minded people because as an good manage knows unless your team shares your vision you will fail, this is especially true in politics. Without a perceived cohesive team Labour will not win the next or any election, the final nail in David’s leadership was his question to John Key which exposed the secret meeting that he didn’t want any of his party to know about, he lost the last of his internal support with that gaffe. If David had been able to keep things going I believe he would have been making a deal at the next election for a grand coalition, so then truly the majority of NZ would be represented in Government instead of only just half.

    • mike

      You mean just like Helen did???

  • cows4me

    Given Mumbles history I’m surprised that he would chose to run for a left wing party. He has served in some of the worlds trouble spots so I find it strange that he would be keen to promote the policies of the left. I’m sure he has learnt enough by now to realise socialism isn’t the answer to the worlds ills or maybe he just hasn’t grown up enough yet, who knows. Anyhow it will be sad to see the end of old Mumbles, he was good value for blog posts. One only hopes the next idiot will be so much fun.

    • Saccharomyces

      We all know that people go off socialism as they grow up….

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    My heart bleeds….and I say this with a straight face….

    • blokeintakapuna

      …as straight as Shane Jones’s, Chippie’s and King’s faces as he announced his resignation?
      Or, as straight as a Labour’s MP morals, ethics and honesty?

  • Goldie

    David Shearer said he would not do ‘gotcha’ politics yet, yet all he could ask in parliament was “Does the PM stand by his statements?”. David Shearer made up secret tapes taken by the GCSB of John Key. David Shearer lied about having money in an overseas bank a/c and refused to say how much was in it and where he got the money from. David Shearer deliberately sought to sabotage the Meridian share float, thereby costing the float millions and reducing the fund that was to be spent on things like schools.
    David Shearer was not a “GOOD MAN”.

  • philbest

    I am shuddering regularly at the memory of the rise of Hulun Clark over the political corpses of relatively decent men in her party.

    At the time, I though, great, Labour has put an unelectable radical feminist in charge. How wrong I was.

    Imagine Maryann Street becoming Labour leader and then PM for 9 years and redefining NZ in her image. That is how likely I would have rated 9 years of Hulun.

    WTF happened with Kiwi voters? Women voters bear a lot of the blame – why did so many women who had voted National, switch to the worst Labour had ever offered the electorate?

    Was it a petty backlash against National dumping The Ship and putting a Catholic patriarch at the helm? I have always maintained that The Ship would have done better in both the 2002 and 2005 elections, than what was achieved by the Nats.

  • BJ

    How could Shearer have possibly kept up the charade for a minute longer? I will never believe he is a genuine Labour man – he wanted John Keys job and wrongly believed he could pretend his way to it. It doesn’t matter how hard he worked as opposition leader – his heart not being in policy’s and stances he disgenuinely supported brought about his own downfall IMO

    • kevin

      Yes, never fervent or totally committed. Just keeping the seat warm… but he didn’t seem to know it. Odd.

  • mike

    When I heard DS was going to be leader of Labour I actually thought he would bring change to Parliament… a bit less of the “adversarial” politics we see where the opposition always disagrees with the Government and actually works with Government where possible to achieve the greater good (good bit of Marxism there!)… how wrong I was.

    Labour is just dirty politics plain and simple, hence why they will not get my vote.

    • Polish Pride

      I have to agree with Mike on this and I think that this is what a lot of Kiwis actually wanted to see. Parties using common sense and working together for the greater good of, well kiwis.
      I don’t think it is just Labour that is dirty politics though. I think that that is the culture of parliament in NZ in general.

      • mike

        Oh my gawd.. PP agreed with something I wrote :-)

        The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

  • General consensus seems to be that Shearer is a good bloke. I’m sure we can all agree that working in a toxic environment, it is hard to be effective.
    The environment within the Labour Party is highly toxic, no to mention dysfunctional. Anyone would be likely to fail in these circumstances.

    TLDR: Labour is still fucked. No matter who leads.

53%