Craig Ranapia

Desperation is a stinky cologne

Desperation is a stinky cologne, but David Shearer did his best to jump the shark today.

Fresh from the photo op with him holding a vulnerable workers bucket, he’s appeared in Parliament clutching dead fish…

David Shearer - Dead Fish Read more »

Bill English should be sacked

Fran O’Sullivan: Conservative’s push may be anything butBill English is a self-admitted conservative who may yet prove to be the type of Finance Minister who will push for big economic shifts – like proposals to make Auckland a super city – to send strong signals about the way this Government… [NZ Herald Politics]

In Fran O’Sullivan’s piece this morning Bill English openly criticises the Prime Minister. This might be ok if Bill English ever had any original ideas of his own but frankly he should just STFU and implement what John wants. Could you imagine Brian Talboys voicing opinions contrary to Robert Muldoon? Or Cullen being openly scoffing about Clark? Not even Winston at his worst in the Bolger days would slur a word from the Green Parrot against his Prime Minister. Bill English is simply out of line.

His silly opinions are not warranted and frankly not wanted. This country needs vision and innovation not his tired second-hand poorly learned policies from Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas. John Key was elected to provide that vision and the sort of ideas that netted him $50 million. All Bill English has managed to do with his life is father 6 children, lose a boxing match and get the lowest ever party vote for the National party ever. He sure as hell doesn’t have a cool “Fitty” sitting in the bank. Mr 20.9% should pull his head in or John Key should cut it off.

While we are at it on the sorting out non-performers how about booting Nick “the Pinko” Smith to touch, the man (can I still call him that) is a liability.

If we continue to have loose cannons like English and Smith in cabinet then this will be a one term government. I think we need to look to the Australian model again and re-introduce the concept of a Treasurer. Someone visonary with balls to front popular yet innivative solutions to the issues we face. Clearly Sir Roger Douglas would the best person for this role but unfortunately he is politically unpalatable. The clear front runner for this role would be Stephen Joyce. He has no baggage, has shown innovation in the past though the election campaign was rather brown bread it was at least successful. Bill English can then be the Finance Minister but answerable to the Treasurer. Bill is far more suited to the more boring nuts and bolts and orders following than trying any original thought. At if we try this model again the treasurer won’t be a drunken sot propping up the bar at the Green Parrot.

Clark not Muldoon, she's a Chavez

Where is the public anger over the Electoral Finance Bill? – Opinion: views on the news on

[quote]Do you remember when former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon attempted to rewrite the electoral finance laws, how furious we all were ? how the breast of every freedom-loving New Zealander swelled in indignant fury at the blatant attempt to rig the result of future general elections? Do you remember the marches, the huge, angry demonstrations and the blood on the streets?

No, you do not remember this, because it never happened. Muldoon never attempted such a thing. He was probably never even tempted to try, but if he had been, he would have known that any attempt would, indeed, have led to blood on the streets.

Had he attempted a fraction of what former finance minister Sir Roger Douglas’s government did after 1987, however necessary much of that might have been, there would have been blood. Politics is not fair.

So why are all those freedom-loving New Zealanders not angrily protesting against the current Electoral Finance Bill? Why is a proposal acceptable when a Labour Government proposes it, but unacceptable if proposed by a National prime minister, even one, as we now see in retrospect, of comparatively socialist tendencies?

Even the Human Rights Commission, which I often despise for its Left-wing tendencies, has, to its great credit, denounced this bill very firmly. So where are the street marches?

In lists of the commonest lies, the prime candidates are usually promises of love, that the cheque is in the mail, and that a lady’s fundament does not look large. I would add the statement attributed to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it”.

If you doubt me, say something politically incorrect about the Treaty of Waitangi and see what tolerance is offered by the apostles of freedom.

Historically, the Left ? can we dignify the present Government with that label? ? has had no monopoly on intolerance. Equally, the Left is not immune. Intolerant tendencies arise from a moralistic worldview.

“Error has no rights” a Catholic cardinal is alleged to have said, and if you see your political grouping as doing God’s work and your opponents as the sable-hued minions of Satan, then it is unthinkable that your enemies should have the same rights that you do.

Of course, you believe in human rights, but that cannot apply to the patently wicked. Human rights are only for those who deserve them. That just happens to mean people like us.

In our own age, the Left tends more to this doctrinaire approach. They forget freedom has to mean the freedom to say things some people may not want to hear. (At least, they use that argument when arguing for further outrages to public decency by a degenerate television programme or art work, but refuse to accept its greater validity in political debate.)

The Left is right; everyone else is wrong. Intolerance is therefore justified. One can be a good freedom-loving person and refuse to respect the freedom of one’s political opponents, who are also enemies of the public good.

Read Nicky Hager’s The Hollow Men and you will see that the National Party’s chief crime, in the author’s eyes, was simply to exist.

I tell a lie when I say that no- one is protesting against the bill. In Christchurch, about 200 people demonstrated last Wednesday. It was a quiet and civilised protest. Too quiet, perhaps. Decency can be a disadvantage. To overcome our enemies ? this is life’s tragedy ? we must become like them.

At times one has to admire the energy of French farmers pelting ministers with potatoes and dumping truckloads of dung outside government buildings. They get their point across.

True, some demonstrators were members of the National and ACT New Zealand parties. The Prime Minister dismissed the protests for this reason.

Hitherto, people of other political opinions also had rights. Hitherto, our electoral finance laws, like other parts of our basic constitutional arrangements, enjoyed general cross-party support. Hitherto, democracy meant ongoing popular engagement in the issues, not just casting a vote on election day after a year of comparative silence on all political issues from all but the incumbent government.

Our present Prime Minister ceased to resemble Muldoon some time ago. She now more resembles Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, gerrymandering his country’s constitution to guarantee his own hold on power indefinitely. Both strut on the world stage. Helen Clark professes concern for human rights in Zimbabwe and Fiji. Why not here? The similarities extend even to a common tendency to insult monarchs.

As many dictators have learnt, when constitutional means for replacing a government are not available, only unconstitutional means are left. That is not good for a country.[/quote]

Powered by ScribeFire.