Satire from within can be the cruellest

I don’t know if Scott York is still active in the Labour party or not but his illusionment appears to have a big DIS in front of it.

(Notre that Scott is the person who first wrote about the beige Badger).

He has written A brief history of the Labour Party at Imperator Fish.

October 2008

When the voters learn what we know about John Key – or what we will soon know once Mike Williams returns from Melbourne – they will be appalled. We now know what the H in H-Fee stands for. It’s “Hasta la vista, baby!”

July 2009

The honeymoon is finally over. John Key is an empty vessel, a man without any convictions, a rich prick who will say anything to be elected. We are in the midst of a global financial crisis, but let’s focus on issues of character and integrity, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by all that other stuff.

August 2011

The honeymoon is finally over. There is a mood of change in the air. The public are falling out of love with John Key. Everywhere I go people tell me they think John Key is an untrustworthy unprincipled swine. His lies are finally coming back to haunt him. This could be the turning point!

January 2013

The honeymoon is finally, finally over. People are finally seeing John Key for what he is – an entitled member of the 1%. We need to double down on our strategy of relentlessly attacking the Prime Minister at every opportunity. If we absolutely must mention jobs, the economy or housing, let’s do so in a way that frames John Key as being uncaring and in the pay of big business. We can’t afford for our ideas to stand on their own merits.

September 2014

These dirty politics allegations are shocking, and they reveal to all the world the true nature of John Key and his nasty attack machine. This will be hugely damaging to Key’s reputation. Ordinary New Zealanders will be disgusted at this behaviour. It’s time to ramp up our attacks on Key and his associations with the Dirty Politics crew. I sincerely believe that this scandal will be completely game-changing. This election is anyone’s to win! Oh, and I suppose we could throw in the odd mention about how stuffed our economy is, if there’s enough time.

April 2015

These ponytail-pulling allegations are dynamite. They speak volumes about the character of the man in charge of our country. John Key has lost it. There’s no coming back from this. He’s completely lost the female vote. Watch as his support slowly ebbs away. Target all fire on the PM!

May 2016

This Panama Papers business is alarming, but it’s also the opportunity we’ve all been waiting for. John Key is super wealthy, and we don’t like him, so it stands to reason that he must be up to his neck in all of this. Quick, type his name into the database! Nothing? No, there must be some mistake. Try again. Again, damn you! Well, not to worry. He must use a different Panamanian law firm. He’s still a smug rich prick, and that’s what counts. That’s the message we need to ensure the voters take out of this.

He also looks into the future:

September 2021

The economy is in a downwards spiral, the world dairy market has collapsed, and global warming and a series of natural disasters have devastated the country. But politically I feel as if we have turned a corner. People are finally focusing on how out of touch John Key is. We just need to drive the message home. Dig up everything you can on the guy. Do we know anyone who knew him at school? Did he steal anyone’s lunch money? Did he ever get a detention? Could there be some connection between John Key and Bernie Madoff that we haven’t yet uncovered? Let’s leave no stone unturned this time, guys. Let’s give our leader some powerful ammunition. She needs something to throw at Key during Question Time today.

April 2027

Our new leader really got some blows in during Question Time today. I’ve not seen any of our 23 leaders since Helen Clark land so many punches. He had Key floundering when he asked about Key’s association with the guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who got done for tax evasion back in the 1980s. I reckon we might just have picked up a few votes today from all the people who follow Parliamentary proceedings, or at least the three of them who aren’t fiercely partisan in their party loyalties.

June 2042

We’ve got Key on the ropes this time. He really is demonstrating to the public how out of touch he is, and who he is really working for. The public won’t stand for this. The honeymoon is finally over!

February 2044

If Prime Minister Key has a weak spot, it’s his lack of integrity and his fundamental dishonesty. That’s where we need to focus our attentions.

His father John was just the same.

Don’t Labour need a new chief press secretary? Someone with Scott’s communication skills and sense of realism could do very well for them.

Satire from within can be the cruellest – and the most accurate.

If you have read all this here (it would have lost it’s impact edited down) please click on this link to register a hit for Scott to reward him for his work.

A brief history of the Labour Party

Crimson Cryer a Little critical

Scott Yorke is at his self-deprecating best showing how Labourites will Support Andrew Little.

A lot of Labour Party and other left-leaning folk have been bleating about Andrew Little and how disappointed they are that he is the new Labour leader.

