From a certain point of view
It may just be that it’s a Sunday and I’m overtired and feeling a bit hypercritical … but really, Moana Mackey?
Tweet of the Week :The Greens launched their plan to lift Kiwi kids out of poverty joining Labour in advocating for the welfare of our kids to be put at the centre of government decision making.
Yeah, glad the Greens finally jumped on the child welfare bandwagon, after long years advocating for … something not that.
Mind you, Mackey goes on to express curiosity about the authenticity of the @DrBrash Twitter account, so who knows …
Ideologically Impure 
Look here Q. The Labour Party owns the left see. It is the platonic fucking form of left, so it’s only common sense, not to mention logical fucking necessity right, than when any other bunch of upstarts come along and say something leftish that they are joining Labour. If they weren’t joining Labour with their leftish position, then that rather fucking well implies that someone is actually left, and outside of, and different to, Labour.
Doesn’t it?
And that’s a fucking contradiction in terms.
Now it might have confused your non lining up and saluting the flag wee brain that Labour policy doesn’t seem to be all that leftish in a lot of areas, including whatever it is the greens are show ponying about this week. But that only goes to show. Platonic forms right. Policies right. Shadows, caves.
The Greens, or Mana, or whoever it is this week, are just copying the form that is reflected by Labour’s policy. Their reflection might look different, or even *better* than Labour’s, in some trivial manner, but you are confusing the shadows with the underlying reality, which labour has, always has had and always will have.
There’s no good whining about it you know, that’s the problem with the left. Splitters trying to take credit and get out in front.
I made the mistake of reading this comment while watching Yes Minister and now I need a new brain. But I feel appropriately schooled and shall line up for the ritual combing of Chris Trotter’s moustache immediately.
I wish you had an up-tick thingy on your blog QoT. PB would certainly get one from me.
I must admit to thinking the same thing at first QoT. However I put it down to tweet dynamics and the underlying acknowledgement of alliance on an issue that unites both parties in a common goal.
The main thing is that something is done about child poverty rates. Such things are not show boating particularly with this issue, as there’s a real and immediate requirement to do something about the 20% of children living in poverty.
This issue is something that really does distinguish the right from the left. Ask yourself why john Key flip flops like a flounder about such things as WFF to understand what show boating is all about… and we all know what happens to a beached flounder.
Does it matter who actually formulates positive policy? There’s no copyright attributable nor moralistic requirement to have different policies from other parties. Just ask National concerning their voting for Acts idiotic and ill conceived policies if you don’t believe me.
National has promoted Act’s archaic and negative policies as their own. I wonder if people realised they were voting for Act when the ticked the blue box? I also wonder if people really know what a Brash/Keys government will mean for child poverty rates in New Zealand?
Let’s not forget that there are policies that transmute all parties and in my opinion these are far more beneficial than the singularities we often see lobbied for and debated in Parliament.
Inclusive policies often focus on the human condition and circumstances that effect everybody, not just a small divided area based on idealism. In effect a dysfunctional governing system has less policy cohesiveness between parties. This can create a less inclusive society, like the one we currently have.
Who gives a damn where positive policies are formulated, as long as they are acted upon. Splitting hairs seems rather trivial in context to the problem of widespread child poverty in New Zealand.
Contrast the minor point you’ve blogged about to the current right wing Epsom dynamic for instance, to truly understand just how non-divided the left are compared to the right.
1. Please leave the novels for your own blog.
2. I will blog about whatever fucking “minor points” I choose to blog about
3. If you have managed to miss the debate in the online Kiwi left about Labour’s tendency to assume it leads left thought, or is entitled to the support of lefties, or the slight sense of bitterness the Greens thoroughly deserve to feel about being written off as quacks and hippies and weirdos for the crime of promoting policies for a decade before Labour catches on and decides they’re the marketable thing to do, perhaps you might like to engage in some background reading.
4. “tweet dynamics”? What utter claptrap. It was a blog post which clearly implied that Labour was leading the way and the Greens were falling in line behind them.
1. Please let me know the acceptable word count for comments?
2. I didn’t try to tell you what to blog about. I’m pretty sure Moana wasn’t saying the Greens are quacks, hippies or weirdos. That’s an argument we hear from RWNJ’s, not Labour.
3. I believe my knowledge base is adequate. However if you need to point out some articles you believe I’ve not read, please feel free to do so.
4. My mistake. However I still think it’s a triviality of phrasing.
Twitter makes you stupid
Facebook makes you dumb
Blogging is full of hatred
All give you a saggy bum.
There isn’t one. Nine paragraphs which don’t really address the point of the post? Probably too many.
Referring to a person’s post as “minor” while implying they are not focusing on “the real important issues” is classic trollshit. “Triviality” likewise.
If you also believe that Labour has never indulged in stereotyping or denigrating Green policies and values, more background reading is required.
Finally, fuck right off until you understand why I have no fucking interest in faux-childish body shaming and even less in the idea that “it’s just a joke”.