Comments on: Party like it’s 1946

By: Swampy

Swampy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:43:53 +0000

Dear Janet
As wartime rationing restrictions were still in force in 1949 I doubt many people drove to the polls, in that era cars were still a luxury for many people. The fact that the wartime restrictions still applied then was a major factor in Labour’s loss. They thought they could continue them forever.

Remember the furore when the Tauranga District Council continued charging tolls for their bridge long after it had been all paid off, the money got diverted to other things. The continuation of wartime restrictions in 1949 had nothing to do with the war, everything to do with the Labour Government’s wish to continue with that austerity regime so that it could channel funding away from roads into public transport, for example.

Considering the effect that the wartime restrictions had on everyday life, the fact they were continued for so long is actually a black mark as the impact on everyday life was contrary to the prosperity enjoyed after 1935.

By: Swampy

Swampy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:36:31 +0000

“Funny how NZ needs left govts to get the economy out of crises like the 1880s and 1930s depressions, Britain joining the EEC in the early 1970s and now the current meltdown.”

There wasn’t a Labour government in power in the 1970s to do that. Kirk/Rowling were at the very beginning of the economic crisis. Lange/Douglas created another one in the late 80s.

Once again when we elect a new government Nov 8th it will not be a Labour government that is getting the economy out of crisis. It will be the administration that has negatively impacted on it by spending all the money in the government’s coffers.

By: Swampy

Swampy — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:33:09 +0000

And the lesson is? Labour lost the 1949 election because Peter Fraser wanted to carry on wartime restrictions even though the war had ended four years before.

After all, we live in a democracy, and those restrictions were basically socialistic and should have been removed as soon as hostilities ceased. That Labour thought they could get away with continuing them for four more years speaks volumes about their tunnel vision and arrogance, just as it does today when Michael Cullen tries to continue his failed high-tax nanny state financial policies.

By: Janet

Janet — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:23:47 +0000

1946 was the first year of the baby boom. People felt confident about the future. Labour times indeed.

By: Don

Don — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:42:47 +0000

SP, of course an inanimate blogsite cannot ‘;deem” anything. I humbly beg your pardon and bow to your clearly superior intellect. So perhaps you can exercise that intellect and tell me why “retard” is an acceptable term?

[lprent: Mainly because it is more acceptable than what is usually being thought. I myself don't have the ability to constrain myself to something as polite as 'retard'. We largely don't moderate on language, we moderate on behaviour. Have a look at the Policy page (top of site)]

By: Don

Don — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:22:57 +0000

Oh right, randal. So it’s okay to use it because that’s your “reality”? I fail to see how it can NOT be an insult.

By: randal

randal — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:09:18 +0000

retard doesn’t worry me at all. only infantilised idiots get offended at reality. Its not the word that counts its the intent and the users use it so they can get away with an insult without gettinga smack in the chops!

By: Edosan

Edosan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:58:01 +0000

Achievement? Progress? Prosperity? Guardians? Champions?

Thats it, I’m voting Labour in 1946.

By: Don

Don — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:20:47 +0000

All very nice Phil, but it doesn’t explain why on a site that bends over backwards to be as inclusive and non-discriminatory as possible, the bloke who runs the site flings the word retard around with gay abandon. Pretty slick, guys, pretty slick.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:44:49 +0000

Personally I find the word ‘retard’ offensive, exclusionary and ignorant

Ah, now I understand why ’sod uses it all the time!

On the plus side, I’d rather we allow him the use of ‘retard’, if only to avoid his regress to ‘pig-fucking’ as word du-jour.

By: Don

Don — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:41:14 +0000

So do I Janet, which is why I was asking about its use by the system administrator.

By: Janet

Janet — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:26:06 +0000

Personally I find the word ‘retard’ offensive, exclusionary and ignorant. Why do people feel the need to describe stupidity with an outdated and highly offensive term for intellectual impairment?

By: Don

Don — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:20:26 +0000

Intrigued to find such terms as “retard” bandied about on here. Given that this site deems the word hysterical to be misogynistic, what does it consider the word “retard” to be?

[the site doesn't deem anything. SP]

By: lprent

lprent — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:17:35 +0000

By: Byron

Byron — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:07:20 +0000

Was a joke people, hence the ” ”

Someone was going to say it and I just happened to be browsing the Standard and there were 0 comments on this post, so thought I’d get in there first