John Key, arrogant prick:

Posted on May 27, 2014 by KG

‘Key rejects immigration restrictions
Prime Minister John Key has dismissed polls that suggest more than half of New Zealanders want restrictions on the number of immigrants allowed into the country…’
The Slimy Smirker has a history of ignoring the wishes of Kiwis, but they keep voting for more of the same. Go figure…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to John Key, arrogant prick:

  1. minette says:
    May 27, 2014 at 07:37

    Your source takes two separate interviews and ties them together to try and create a story. Typical of the churnalism that abounds in Stuff.

    At present the Nats lead Labour by 20% in the polls and I’m hoping that Kiwis will vote for more of the same as the alternative coalition of Labour/Greens/Mana/Internet/ ? would be infinitely worse. In fact so bad we’d all have to come and live in Oz.

    • KG says:
      May 27, 2014 at 07:40

      I don’t care about the source, Minette, or how bad the alternatives to the Nats are–the fact remains that the man has a history of ignoring the expressed wishes of the people he supposedly serves.
      I notice you don’t address that inconvenient fact.

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      May 27, 2014 at 10:47

      “… the alternative coalition … would be infinitely worse…” is not a good enough reason to keep voting for this slimy bastard. He treats the traditional National Party voter with utter contempt.

      Psycho Milt at NoMinister has a post up in which he proves he ‘gets it’ far more than the average John Key cheerleader. As Milt says, the budget just delivered by Bill English is one of which a traditional Labour Party finance minister would be immensely proud.

      There is no need to vote in a Labour Party government in New Zealand, because we already have one.

      • KG says:
        May 27, 2014 at 10:54

        http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif For once, I agree with Psycho Milt.
        “There is no need to vote in a Labour Party government in New Zealand, because we already have one.”
        Yep. The Nats are merely a Labour Party faction.

  2. Cadwallader says:
    May 27, 2014 at 07:46

    The immigration debate in NZ is not a healthy one. It stems from the numbers of Kiwis returning from overseas at present who are said to be instrumental in driving up house prices. House prices in Auckland are rising quickly and inbound migrants are being blamed for this. In the remainder of the country house prices are essentially static with a few exceptions. I do not favour blanket moves to curb migration and indeed support its growth subject to law and order issues. The ready stand of blaming outsiders for problems within a country is not new…Pauline Hansen comes to mind, what is new is the readiness for current authorities to fail to ensure compatability between current residents and new arrivals. Hence we are faced with numbers of muslims who arrive with little or no intention of assimilating and contributing. What is required/desired are migrants who seek to improve themselves and their new home through melding to the existing beliefs and practices within the country. I understand that there are many migrants already here who have blended into NZ society through personal endeavours and sober conduct. (I am told of Asian workers in the dairy industry in the South Island who work hard, save and relish the opportunities now coming their way. Good luck to them and welcome!) Strength of spirit and self-reliance are key to people being healthy immigrants. I wish to see a lot more immigration to NZ.

  3. Cadwallader says:
    May 27, 2014 at 07:50

    PS John Key and his front bench are more attuned to NZers than any previous administration I can recall in my 60+ years. Basing his reputation on a couple of tawdry polls is inconclusive and unfair. I am not a National supporter and never will be as they are too broad based in their alleged policies. I prefer a party which can at least hover towards libertarianism. The problem is the swaying mantra of democracy…ie what will the unthinking swallow?

    • KG says:
      May 27, 2014 at 08:04

      “Tawdry” polls? Any way you slice it, my original point about him ignoring the expressed wishes of Kiwis remains a fact.A fact based on more than a couple of polls.
      And it’s a very telling comment in the article where somebody speaks of the interests of the “migrant community”–there should be no such thing.
      (Take a look over on the right sidebar, at the essay “The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders”. There’s a lot of food for thought there)
      Whether you and I are for or against immigration is beside the point – it’s a complex question that needs more open and honest discussion. The point you seem to be making, Cad is that a relatively few people know better than the electorate what’s good for the country.
      Which is irrelevant, even if that’s true. Either the people are sovereign, or they’re not.
      The real estate “industry” and various other interests are the drivers of immigration and they’d see NZ go to hell in a handcart provided their own pockets were lined.
      The job of the government is to govern, but not to the point where it ignores the wishes of the majority of the governed.

