Thursday, January 29, 2015


My fellow bloggers on 'No Minister' are clearly an eclectic lot.    Not sure what drives them but, for this blogger, it's the chance to post on the things that interest me .... defence matters,  issues that effect the veteran community, history, contemporary politics, aviation, rugby, golf (won't mention my net 62 of two weeks ago) and cricket.    At times I will try and be provocative in order to generate responses from both the left and right of the political spectrum.   It amuses me how vicious some of those responses can be.   It is a truism that the extreme left and the extreme right of the politics are joined at the hip when it comes to nasty invective.

Edward the Confessor and Redbaiter are examples of what I am talking about.   Both have attacked me over the years.   EtC would have you believe I am the High Tory personified who eats babies for breakfast while Red has me leading the charge to introduce socialism by stealth.   Most of my acquaintances would describe me as mild center-right although I have to admit that 30 something years ago, while attending the RNZAF Command and Staff College, I wrote a thesis in a frolic of fancy advocating a form of proportional representation for the NZ Parliament which was treated with some amusement by the Directing Staff ... from their reaction it was about twenty years ahead of its time.

And I laugh at EtC's view of me.   My paternal side of the family (including my father) were all staunch socialists.   Certainly I can remember visiting my aunt in Palmerston North with the obligatory portrait of MJS in an honoured place on the living room wall.   Dad tramped the streets for Labour in the 1950s and 1960s (probably to his cost in rural NZL).   Mum was closet National.   A family joke relayed by my sister has Dad demanding of Mum after exiting the polling booth each election 'you voted the right way didn't you' and Mum replying 'of course I did'.    But one thing I do know ....  Dad would be very uncomfortable with the Labour Party of today.

We were an average New Zealand family.   We lived in a State House per courtesy of Peter Frazer which my parents bought per courtesy of a National government.    There were certainly no 'silver spoons' for either myself or my sister but both of us have been moderately successful by dint of hard work.   And that has fashioned my political allegiance.   The role of government is to encourage success.    The dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is a recipe for failure.   Cut through the rhetoric and that's what the left side of politics is all about when push comes to shove.

Red of course would have that government should limit itself to the defence of the realm and nothing too much more.   I reject that completely.   The State has a role in the delivery of public services (but not an exclusive role).   Equally, the State has a role in providing a safety net for those in genuine need (but that doesn't extend to lifestyle dependency).    His view of society would, if implemented, lead to rioting on the streets and in that situation I for one would happily help man the barricades.    It will never come to that.   The voting public is far too sophisticated for that to happen.

One further thing.   I accept the 80/20 rule in politics.   Purists from either side of the political spectrum find that challenging.   Case in point.   I would have preferred that National voted against the anti-smacking legislation.   Labour had the numbers to pass it and John  Key, recognizing that, negotiated changes to the Bill (upholding the right to 'light' smacking) in return for his support.   In doing so he snookered himself and made it politically difficult for him to later repudiate the legislation.   Had he not given Labour his support then National might have been able to repeal the Bill, subject of course to receiving support for its coalition partners (no means certain).   As I said, I would have preferred the latter course of action but there was no way I was going to throw my toys out of the bathwater over that.  

So there it is pure and simple.   Fully expect a sneering response from the likes of EtC and/or Redbaiter but that will be water off a ducks back.    I have been hacked at by far better persons than they will ever be.    I will continue to blog for as long as I feel I have something to contribute and then, in the words of the old barrack room ditty, I will just fade way .... long time coming I suspect having not yet reached three score years and ten (although that won't prevent EtC from continuing to refer to me, and others, as 'old' ... funny that too, most decent people I know reject ageism as something to be abhorred).


Anonymous said...

I truly don't know why you put up with it all! I read your site most days and appreciate it immensely. The two commentators you refer to both need a reality pill in my opinion.


Psycho Milt said...

One further thing. I accept the 80/20 rule in politics.

As it should be. Lord knows I had enough complaints about the last two Labour governments. It's a political party, not your wife - you don't have to back them up on every single thing.

Psycho Milt said...

And also - please do continue for a good long while yet.

Edward the Confessor said...

God you're full of it, Vet. When you lie or indulge in vicious abuse I'll point that out. If you respond by doubling down I'll point that out. Not my fault if that hurts your ego. Think about your posts. If they're reasonable and fair you'll avoid getting pwned.

Anonymous said...

Well, ETC continues….


The Veteran said...

EtC ..., I'll say this once and once only.
Accuse me of lying and you are history on MY blog. You accused me of that on my Turei post and although I provided authentication for the quote (as did Shane Pointing from another source) you continued your faux outrage.

Your posts amuse me all the more so when you resort to ageism but, be warned, step over the line in the sand I have drawn once more and you'll be reflecting on that at your leisure.

Edward the Confessor said...

"You accused me of that on my Turei post and although I provided authentication for the quote (as did Shane Pointing from another source) you continued your faux outrage."

There you go again. You attributed a statement to Turei she did not make, could not back it up, got caught out and instead of apologising you double down on the dishonesty by falsely claiming you were right and that you produced evidence showing this. This is despite the article you provided and her published speech showing you to be wrong. Next you get all uppity about the truth being told on YOUR blog. Yep, you're straight up.

The Veteran said...

EtC ... in the words of the song, good byee, good byee etc etc ... you're out,
banned permanently from MY blog. What my fellow bloggers choose to do in respect of their posts and your comments, OT them.

The Realist said...

62?? That's unfair Vet. As I understand it you had a stroke during the game and the bastards counted it so it should have been 61?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Funny thin g is this troll will run around the blogosphere shouting that he/she/it has been banned for his/her/its ideas rather than its behaviour.