The Great Darren Hughes Phil Goff meltdown thread - Enhanced Love

[GM]

Feck, u r correct - all those places below the Bombay hills tend to sound the same to me.

Why do they have to fly everyone to Dunners anyway, haven't they heard of telephone conferences?

[StN]

Trev fell off his treadly and busted a femur and collarbone? Probably making some point about heath cuts and how not all hospital rooms have Video Conferencing or something.

[Ab]

Stuff's article shows the problem facing Labour, albeit unintentionally.

First to arrive at Otago University's Staff Club Rooms in Dunedin was Trevor Mallard, in a wheelchair after a cycling accident.

Deputy leader Annette King and Maryan Street arrived together.

Asked if he would have acted in the same way as Goff over the controversy, Charles Chauvel said his message would be for his "colleagues inside" not the media.

Wellington MP Grant Robertson said he was looking forward to a "robust" discussion.

Mallard and King: both have been Labour MPs since David Lange ousted Rob Muldoon - 1984 for god's sake - both are hanging on to their taxpayer-funded salaries and superannuation for grim death.

Street: gay

Chauvel: gay

Robertson: gay

Meeting to discuss Darren Hughes, who appears to have a problem with being: gay, the latest PR disaster to befall Labour since the Chris Carter fiasco - hey now that you mention it, yes Chris Carter is: gay.

Welcome to The Party that Helen Made.

Now, lest I be accused of hating on the fags, I wish to state that I am not a homophobe. Hell, some of my friends are fags. If they want to carry on with their perverted lifestyles that are an abomination before God and forsake the true love of our Lord Jesus Christ, that's their business.

However I think the Labour Party has a serious perception problem.

[fixed_truth]

Ok, I'll take a bite at your beating around the bush. How exactly does the Labour Party having gays result in the party having a 'serious perception problem'?

[CCS]

And that's only a few of the GAYS in Labour.

[StN]

I did wonder if the first post in this thread was a bit too risqué, but it looks to be on the button. Radio Live keep playng a station ID with Willy Jackson asking Goff how many homosexuals he has in his cabinet(?) and he quickly says "That's a bullshit question!" - which it probably is, but current events make it all the more telling.

But it is election year - maybe there is a cunning plan to ensnare the nations gay vote, albeit by isolating the homophobe/rugby racing and beer vote? What did you say? There's a World Cup on too? Oh my.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Ok, I'll take a bite at your beating around the bush. How exactly does the Labour Party having gays result in the party having a 'serious perception problem'?

During the eighties and nineties a bitter internal battle took place between two Labour factions: older working-class socialists from the union movement who saw Labour's duty as one of representing The Workers against The Bosses, and younger middle-class University graduates who saw the struggle as one of identity politics expressed in gender terms rather than socio-economic terms and who saw Labour's duty as one of representing The Marginalised against The Patriarchy. This battle ended in total defeat for the unionists with Helen Clark's rise to power and the creation and dominance of "Rainbow Labour", an internal Labour group that dedicated itself to addressing "the issues facing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people".

You couldn't get a better example of the clash than through three of the MPs mentioned in the first few lines of that Stuff article I quoted.

• Trevor Mallard: Joined the Labour Party in 1972. Likes his sports and his beer. Has been in some trouble in the courts because of his temper and in his marriage because of his bit on the side. Strong union background.
  
• Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson: Young, media-friendly, post-graduate degrees up to here, homosexual, political careers personally fast-tracked and managed by Helen Clark.

Helen Clark brutally extinguished any threats to herself while in power with the Rainbow Labour faction, ending or sidetracking the careers of potential rivals while surrounding herself and stacking the Labour Party benches with her own creatures, all of whom happened to be gay. Carter, Chauvel, Robertson, Hughes, Street, Tizard, the list goes on.

So Goff is getting criticised for being weak - no shit Sherlock, all the strong Labour leadership contenders accidentally brutally stabbed themselves in the stomach while shaving. If you even looked like one day, fifteen years in the future, you might possibly entertain thoughts of maybe canvassing opinion as to whether or not you might have a shot at being Leader, BANG. Goff is only still alive BECAUSE he's weak and Helen didn't think him enough of a threat to cap.

