Came across this strange assertion on Red Alert, where they’re still to-ing and fro-ing over the monumental issue of Labour’s STOP signs.
There are those on the far right who have a view that David Farrar is in fact in the words of one “a pinko”. Personally I have always felt that was undeserved. David has been actively involved in the National Party for decades, worked for various Nat leaders, managed the campaign of a National candidate in Wellington Central (ok, on that one looked like he was our plant) and so it goes on.
An association with the National Party somehow excludes one from being a Pinko?? Are these people really that far out of touch?? Good grief.
TrueblueNZ 
18 responses to “David Farrar No “Pinko” Says Labour”
Red Alert? Must be a slow day Red, for you to operate so far behind enemy lines!
And although I disagree with the reasoning (they’re the left, after all) I do agree Farrar isn’t a ‘pinko’. Not in the usual sense of a pinko being a red socialist class-war-monger, in any event. From what I’ve seen, he’s a combination of party-man thru & thru (and happy to trumpet their propaganda at every opportunity) as well as being (at least on social issues) a classic urban liberal.
I guess that makes him a true ‘modern pinko’ as opposed to a ‘classical pinko’? Funniesst reaction I ever saw from him was when someone (may even have been you) suggested that were he in America he’d be a Dem. The foot-stamping faux outrage was hilarious. One could almost imagine his face turning blue as he held his breath waiting for an apology 🙂
LikeLike
Well, there has to be a difference between a “pinko” and a “red”. IMHO, Farrar is basically just an economic liberal who is on most other issues pretty close to Labour.
He makes it pretty clear he has little time for Conservatives. To be fair though, this does not set him apart from numerous other blogosphere lefties desperately posturing as right wingers. And its the National Party’s default position too. See the quote from the Senior National Party spokesman in the sidebar.
The mainstream NZ political spectrum is seriously munted. It starts at extreme left and stops at far left. Farrar happily works within those confines. I don’t think he feels any need to broaden the spectrum.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty sorry picture of the NZ political landscape. One are I agree with Sinner (and you) is New Zealand’s ‘Far Right’ ACT party are a mile to the left of the Democrats on pretty much every major policy point.
A true Conservative candidate in any electorate would likely make the political establishment’s collective heads spontaneously explode. Not that that would be a bad thing, of course.
LikeLike
Back in high school we were asked ‘What is Socialism?’ We all gave similar answers and examples of Marxism, Maoism, the Soviet Union, Cuba. To the question ‘what is Right Wing?’ the class to a student quoted Franco, Hitler Mussolini, fascism etc.
The master then informed us we were wrong –all of us.
The right answer has been scored in my mind since. It is government control of the populace, outside of war and common law, allegedly for the ‘good of the people’. It always leads to more control, and disaster. It always removes liberty. The smiling face of our PM, the scowl of our former PM, Hitler’s glass-eyed rants, Mussolini’s jutting jaw and Pol Pot’s murderous mask, are all one and the same visage of socialism. All promise the same thing, a bulwark to a greater threat that only their ‘laws’ can repel. Of course there is a concommitant sacrifice of liberty which will be funded by the poor swine that are the objects of this subjugation. cf -Us.
The Nick Smith’s and John Key’s of this world are socialists, plain and simple. All they are called on by Parliamentary representation is to administer are the country’s accounts, defense, foreign relationships, and Common Law. Instead they have interfered in everything from family life to the weather and are meddling in establishing a new morality and a rascist tier to NZ society. The likes of their Farrar cheerleaders are enabling propagandists for an increase in socialism. I don’t care how long he’s been in the job. The job sucks and so does it’s mission statement of ‘we know best because the polls say so’
These nullities figure they are creating a better society. Wrong. They and their little orthodoxies are goosestepping away from civilisation towards a complex nine-line-bind. Anyone with eyesight and who can read should look at the last days of all known empire civilisations. Is Farrar a pinko? Who cares. Its what he’s cheering for, and that isn’t conservative reform–its a lack of any principle except being in government.
LikeLike
“An association with the National Party somehow excludes one from being a Pinko??”
It depends what one considers a Pinko. If one defines someone who supports all the outrageous demands of the homosexual lobby as a Pinko then many in ACT would fall in that category.