      • Cadwallader says:
        May 27, 2014 at 08:32

        I am not advocating for open borders but on a consistent policy of expanding our society with people who can work, strive and think for themselves. These criteria obviously exclude all forms of religious zealots/terrorists and the indolent unemployable.
        Parliament is sovereign not the people en-masse due to the problem with democracy in that it counts heads rather than what is in them.
        The real estate industry is a mess but the availability of real estate is the crux. There is far too much land tied up with stupid resource management rules which are anti-progress and restrictive. Supply and demnad equations flow from this.
        NZ is larger than many countries with greater numbers of people, NZ has vast tracts of ignored and economically valuable land, a reasonable climate and products the world requires. But: The country is under-populated if it is to continue in a sound economic manner.

        • KG says:
          May 27, 2014 at 08:40

          “Parliament is sovereign not the people en-masse due to the problem with democracy in that it counts heads rather than what is in them.”
          NO! That’s nothing more than an argument for rule by an elite. I’m sure the Soviet Politburo would have used the same.

          • Cadwallader says:
            May 27, 2014 at 08:45

            1789: The Glorious Revolution which established the sovereignty of parliament. Nothing new.

            • KG says:
              May 27, 2014 at 10:56

              The sovereignty of parliament over the monarchy, not the people.
              If anything, 1789 makes my point, since it was to establish the will of the people over a ruling elite.

  4. KG says:
    May 27, 2014 at 08:09

    ” I prefer a party which can at least hover towards libertarianism.”
    There isn’t one.

  5. KG says:
    May 27, 2014 at 08:36

    “I am not advocating for open borders but on a consistent policy of expanding our society with people who can work, strive and think for themselves.”
    And that expansion serves what end, exactly?
    The very real social costs of multiculturalism and high immigration are never mentioned, and they can easily outweigh the benefits.

    • Cadwallader says:
      May 27, 2014 at 08:47

      The social costs of depleted migration would soon reveal the narrowness of NZ’s tiny gene-pool and the resulting and inevitable failures which flow from that.

      • KG says:
        May 27, 2014 at 08:54

        I’m not sure what you mean by “depleted migration”.
        Are we talking emigration or immigration?
        As for NZ’s “tiny” gene pool–it isn’t tiny at all. Migrants came to NZ from all over the world. Sure, predominantly Europeans, but far from exclusively. The fact that they were predominantly Europeans also served to minimise the social strains caused by high immigration numbers.
        And Scotland, I recall, did very, very well in education and medicine and engineering from a relatively small gene pool.
        I’m still waiting for an answer regarding what end “expanding society” serves.

  6. KG says:
    May 27, 2014 at 08:38

    ‘Diversity has also been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.’

    [iii] Re. corruption and growth: Mauro, P. (1995). “Corruption and growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(3): 681—712.

  7. Redbaiter says:
    May 27, 2014 at 09:35

    Cadwaller is one of those infuriating Guardian or Fairfax media types who believe that what traditional European culture needs is to be diluted by a host of other cultures.

    They never say why this is necessary. I don’t think they know. They really only wish to be seen as fashionably liberal. Just another symptom of a generation that has wallowed in narcissism.

    • Cadwallader says:
      May 27, 2014 at 11:25

      Wrong. I have not advocated dilution of culture (whatever that jargon could possibly mean,) I have lauded more people as a solution to that very issue. I ask that immigration not be curbed so as to allow more of those wishing to join the current status of this country but not to alter it. NZ was founded on hard work and the quest for self-betterment, if a person wishes to migrate here and join that principle, then why not offer a welcome? May be I am narrow and selfish in wanting new-comers to adhere to the status-quo but to me that is a requisite for assimilation and a compendious way forward.

