Drowning your sorrows in the early hours, in an empty bar, recalling the love that's lost. Isn't this just the right song, not only for David Cunliffe, but for the whole damn Labour Party? Take it away, Mr Sinatra ...
Video courtesy of YouTube
This posting is exclusive to Bowalley Road.
16 comments:
Maybe Frank will find his baby. Maybe he'll go back tonight and say Play it again Sam.
Chris, I am wondering if you have become nostalgic, lonely, sad, bitter, nasty or have just gone a bit kooky. It is an enigma to me why you, an intelligent erudite commentator, has been continuously putting the boot into Labour party and on its democratically and legitimately elected new leader? I think Labour and Little need strong support from the lefties and especially from well respected guys like you.
Chris
I know that Clemgeopin and many others have decided that it is important to get behind Little and give the best opportunity to Labour to go forward and get into power. There is also a desire not to judge too harshly or to monitor closely Labour is matching up to the marathon training exercise levels needed if it is to be fit for the big one.
These are my ponderings on the matter. I feel pretty grim about the inability of so many in Labour to accept the responsibility that goes with what remains of the historic power and numbers that Labour has had, and still retains, and to keep a clear eye on what it should do when it again controls government. Winning is just the start of the battle, not the goal.
After the way that Labour chose not to pull all the stops that were available to get to the top in the last election, there can be no certainty that they won't again play the game of letting the other win, if they think they can draw better in the major league (when they decide the time for that.) Did they thrown the game last time? I feel that they have gone far from being the clever, straightforward, people-focussed, progressisve politicians we once envisaged.
Is Little showing his colours as a champion of the people and the country's enterprise and business? Shearer revealed his in his unconcern with the NZ people who are not haves, when he made deriding comments about beneficiaries.
It seems that on TPPA Labour and Little have not followed the simple pragmatic line of caution and opposition. To me they appear to have shown as much backbone on this as the Trade Union and Douglas did over accepting the Douglas Daredevils guerilla attack on our lives and economy.
Labour seems to be blackmailing us. Give us your backing and get us into power with whatever we manage to sell to the people or else we will lose the election and it will be your fault. We are all you have, so buckle down and shut up or National will be in for ever, and you will just be outside smudging the double glazing with your hot breath.
And there will be wasted time of doing nothing about climate change while National ponce around and talk up there every little positive achievement and probably throw away the records or the scientists that demonstrate the vastly higher negative stats a la Canada and Harper. Labour might have done something about it, but was prevented by unreasoning hostility of confused activists will be their line.
It's a bit like NZ is a wealthy dying relative and those with an enduring power of attorney can manipulate the property, pick off the best pieces, and spend funds on various 'necessary' chattels and expenditures. After death, and probate comes through, what is left?
The Labour Party is a failed bunch of Party plotters and irregulars who can't be modernised but are our only hope. We are on our way back to 1915 conditions, 100 years after WW1 but now with new fearsome technological weapons allowing manipulation of life with few checks and balances. And oligarchs and plutocrats with pots of money to buy up integrity of those we would trust. In 2015 we have to fight to save our country from the inhuman, careless monsters in our midst we fought to suppress and dominate in our past. Maybe Labour can be moved from its inertia by some aspect of chaos theory it has not prepared for?
Labour and Little might NEED strong support, but do they deserve it? The answer may well be "no!"
Just reading a post by Hugh Pavletitch on Macrobusiness.it seems Phil Twiford has his finger on the button re housing: he is going to "free up density". Holy immigration will stay.
James Dann of "Multicultural Aotearoa " can explain it too the Ilam electorate.
Partners in crime -the Labour Mayors in action
"The increase in diversity is very noticeable," said Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter Townsend.
"Christchurch before the earthquakes was a very monocultural, conservative, inward-looking city, and post-earthquake it's become much more culturally diverse and celebrating different cultures and that's been quite a big learning for the city."
Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck thinks, and hopes, that the highly-skilled workers will stay on beyond the rebuild work.
Ms Buck thinks that most Cantabrians welcome the influx as being "incredibly positive and very exciting".
"Apart from Maori who got here ahead of all of us, the rest of us are all immigrants anyway."
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11531145
Michael King
"it is only right to see the macrocarpa and the wooden church as being as much emblematic of the New Zealand landscape and human occupation of it, as the meeting house and the cabbage tree."
Dalzielle was the first to use the "we are all migrants" in a speech.
Many major countries have almost no immigrants — fewer than two per cent of their populations — including Japan, South Korea, China, India, Turkey, Romania, Mexico, Poland, Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Vietnam, the Philippines and most African nations.
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/there+diversity+then+there+super+diversity+burnaby+style/11482044/story.html
Is this the right song by Bette Midler for the end of the Conference -
Is that all there is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpn_xu81ySo
The Labour Party's Progressive or bust policy is only possible because gangs control the media infrastructure (Andrea Vance, Mitre10). We don't have a free press.
