Disputing a Dominion-Post correspondent’s assertion that the Prime Minister was “a celebrity and not much else”, a Trevor Tofts wrote,
“If a celebrity can handle a massacre, White Island disaster and dealing with Covid… she must be a PM of substance”.
How many times have we read this absurd claim? It’s now getting up there with the hoary old, “our men fought and died so we could…” (have a free education, vote, sing, stand on our heads etc.) various nonsense assertions I’ve read a thousand times since the end of the 2nd World War.
The reality: our men fought and died for none of those reasons asserted but instead because they were conscripted.
So too with the claims about Jacinda.
With the massacre she went to Christchurch, hugged some Muslim women and expressed sympathy, just as would have any Prime Minister.
The White Island claim is particularly baffling. What specifically does Tofts say Jacinda did? Give the volcano a scolding and make it stop erupting or personally rescue buggers trapped on the Island? I don’t know yet we read this nonsense all the time.
To the best of my knowledge she did nothing for the very good reason there was nothing she, or anyone else could do after the event.
Finally, it’s a matter of record that our covid response simply copied that already underway elsewhere. New Zealand’s isolation and island nature, plus small population made combatting the virus spread relatively easy.
However, whether history will record this standard lockdown response as wise is too early to say.
This is not an attack on Jacinda but it certainly is on the too many mindless amidst us who trot this nonsense out.
Deification of Labour leaders by the Party’s dumber supporters simply reflects the left’s dependency mentality.
Even that lumpen dullard Kirk copped it in 1973-4 but history shows such worshipping has little durability.
Muldoon was the only National leader to ever receive that treatment, but only from 1974 for about 3 years and as with Jacinda, to such a degree as to draw support from traditional opposition voters.
Democracy is currently under pressure everywhere, in many cases through popular support for dominant autocrats, whether Hungary, the Philippines or Turkey to name but three. History says such faith invariably ends in tears.
Mike Moore was fond of arguing that by definition the voters are always right. I often debated this with him but it’s a tricky one.
I would argue is it okay that an obese bugger with dangerously high blood pressure and a weak heart, exercising his free will in the cake shop buying four pies and a bag of cream buns, doing the right thing?
Mike would say yes, if that’s what he wants, despite knowing the consequences.
The fact is voters normally vote where they perceive their personal interest is best served. When they do that, by and large, for all democracy’s flaws, the result is satisfactory.
But their judgement becomes clouded if driven by a mis-placed adoration of a leader. That’s clearly happening with Jacinda worshipers.
That’s not to say don’t vote Labour if that is where one sees one’s interest best served. That should be the sole consideration.
Leave deification to skybayers who abandon reason for the lazy copout of faith.
I think it is sad that many people treat politics like it’s their sports team. Blind loyalty to their chosen side despite obvious flaws and vitriolic animosity and venom toward the other side regardless of substance and merit. Voting based on the thin veneer of celebrity rather than soundness of policy, values and character is akin to betting on a horse not based on form but because you like the jockey’s colours.
“. . . akin to betting on a horse not based on form but because you like the jockey’s colours”
I’ve been to the races on three occasions – to the night trots at Hutt Park in 1965, where I lost 7/6 (75¢) on a nag that didn’t finish; to Ascot in 2001, where I bet a quid on a horse because the jockey was dressed in an elegant grey and won £10; and to Riccarton once, about which I csn recall very little. So in my limited experience, placing bets on the basis of the jockey’s attire is quite profitable.
A very sober assessment, which, unfortunately, appears not to be shared by the great number of voters. At their own peril…
Indeed, and if you ever need to witness the complete and utter spectacle of idiots clamoring to glorify their ‘dear Leader’, then I highly recommend joining one of the numerous Jacinda adoration pages on Facebook. Hilarious is an understatement, just don’t go saying anything adverse or you will be excommunicated with great invective.
Trevor Tofts, Island Bay. His letters to the editor, Dominion Post must be in the thousands by now. Tediously they are all the same. Sycophantic adoration of the labour party. Ferocious almost unhinged criticism of the National Party.