What this Labour meltdown has done is reveal the continuing internal tension within the Labour Party between the Rainbow and union factions. Hughes is one of ours! Gotta protect him, say Rainbow Labour. Goff's one of ours! Gotta protect him, say the unions. These two factions know that they hate each other ("Fucking working-class dinosaurs!" "Fucking university queers!") and they hate each other so bad that they're doing some crazy shit. Hughes is a rich white male in a position of authority accused of a sex crime! Gotta protect hi-- hey, what? say Rainbow Labour. Goff has kept Andrew Little, boss of the biggest union in NZ, in the dark! Gotta protect hi-- hey, what? say the unions.

The perception issue I referred to is the perception in the public mind that the Labour caucus is still Helen's Rainbow Kingdom controlled in absentia by her Chosen Fags until she returns.

National's just sitting back and munching popcorn. National hasn't even criticised Hughes or Goff, which is almost inconceivable until you realise that nothing National could say or do could be as damaging to Labour as what Labour's doing to itself.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

The perception issue I referred to is the perception in the public mind that the Labour caucus is still Helen's Rainbow Kingdom controlled in absentia by her Chosen Fags until she returns. The perception is that Labour has become a gay party run by gays to protect gays and advance a gay agenda.

Yes but what makes you think that this perception actually exists in the public mind? There was never this perception when the public voted Helen in for a further two terms. National hardly won 2008 because the public thought Labour was being overrun by teh gheys. Also the Chris Carter affair didn't portray this and I'm not sure that there's wide speculation that Goff would have handled the Hughes situation differently with a straight man? So even if there is an internal conflict going on within Labour atm I hardly think it's a serious perception problem.

I think Labours perception problem is more that they've got no solutions ie that they couldn't do things better than National.

(Edit by Ab: the second sentence f_t quoted above was deleted from my preceding post, as just saying the word 'agenda' made me feel grubby. As you were)

[aR Que]

I'm not sure thats a perception tho...

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yes but what makes you think that this perception actually exists in the public mind?

Things like this:

Originally Posted by StN

Radio Live keep playng a station ID with Willy Jackson asking Goff how many homosexuals he has in his cabinet

Of course Willy Jackson is a unionist, so he would ask that.

[chiQ]

I don't think that's the general perception of Labour. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard that story.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by chiQ

I don't think that's the general perception of Labour. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard that story.

Well quite frankly you need to be spending more time at kiwiblog

[Ab]

I think most Kiwis are civilised enough to not give a shit about someone's gayness if they're getting the job done. The problem is that when you hear about gays and Labour, the first examples that will come to mind right now probably include Chris Carter, Darren Hughes, and Judith Tizard. That ain't a stellar list.

[chiQ]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Well quite frankly you need to be spending more time at kiwiblog

Hah! Obviously, if that's where all the goss' is at!

[Ab]

Update from the Labour senior-MPs meeting:

The 11 MPs all presented a united front as they arrived at Dunedin's Otago University this morning. All expressed support for Goff's leadership.

Labour leader Phil Goff has said the Darren Hughes affair has "strengthened" his leadership.

[cyc]

Someone should book a mental health assessment for Phil Goff.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I think Labours perception problem is more that they've got no solutions ie that they couldn't do things better than National.

Labour is seen to have no solutions because there are no intelligent charismatic politicians in its ranks. Everyone who matched that description accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving during the 1990s and 2000s.

That Labour has an ineffective leader with no competition for the job is not a situation that just happened by accident.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Labour is seen to have no solutions because there are no intelligent charismatic politicians in its ranks.

Compared to who? Those fiscally responsible masterminds applying 1980's economics in spending $14billion on tax cuts for those who don't need it - with no stimulatory effect on the economy?

[Ab]

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Those fiscally responsible masterminds applying 1980's economics in spending $14billion on tax cuts for those who don't need it - with no stimulatory effect on the economy?

But that's the point, the government can do it that, without lube, and the public laps it up because that nice man Mr Key would never do anything to hurt them! Goff would never be able to get away with the same thing.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Saladin

But that's the point, the government can do it that, without lube, and the public laps it up because that nice man Mr Key would never do anything to hurt them! Goff would never be able to get away with the same thing.

