70 years of dependence and failure

Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage helped introduce

the Welfare State to New Zealand in 1938. This move

led to thousands of New Zealanders becoming dependant

on taxpayers and the inevitable breakdown in families,

crime, abuse and recently the murder of countless young'

children and babies. Savage is held as a hero to the present

Labour Government but in reality his introduction of welfare

has led to 70 years of decline for our society and will get worse

unless something is changed. John Key yesterday telegraphed

a change.

In the wake of John Key's forward looking announcement of a "restructuring" of the welfare system yesterday, today Helen Clark celebrated 70 years of the welfare state by opening a "museum of social security".

I had to take a second look at the TV and open my ears as I couldn't believe the news report. Yes a museum of welfare!

Ms Clark and her party are stuck in the past and are continuing in action the phrase that the hapless Michael Joseph Savage coined in 1938 "from the cradle to the grave".

John Key's announcement yesterday could well be as momentous and pivotal for this country, in a positive way, as Savage's introduction of welfare was destructive.

Far from celebrating the socialist cotton wool wrapped welfare State that Labour and Sir Arnold Nordmeyer foisted upon the New Zealand population in 1938 and has largely destroyed thousands of kiwis lives since, we should be instead pinpointing that day 70 years ago as the start of the decline of the New Zealand way of life.

From that date we were no longer independent individuals. We became dependant slaves of the State machine.

Savage and Nordmeyer are collectives not to be looked up to, for their introduction of welfare and the dependence and grief it has subsequently caused is something shameful and must be critiqued at every opportunity.

Only the truly ignorant and those in the present Labour Party with their socialist agendas would celebrate such a failure as the welfare State.

Kiwis now clearly want a return to a fairer system of welfare, one used as a backstop, not a lifestyle and any celebration of the creation of the welfare state should be done so in dark rooms, with whispers, Labour Party disciples only and downward cast eyes.

So today should be a day of mourning for our welfare system, not celebration.

Simply because it doesn't work.

Related Political Animal reading

The Bludging must end

c Political Animal 2008

The Bludging must end

The announcement by John Key today on the NZ $12 billion vote welfare, yes 12 billion dollars out of a total government budget of $60 billion goes on welfare, got me excited about National's plan for the future of welfare in New Zealand.

For too long taxpayers money has been doled out irresponsibly to welfare recipients.

There have been no responsibilities attached to free taxpayer money and it looks like Key's plan to get single mothers working, dole recipients actually looking for work and sickness beneficiaries reassessed to see what there status actually is, will be a good start towards that crucial responsibility.

Welfare has been at the heart of this countries economic and social decline, especially as it has increased to record numbers, with the introduction of working for families welfare, under the Labour Government over the last 9 years.

Free money simply means recipients will not respect where it comes from and who it is taken off, the taxpayer, and over generations this lack of respect and freedom to spend other peoples money has led to poverty, of a monetary nature Cindy Kiro, but primarily a poverty of spirit and attitude.

You have heard it all before and it is true. If you don't work for what you have, you don't respect what you buy with that money and what you use the money to look after; children for example.

No more is the failed welfare experiment more obvious that in Labour's failed social experiment, South Auckland. A cot case, and even more so over the last 9 years, free money has achieved; dependence, poor self esteem, violent crime, poor health and education levels and little hope for improving ones future.

If welfare was going to succeed in New Zealand it would have years ago. The simple fact is you don't solve the current welfare problem buy doing what the deluded Helen Clarks and Sue Bradfords of this world advocate, even more welfare!

The definition of absolute stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Add to that people from government welfare agencies saying "we are here to help", when these are the people who caused these problems in the first place by doling out this free taxpayer moola.

Granted, there has to be a welfare backstop, one that will be there for all of us, temporally and with strings attached, but welfare has become a way of life for many and it is my personal opinion that the working Kiwi is sick to death of funding other peoples lifestyles. I get a sense that we just wont take the dropkicks and time wasters continuing to sponge off those who work for what they have anymore.

John Key has sensed this, he should know, he comes from a welfare background, one that was a backstop. I came from a similar situation to John and it helped my mother for a short time, with her family and its responsibilities. She worked at times though.

