National policy bollocks

National have ramped up their stupid policy announcements a few notches, dog whistling and pandering to a demographic, but likely to really annoy a lot of centre votes. They are certainly leaning a long way away from where I would be prepared to vote for them.

If unemployed people don’t find work within a few months Simon Bridges says they should lose their benefit. That’s nuts. the people who need it the most wouldn’t get help.

Gang members would have to prove none of their income came from illegal sources or they wouldn’t get a benefit is more nuts. For a start, how would aa gang member be defined? Would they have to prove they are a gang member? It just doesn’t make sense – and Bridges, a former lawyer and prosecutor, should know about the stupidity of requiring negative proof.

Why not make tradespeople prove that all their income is properly taxed? All business people? Also nuts, but National won’t threaten them.

Bridges seems to think there are enough Trump like voters in New Zealand. But we have MMP here. He is trashing the wide support that National have had over the past decade.

Leave a comment

77 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  31st October 2019

    ”Bridges seems to think there are enough Trump like voters in New Zealand. But we have MMP here. He is trashing the wide support that National have had over the past decade.”

    I’m not sure about that either way. He may be turning off the centre voting public with what to me seem like good policies; albeit how will such policies will be implemented(?). But maybe National is going after the ‘pissed off voter.” There are a whole heap of those around. From disgruntled gun owners to dismayed Greenies. People who basically have had a gutsfull of the bad guy( from their perspective) getting away with everything while they suffer both socially and economically.

    The demographic of the non-voter may come into play here. National supporters with a
    social conscious who believe gangbangers are misunderstood and need help, therefore
    they can’t vote for either National or Labour. And the Liberal supporters who feels let down by both Labour and the Greens, who they see as sell-outs. They also may not vote either way.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  31st October 2019

      How many National supporters with a social conscience do you know who believe gangbangers are misunderstood & need help?

      At a guess I would estimate their numbers at approximately zero.

      Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  31st October 2019

    He will be responding to feedback from his spin doctors.
    Certainly not in the Crosby Textor class.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  31st October 2019

      Kiwi,not Iwi, Blazer.👍 The best spin money can buy. By default Nationals policies are targeting Maori.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  31st October 2019

        Any caller on talkback saying Maori culture is broken is getting little sympathy from Kerre. Nationals policies getting a caning. Why aren’t I surprised.😒

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  31st October 2019

          Update: Kerre has just apologised – she didn’t think some people still think that ”Maori culture is broken.” Hey, Kerre. someone needs to apply a circuit breaker to New Zealand’s disintegrating social structure. Some of Nationals policies could be that circuit breaker if they were better thought out.

          Hold on..isn’t talkback meant to be a hotbed of rightwing hate?

          Reply
  3. duperez

     /  31st October 2019

    Stupid, dog whistling and pandering to a demographic? Of course, but their research must tell them it works. Likely to really annoy a lot of centre votes? You mean annoy a significant enough number to have a significant impact?

    The spectacle over a couple of years in the USA is instructive. President Trump could appear in front of a massive crowd and on TV in front of millions, shoot and kill someone in front of the hordes then claim media accounts of what everyone had witnessed was fake news.

    A parade of educated people people would then bombard the airwaves and print with how he was was being maligned with the fake news. Clean cut, experienced, religious people, family people, many lawyers and successful in business, many graduates of good universities, would appear on the endless multitude of TV interview shows saying he was being misrepresented, there was a dirty campaign, that attacks were dividing the country.

    Crusher Collins could only crush cars, Simon Bridges is going to crush gangs, crush their Harleys, crush beneficiaries who don’t get their kids vaccinated, crush those who’ve been on an unemployment benefit for too long, crush those whose kids don’t go to school. That’ll sell.

    By the time the election rolls around Bridges hopes there’ll be enough repeating the mantras: the country is on the skids, we are unsafe, criminals and gangs are running the country, we are being ripped off by scum on benefits, health systems are inadequate and broken, the Labour Party created housing crisis has worsened, no money is being spent on roading and transport, dropping the National Standards scheme from schools sees 37% of school leavers unable to read and write and the Greens have got a dead set policy to stop all farming. Oh, and we’re in a $15 billion hole.

