Thursday, April 30, 2009

Michael Cullen's valedictory

The disembowelment of Labour is almost complete: Cullen is gone.

What were his four main low points?
  • The failure to stop the philistine obscenity of the Clyde high dam.
  • The lack of consensus around the foreshore and seabed issue.
  • The difficulty of getting a simple approach to the problem of leaky homes.
  • The failure to get the majority of the press gallery to understand fiscal policy.
Not a word about Rogernomics.

What does that tell you.


clumsywizz said...

Good riddance. He will not be missed.

Danyl said...

Not a word about Rogernomics.

What does that tell you.
It tells me you didn't listen to his speech:

"The urgent and necessary process of modernisation and reform lurched off into ideological excesses underpinned by the belief there was no gain without pain. That came to mean that pain must inevitably lead to gain and then to a kind of political sado-masochism in which pain almost seemed an end in itself."

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Danyl, you miss understand Gooner. There was not a word among the regrets.

I thought the speech was especially revealing in that there was not a shred of evidence that Cullen actually understands how disastrous for NZ were his policies which saw us slide at speed down the OECD ladder of prosperity during our most prosperous times since the second world war. Cullen squandered the nation's prosperity at the alter of ideology. There has never been a time when so much money was poured down the drain for no positive result. Remember those wonderful adverts from 2005?

All I could see as I sat through his speech was The Waste Master General.

Randominanity said...

Actually he mentioned Rogernomics several times stating his antipathy towards both the policies and their architect.

I'm with Danyl on this one

Anonymous said...

It’s great he mentioned it in his speech. It’s even better that after mentioning how bad it was it wasn’t in his top four list of low points. As I said, what does that tell you?

It tells you that along with Clark, King et al, they play it for political purposes but actually supported it and all it did for this country. Indeed, Clark was a leading ‘Rogernome’.


libertyscott said...

Yes, I took that Cullen simply thought it needed to be done, but went too far. Code perhaps for "what happened under Labour was right" but "what happened under National was wrong".

Clark was different, she fought it internally, but the Labour left was kept content with the anti-nuclear policy, Ministry of Women's Affairs, the (then) radical Treaty of Waitangi policy, the transformation of education to meet its agenda, the RMA and compulsory unionism.

The Nats only changed the very last of those though.