If I said that Kate Wilkinson had the blood of the Pike River miners on her hands I would be rightly booed and jeered, and accused of politicking over the men's deaths.
But it's okay for the left's pre-eminent political commentator to say that Labour has blood on its hands.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
I missed the outrage over Trotter's comments, but I'm sure I'll find it if I search the interwebs for long enough.
Friday, November 9, 2012
4 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 ministers of Labour and a conservation minister are soaked in blood alongside a union but the people up to their necks in it are the company themselves.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it amazing that the safety manager has not been lynched. I can only assume the fact that he lost a son in the mine has kept him safe.
Can't say I completely agree with Trotter. Labour did have a review done but National, via Brownlee, canned it. Labour should have acted sooner but they did actually start to act and it may have been enough to prevent the Pike River Tragedy.
ReplyDeleteYou could be right, but a discussion document at the end of nine years is hardly sufficient to hide behind.
DeleteIsn't Trotter saying that both national and labour have blood on their hands (=blood on the coal)? Neither is blameless. Although both slavishly followed new right economic policies. That is the common factor.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether labour has or can renounce that lurch to the right.
Otherwise what is their philosophical point of difference with national?