Saturday, October 24, 2009

Things will be different...

A theme I heard several times from right-wing bloggers during the term of the last govt was that left-wing bloggers were simply lapdogs who made excuses for any kind of left-wing bullshit behaviour, no matter how outrageous it was. When a right-wing govt was achieved, such sycophancy would stop, as the right was willing to stand up against bad behaviour by its own side, unlike the degenerate "socialists."

We've seen just how accurate that view wasn't recently with a number of cases:

1. Ministers Rodney Hide and Heather Roy are attempting to make people affected by their portfolios put money into the ACT Party coffers if they want to hear the Minister's intentions for this area. It doesn't take much imagination to realise the kind of things right-wing bloggers would have written about this if Ministers in the previous govt were doing it, so presumably there'll be no excuses for it under this govt, right? Er, wrong. According to Cactus Kate, it's perfectly alright because the Party gets the money, not the Minister. As someone pointed out, such hair-splitting is classic Winston Peters material - unsurprising I suppose, since he and CK are both lawyers. And according to various commenters, Helen Clark is doing something similar at the UN - this Helen Clark who's now apparently a benchmark for ACT Ministers' behaviour in office being the same one vilified for years as dishonest, corrupt and a disgrace to the nation.

2. Chris Carter blogged a post vaguely comparing the PM to Benito Mussolini, to predictable howls of outrage and ugly gay-bashing on Kiwiblog. Fair enough - it's pointless, stupid and offensive to their victims to compare NZ politicians with murderous dictators, so Carter obviously falls into that category. Fair cop. But hold on a minute - if merely dashing off a blog post comparing the PM to a murderous dictator makes Carter an idiot, how are we to describe the blogger who went out and paid for large billboards comparing the PM to murderous dictators? You'd think, from the comments left by DPF's readers re Carter, that they'd be well placed to have advised him on just how stupid that was, but somehow they neglected to do so - perhaps because they all spent years comparing the PM to murderous dictators themselves in his comments threads.

3. Bill English lies so he can extract more money in allowances from the taxpayer than many of those taxpayers earn in a year. Cries of dishonesty, corruption, disgrace to the nation etc? Still waiting.

4. How about the govt's future plans? The latest one is to give all bureaucrats with enforcement powers the kind of powers only previously granted to Police. Again, no imagination required to picture how a move like this from the previous Labour govt would have been greeted. And yet, somehow, commentary is lacking...


Shane Ponting said...

I'm right of centre, and I haven't been apologising for 2, 3, and 4. With comparing any PM to a particular group of baddies or goodies - the act itself is fine (free speech you know, with the usual constraints of responsibility etc), I think though the response to it is really always going to show a person's political colours because they affect whether or not the comparison seems valid.

Bill English hasn't impressed me at all since the election - period.

And the big brother upgrade is a stain on the National party which even with determined efforts would take SEVERAL elections to wash out.....

Cactus Kate said...

hair splitting? The rules are perfectly clear.

Just because you can't understand them because you don't wish to actually read for interpretation, does not mean they are hair splitting or loopholes?

The rules discuss specifically when a Minister even talks at a damn fundraiser. Therefore acknowledging that Ministers speak at fundraisers.

If you want to whinge, re-write the rules to specifically exclude the behaviour.

P.S: Clark last was in charge of the rules.....Labour have been doing the precise behaviour for the past 9 years...examples are all over blogs.

WAKE UP said...

EDUCATION 101. Write 500 times: "Labour's systemic, perverted corruption had to go". Check.

EDUCATION 101.1 Write 500 times: "This lot are a disappointment". Check.

EDUCATION 101.2 Make a choice between "systemic, perverted corruption" and ". "a disappointment" (Note; you can have one or the other, but not both, and there is only one correct answer).


WAKE UP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WAKE UP said...

Sorry, typos...

Shane, I encounterd Bill English many years ago; he was in Opposition, and unimpressive. Only one of those two things has changed :)

WAKE UP said...

Here's an apposite quote from author Robert Harris (on British politics):

"...the problems are insoluble, really, in that the structure of democratic politics suggests that each side has the solutions, but problems are never really solved. You can't solve the National Health Service, because it's always going to lag behind technology. You can't ever win the war on crime, or the war on terror. You can't repeal human nature. People get tired of you, and you lose, it's as simple as that".

Redbaiter said...

"the right was willing to stand up against bad behaviour by its own side, unlike the degenerate "socialists" "

1. No bad behaviour. Just frantic false allegations and smears. Same old left wing cowardice.

2. How does this item, an act of churlishness by an arrogant communist/ Progressive petty tyrant from the Labour party who in an act of pure fascism used his executive power to stop a marina and has rorted the taxpayer of a fortune in unwarranted travel, fit with the criteria expressed in the initial paragraph? He's Labour you fool. Why should right wing bloggers stand up for him??

3. English did not lie. In an example of honesty unmatched by any Labour politician, he actually voluntarily returned money he did not have to. More false and cowardly allegations and smears, the hallmark of leftists since Stalin's time.

4. Kiwiblog has criticised these proposals.

So- all weak unsupportable bullshit from a deranged loser. Stick to checking up on overdue library books Milt. Clearly, reaching any further just brings you to the Peter principle.

Psycho Milt said...

Cactus Kate: it's a pity you don't apply the same level of interpretive precision to your vague "Ministers speak at fundraisers" that you apply to interpreting the rulebook. It's not simply a matter of Ministers speaking at fundraisers and you know it.

Re hairsplitting: you're a lawyer, so you look no further than whether a rule was broken or not (or whether it can be argued a rule wasn't broken). I'm not a lawyer, just a voter, and I expect cabinet ministers to Do the Right Thing regardless of whether the rules prescribe it or not. Selling information about your intentions for your ministry that people affected by said ministry are entitled as voters to hear from you for free is by no stretch of the imagination The Right Thing. This kind of distinction seemed to be facile for right-wingers to make when Labour was running things, but has somehow become all just too difficult once their own side are doing it.

Redbaiter: re 1, if you define bad behaviour according to your own partisan political beliefs, naturally there was none. That's exactly my point. Re 2, try reading it again - you seem to have difficulties with reading comprehension. Re 3, if you believe English lives in Dipton, I have 5 magic beans I'll be happy to exchange with you for a cow. Re 4, I noticed the Standard admonish the Labour govt occasionally too. So what?

Heine said...

Errr, ACT did nothing wrong. End of. It's that simple. Rodney likes to talk about what he is doing with the members of ACT and we are always happy to listen to him.

This is a pathetic beat up and utter desperation to make it something it isn't. I feel it is quite sinister actually - painting ACT as corrupt and money mad, really playing to the public eh?

Psycho Milt said...

A beat-up?

He invited local government councillors to a breakfast called “The Future of Local Government Breakfast” in his capacity as Minister of Local Government, with all cheques, at $45 a head, to be made out to the ACT Party.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Heine said...

And common practice to charge for an ACT event, run for members to see Rodney. Nothing at all dodgy about it. Remember, he was in hot water from them for NOT inviting them. He can't win can he?