Er.... India is more multicultural than New Zealand, and it has few migrants because few people want to go and live there – it's quite difficult to make a living there you realise? Poland – people are leaving there in droves because they can't find work. Romania similar, also Mexico. Brazil is a nation of migrants, they have received the third highest number of migrants in the Americas. Great cultural diversity but also high intermarriage. I could go on, but most of these countries are places people don't want to go to. So of course they have few migrants. Some few like Japan or Korea seem to want to preserve their ethnic purity, but I've been to Japan and I think there are probably more migrants than people realise – not necessarily legal. But still – to be fair probably under 2%.
A Greek intellectual called Golden Dawn the true workers party. Progressive parties have all the resources of the universities behind them (Spoonley, Butcher etc) and beauracracy including the Human Rights Commission and Race Relations Office (set up to advocate for non citizens).
NZ First doesn't have the talent, but if you don't think they have ammunition follow Michael Reddell's blog.
A nationalistic approach is based on getting your own house in order whereas the progressive approach is based on getting the world in order (part of which involves absorption into the great leavening progressive lump).
In Germany anti refugee protesters outnumber progressives despite the efforts of the unions and progressive parties and refugee advocates - life looks different when you aren't sitting in an ivory tower.
jh
I don't know where your racial bias to this post came from jh - I missed some salient point somewhere. And your summary of progressive about getting the world in order, as opposed to nationalistic sounds generalised and opinionated.
The movement of time and events creates a new reality which requires us to meet new situations, so we must re-examine past certainties to face the new challenges. Quoting favourite precepts that might have applied in the past merely illustrates past wisdoms, from which we can measure the depth of change that we have to meet today. You seem to be averse to facing reality jh.
Golden Dawn. Basically a gang. Leaders on trial for running a criminal organisation and murdering an antifascist rapper. Leaders have expressed admiration for Nazis. Not a lot more needs to be said. Whoever your Greek intellectual was JH he isn't VERY intellectual.
Okay, been to the blog you mentioned JH. Again, not sure as to what your meaning is, but this is a direct quote from one of his posts.
"There is lots of debate about the long-term effects of immigration, but there has never been much doubt about the short-term effects. Immigration to New Zealand doesn’t boost unemployment; all else equal it lowers it. If we’d not had the impetus from immigration over the last couple of years, we’d be grappling with even weaker inflation pressures and more of a need for the Reserve Bank to have cut interest rates further."
So he's in favour of immigration. Presumably therefore you hate the man. Try to make this clear before you send me on it fool's errand chasing will of the wisps. I was actually looking for New Zealand first ammunition. The magazine seems to be empty :-).
Guerilla Surgeon said...
Er.... India is more multicultural than New Zealand, and it has few migrants because few people want to go and live there – it's quite difficult to make a living there you realise?
...
Yes of course I realise. It's called diffusion (hot to cold, worse to better, crowded to less crowded) But does it follow that by their coming here cultural enrichment and "their skills" is worth the costs to New Zealanders?
The Australian Productivity Commission concluded there was little or no benefit to Australians from Immigration (it had all been captured by the migrants).
Ms Buck thinks that most Cantabrians welcome the influx as being "incredibly positive and very exciting"
The top 4 make up 20% of the crème d'creme category.
1. Chef
2. Registered nurse aged care
3. Retail manager
4. Cafe or Restuarant manager
5. ICT support manager
6. ICT Technician
7. Software Engineer
8. Early Childhood teacher
9. University Lecturer
10. Developer Programmer
11. Registered Nurse
12. Office manager
13. Baker
14. ICT Business Analyst
15. Sales and Marketing Manager
16. Resident Medical Officer
17. Secondary School Teacher
18. Accountant (General)
19. Registered Nurse (Critical Care)
20. ICT Project Manager.
http://croakingcassandra.com/2015/09/03/occupations-of-residence-approvals-under-the-skilled-migrant-category/
In this case I do agree, we don't need any more chefs, retail managers or cafe managers. (Most of these I imagine would be relatives of people already here.) But he still does say that there is net economic benefit long-term in migration. You're sort of cherry picking here.
I was at christchurch hospital recently and there were many technicians there who looked as if they had come to nz in the last ten years.
I think one of our problems is that we train our people, charge them for their education, and don't have a job for them. Meanwhile the loan has to be repaid. They leave. We have had a run-down economy for a while and haven't the openings for the highly trained.
We should be training people for all sorts of things despite that, just so we can when and if we ever get a functioning economy back. Keep training builders and carpenters for instance, and have annual crop of state houses ticking over for grads to do.
But what this narrow-focussed govt wants is to educate lots of overseas students, have them fully pay for their education, spend less on NZs then employ the overseas graduates who have paid for their own jobs and subsidised the lesser education for the locals. Locals can get the jobs left over. For the govt that's a win because they don't care a toss for the ordinary people after their family and friends get shoehorned into the
best jobs available to them.
Post a Comment