  8. KG says:
    May 27, 2014 at 10:52

    “They never say why this is necessary. I don’t think they know.”
    They don’t.

    • mawm says:
      May 27, 2014 at 15:56

      But the politicians do know. They know that they need to grow their electorate – as seen in what Blair and Brown, and more lately Obama, have done, and they need to keep on increasing the tax paying base so as to fill the exchequer so that they can keep on spending OPM.

  9. dondiego says:
    May 27, 2014 at 16:14

    I’d like to see all the boers that want to relocated to NZ. THNIC been dancing in the street singing how he wants them shot. Take ’em all (that want to leave). Then you’ll be well over quota [that you didn’t ask for] of refugees -tell the u.n to piss off for 10 years :!:

    How’d that be :?: Australia could take the other half. :?: Both countries will need more competent (read white) soldiers soon. Too sensible to work, I know.

    Key must be ranked as one of N.Zs worst P.Ms ever.

    • Cadwallader says:
      May 28, 2014 at 05:43

      How quickly you forget the duplicitous she-beast now deep into its natural home at the HQ of the UN , participating in life hating edict making and soaking up wealth from its constituent members.

  10. KG says:
    May 27, 2014 at 17:11

    “I’d like to see all the boers that want to relocated to NZ. ”
    And Australia. They’d fit right in here. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

  11. The Gantt Guy says:
    May 28, 2014 at 06:06

    @Cadwaller (1): “…John Key and his front bench are more attuned to NZers than any previous administration I can recall in my 60+ years…”

    Yep, like pushing through the anti-smacking legislation against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, and ignoring the referendum to get rid of it. Like ramming home the destruction of marriage and the traditional family, likely against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate (they wouldn’t put it to a referendum as they feared the result). Like saying while in opposition they would put forward a referendum to get rid of the apartheid seats, then cozying up to the apartheid party when in government. Like forming an “advisory panel” on constitutional arrangements which was deliberately established with terms of reference and members to guarantee a foregone conclusion. Like saying in opposition that Working for Families is ‘socialism by stealth’, then not only refusing to disband it, but strengthening it in government.

    As I said above, New Zealand doesn’t need a Labour government; we have one.

    @Cadwaller (2): “How quickly you forget the duplicitous she-beast now deep into its natural home at the HQ of the UN , participating in life hating edict making and soaking up wealth from its constituent members.”

    Two points: (1) corruption, venalism and nepotism are expected from Labour politicians. We (rightly) hold those nominally on the “right” to a higher standard. We expect better of them. That’s why David Garrett, Richard Worth and Rodney Hide are no longer in Parliament; they committed offences which would get the promoted in Labour Party circles. (2) please enlighten me in what way the John Key administration is different in any material manner from that of the Klarkenfuhrer? “…participating in life hating edict making and soaking up wealth from its constituent members…” is exactly what they do, day in and day out.

    @KG: I actually advocate for immigration, but not to “expand” society, to sustain it. Kiwis simple aren’t having babies at the rate required to sustain the nation, and so if we choose not to grow tomorrow’s citizens, we have no choice but to buy them in. And, interestingly, the largest migrant group entering the country currently isn’t the yellow peril, it’s the English fleeing the festering carcass of what was once the centre of the greatest empire the world has ever known. I only hope the ones arriving here are those desiring to preserve our civilisation, rather than those seeking to destroy it.

    • KG says:
      May 28, 2014 at 06:42

      Gantt, I have nothing against immigration per se. What I strenuously object to is the importation of people who will never subscribe to the values of the host country and immigration at such a rate that it places huge strains on infrastructure. Strains which cost the taxpayer enormous amounts of their hard-earned money.
      I also object to the hosts being hectored and lectured that their own culture is in no way superior to that of people fleeing dysfunctional shit-holes when such dysfunction is caused by a culture which is the cause of their flight in the first place.
      By all means, let’s have reasonable levels of immigration: subject to criteria which ensure that the new arrivals will assimilate into and respect the host culture.