In October1974, the Labour Government announced the establishment of the ohu scheme for groups of New Zealand citizens willing to set up alternative communities or settlements in rural areas. Prime Minister Kirk said that the reasons for it were mainly spiritual and social
Very spiritual indeed, seeing as Kirk died on the last day of August 1974.
Pretty sure the ohu thing was from 1973. Things happened very fast in that fleeting time.
In a small territory with a homogeneous population, most of whom are obsessed with money, eating and shopping
That's almost the lament I heard 25 years ago from an expat HK adman in Singapore. Singaporeans had only two interests, eating and shopping, 'in that order'. 'Honkies' commonly played Singaporeans in TV commercials, as the creativity-free locals had no concept of acting beyond nodding and smiling.
The system was shaken, but nothing was broken.
And the fresh Labour MP who appeared to best exemplify the Semmens no-truck-with-you-elitist-tossers prescription - the one who needed a fire engine to transport his copious no-pooftahs-please man-tackle - is the one who actually got down and jiggy with the Dirty Politics scumbags.
The truth is voters much prefer traditional populist right wing parties as a protest against the political establishment over what middle class environmentalists offer.
Anything new there, apart from maybe tacking lifestyle onto the time-honoured block?
Malcontent? How so? [Use a broad brush in reply . . . if possible :-) ]
If you're going to cliche-stereotype all politicians - which I agree can be tempting on a bad day - then why shouldn't other callings be equally damned?
Seriously FG, you declined a guest spot here, which is of course your privilege. Personally I was disappointed because once you got over posting in the 3rd person you made a heap of sense. I'm more than a little disappointed that you've succumbed to passing off what seems like stage of life cynicism as salt of the earth wisdom. Get well soon, ffs.
It’s legitimate to ask why anyone , including Hager , would bother to publish something that we all seem to take for granted anyway.
They are politicians , right? Pure as driven snow . . yeah right.
And farmers will always be history's malcontents. Whatever paces your stolid plod to the crematorium, Sunshine.
He punked Bomber with this kind of manipulation…I’m referring to revelations from Dirty Politics. Still haven’t finished it but could give some snippets tonight if you’re interested (and no one else has jumped in).
Sounds like Hager’s account of how Slater used an associate to post comments under a false ID on Bradbury’s blog at the time of the anti-MMP campaign. While Bomber appeared to react predictably to a somewhat spurious claim that anti-MMP attack ads had somehow violated parliamentary or broadcast rules, Slater et al’s gloating that they’d somehow boosted their flagging campaign by having Bradbury run the videos seemed just another gotcha between political fanboys.
I saw the best minds of my ge
You’re not wrong.
Let’s see where this goes…
…I have heard it said, that a Little goes a long way…
SHREK: Well, let me put it this way, Princess. Men of Farquaad's stature are in short supply.
DONKEY: Oh no, Shrek. There are those who think little of him.
I’ve been linking to this as contrast.
The 'Crusher' personality cult stuff seems awfully subadult now. From memory, John Armstrong was at least as enraptured.