But these people aren’t doing the party any good by moaning in public. What’s done is done, and it’s time to fall in behind the person chosen through a largely democratic process.

So what if our dreams for a better New Zealand under the inspirational leadership of our chosen candidate are now forever shattered? That’s no reason not to fall in behind Andrew Little.

Little’s vicious and spiteful supporters may have denied us the one thing we desperately wanted for the party, but that’s no reason to take it out on Andrew Little, or indeed those vicious and spiteful supporters, bastards all of them. It’s their fault he’s leader now, that your candidate didn’t make it, and that everything is now utterly ruined.

But let’s stay positive.

There’s no point in crying over spilt milk, because the milk had probably been poisoned anyway by Little’s union mates, and nothing will be achieved by dwelling on this disgusting travesty of justice. I intend to give Andrew Little my full support, and so should you.

Don’t dwell on the past, because focusing on this monstrous injustice will not do anyone any good. Don’t let your entirely understandable rage get the better of you.

Support Andrew as leader, because we need unity as a party, and the worst thing we can possibly do is show the world how divided we really are by this appalling result. You may well regard Andrew Little’s election as Labour Party leader as the final nail in Labour’s coffin, but don’t be too hasty to rush to judgement. Room can always be found for a few more nails.

So our candidate didn’t make it. Big deal. Harden up. It’s not the end of the world. The fact that our chosen person lost the contest may well mean the death of a once-proud party, but life will go on.

This was signaled in a post early in the contest: Random thoughts on the Labour Party leadership contest

Don’t fret

It’s a tough choice for those of us Labour Party members and affiliates who get to have a say in the contest. Each of the four candidates has a lot going for them, and while I currently have a favourite, I’m still not sure how I’ll rank numbers 2 to 4.

But there’s no need to panic if I get it hopelessly wrong, because I will probably get another go at it within the year.


Everyone in the party wants unity, and members want to know that whoever wins, the caucus and membership unite behind them.

I agree. We must all put this division, dissension and wrangling behind us, because it puts voters off.

Accordingly, I pledge my absolute and unwavering support to whoever wins this contest, unless the person I rank number one doesn’t win.

Yorke is well known as the Crimson Cryer. He claims this title was earned due to his stoic pro-Labour proclamations, but this alleged photo of him after the election is probably closer to the mark.


Imperator Fish crosses the line

Satire pushes boundaries, even shocks to impact. But this from @ImperatorFish is a nasty, disgraceful attack on Jamie Whyte and the ACT Party.

Politics Explained: It’s all about the kids (I won’t repeat the details here).

Imperator Fish is a satirical blog run by Scott Yorke, who is active in the Labour Party. I think the post should be withdrawn and an apology be given.

UPDATE: Scott makes it clear he doesn’t think he needs to retract or apologise to ACT and Whyte, to the contrary he continues to promote his post:

Latest post: Politics Explained: It’s all about the kids

And on Kiwiblog:

SBY (115 comments) says: 
February 28th, 2014 at 9:06 am

Thanks for the blog traffic this morning, Pete. Much appreciated.

Keep that outrage going.

Is it sensible comparing Labour and United Future policies?

Simply put Labour’s policies are vague, negative and sparse, versus United Future’s comprehensive list of policies.

In an April 1 post Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish inadvertently raised an interesting point. He was presumably trying to mock United Future policies compared to Labour’s.

A couple of weeks ago I was trawling through various political sites for inspiration. I was planning a post attacking United Future’s Peter Dunne, and during the course of researching my post I came across the United Future website.

I had expected to find there a trove of daft ideas to inspire my attack, but I came away surprised at how sensible most of the party’s policies sounded. I’d always regarded Peter Dunne as a bit of a joke, a one-man band allowed to continue in Parliament due to a nudge-nudge-wink-wink deal with National over the Ohariu seat.

But once I read United Future’s site I realised there was a lot more to Peter Dunne than met the eye. I immediately cancelled my anti-Dunne post.

I doubt that Scott bothered to actually look at any UF policies, but there are a clear, comprehensive range of policies  (see below).

In comparison Labour’s policy web page is paltry and vague. A David Shearer signed statement says:

Right across the economy we will make fundamental changes. We will replace a simplistic hands-off approach with a smart hands-on one.

Shearer simplisticly keeps referring to hands off versus hands on, but does anyone actually know what having Shearer’s hands on Government would mean? He doesn’t even seem to be have his own hands on his leadership.