No disrespect to Helen Clark, no really, she was brought up with a privileged family background so isn't able to understand the complexities of a life at the bottom of the heap or on welfare, she thinks throwing other peoples money at the situation is the answer. Clearly that is wrong.

John Key understands how welfare can be used, with strings attached, as a short term tool to get individuals and families through temporary hard spots in their lives.

When one looks at welfare in this way, one goes back to its origins, but the current welfare state mentality, that other taxpayers will look after you from cradle to grave is unsustainable, monetarily, socially and spiritually.

Simply not to change, as Key has telegraphed today, means New Zealand is destined to ending up a spoon fed, fat, lazy, moral free corpse of disrespectful, angry dependant, ambitionless people.

And broke.


Related Political Animal reading

Labour's Socialist peril
Labour's state control out of control
Pointing fingers in the playground
What happened to risk?

c Political Animal 2008

Bigamy on Labour's secret agenda?

I was looking for a written quote from a bizarre speech that Ruth Dyson made in Parliament last week on the Parliamentary website but couldn't find it but someone from KiwiBlog has posted it on their site. It has been removed from the record of Parliament website for some reason, which is curious because it is supposed to be a complete record of Parliament and its speeches.

“Shifting the focus from social welfare to social development is about considering the wellbeing of the whole population, and communities within that population, rather than solely focusing on the traditional family group. We must cater for the diversity, we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on. That’s where we’re going with social policy.”

Ruth Dyson 2008

I covered this area of Labours social policy on Friday, in relation to Helen Clark's enthusiasm for minorities rather than the majority of middle class families that pay the bulk of the country's taxes.

Dyson though, was talking about a "shift" that she wanted to make in social policy, even further away from the nuclear family to focus on a more "inclusive" one that recognised all the above. The most curious of all being the "triples" inclusion.

That word got an immediate response from the majority of those that were in parliament the day of Dyson's speech, a collective "huh?" was heard across the benches.

Now in the light of the Labour Party lurching further and further towards the extreme in terms of social policy, to envelope the bizarre and fringe areas of life and normalise them, Dyson really needs to explain what she means by "triples".

In the absence of an explanation, we can only speculate what Ruth Dyson meant by the term "triples". The first logical conclusion would be that Dyson is referring to bigamy, practiced in New Zealand illegally at present by a part of the Muslim population.

Is Labour looking at legalising bigamy?

What other possible permutations could there be?

3 homosexual males
3 homosexual females
3 male friends
3 female friends
2 homosexual females and a sperm donor
2 homosexual males and an egg donor
2 homosexual males and a German Sheppard

Yada, yada, yada.

There are loads of other possibilities. The New Zealand public just don't know what Ruth Dyson is talking about and she needs to explain her bizarre speech in Parliament. Public money will be spent on investigating such possibilities should Labour be re elected this year and welfare money will once again be used to support the fringe dwellers in our country, at the expense once again of the majority of Kiwis who will pay for it.

Is it yet another secret agenda of Labours, let out in Parliament last week by accident? It certainly gives a lie to the fake family of a mother, father and young child pictured in Labour Party election propaganda outed by media at the beginning of June.

To normalise bigamy?

Surely not.

Related Political Animal reading

Not that there is anything wrong with it

Fully aware of Muslims: Jihad and understanding

Having a multiple Muslim

New grab by at taxpayer funds by Labour comes with fakes included

c Political Animal 2008

John Key gives away parliamentary salary

John Key, the National Party's leader, is going to continue to give part of his salary to charity when he becomes Prime Minister in November.

Rodney Hide praised Key as a "generous Kiwi" and the spiteful Winston Peters called the gesture "politically motivated".

Bizarre coming from Peters as he generously gifted NZ$155,000.00 of stolen taxpayer money from the 2005 election campaign to 40 different charities recently instead of paying it back to where it came, and he clearly got no political capital from it!

It is not the same thing though.

No comment from Helen Clark, the wealthy property owner who only likes to give other peoples money away, to buy votes.


Related Political Animal reading


John Key's success should be celebrated
The John Key Story-Part One
The John Key Story-Part Two
Pointing fingers in the playground



c Political Animal 2008