National supports the homosexual lobby, buys into Maori being victims who need compensation and also goes along with the ETS which the Greens push the hardest. I guess it would be fair to say they are left of centre.
It seems there are two scales to judge whether a party or an individual is left or right – one is on economic issues and the other is no moral issues.
I would probably be different for some in ACT. I am not so concerned about tax rates. This is probably due to my age and financial position. I am not a multimillionaire but have enough to live comfortable the rest of my life and leave something for my children and grandchildren. What concerns me more is the type of society I leaving them.
I believe too much focus on money is wrong. If the liberals had not been so effective in undermining the family our standard of living would be much higher due to advances in technology. Broken families due to putting de facto relationships on par with marriage cost New Zealand dearly.
LikeLike
The online definitions for pinko are: “A person who holds moderately leftist political views; a pink.” (the Free Dictionary) or : “a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views” (Merriam Webster), or as the “Urban Dictionary” states: “Contrary to popular belief, used to describe Socialists, as Communism = Red, and Capitalism = White. (See Russian Revolution in your history text book) Red + White = Pink. Therefore, Socialism = Pink.”
We therefore have the situation that the word “Pinko” can cover a wide spectrum from the moderate liberal to the pure socialist. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the entire current National Party and its adherents (including DPF) fit comfortably within that spectrum. They all believe government is inherently good, they believe in government determining moral standards and government involved in redistribution of wealth and involved with regulation of detailed aspects of society and economy. They are also typically impressed and content with the political process, obsessed with political rivalry and gamesmanship, now matter how detached it may be from reality. They hold a deference to parliamentarians now matter how inconsequential they may be, and love to suck up to political power.
So is DPF a “Pinko” under the going definition? Surely. Is National a Pinko Party? Yes. Is Labour a Pinko Party? Of course. Are there any parties in NZ that are NOT Pinko parties? No.
Conclusion: the whole “democratic” and political and government system in this Pinko Paradise is socialist. It permeates through every pore, flows through every vein, and oscillates in every neuron. One only needs to switch on any of the “news channels” and “current affairs” programmes to see this at work. Not one issue is debated without suggestions it needs regulation, not one topic covered without asking questions of a politician, not one news item shown without distorting and disgusting bias.
LikeLike
There is some good stuff here.
GG – Must be a slow day Red, for you to operate so far behind enemy lines!
Very good GG. It has made my day.
George – The Nick Smith’s and John Key’s of this world are socialists, plain and simple. All they are called on by Parliamentary representation is to administer are the country’s accounts, defense, foreign relationships, and Common Law. Instead they have interfered in everything from family life to the weather and are meddling in establishing a new morality and a rascist tier to NZ society.
Chuck – It seems there are two scales to judge whether a party or an individual is left or right – one is on economic issues and the other is on moral issues.
Bez – They all believe government is inherently good, they believe in government determining moral standards and government involved in redistribution of wealth and involved with regulation of detailed aspects of society and economy. They are also typically impressed and content with the political process, obsessed with political rivalry and gamesmanship, now matter how detached it may be from reality. They hold a deference to parliamentarians now matter how inconsequential they may be, and love to suck up to political power.
I agree with all of the above. Thanks guys.
LikeLike
Why should National be or do anything different then the stinking rabble they threw out. National are the default party, all things to all people now. Why should National stick it’s neck out, they don’t have to, they are at default setting as the masses have nowhere to turn. The opposition is a joke, they offer up nothing new. Socialism is deeply entrenched, with most of our citizens stuck on the states tit with super glue. We are not yet in a state of collapse so National will continue it’s dancing on a pin head while blindfolded in a naive belief they can stay upright.
As for DPF, I have no real issue with David and on several occasions he has come to my defence but in the same breath he has handed out a few tune ups my way over the years, I probably deserved it. But I have found over the last couple of years I tend to agree less with what he says, maybe it’s old age setting in. I do fear that since National has taken office he seems to have become somewhat blind to party policy and doesn’t question to the same level he would have the gagglers in Liarbore.
LikeLike
I beg to differ: Farrar IS a pinko, a proud an unabashed one.
