Tuesday, August 23, 2005

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.


spooks said...

What has happened to all the real Kiwi men. Kowtowing (or is that cowtowing) has taken on a brand new meaning in this Amazonian land of the cast-iron bra, and the limp-wristed man (the last for want of another suitable word).

By the way, how many times now has Helen made reference to Don's 65th birthday? Sexism is the work of the devil is seams, but ageism?

Double standards, Michael?

spooks said...

Let me put it another way.

It is a sick New Zealand that Labour is creating, Michael, if you find it necessary to attack your opponent for his having had the audacity to be a, a , a ... ... ... (wait for it) ... ... gentleman!!!!!

Christ, Michael, have the female eunuchs got you by the balls or what?

Too Right said...

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.

Too Right said...

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.

Cheezy said...

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.

Cheezy said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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!

spooks said...

Tis true that commentators seems to have favoured Clark's rabid, snarling style, but "reliable sources" within TVNZ are conceding that the viewer comments (which were solicited btw) were decidedly in favour of the gentleman. There is hope yet, for us real men whose balls are not being loaned out to the female eunuchs of the Labour elite, or to Cullen.

Can you believe the host here would actually display his testosterone-deficiency by posting this talcum powder drivel in the midst of the most interesting and serious election campaign in decades?

spooks said...

And before you all jump to conclusions, and perchance suggest that I might be mixing my gender inferences, be it understood that the "talcum powder" to which I referred above, was a reference to the Labour men.

Anonymous said...

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.

spooks said...

Reply to Cheezy, and the comment on changing the subject.

Get real. Labour are looking for anything to change the subject. Anything but talk about tax cuts for every taxpayer.

The day after National (in Labour words, finally) releases its tax policy, after having rabitted on about it for months, what does Michael here choose to talk about?

Talcum powder.

spooks said...

Anyone here want to talk about
tax cuts for every taxpayer

spooks said...

Perhaps you would prefer to talk about
tax cuts for every worker

spooks said...

Do you remember what workers are Michael? You know, the ones you are supposed to work for, and to represent. You know, the ones who pay your wages, or at least who would pay your wages, if the Labour government hadn't taken over that role. You know, Labour = Work = Workers. Remember? God I must be old-fashioned.

Labour has abandoned workers. Michael, in representing Labour, you are working against the majority of the very people who are paying their union fees.

Anonymous said...

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?

Too Right said...

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.

CutFoldGlue said...

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.

spooks said...

Do the world a favour, CFG, you obviously know nothing about what is actually going on, so spare us your joyful ignorant bliss. When you are old enough, you will be able to vote for "nice" people, or even "young" people, but others among us have real issues to discuss.

Anonymous said...

what a friendly welcome to a new entrant to the blog that was spooks!

Cheezy said...

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...


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 said...

Nothing like the cyber-pot calling the cyber-kettle black (hope you don't see anything racist in that Michael).

Cheezy, nothing like setting the good example of how to post on topic. "crotchety" "hasn’t had his morning sherry" "RSA open again in a few hours" "smell of mothballs" "half-full incontinence panties"

Ah well, while you are saying these things, you are destroying YOUR man's propaganda blog, so I have no problem with any of it. You see, by trying to hurt the centre-right posters here, you play into their hands. Ha ha ha ha. How does it feel having cyber-egg all over your cyber-face?

Oliver said...

Spooks, do you spend the entire day watching Michael's blog trying to think up witty comments? Because a) your comments are not witty and b) the volume of your comments is somewhat disturbing.

You'd be better off getting out of the ACT offices in Newmarket and doing some campaigning with Rodders in Epsom, he needs you!

spooks said...

Okay then, let's talk about Michael's original post of this thread. In the originating post, Michael referred to "coverage of the tax cut policy" on offer by National.

Well, some seem to think that I may have been off topic earlier in this thread. In the context of these words from Michael's originating thread, I suggest to cutfoldglue, that checkout operators, truck drivers, cleaners and resthome care workers are not wealthy. Cutfoldglue does these people serious injustice, by calling them wealthy. Cutfoldglue, you say that National's tax cuts are for the wealthy. But these checkout operators, truck drivers, cleaners and resthome care workers will all get tax cuts under National. They will get tax cuts regardless of their parental choices. Cutfoldglue, do you actually know any wealthy checkout operators, truck drivers, cleaners and resthome care workers to substantiate your claims that they are wealthy? It is true, that they might become slightly more wealthy with National's tax cuts for all workers, and tax cuts for all taxpayers, but they still probably will not be what I would call "wealthy" as such.

Comments? (On topic, please.)

spooks said...

Oliver, will you be contributing on the topic? As I so often say, I am only too happy to be the topic, if that is your choice, but I doubt it would be the host's choice.

michael wood said...

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

CutFoldGlue said...

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 said...

Michael, I am one of the people I referred to in an earlier comment.

When your people put up my tax rate so that from each dollar I earned, I would have given more than half to the Labour Government coffers, I virtually instantly said, get stuffed. I sacked all my staff, and retired at an early age, and haven't worked a day of your slave labour pecuniary tax rates since. And I love the fact that you get virtually nothing from me now, because I will not work two days, to end up with less than a day's pay. Stuff that. And that is what you are doing with your stifling (by today's international standards) tax rates. I choose to sit back and tell you to shove it. Others get on planes and take their jobs creating with them. More and more withdrawing from your killed-golden-egg-laying-goose rates.

That is why I posted about how Labour is determined to destroy incentives - I am one of thousands who are living proof. Labour is removing all the incentives. And Labour don't care about the medium to long term effect on the country, so long as they buy the required number of votes in 2005.

spooks said...

Oh, and what is wrong with grey hair, CFG, are you like your ageist leader, Clark. It hasn't yet become unfashionable to be ageist as it is unfashionable to be sexist, but it is decidedly more disgraceful. It only remains for me to wish on you that you never suffer from ageism directed against you - there being only one way to avoid it according to today's standards. (For the lefties who have trouble working that remark out, my inference involves not living long.)

michael wood said...

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.

spooks said...

Point one, the standard of living in Australia is 40 percent higher (and growing) so it is silly to make actual dollar or actual percentage comparisons - hence my generalisation/ trend observation. The main thing is that virtually everywhere in the western world, tax rates are declining. The important fact is that the net trans-Tasman human/capital tide at the moment is towards the setting sun, not the rising.

My own offspring reside in Australia, (go West young man), with no plans to return, taking their achievements and their money, and their skills with them. Good luck to them, who can blame them.

Last comment on Oz, the first $Ax thousand are not taxed, which has the effect of reducing the 47%, thus differing tax structures, means a direct line-up one against the other can't be done.

Your point two, all very well to say, nine times the saving at the more affluent level, but the fact is the more affluent pay most of the tax. They might get nine times the saving, in arithmetic terms, but they pay as much as hundreds of times the amount. So a fair comparison, is $10 out of ?, as compared with $92 out of ?????? And we both know how much larger ????? is than ? In percentage terms, many lower-end workers will have higher savings than you and your leader.

Michael, this is below your par. Believe it or not, I admire your political talent and potential, but the last comment above was an under-achieved.