The sooner Labour replace Goff with someone intelligent and charismatic enough to get away with fucking the public at the expense of the economy the better!! Solutions ftw.

[xor]

And who would that be?

[Ab]

Labour doesn't have to worry because right now there isn't anyone to match that description. The Clark years exterminated them all.

Shearer maybe in a few years? Right now he's a newb. He's not a unionist and he's not gay, which means he has no allies and no support network, and on top of that he's invisible.

Parker? Cunliffe? Cosgrove? Don't make me laugh.

Labour's headed for a thrashing at the election and no-one will challenge Goff for the leadership because they're all too fucking gutless to be Leader of a team when it gets thrashed. No-one has the balls to step up like Mike Moore did and say "yeah, I'll have a crack, we'll get beaten but better to get knocked down in a fight than be seen to chicken out, eh? Get into it New Zealand!"

Of course no-one will step up like Mike Moore did, because you know what happened to Mike Moore? Helen Clark happened to Mike Moore, that's what.

[Ab]

Just noticed how old I sound, all these 80s references

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The sooner Labour replace Goff with someone intelligent and charismatic enough to get away with fucking the public at the expense of the economy the better!! Solutions ftw.

Do you seriously wonder why you are perceived as a resident deluded leftie here? You'll probably have noticed by now that on social issues, you and I almost always agree and I actually also agree that the tax cuts were stupid. However, I just can't fathom your almost unshakable belief that Labour is struggling purely because National has the people conned or only because Labour is weak.

No, Labour is struggling because it is (1) fundamentally a basket case, (2) a party that will do anything and everything to stay in power (including sleeping with NZ First), and (3) a party that had been in government over three terms during which NZ supposedly enjoyed fabulous economic growth yet produced more inequality, investment losses/speculative bubbles, and social conditions that are driving the young away for ever. Seriously, the leader of this party is so retarded or deluded that he thinks his leadership has been strengthened after lying to the public over whether he was aware of the Darren Hughes complaint, displaying a set of double standards over the affair vis-a-vis what he did when Richard Worth was accused, and after his caucus had clearly displayed unhappiness towards what he did.

This is also a party which lambasted the Prime Minister for ruling out going into a coalition with Winston Peters whilst shamelessly yelling out that it would not accept Hone Harawira as a potential coalition partner. And Labour's "leader" has been on record in recent years engaging in racial politics and attacking Maori's rights as tangata whenua whilst also strenuously opposing the foreshore and seabed legislation which actually remedied Labour's patent thievery of Maori's customary rights.

In short, Labour has been for YEARS shafting its own constituents, is filled with incompetent/hypocritical idiots, and has almost zero ideas other than opposing the government's policies, whether they be good or bad. The fact that National might not be very good at all hardly changes the fact that Labour doesn't even merit an "E" grade.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Labour doesn't have to worry because right now there isn't anyone to match that description. The Clark years exterminated them all.

*sigh*

I hate all that you're right about. We're gonna get shafted by at least one, quite likey two more National terms before there'll be anyone viable on the left.

If we're lucky National won't fuck with MMP. But they probably will.

[Ab]

If MMP returns Judith Tizard - hey, whaddya know, Helen Clark's best friend! and believe it or not, she's: gay! - to Parliament next week, the government will be overwhelmed with public demands FOR them to fuck with MMP.

[GM]

Originally Posted by Ab

Just noticed how old I sound, all these 80s references

80's references? Pretty sure it was the 'that's what!' exclamation at the end, kind of like the... "don't get me started!" old people use as a segue into a rant lol.

[Ab]

Moore was Minister of Overseas Trade (or some equivalent) during the Lange government. He personally evangelised some big export effort to get trading partners buying more lamb, and one of the campaigns in which he featured was for lamb burgers.

TV satirists David McPhail and Jon Gadsby (are they still around in NZ?) ran an ongoing gag featuring Moore as a hyperactive TV chef/salesman, wearing a chef's hat and pitching NZ burgers that varied from week to week. Lamb burgers... kiwi burgers... weta burgers... you get the idea.