    I think the hope that ‘it’s got be better than this’ is a vain one.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  31st October 2019

      Clean cut, experienced, religious people, family people, many lawyers and successful in business, many graduates of good universities, would appear on the endless multitude of TV interview shows saying he was being misrepresented, there was a dirty campaign, that attacks were dividing the country.

      Strewth. Where do you find that TV? Mine is filled with all those people laying into Trump every day in every way..

      Reply
  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  31st October 2019

    You would have thought this Govt has had enough trouble with idiot policies to serve as a warning to Simon. But apparently not. His policy track record is littered with rubbish and he only seems on firm ground when critiquing Labour’s. Obviously should sack his policy advisers if he is listening to them and sack himself if he is not.

    Reply
  5. Gerrit

     /  31st October 2019

    The policies will attract the voters that get up at 6.30 am, goes to work, in the tradeable sector, to pay the taxes that keeps the welfare system afloat.

    Especially those voters, that pay the taxes, who have nieghbours that cannot be bothered getting tax paying work but collect the welfare, run illegal operations, have money to buy flash stuff the worker, getting up at 6.30am, cannot afford.

    Reply
  6. NOEL

     /  31st October 2019

    Down memory lane!
    In 2017
    https://www.labour.org.nz/time_to_smash_the_gangs
    In 2018
    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2018/05/govt-wants-go-after-gangs-for-benefit-fraud.html
    Gangs not having the dole must be attractive to some voter?

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  31st October 2019

      Yep, the gangs will be shaking in their boots…as their numbers explode.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  31st October 2019

      Ninety percent of gang members have been on a benefit for an average of nine years, according to research from the Ministry of Social Development.

      Mr Nash gave the example of a Headhunters gang leader who had six houses, Harley Davidson motorbikes, cars and cash taken off him. “He hasn’t been convicted of anything to do with his gang affiliations. But he is being investigated for benefit fraud. He may well go down for benefit fraud.”

      There’s no “silver bullet” answer, Mr Nash says, but taking away the “sexiness” of being in a gang, “in particular [for] women and children”, will make it easier for them to choose to leave. Seven thousand Kiwi children live in gang-connected families. “There is another way. We want to help them out of this.

      “We’ve got the proceeds of crime – we’ve so far confiscated over $550 million. You can deprive someone of their freedom – we’re also taking their assets and we’re also taking their cash.”

      Mr Nash says the Government also wants to strengthen section 98A of the Crimes Act, which makes it illegal to be part of an organised criminal group, whether or not you actually commit the crimes yourself.

      “That’s sort of a… ‘puppet master’ clause in the Crimes Act which allows us to go after gang leaders who are an arm’s length away from the minnows on the ground doing the bad things. The judges are a little bit strict on this interpretation, so we want to strengthen that so it allows us to go after the gang leaders.

      The Government has pledged to “strive towards” adding an extra 1800 police officers. Mr Nash said 700 of them will join crime squads in gang-dominated areas. “We’re going to have the ability to go really hard against these guys. You can’t go after gangs in Gisborne, Hastings, Napier and south if you’ve only got four dedicated officers to organised crime. If you increase that to 40, it completely changes the game.

      “There’s a new organised crime squad that’s just started in Tauranga recently, and they’ve had their first big win. They smashed a gang that was dealing in synthetics. That has disrupted the synthetics’ movement into Auckland and the lower North Island.”


      They’re all over the place & like National they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. A look at Duker’s Police Gang Unit gang family tree graphic below shows the problem. Going after those in gangs who are doing the big bucks crime isn’t dealing with the fact gang recruitment’s on the rise & and so domestic & inter-gang violence, standover tactics, petty crime etc will continue.

