Labour's Shearer:

The new leader of Labour had an opportunity to be something else besides a nice, moderate, centrist Mr. Nice Guy. Somebody should have reminded him that that gated community has been bought by the other fulla from Parnell. He studiously avoided talking about workers on the Auckland wharf and freezing workers at AFFCO works all over are on strike. It's in the news for God's sake. Also the words poverty, low waged, children going to school hungry etc which are issues that real Labour leaders like Norm Kirk would have shouted about are not part of this insipid leader's vocabulary. Does he mean that NZ has to put up with a decade more of market and rampart capitalist bull? Poverty for 20 percent of the population is the outcome of two decades of it and an increase in wealth at the top well beyond justice and fairness. Someone on Qand A thought that he should have given a Brash type Orewa speech. Well! What happened to Brash?

He should be given six months in the job. If he doesn't register with the bottom 50 percent of income earners to begin with by then, then the Labour Party should dump him for Cunnliffe. This David will at least have no compunctions about taboo subjects like poverty and I think he has more rapport with that end of income cohort. Just look at the real situation. Who can afford a home now? The supply of houses is determined by the real estate boys and girls. They sell existing homes. This is where the government of the day should intervene. Remember whole suburbs of state houses? That supply increase countered rent rises and rent racketeering. Right now rent rises are hitting those on low and fixed incomes and increasing the droves of homeless people in our cities. 

That's just a few issues of the day. So come on David (Shearer). If you don't start talking about these real issues affecting people they won't see a brighter future without a home, better incomes and jobs. If you are not brave enough to be a real social democrat then hand over to someone who is.

"Maori Terrorism"

The Urewera "terrorists" now down to four have reached the end of their trial for being part of a criminal group and arms charges. What I saw on TV were shadowy figures, carrying guns, aiming them, and going in single file through dense bush. No one's identity could be ascertained through the Police video lenses and of course there were more than four in the video; the rest having had their charges dropped. Which ones according to the video were criminals and which illegally carrying arms? Why were the four chosen? Tame Iti was an obvious one. After shooting our precious flag with a shot gun and having it shown on TV ad nauseum and his past doings, he was a marked Tuhoe. The others however were not known except apparently as activists. I'd never heard of them. 

The jury's verdict will be interesting. I can't believe that four make up a criminal gang. There's no evidence shown on TV that marks them out as such. Arms charges may have some point although unlicensed guns are quite common in NZ including the Urewera. Tuhoe have been hunting pigs and deer for many years. I doubt if all the guns I saw while camping with a Tuhoe whanau up the river from Ruatoki were licensed. If these arms are such a big deal then the Police should be watching the arms dealers and sellers not those playing with them in the bush.