The skits always featured Moore stuffing the concoction into a microwave with "...and into the old microwave she goes!" and then presenting the finished product to the camera with "Weta burgers! Get into it New Zealand!" (or whatever burger of the week was).

These phrases have always stuck with me. I'm not sure why. Nor do I know why I typed this all out.

[crocos]

Mmmm... We should totally farm Kiwis for making into burgers.

Poultrylicious.

[CCS]

Reckon we'd be better off farming Weka for burgers tbh.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

Moore was Minister of Overseas Trade (or some equivalent) during the Lange government. He personally evangelised some big export effort to get trading partners buying more lamb, and one of the campaigns in which he featured was for lamb burgers.

TV satirists David McPhail and Jon Gadsby (are they still around in NZ?) ran an ongoing gag featuring Moore as a hyperactive TV chef/salesman, wearing a chef's hat and pitching NZ burgers that varied from week to week. Lamb burgers... kiwi burgers... weta burgers... you get the idea.

The skits always featured Moore stuffing the concoction into a microwave with "...and into the old microwave she goes!" and then presenting the finished product to the camera with "Weta burgers! Get into it New Zealand!" (or whatever burger of the week was).

These phrases have always stuck with me. I'm not sure why. Nor do I know why I typed this all out.

This is exactly what sprang to mind when you mentioned Moore earlier in this thread - right down to David McPhail grinning into the camera.

Bloody lamb burgers.

[chiQ]

Yeah, I can't read or hear Moore's name without thinking of Wetaburgers and the spitting image puppet, which looked like a sad panda...ew.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

However, I just can't fathom your almost unshakable belief that Labour is struggling purely because National has the people conned or only because Labour is weak.

If you're going to call me out on something at least show me where I've stated this. I've not denied that Labours last term is affecting their support now. Of course is it a factor.

Originally Posted by cyc

No, Labour is struggling because it is
(1) fundamentally a basket case,

Not sure what you mean by this.

(2) a party that will do anything and everything to stay in power (including sleeping with NZ First),

Agree

and (3) a party that had been in government over three terms during which NZ supposedly enjoyed fabulous economic growth yet produced more inequality, investment losses/speculative bubbles, and social conditions that are driving the young away for ever.

Disagree. Eg. WFF and an increase in the top tax rate to 39% was responsible for the first decrease in equality in 15 years. Even the current Govt. acknowledges that if Labour wasn't so successful at reducing Govt. debt we would be in an even worse position now.

Originally Posted by cyc

In short, Labour has been for YEARS shafting its own constituents, is filled with incompetent/hypocritical idiots, and has almost zero ideas other than opposing the government's policies, whether they be good or bad. The fact that National might not be very good at all hardly changes the fact that Labour doesn't even merit an "E" grade.

Again I disagree that Labour have been shafting its constituents for years (eg WFF, free childhood education, subsidised heath care, minimum youth wage, a 60% increase in the minimum wage, paid maternity leave, kiwisaver, time and a half for statutory holiday work, interest free student loans, 4 weeks annual leave, etc etc etc)
My point is that Labour no more incompetent/hypocritical/idiotic than National - but in practice National generally helps out those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom, while Labour has a track record of not doing this. And at the end of the day I'm about outcomes.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

*sigh*

I hate all that you're right about. We're gonna get shafted by at least one, quite likey two more National terms before there'll be anyone viable on the left.

If we're lucky National won't fuck with MMP. But they probably will.

This is looking pretty likely, though I think the perceived lack of potential leaders in Labour is overstated WHEN compared to National. National have... Key.. I would have said Power as well, but he's gone now. Cunliffe's latest speech puts him as the next major contender, and even potentially.. Mallard. No-one could really accuse him of being a namby-pamby politically correct rainbow stooge. Though I doubt he could handle the stress, he'd probably end up putting his foot in it I guess. Plus of course, he'll never get the opportunity.

National's policies are way behind the times. They're still driven by neoliberalism. Their second term will be far worse than their first. Say whatever you like about HC, but her government was the first one we'd had in 20 years that didn't fuck over the country's economy. Muldoon, Douglas, Richardson, they're a big part of the reason we got so far behind aus. National will use the current weakness of the Labour party to do more of the same.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

If you're going to call me out on something at least show me where I've stated this. I've not denied that Labours last term is affecting their support now. Of course is it a factor.