LikeLike
Great comment George…
What he said…
LikeLike
I believe it is better to look a solutions than attack political parties or MPs. Key, has convinced himself that what is good for JK is good for NZ and visa versa. If he was in power under FPP we would not have a lot of the legislation as under MMP.
I recently attended a lecture about the pluses and minuses of a Second House.
A Tale of Two Houses: Does MMP mean we don’t need an upper house?
Professor Nick Aroney
Not all democracies look the same. The type of electoral system we have, and the structure of our Parliament, affect the quality of our democracy and can make the difference between good and bad laws. They help determine whether the government can be held to account, and how well our politicians represent us.
http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/Events
One thing I was impressed with was Prof Aroney’s view that their are pros and cons of any system. I mentioned 100 Days Voters Veto. He thought in principle it was a good idea and that it was much better than CIR.
I believe the solution is to look at way of introducing some sort of check to limit the powers of the likes of Key or Clark. Key is every bit as much a dictator as Clark. He is more popular as he smiles instead of scowls.
There is no perfect system and that includes binding referenda but what we have a the moment is almost a dictator. Most National MPs will vote for policy they strongly oppose. Key did a flip flop on Smacking and the ETS and not one had the courage to oppose him.
LikeLike
Chuck – in my view the first and most important issue is a formal, written constitution. A document like that sets out the boundaries of governmental power, plus the way the branches of government are organized and cooperate. It also provides for the way government is established, its internal structure, and it should provide a set of coherent and complete guiding principles whereby the exercise of all governmental may be measured.
The traditional (Montesquieu) system uses three branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial), and in different systems these are structured differently. NZ for instance used to have a bi-cameral system for the legislature, but this was abandoned in favor of a single chamber system. Also, in the NZ (Westminster) system it has come to be accepted that the legislative branch is superior and sovereign, which does not naturally follow from the pure “balance of power” system at all. Furthermore, we have come to accept that the executive branch is effectively intermingled with the legislative branch. Added to all of this must be the political party system that has developed, and in which political parties are very much in control of the operation of the electoral system, which has led to further concentration of practical power, away from the constituents and into the hand of a political elite. Combine this with parliament’s superiority in the system, and we effectively have a situation where the PM can very much assume the role of dictator, as long as this person has sufficient power within their political party. Given that everything in the end turns on who has access to the tax payer funded trough and the “baubles of office”, we have ended up with a thoroughly corrupted system in which a elitist political class runs the country, supported by a “courtage” of political hangers-on and lobbying interest groups. The law courts have long ago stopped to be an effective control on this system of cronyism, and they have become part of the same ruling elite. Every now and again a short spiel is organized to placate the masses that there is a system of checks and balances, while everybody truly on the inside knows that’s theatre only (e.g. elections). Members of the elite have to be pretty stupid to loose their comfortable lifestyles. Don’t go about raping minors, and you’re pretty much set for life. This is the political and governmental reality of today. True change would only be possible through a review of the entire system and the introduction of a solid constitution that can deal with abuse. Obviously such a system cannot be organized by the current political class, but must be made by, endorsed and imposed by those who should truly be in charge, we the people (that is, those substantively contributing). Obviously, we should keep politicians and political parties well away from such a process, together with everyone or any organization with a stake in the status quo.
LikeLike
Bez says “most important issue is a formal, written constitution” , sorry Bez, utter tripe. The yanks have a formal written constitution and the last time I looked it wasn’t working to well. You can set all the rules you like but the politicians will do their utmost to dick with them, why you think NZ would be any different is beyond me. Look at the respect politicians show to public referendum, as for a constitution they wouldn’t give a fat rats arse. You can have all the constitution you like, if the people are not willing to get off their fat hairy butts when it turns to custard it’s not worth a tin of shit.
LikeLike
“do you accept National Super payments or the Super Gold card?”
Sinner, since you want to ask me personal questions how about you telling me your full real name and you circumstances. How old are you? Will you make a pledge that you will never collect National Super? I assume you have never collected any benefit like an education paid for by me the taxpayer. Am i correct? I will answer your question when you answer mine.
