Very strange
I guess that when you're looking for excuses for not winning a leaders debate you can't use the tried and tested "the dog ate my notes" as an excuse, but Don Brash's comment that he "restrained" himself because Helen Clark is a woman, is simply strange.
The PM has rightly called this patronising, but frankly it's just pathetic. As if the constant prevarication, flip-flopping, unwillingness to answer specific questions (ie; details about NCEA), and general failure to show a firm grasp of policy, were all not enough to show that this man is not a leader, then this comment confirms it.
You don't go into a debate as a prospective Prime Minister and go easy on the other person because of their gender. Brash has either shown a strange patronising attitude to half of the population, or he is lying to cover up for a sub-par performance on a day when National should have dominated through sheer blanket coverage of the tax cut policy.
14 comments:
Mikey - would prefer you blogged on National's winning tax policy than following the edict from the 9th floor to spread the lie that Helen won and Brash is no good for respecting his opponent enough to remain courteous in the debate. More than can be said for Brash's opponent.
Mikey - I assume you and wifey have not been blessed with children yet? Luckily for you and wifey you'll be able to take up National's tax cut package - on $55K (union stroker 2nd class) you'll get to keep an extra $1500 in 2006 and $2400 in 2007. If wifey earns similarly that's a trip to Fiji - way better than empty door knocking for a lost cause in Pakuranga.
Of course if that cynical prick Cullen was left in charge you'd get nothing.
Think about it - only 11% of the population have families...another master stroke outa town for the Labour strategists.
Yep - very strange Michael, how Clark, Cullen and Mallard in particular have actually no decency or courteousness. Courtesy and humility are virtues that can be found in exceptional politicians. Sadly Clark & Co display none of it. She is becoming a wild, rabid dog.
As far as the election goes she is a winner - for National. The more she snarls and bares her teeth, figuratively and really the quicker the slide of support away from her. She is hated. I have not since Muldoon (before your time my boy) heard the visceral commentary by mild mannered folks as evoked by Clark.
I reckon, if Don wants to show what breeding and etiquette he has, then he can be a gentleman all he wants after the debate has finished...
He can hold the door open for Helen as they leave... lay his jacket down on the puddle in front of her as they step outside the TV studio... open the door to her car before it 'speeds' off (haha)...
But what he probably shouldn't do, and I'm speaking with the best interests of the poor old National Party at heart here, is lose a debate and then try to cover it up with a lame excuse. Just a thought...
Hey, is it too late to replace him with someone else? What about yourself, Spooksy?... You don't strike me as someone who would let bourgeois social niceties get in your way! You should do it, old fella! It would make it more fun.
Also under the heading 'Very Strange'... Has anyone else noticed that, whenever the topic of conversation (on any of these threads) has turned to the leader of the National Party, this has immediately caused some tory-spouting character to charge in and change the subject!
I'm sure Michael will deal with the Nats' tax proposal in due course, TooRight. He's certainly addressed all other subjects of importance so far.
But in the meantime, I just thought I'd register what a taboo "five letter word" Brash seems to have become... Whenever it's been mentioned, someone steams in to talk about something else!
Think about it. This is one of only two people with a serious chance of being PM after the next election – and yet his 'supporters' seem to blanch at the opportunity to sell us his credentials. Why is this?
Is poor Don the elephant in the corner of the room that everyone is too polite to notice? Or is 'lame duck' a more fitting comparison?
Michael, the only thing that is very strange is that you can say in your Blog profile: "Politics is about ideas, and I think that it is important for them to be discussed in an open, civilised environment.", and at the same time condone the uncivilised and disrepective behaviour of your leader on the TVNZ Leaders debate.
How hypocritical!
Too Right said
"only 11% of the population have families"
Actually, Too Right, the figure is 100%.
Only the 2% of people supporting Act have the anti-social and totally individualistic stance of generational separation you have.
Clark has always been hated by chauvinists like you Too Right who can't handle the fact that she is a woman. You are pathetic.
Brash can't cut it. The lack of civility came from the puerile and obnoxious Remuera rent-a-mob appearing in the studio audience for National.
I am a single, white, twenty-something male, second-class citizens according to Labour. They are encouraging welfare dependancy. `
Michael Wood is a union hack, bludging off workers too. What is it with these Labour people?
Usual ad hominem attacks from nonies. My comment wass in regards to civility and humility. Words are too long for the leftie ranters to understand I hazard.
Also I see I touched a nerve about tax cuts being to all workers with nony worrying about the definition of a family - taking the Clark line we all have families. Sadly I assumed nony (I know it was a grave judgement) would be able to follow my argument a paragraph later that with National the currently child free Woods would have the (choice of a) holiday in Fiji, (or perhaps paying more off the mortgage...) as a direct result of the reduced tax take under National. That's the thing about the Left they don't like the people to have choices.
Oh man the rhetoric in here is classic. I gotta say, it's good to see someone young getting out there and active - even if it is in Maurice Williamson's domain. Hope springs eternal.
Anyways, the NZ public has had 6 years to learn Labour's style of government, and current opinion polls indicate that they're pretty happy with the way things are going. These non-issues like 'politeness' during debates don't really register when stacked up against 2 terms of economic and social progress.
So I can understand the right's frustration when everyone is far more interested in Don's chauvanism that his single campaign issue of tax cuts for the wealthy.
what a friendly welcome to a new entrant to the blog that was spooks!
Greetings, CutFoldGlue. Sorry about the rather crotchety 'welcome' from another participant. He obviously hasn’t had his morning sherry yet. Don't worry, Spooksy. The RSA will be open again in a few hours.
Anyway, CFG – I hope you find it enjoyable here. If you can stand the smell of mothballs, Old Spice and half-full incontinence panties, there's plenty of chuckles to be had...
Enjoy!
And, by the way, proving my earlier point, it didn’t go unnoticed that old Spooksy again declined to expand on the actual topic of this thread, namely the idea of one "PM Don B***h.". Thanks for proving me right so quickly and conclusively, Spooksy.
Spooks, the people you speak of are most likely to fall within the 66% of New Zealanders who will receive a tax cut of $10/week or less from National. The real winners from tax cuts are people like MP's who will get a $92/week cut, to be followed by more in the future when the 39% rate would be dropped. Trying to argue that this policy is about improving the lot of ordinary working people is palpable nonsense. See my next post for more.
Btw, I do have to comment that for a group of people who exalt everyone else to work harder, you right wingers seem to spend an awfully large part of the ordinary working making blog entries
;-)
Hmm, with all the grey hair showing through I'm inclined to think spooks is a NZ First voter.
But hey, you're frustrated that the rest of NZ doesn't understand your greed - though your deliberate obfuscation of Michael and others comments is probably a good place to start. Of course, you will invariably you will put it down to the great unwashed masses stupidity.
Yeah, definately NZ Fist.
It alls makes for entertaining reading though.
Spooks, this post was more about Don Brash's weird attitude to women than tax cuts. But anyway...
Which first world countries precisely do you think we have "stifling" tax rates compared to? Most of the ones I am aware of would have taxed high income uber-achievers such as yourself at far higher rates. The top rate in Australia is 47%.
You also fail to even try and argue why it would be good or fair policy to give affluent New Zealanders nine times the benefit that 66% of ordinary wage earners will receive. This is what National's tax policies would do.
Post a Comment