      There is no real plan to “smash the gangs”. The only way to do that is to declare them illegal & membership a criminal offence. Our jails couldn’t hold the numbers subsequently convicted.

      There needs to be a major PR campaign aimed at vilifying them & stopping kids from wanting to join them – allied with a campaign to provide better education, self esteem & alternative passtimes & vocations for those in them or thinking of joining them. Maori need to get involved in this. And stop making excuses for them because “They’re whanau”. As a gang unit cop recently pointed out out – gangs are not your family – but they’re selling drugs to your family.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  31st October 2019

        Its easy for gang members to reintegrate into society and get a job and contribute while living the ‘Kiwi Dream’…what employer would not be impressed by their..C.V!…;(

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  31st October 2019

          Well, they certainly can’t do it while they stay in the gang.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  31st October 2019

            yes they can.Some gang members do actually work at normal jobs.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  31st October 2019

              How many & what proportion of the total membership?
              How many are also engaged in criminal activity?
              How many are prepared to report crimes they know are being committed by other gang members?

  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  31st October 2019

    This by Audrey Young is perhaps more perceptive:
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12280946

    Bridges indulging rhetoric for attention while actual policies are far less extreme.

    Reply
  8. NOEL

     /  31st October 2019

    Down memory land 2
    In 2016
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77419828/gangs-cost-714m-in-welfare-report-reveals-as-new-intelligence-centre-launched.

    This is turning into both National and Labour have known about it for years but with a suspicion they haven”t found a way to deal with it. Human Rights Act and others designed to protect law abiding citizens perhaps.

    Reply
  9. Simeon

     /  31st October 2019

    I am unclear why gang members are deemed essentially untouchable by the police and are lovingly shielded by the media but licensed firearm owners are vilified by the media and threatened by police on a regular basis.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  31st October 2019

      What kind of threats are the police making to licensed firearms users?

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  31st October 2019

        None, if they don’t break the law.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  31st October 2019

          Well, I’m not assuming that at this point, Kitty.
          Simeon has made an accusation. I have asked for examples.

          Reply
            • Corky

               /  31st October 2019

              The police are spoiling to make an example of non compliant gun owners.
              I’m picking 18 months jail and continued harassment from police for offenders.

            • Gezza

               /  31st October 2019

              That warning applies to licenced firearms users who have prohibited firearms, Al.

            • Gezza

               /  31st October 2019

              The police are spoiling to make an example of non compliant gun owners.
              I dunno if they’re “spoiling to”. Prosecutions are costly & any fines imposed don’t reimburse the police for their expenses or recover their costs. But it would be a logical & necessary step to prosecute wilful offenders to deter others.

              I’m picking 18 months jail and continued harassment from police for offenders.
              I’m picking confiscation & fines as far more likely. What’s the basis for your calculation of an 18 month prison sentence?

              It’s possible I imagine that they might follow up some people whose illegal guns are confiscated to see whether they have re-offended, eg by illegally importing more, but I would hope that they have put in place sufficient measures to be able to trace such purchases & intercept the firearms.

            • Corky

               /  31st October 2019

              ”What’s the basis for your calculation of an 18 month prison sentence?”

              Maximum of 5 years jail. Usually a max sentence is rarely given for most offences. Plus the hatred liberals have for gun owners. To them gun owners stink of individualism; of not being one of the herd and not having a hive mentality. Liberals would love to smash that tendency before they get the boot from office.

            • Gezza

               /  31st October 2019

              In this country quite a few liberals are gun owners. I imagine most of them don’t have Rambo complexes tho, so they probably don’t have AR15s and just use their guns for sport, hunting, or pest control

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              Yes, It’s interesting. The Arms Act mentions only that anyone convicted of possession of a prohibited firearm is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. No mention of fines. I don’t know whether that means judges have no residual discretion to impose fines instead, but if they don’t, it looks like it’s the slammer for gun owners who’ve chosen to go feral & hang on to unlawful guns

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  1st November 2019

              Guns that were lawful yesterday. Whereas Simon only threatening gangsters for crimes that were unlawful yesterday.