Well, your "National is worse" and "Labour did X, Y and Z" act every time someone says anything remotely negative about Labour makes your leanings rather obvious.

Your problem is that you define Labour's constituents as only the absolutely poor and at the absolute bottom end of the rung. Where's the amazing social equality in the supposed workers' party shamelessly and deliberately doing absolutely nothing to stop the property boom? Where's the social equality in a party - which has traditionally reached out to Maori and the Ratana Church - proudly declaring that it'll extinguish Maori customary rights? Where's the social equality in Lianne Dalziel (this is a topic quite close to my heart) as Commerce Minister and Labour generally doing absolutely SFA to develop better levels of investor protection during thir 9 years in government? All this despite numerous Law Commission reports pointing out our backward hick laws in this regard.

And the 39% tax rate? Oh don't make me laugh. You're again mistaking intention with good outcomes. All the 39% tax rate has achieved is making lawyers and accountants specialising in trust and "tax structuring" (read: evasion) fabulously wealthy. The trinity scheme and all the numerous tax-dodging schemes before the courts came during Labour's term - all that proved was that Labour was good at giving pocket money to QCs. Only the most blatant schemes were caught and the rest of the time people like the 7 people in a tax team which sit next to me daily got fabulously wealthy helping people dodge taxes. The only people who paid 39% were salary earners. The rich which the law was intended to sock all escaped. If Labour were serious about redistribution, it'd have closed the numerous tax loopholes and tightened our useless laws on trusts.

As for Labour's fisacal responsibility? Look, they had the economic conditions of a lifetime and didn't bleed the bank. I'll grant you that. Does it mean they spent their money well? On some of the things you talked about, I'd say no. Why do people only get excluded from student loans if they fail more than HALF of their papers (LOL anyone who's that stupid deserves more than losing their student loan)? All this when our universities were complaining that their funding were falling behind in real and relative terms more and more with the rest of the world?

And why was Labour responsible for so many illiberal laws in relation to the criminal justice system? Why did it not significantly increase the funding of drug and mental health rehabilitative agencies?

Of course Labour has done some good things for the poor -- apart from the US Republicans, very few mainstream parties in the western world are resolutely hellbent on screwing up the lives of the poor. But it's just delusional to think that Labour has done a lot of great things for its constituents in the 9 years of very favourable conditions which it had. More importantly, in spite of how bad National might/has been, it doesn't justify any of the many, many horrible decisions that Labour have made, for which the country continues to pay.

[StN]

Originally Posted by chiQ

Yeah, I can't read or hear Moore's name without thinking of Wetaburgers and the spitting image puppet, which looked like a sad panda...ew.

Well, that and his lovely wife singing the Romper Room song...

[chubby]

wow.
can somebody kill this dick.
please.
he criticizes labour, while voting for the people who do(or dont do rather) exactly what he's bitching about.

pseudo intellectual indeed.

you suck cyc.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by chubby

wow.
can somebody kill this dick.
please.
he criticizes labour, while voting for the people who do(or dont do rather) exactly what he's bitching about.

pseudo intellectual indeed.

you suck cyc.

Chubby, your intellect is just amazing. Here's why (and these are the only reasons) I vote National:

1. So that the country (hopefully) won't have to put up with the leech that's Winston Peters.

2. Because I actually want to see some economic growth and generally improving economic outcomes.

Are there tradeoffs to voting National? Absolutely. Its criminal justice and social policies are, in particular, appalling. It's just that IMO it's the lesser of two evils. You Keep voting for the imaginary New Zealand Communists, okay?

Chum.

[chubby]

and it's interesting to me that criminal justice and social policy(on labours part anyway) seem to be such areas of concern for you,and generate so many crocodile tears.

wow- so cool that you can put those heavily subsidized skills of yours into the whole pro-bono wank.
what a great guy.

2. Because I actually want to see some economic growth and generally improving economic outcomes.

i think you should've done economics(post 80's) too.