Labour’s policy approach is vague and at times contradictory – for example Clayton Cosgrove and David Parker seem to have different ideas about how Tiwai should be handled, see Labour’s conflicting priorities with Tiwai. And David Shearer was typically vague, saying that  “the Government should have stepped in earlier” and been “more hands on”.

Labour’s website policy page links to detail in an old policy document…

Our 2011 election manifesto remains Labour policy unless we specifically announce a change to it, although all policies in the manifesto are under review as Labour builds toward the 2014 election.

…but some of that has already been discarded, or again, Shearer doesn’t know if his hands are on or off:

Labour gone cold on GST-free food

Labour is considering going back on one of its major election promises – GST-free fresh fruit and vegetables.

It says it has to prioritise, but the tax break would be the third major policy the party’s scrapped since the last election, if they go back on it –  and the Government says it’s impossible to know what Labour now stands for.

“If we can’t afford policies then they will have to go. GST off fresh fruit and veg is one thing we’re looking at,” says Labour leader David Shearer.

“We’re going to have to throw out some of the policies that are going to cost us a lot of money,” says Mr Shearer.

GST-free healthy food would cost $317 million, and would be tricky to enforce.

Mr Shearer says its savings and jobs policies are more important.

“How does that fit with GST off fresh fruit and veges? Can we do it all? I doubt if we can. We’re going to have to prioritise,” he says.

So Mr Shearer’s refusing to say outright whether the policy will definitely go, but all signs point to it being too costly, too difficult and too low down the list.

Is Yorke really seduced by this “bold rhetoric promising economic transformation, jobs and growth”?

Labour’s policy page has “the new policies you see below are the start of our new way of doing things.” Five policies are listed.


The housing market is failing thousands of Kiwis. The biggest barrier to home ownership is the difficulty of getting on the first rungs of the housing ladder.

Over the past 50 years the number of new affordable homes being built has dropped from a third of all new homes to just 5 per cent.

That’s why Labour is taking a bold hands-on approach to help Kiwis into their first home.


Many of National’s policies have passed their use-by date. Economists, many governments and major institutions such as the IMF realise that the world has changed. They know new answers are needed.

New Zealanders understand this too and know that we must change as well.

Kiwis want real and innovative solutions to take this country forward. They want a Government that sees problems and gets stuck in to fix them rather than try to explain them away.

That’s why there is significant support for major Labour policies, including KiwiBuild, raising the retirement age, universal KiwiSaver, updating our monetary policy and a capital gains tax.

It’s time for a hands-on government, one that is committed to making a real difference in people’s lives.

That is really Labour’s “bold rhetoric promising economic transformation, jobs and growth”.


Under National, education is going backwards. They are adopting tired ideas from countries with education systems that are less successful than ours.

Increasing class sizes and putting unqualified and unregistered teachers into classrooms are not strategies for success.

National are happy to spend $36 million on National Standards that measure the problem; Labour would rather spend that money fixing the problem.

Once again Labour leads with negatives.


National is taking us down a path to fewer jobs, lower wages and more of our young people seeking better opportunities in Australia.

The gap between the rich and the rest of New Zealand has never been wider – and it’s growing. It’s a lack of well-paid jobs that is sending 1,000 Kiwis a week to Australia for better wages.

It’s disappointing that John Key said he would give New Zealanders a reason to stay in New Zealand, and now he’s setting new records of Kiwis leaving for Australia.

Labour’s plan has concrete steps to create more jobs and better opportunities for New Zealanders.

Negative, negative, negative, vague.


Labour wants Cantabrians to have more control over the rebuild.

The rebuild will only succeed if Cantabrians can have their voices heard and respected. David Shearer spent over 20 years working in disaster zones around the world. He knows first-hand that locally driven recovery is the only way that works.

You can’t rebuild Canterbury from the top floor of the Beehive in Wellington. The vision of the future has to come from the grassroots right here in Canterbury.

John Key and Gerry Brownlee just don’t understand. They see local people as a barrier to progress instead of as the key to recovery.

Under National, CERA has engulfed the functions of councils, elections have been cancelled, and people dealing with insurance issues have been abandoned.

A Labour Government would put people back at the centre of the recovery.

They don’t promote being more hands on because they are implying Labour would be more hands off in Canterbury.

If Labour lead the next government the Christchurch rebuild will be well under way. Making major changes to how that is being done risks being disruptive. Apart from the standard negatives this policy is little more than a rhetorical nod to Christchurch, at best too late.