              The Left are in full moral panic mode on every front. Here’s another:
              https://nopunchespulled.com/2019/10/30/upsetting-news/

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              Guns that were lawful yesterday

              No they weren’t – or were they? I thought they’ve been unlawful for some months now & it’s just that there’s been an amnesty period to allow owners of unlawful firearms to surrender them without prosecution?

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              One of Bob’s sillier ones.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  1st November 2019

              Your life, liberty and property is never safe while Parliament is in session.

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              Soz – one of Sir Bob’s sillier ones.

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              Your life, liberty and property is never safe while Parliament is in session.

              Not quite sure how your life is threatened by Parliament being in session – nor why your life, liberty & property is any more at risk when their arses are on the Treasury or Opposition benches than when Parly is not in session?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  1st November 2019

              Can pass any law it wishes constitutionally unconstrained until the next election.

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              Well, yes, – but it usually requires a majority. And they had a clear majority on the firearms changes. What do you want? A second House – like a senate?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  1st November 2019

              Need a constitution to protect individuals from the majority.

            • Gezza

               /  1st November 2019

              Can’t do it this weekend. Sorry.

      • Simeon

         /  1st November 2019

        Threats…

        […] police have issued a public warning that those who do not make the cut-off will feel the full force of the law.[…]

        “If you think you still have plenty of time to hand in your prohibited firearms, think again,” said Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement.

        “There will be no extension so if you want compensation for your firearms, to keep your licence and don’t want to be prosecuted, hand in your firearms now.”

        “Everyone with a prohibited firearm or part needs to hand them in or they will be breaking the law after the amnesty ends on 20 December 2019.”

        […] “Anyone prosecuted will lose their firearms licence and face a penalty of up to five years imprisonment.

        “I’d have to say to all the gun clubs and firearms enthusiasts out there, surely this is not what you want – to be unable to enjoy hunting or the hobby you enjoy ever again?

        +++

        …when did we see this type of rhetoric directed at gangs or meth cookers?

        You may disagree, but we LFAOs were criminalized retrospectively – something this fiery rhetoric completely overlooks. We followed all the legal processes and bought legal firearms – but because Govt Immigration agents let murderous Tarrant in and Govt Police agents gave him a firearms licence, we’re now blamed, vilified and criminalized. If you think that’s OK, I’d suggest you think about your attitude when a future Govt does the same to you with something that you legally owned…

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  1st November 2019

          Sorry – reply below

          Reply
        • Conspiratoor

           /  1st November 2019

          Well said!

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  1st November 2019

            Sacre bleu! Please don’t jump out of the dark scaring folk like that again!

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  1st November 2019

              Many things were once legal that we now accept as not being.

              Morphine and other drugs were available in chemists.

              So were cyanide and arsenic.

              The age of consent was several years younger than it is now.

              Seatbelts were not a legal requirement once.

              Nor were drivers’ licenses.

              I don’t think that many people would disagree with those things remaining illegal.

  10. Gezza

     /  1st November 2019

    …when did we see this type of rhetoric directed at gangs or meth cookers?

    I’d certainly like to see gangs under such constant pressure they end up disappearing. No govt is going to give police the numbers required to do this though. But are you visiting from another planet?

    The media is constantly reporting meth cooks being caught & sent to the slammer & – and it’s even common to see pics of illegal firearms found & confiscated during raids or when they have to go looking for some arsehole gang member who’s just murdered someone or is armed & dangerous & on the loose.

    Also, note

    Police warn firearms owners: 50 Days until Firearms Amnesty and Buy-back ends

    Thursday, 31 October 2019 – 6:08am>
    National News
    If you think you still have plenty of time to hand in your prohibited firearms, think again say Police.

    “There are just 50 days to go to hand in prohibited firearms and parts for amnesty and buy-back. There will be no extension so if you want compensation for your firearms, to keep your licence and don’t want to be prosecuted, hand in your firearms now,” says Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement.