LikeLike
SSB – you’re quite wrong in my view. Of course politicians will try to corrupt such a document, and that is precisely what happened in the US, see the Hamilton-Jefferson debates, and the process that started with the amendments. The point is not that the document itself is the guarantee for success, the point is that such a system gives “we the people” the power to hold government to account. As Ben Franklin said to a curious passerby who asked what had been created: “A republic, m’am, if you can keep it”.
The issue is that without a constitutional system there is absolutely nothing that can be done, bar a revolution. With a solid system there will be ways and means to hold politicians and other bearers of public roles to account, of course only if the populace can be bothered enough to actually do that, and if the populace is intelligent and educated enough to be able to. A solid system also creates sufficient “balances of power” whereby officials are “pitted” against each other. It is important that the system of election and appointment aligns with that objective. To go back to the US example, this is why appointment to the senate was NOT by popular vote, as it is now, simply to make sure the interests of the senate were focused differently, hence a form of balance and scrutiny.
Politicians will of course try to change and thereby rig the system to change it to what is best for themselves as a class, not for their constituents, and they will use every trick in the book to achieve that. The US constitution was written for a Christian people with an inherent strong sense of morality and principle, and for representatives that were supposed to be weary of holding office, and who would be tasked on honor and diligence. With the rise of a political class these concepts were diminished and have gradually been eroded, right to the pigsty it is now. That doesn’t mean the idea is incorrect, it just goes to show that politicians can’t be trusted to maintain the rule book by which they must abide. A modern constitution would require provisions to make all that impossible, but that doesn’t mean that the central idea is not valid.
LikeLike
“The US constitution was written for a Christian people with an inherent strong sense of morality and principle, and for representatives that were supposed to be weary of holding office, and who would be tasked on honor and diligence. With the rise of a political class these concepts were diminished and have gradually been eroded, right to the pigsty it is now. That doesn’t mean the idea is incorrect, it just goes to show that politicians can’t be trusted to maintain the rule book by which they must abide. A modern constitution would require provisions to make all that impossible, but that doesn’t mean that the central idea is not valid.”
Particularly well said Bez. There needs to be some kind of clarification regarding what steps the people can take against politicians who they believe are acting contrary to the intent of any such Constitution.
LikeLike
Bez a constitution will not save us if we have no pride in our country, as it is at present. While I respect your reasoning and agree the central idea is valid it won’t help a country that won’t help it’s self. You are quite correct in saying the constitution has it’s bases in Christian principles but lets be honest love of Christian principles are not high on the top ten. My solution, first we must change the mood of the country, people must be allowed to make decisions without the state breathing down their necks, we need less government. The culture of welfare must change, it must be seen as a privilege not a right. Children must be taught the 3rs and pride in their countries history and this doesn’t mean gay history like CA. What we have to do is undo the last 20 or so years of social engineering, put a stake in socialism’s heart. Only then will you have a population willing to except a constitution because to have a constitution one must have morals and belief in ones country. Sorry but till then a constitution won’t do jack shit, it will be like any other of the thousand of fucking laws they bring in ever year, forgotten the next day.
LikeLike
Bob – you are right on most counts, but we disagree on the order of things it seems. In my view we need to agree on the principles first (i.e. not have the govt breathing down our necks, i.e. limited government, liberty etc), THEN we produce a document to formalize that, THEN we exercise all necessary powers to hold them to account, and to reorganize govt and its pervading roots and branches.
A constitution for this day and age would have to be based on quite different concepts than that for the US in the 18th century, that is obvious. Not only times have changed, but much of the values that were inherent then, such as self-reliance and morals based on religious tenets simply don’t exist anymore. That doesn’t mean we don’t have principles that we can use and that could provide a system that can be used to evaluate everything that is on the law books and that is part of govt regulation. In that way the excessive system we have now can be demolished without causing too much chaos one would hope.
We would have to debate individual issues to see how things might work in practice, also note of course that many issues simply cannot be solved in “armchair” fashion, but will have to be worked out on a case by case basis (i.e. through a “common law process”), where rules are extracted from practice and reality, rather then being dreamed up by the gum shoe brigade.
A constitution frames the principles, creates the balancing institutions and their formation, and sets essential rules of process, that’s it.
LikeLike