It wouldn’t be so bad if such commentary was the sole preserve of the odd lunatic writing to the paper. However it seems that much of the media are of the same persuasion. Whenever do TV1/Newshub/Stuff/Radio Red criticise the PM? Almost never.
Take Covid. Frankly I think we got there by luck rather than good management. If we had instigated a Taiwan like response with proper quarantine procedure and track and tracing we might have been close to having no Covid in NZ. We didn’t and look at the economic carnage developing. Did the media ever point out our inadequate response. Hell no.
Agreed, Sir Robert,and if one sees one’s best interests being served, by being glued ever
tighter to the State’s nipple, whether on a personal,collective,or corporate basis,it makes even more sense,–to the suckers–if that nipple has a deity behind it.
That dullard Kirk, very true assessment that.
His quote “Basically there are four things that matter to people: they have to have somewhere to live, they have to have food to eat, they have to have clothing to wear, and they have to have something to hope for” typifies the damning mediocrity on the left.
Deification by definition is an embodiment of the qualities of a god;
The question I have to ask is what qualities of a god is she endowed with specifically?
The deification of a capitalist god one would assume would attribute qualities such as “the capitalists’ deification of capital” Ideologically that doesn’t fit Jacinda
Ideologically Jacinda is a feminist leftist marxist so the necessary qualities for deification as one of those would be the marxists deification of marxism.
As history attests marxisms dictators don’t have a great track record when they have power. The proverbial saying ‘power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’ conveys the opinion that, as a person’s power increases, their moral sense diminishes
Under her watch we have killing of full term babies, a referendum on legalising marijuana, attacks on freedom of speech, attacks on personal freedom to name but a few
What with another 3 years under her rule bring?
It may include a universal benefit for all, no private ownership of real estate, no private cars, no international travel, forced state isolation on the precept we are intrinsically unhealthy and a danger to the public that must be isolated, locked in our houses, police search of your home without a warrant
The deification of the marxist ideology has begun folks. Jacinda is the poster girl!
As a small business owner I’m no longer concerned about losing my life rather I’m concerned about losing the life I’ve built
Does that have me at odds with marxism’s ideology? Apparently so!
Personally I always vote for what is best for the country. Selfish people vote for their self interest, and the brainless vote for politicians because they look good speaking in parliament.
But surely the belief system and basic reasons for existing force you to vote for right or left.
I am physically sickened by those who proudly say “I’m a swing voter”.
You either believe in socialism or capitalism. Yes there are moderate positions for both but neither should ever change its spots. Or is that the crux of the problem with Politics in NZ today? It is undeniable the right has moved way left in the past decades.
I’m a capitalist ex-ACT voter, until Seymour deserted most of ACT’s principles by trying to exclude kids going to their local school if they lived in an apartment built after a certain date. ACT are supposed to be anti crony capitalist, anti school zones, free market, etc., yet Seymour is more interested in keeping current Epsom landlords from losing their Grammar zoning for votes rather than adhering to ACT principles. I have no idea what ACT stand for anymore now they have deserted their principles, which is a shame. I used to vote for ACT not because I was a high income earner (which I’m not), but because it was the right thing for NZ’s future. Now I hold my nose and have to vote for the Nats because they are a lesser evil to Labour, at least until Seymour is gone.
I despise people who vote based on personailty or looks (i.e. the vibe of the thing), or in a tribal us vs. them manner regardless of performance or policy. Most, if not all Labour voters I’ve met (including myself when I was one) have no idea why they vote as they do other than tradition, the misapprehension that Labour cares for people (which their actions show they don’t), or because they want Labour to extort money from others on their behalf. These types of voters have little idea of what the policies of each respective party are & don’t know what they are voting for. For example, ask a Labour voter who the villain was & why in Robin Hood (i.e. overbearing govt. & oppressive taxes) & watch the textbook definition of cognitive dissonance as they struggle desperately to reconcile that with who they vote for, why, & their self image – they are intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt.
Ohhh so correct Sir.
