Saturday, April 09, 2005

NZ Gypsies Look Out!

Molesworth and Featherston reports that the Nats are "well advanced" with plans to being an Australian Liberal strategist out to help their campaign get off the ground.

This concerns me as all of the available evidence suggests that the Liberals have perfected the type of divide and rule tactics that see voiceless minority groups ruthlessly targetted for expedient political advantage. Former Liberal director Lynton Crosby's influence on the British Conservative campaign in recent times has been notable. The Tories have very effectively played the race card, targetting groups such as assylum seekers and Gypsies with some effect beginning to show in the polls.

Tampa anyone?

While I have great faith in New Zealand voters, and believe that most people here see through this kind gutter politics, it concerns me that the indications from National at this early stage are that they are prepared to lower themselves, and the tone of the campaign to such a degree in their pursuit of power.

10 comments:

spooks said...

No sir. It is you who plays the race card. I want a colour blind New Zealand. I want a New Zealand that does not ever have to mention race in law or in statistics. Your lot (and past Nats as well) have enshrined racism to the point that you can't even see the wood for the trees any more. Removing the race card from the deck, is not playing it.

michael wood said...

I don't think that lying about refugees throwing their children overboard, or evicting gypsies from sites they have by tradition occupied for hundreds of years are examples of "removing the race card for the deck".

Rather, these are policies designed to stir up fear and anxiety.

spooks said...

I still want a colour blind New Zealand please. What you have said is side-stepping my points. Desparate sir, and very dishonest to link these things to today's Nats. The current Labour Governments racist policies are a thousand times Tampa. That's a thousand times.

michael wood said...

Which Labour policies do you think are "a thousand times worse" than lying about refugee parents killing their children, in order to procure political advantage?

Graham Watson said...

You must be insane to suggest National would adopt such policies. This is blatant scaremongering.

Do you really belive that?

spooks said...

Let me see if I have this right. You don't want to know that other countries are smashing the welfare levels. That's somewhere else in the world, so not relevant. But the world recession of the early 1990s was created by the New Zealand Nats. Oh, and according to you the New Zealand Nats are so closely linked to Australia's Tampa story, that the current Nats all but threw the kids off the Tampa themselves.
And you want to go to the House of Representatives? You're kidding us, surely.

michael wood said...

Spooks, given your obsessive interest in the topic I am sure you will join me in congratulating the Labour government on the following:

Unemployment Benefit numbers have fallen by 62 per cent since
1999. Overall number of working-aged New Zealanders on benefits
is down to 292,000 - 21 per cent fewer than in 1999 and the first
time the figure has been below 300,000 in 16 years Unemployment
Benefit numbers have fallen by more than 20,200 over the past
year and now stand at less than 55,000 - the lowest figure in
nearly 20 years In total there are more than 85,000 fewer people
on the Unemployment Benefit than there were five years ago There
are now around 98,112 sole parents on the DPB - over 3,000 fewer
than a year ago and nearly 6,000 fewer than in December 1999.

spooks said...

Benefit numbers are down, not thanks to Labour, but in spite of Labour. Unemployment numbers are down because sickness and invalid numbers are hideously up, but we are supposed to not criticise the latter, because it is heartless to do so. This in spite of the fact that beneficiaries were cynically manipulated across from unemployed to sickness and invalid for that very reason, to make criticism appear more callous. Means-to-an-end for you lot I suppose. Good for Labour, but hardly good for the country.

Secondly, even if the overall numbers are down by 20 percent, it has been through NOTHING that Labour has done. Labour were handed on a platter conditions which by rights should have led to reductions of better than fifty percent overall, so compared to what ought to have happened, 20 percent savings is an abject failure. Best economic conditions in generations, handed to Labour on a plate, and Labour have stuffed up the opportunity of a lifetime, because you simply do not have a strategy or inclination to pro-actively deal with beneficiaries. They vote for you. You need them. So you make them need you. You lock them into their so-called poverty. And you totally remove the incentives to have them get off benefits.

I know couples who fight over custody of their kids, and openly admit, that the ONLY motivation is in the fact that the one that loses custody is the one who will have to work.

We all know of women who deliberately get pregnant and produce fatherless children for the sole purpose of retirement. Some of these are school kids. Others are second and third and more children who serve as both pay rises and elongation of benefit eligibility. Don't go throwing statistics back on this. My next door neighbour is the statistic that will do me, and she is living better than I am and laughing. But I'm paying for her and her kids. And my kids will also pay for the consequences when these fatherless kids become statistics.

Anonymous said...

It is no surprise at all demographically that the numbers on the DPB are falling.
In the 1960's and early 1970's the average age at which NZ women first fell pregnant was extremely low and many hasty, ill-conceived shotgun marriages that later fell apart were the result. The children of those marriages have learnt from their parents' mistakes and are more careful and because of that and other reasons, children and marriages are entered into on a far more considered basis now.

Spooks! - cheer up! - it's better for your health, and - things are getting better!

spooks said...

Why is it that whenever you come onto a lamebrain leftie discussion site, you cannot get past ten posts before the presumed demeanour of the poster becomes the issue rather than the topic.