    “Everyone with a prohibited firearm or part needs to hand them in or they will be breaking the law after the amnesty ends on 20 December 2019,” says Mike Clement.

    “The question I have is, what are you waiting for? Anyone prosecuted will lose their firearms licence and face a penalty of up to five years imprisonment. I’d have to say to all the gun clubs and firearms enthusiasts out there, surely this is not what you want – to be unable to enjoy hunting or the hobby you enjoy ever again?”

    Firearm holders have had multiple opportunities to hand in their prohibited items since the programme started on 20 June. Just over 32,000 firearms have been handed in.

    “The vast majority of firearms owners understand why we are doing this. To those that have taken part, I say thank you. To those that have yet to do so, the time is now and you have a number of options so there are no excuses,” says Mike Clement.

    There are 50 days to go and Police want to make it clear what those options are:
    • Attend a collection event and hand in your firearms/parts as soon as possible.
    • Drop into one of the 41 approved dealers.
    • If you want to hold onto your firearm for sentimental reasons and it can be modified, get this in train now.
    • Apply for an endorsement licence if you are a pest controller/collector now.
    • If you think you have a unique/rare item – apply now.
    “I want to be very clear though. On 21 December, whether you are a licenced firearm holder or a gang member, if you are unlawfully and without authority in possession of a prohibited firearm you will be committing a criminal offence. Failing to comply with the law is not the action of a law abiding licenced firearms holder.

    “Please do the right thing”, says Mike Clement.

    For more information on the collection events, modification and other options available to you or to seek help with the process please go to http://www.police.govt.nz or call 0800 311 311.

    ENDS

    Editor’s note: DC Mike Clement is available for interviews

    Parliament has 51 good reasons why you now need to hand in your multi-shot rapid fire lethal Rambo weapons. The USA has hundreds – & more every week. Who knows when you could go postal with it? I understand it’s a costly nuisance but you’ve had plenty of time to comply.

    Reply
    • Simeon

       /  1st November 2019

      Let’s see, Grezza

      <>

      Why not?

      <>

      That’s your argument?

      <>

      Hint, hint: they are criminals who broke existing laws and have a proven track record of harm. 200,000+ LFAOs – yeah, nah

      <>

      Really – I can quote you thousand of better reasons why trucks should be bought back, if you’re setting up that strawman.
      e.g.. https://time.com/4407407/nice-france-truck-attack-what-we-know/

      <>

      That’s your argument, Part Deux? I’ve been hunting and shooting for over 50 years. You just went full ad hominem without cause. Never go full ad hominem without cause…

      <>

      I have already handed in the ‘evil, scary’ ** stuff, months ago. I’m not a gangbanger or a criminal – oh wait, yes, I am a criminal, retroactively.

      I have lost $1000s in the asset-seizure-under-cover-of-virtue-signalling threat because the safe, many accessories and most associated tools and equipment were not compensated for; also, the money handed back was not anywhere near market value and the GOvt even forbade me exporting to sell overseas.

      I’m not asking you or anyone to care; but don’t expect me to not care about that outright theft from my earned income.

      ** By the way, this is just voodoo-animist senior-police-thinking:

      ‘…said it doesn’t matter who owns the guns now – as long as they exist, they’re a threat. “I can tell you that there are far too many guns that are evil in their nature in this country…” ‘

      Evil in their nature? Seriously? Like a truck, a boot, a knife, an open hand, a fist, a gun is a tool. It has no properties of evil or good. People who think otherwise need to run seances and ouija boards, not write and enforce laws.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  1st November 2019

        Yes, all right. I actually think they’ve over-reacted, that our firearms laws were too loose (folk – or at least one – in the past have crowed here about how easy was to legally get & import lethal multiple military style semi-automatics) & that it should have been made unlawful for what appears to have been nearly anybody with a gun license to purchase one or more with a minimum of requirements long ago.