Those are Labour’s five policy topics on their website. They focus more on attacking National, with a bit of vague waffle about what they might do.

Mocking United Future policy as sensible is risky for Labourites, especially when looking at the lack of common sense in their own paltry list of lamentable rhetoric.

In comparison United Future have a comprehensive policy list that says what they propose, and don’t concentrate on whinging about their opponents.

And – who in Labour would want to see David Shearer having a policy debate with Peter Dunne?


Practical Policies for New Zealanders

Droughts and farmers versus beneficiaries

As areas of New Zealand declared drought zones in social media there’s been a growing number of comparisons made between assisting farmers compared to not assisting low paid workers and beneficiaries.

Martin Bradbury at The Daily Blog: How the hardship of farmers and beneficiaries differ

Don’t you love how when farmers face hardship the Government can’t rush fast enough to their aid with drought welfare, yet when the poor face hardship the Government responds with drug testing, contraception for solo mothers and 40 hours forced labour in a private prison.

Helen Kelly at The Standard: We’re all beneficiaries now

The recognition of the need to provide income support to farmers during this drought period is illustrative.  It illustrates the importance of having a comprehensive social protection system that steps in when things go wrong including the weather as in this case.   It illustrates the benefit of Farm Owners of having a union that the Government supports and is prepared to fund to provide much needed services such as co-ordination, animal welfare advice and counselling.

Solo mums are a bit like these farmers.  They are working but not earning and need community support to do that.  For them, they now have to attend job preparation courses and look for work.  They can be drug tested, boot camped and have their benefits cut if they don’t answer the phone when WINZ rings them about something. 

Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish (satire): Bennett announces drought relief get-tough measures

Ms Bennett accepted that there was no evidence of widespread abuse of the scheme by farmers.

But she insisted that the new rules were necessary to keep farmers on the straight and narrow. 

“Struggling farmers who are doing their best to manage and who are looking to find alternative work have nothing to fear,” said Bennett. “These rules are about helping to break the cycle of farmer dependency. Some of this dependency is inter-generational. We can’t afford as a nation to have hundreds of farmers begging for help each and every time a drought is declared.

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a farmer or a solo mother,” said Ms Bennett. “If you want a handout from this government then the same rules apply.”

Robyn Norrison New Zealand Labour Party Facebook:

As a side note the farmers moan cause they have no feed for their animals and the govt pays them compensation, what about all the low paid families out there that are having trouble feeding their children where is the govt then, making things worse for them.

Mickysavage at The Standard:

There is a certain irony that farmers, who have a reputation for denying that climate change is occurring and opposing provision of social welfare for members of our community who need it should now be seeking a benefit because of a drought that is undeniably a symptom of global warming.

(micky, a one season adverse weather event in parts of one small country in the world is not “undeniably a symptom of global warming”.)

Comments on blogs follow similar themes of “poor beneficiaries” and “undeserving farmers”.

Low paid families already get government assistance continually through benefits, Working For Families, accommodation allowances, doctors subsidies etc etc. (some farmers may also qualify for some of these).

Some are questioning that farmers facing extreme short term difficulties are getting state assistance.

And they want people who are already getting state assistance, sometimes long term, to get more assistance.

It’s financially tough for people on low wages and benefits.

But it’s hard to compare assistance programmes for farmers who are having short term one off problems due to an abnormal weather event, and a mother who some say should have the freedom to choose the DPB for twenty years without question. Or a worker who receives Working For Families tax credits year after year without question.

And I find it highly offensive to make sweeping statements like “… farmers, who have a reputation for… …opposing provision of social welfare for members of our community”.

Also offensive is the “farmers make money so are bad and deserve any kick in the guts they get” attitudes alongside “poor beneficiaries deserve more and more and more”.

This is just blind bias or ideological pissy politicking.

I acknowledge that it’s only short term tough for farmers – but this means with short tyerm assistance they will be back to earning money and paying taxes again soon.

And I know that being stuck on a benefit without being able to find a job is tough, often for longer than a season of dry weather. And solo mothers and families on low wages can experience long term tough.

But that doesn’t justify denying any other state assistance from anyone else.

Farmers who go broke may become beneficiaries.

We are all a part of our state, we are all due some level of state assistance when justified, and we have to understand there will always need to be tough decisions made about the level and length of state assistance provided.