Sainthood for Cindy is just another disaster away. Save us all from the sickening Liberal Press in this country and please everyone STOP buying the NZ Herald in any format. Support Stuff. If all the Right supporters stopped buying the rag the clown they have as an editor would either wake up or go.
Did Key get close to deification or just win popularity contests?
The favorite for his supporters was the “GFC success” when in infact being the food bowl for the world i.e. our farmers, saved us and will do so again if the Greens and Labour aren’t allowed to destroy that industry also. Sadly I can list multiple things Key let his supporters and the country down on but those items will pale into insignificance compared to what Saint Cindy will do given the opportunity.
I worry about the team of “babies” gathering around Cindy like Hilters adorating child army. She plays the “Climate Crisis” anti everything so well we just don’t need the Greens at all which is all part of her plan. Stealing their votes lets her govern alone but dragging them along anyway makes her look “kind”. Just like Key did with a race based party. Got to love it.
“That’s not to say don’t vote Labour if that is where one sees one’s interest best served. That should be the sole consideration.”
Curiously, it’s not for me, in a narrow sense at least.
I suppose it’s pretty much impossible for me to have a better government than the Labour / Greens, in terms of financial considerations, as a residential property investor.
Rents and house prices are going vertical under Labour.
CAKE FACE is now getting hosed down with printed money, courtesy of the Left.
Every policy that Labour / Greens introduces causes house prices and rental prices to rise, at a faster and faster rate.
The Kiwi build fiasco meant new houses didn’t come online, putting pressure on supply. The Healthy Homes debacle caused my main competition, the Mum and Dad investor, to dump their rentals, causing rental prices to rise exponentially.
Every policy Labour introduces in terms of resource planning, rental regulation, monetary policy or directly building houses are a colossal failure, unless they were carefully crafted to make me more money.
Print more money? Prices up. Continue with the stupid Resource Management Act? Prices up.
I couldn’t reasonably hope for more government support for my chosen industry.
The rhetoric from Labour / Greens about property investors is derisory, but the reality is introducing policies that support us more than any other government has in our history. If I voted on the basis of financial self-interest, it would be for them. I’m sure this isn’t their intention, but their incompetence is such that this is the reality.
Irrespectively, I dislike this version of Labour, because of their disrespect for life.
Every day when I wake up, I’m thankful that I’m still alive. Every day when I wake up, I make the goal that today I will do something special, new and interesting. Maybe I’ll learn something previously unknown to me, or maybe I’ll meet someone new and interesting, or perhaps I’ll see a nice piece of art. Maybe there will be a nice sunset or a beautiful meal. It is important for me to not disrespect life – or to take life for granted. Seize every day, even if it’s only in a small way.
I couldn’t vote for the left wing, irrespective of financial considerations, because I believe that these people disrespect life. Hiding under their beds, spreading fear – it is clear that the Left are simply happy to just exist, with no purpose or ambition.
The Lefties are like protean idiot things from the depths of pre-history. Their reptile brains can only feel joy as a consequence of schadenfreude, because envy appears to be their main emotion in life.
I cannot relate to the Lefties defeatist disrespect for life, irrespective of financial considerations. Taking no risks is the most risk-taking approach imaginable – it’s not for me.
Thus Spake CAKE FACE…
I note your comment that people tend to vote for “what is in it for them.” Sad really that they are so myopic and self obsessed. I often quote to such people, that great quote from JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” With a bit more of this thinking we would be a far more mature country with more mature voters.
Sadly I don’t see the clock being wound back in the age of entitlement. There are countries that exist devoid of this attitude. Happily I’m head to one soon.
Yes indeed. I have heard it often said that businesses often do well under a Labour Govt.
In your case, as you explain it so well, it is due to their direct interference in a free market because “they know better”.
The attack they have launched on landlords and therefore investors will sadly have longterm effects and the end loser is the tax payer. Already they are funding 100s and 100s of motel rooms to house the mass unwashed who Labour appear highly skilled at multiplying! Why are they only successful at this endeavor?