        It’s obvious already – twice – that even the police certainly can’t be trusted to keep their own firearms or any in their custody out of the hands of criminals. Noddies.

        Now they’ve banned them the compensation should be fair, but it was never going to be. Bureaucracy being what it is, they come up with a system that’s simple & quick for them to administer, not one that is tailored to individuals’ particular circumstance.

        I don’t own a firearm; the last time I used one was a mate’s .22 – to shoot at & miss a rabbit, 35 years ago. Before that a few hours on ranges with .22s, & under Army supervision, 5 round .303s & full mag Bren Guns (great fun) in final year school cadets.

        Does every firearm have to be registered to the owner yet?

        Reply
  11. NOEL

     /  1st November 2019

    To return the original issue. Media have Bridges claim linked to there Social Welfare discussion document. No question “do you agree/disagree that gang members should loose their benefit if the cannot explain how they financed the gold played Harley” amongst the 5 9 other questions.

    Reply
    • NOEL

       /  1st November 2019

      Oops. Short statement on gangs and benefits is there. But we are going to have to wait for a grand “Gang Plan” in 2020. Nah doubt I’ll be short of breath by then if past Government’s approaches are any indication.

      Reply
  12. Blazer

     /  1st November 2019

    “do you agree/disagree that well dressed ‘businessmen’ should lose their freedom if they cannot explain how they financed their Bentley and extravagant lifestyle’?”

    Reply
  13. Zedd

     /  3rd November 2019

    Bridges (mr 5%) really needs to get his head out of 20th century.. dog whistling to the ‘old guard/mongrels’; beneficiary bashing & blaming all society’s harms on ‘the gangs’ 😦
    Oh dear.. how SAD.. 😀

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  3rd November 2019

      Never mind!

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  3rd November 2019

      And a selection of SHUT UPs, Zedd, for your listening pleasure …

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  3rd November 2019

        Imagine the reception this series would get from hordes of snowflakes & cornflakes if it was produced & then shown in the goggle box these daze 😬 😀

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  3rd November 2019

        I see Lofty spent his final days in Christchurch. He passed a way a few weeks later after returning to Britain for a visit.

        Reply
    • Simeon

       /  3rd November 2019

      “Bridges (mr 5%) really needs to get his head out of 20th century.. dog whistling to the ‘old guard/mongrels’; beneficiary bashing & blaming all society’s harms on ‘the gangs’ ”

      Hmm. Well, let’s take a look.

      1. The estimated liability of the welfare system sits at $76 billion. Be a good idea to reduce benefits paid to the lazy, feral, overbreeding and underworking minority perhaps yes?

      2. 18-24 year-olds on a benefit with a social housing history, were twice as likely to have had an encounter with Child, Youth and Family as a child, twice as likely to have had a parent on a benefit for more than 80 per cent of their teen years and had a criminal conviction in the past. And almost half of children who grow up in a benefit dependent household end up on a benefit before the age of 23, Be a good idea to move people out of those roles by emphasizing the present and future advantages for everybody, not just the National Party and the taxpayers, by avoiding multigenerational beneficiaries perhaps yes?

      3. New Zealanders are among the highest users of methamphetamine in the world, alongside Australia and parts of south-east Asia. And, New Zealand gangs have taken over the large-scale production of P. Meth and meth-related crime cost taxpayers in excess of $3.5 billion a year – leaving aside the human cost. Be a good idea to cut down on the principal meth-cookers and sellers perhaps yes?

      Declaration of interest: a full-time working taxpayer for 45 years. Prefer tax-funded benefits to go to the unfortunate needy, not the lazy greedy.

      Reply
  14. Simeon

     /  4th November 2019

    Here’s the link

    https://theconversation.com/australia-should-think-twice-before-adopting-nz-welfare-model-38105

    What has happened in New Zealand?

    First, let’s look at the latest actuarial valuation. As the McClure review’s report correctly cites, the 2013 valuation showed a reduction in future liability from NZ$86.8 billion to NZ$76.5 billion.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s