Why I'm an ACT Party "League" Fan
Steve Nice Guy from Northland has taken me to task for being a Rugby League fan AND an ACT Party member.
Trev,
Since you're a league fan I'm sorry I'm gonna have to ruin your night with the following:
League was the invention of "industrial union of workers" working class men of Northern England. These men didn't particularly like rugby union. It discriminated against them. It was the pursuit of the poncey, elitist, inbred, toff bastards going right back to Harrow School. "Rugger me Bugger me !"
Who in fairness could blame them for their common sense ?
Canberra Raiders; ever looked at their jerseys ? CFMEU - Construction Forestry Mining & Energy "Union".
Sonny Bill - his granddad an active unionist.
Stacey Jones - Granddad Emery. A wharfie no less. Same.
Bill Andersen, yes, the evil one, president of City-Newton League.
My very own first cuzzie. Amco Cup, Auckland - staunch union family - our granddad a freezing worker and two uncles wharfies in '51. Commie Beasts !
Real men. Not poncey, elitist pricks.
In contrast, NZRU - right up until the 70s - chairman was always a captain of industry - Sullivan (BP Oil), Ces Blazey, that feisty little ("I love South Africa") lace importer, Ron Don. These guys most decidedly weren't commies.
By your definition all these other jokers were - they were serious unionists and therefore they were commies. Where's your profiles on them Trev ?
In conscience I reckon you gotta change codes. If you're gonna stay "true" that is.....
Well Steve my Saturday night WAS ruined. The highly favoured New ZealandWarriors were beaten 24 to 26 by the Aussie union sponsored Canberra Raiders. Now the Warriors will struggle to host a home semi-final.
However Steve, I have to haul you up on a key assumption-that if I support ACT I must be a "Tory" and should support the "establishment" Rugby Union code.
I support League, not because of some socialist idea of class struggle, but because its a faster, harder, more dynamic, more violent and less rule-ridden game than than Union.
I watched my home team Canterbury beat Wellington in NPC Rugby Union last night (while typing away on the computer). It was good, but hardly thrilling.
Then I watched the Warriors go full tit, head to head with the Raiders (and lose) and was on the edge of my seat.
Rugby League, all in all, is a better spectator sport than Rugby Union.
It's "simply the best".
But Steve if you want to mix politics with sport, I've got a good analogy for you.
If Rugby Union is the "establishment" sport-the game of the public schools, the "toffs" and the rich (forgetting the working class origins of most All Blacks for a minute), then League is the game of the "hard working class".
I remeber talking to an Auckland sales rep once, with "Grammar" or "St Kents" written all over him.
He said he was off to play "footie" in the morning-I assumed he meant Union.
No chance. this guy was League player. When I asked him why he said "because League's a rebel game".
That sums it up.
League was born in a Northern working class rebellion against the conservative Southern English Rugby union establishment.
League has struggled against the Union establishment ever since. Sometimes the rivalry has been extremely hostile, sometimes semi-friendly.
League has kept Union on its toes and even forced it to turn professional for fear of losing its senior position to the rebel code.
Steve, doesn't that sound to you like the relationship between the NZ National Party and ACT?
National is the big "establishment" party. Conservative, slow to change, intolerant of fresh ideas-coasting on its momentum.
ACT is the rebel party. ACT doesn't give a stuff for conservatism. ACT is out there making things happen, trying new ideas.
ACT is a rebel, revolutionary party. ACT is smaller than National but it is, member for member, far more energetic, visionary and enthusiastic.
Like League,ACT came from the "working class", especially the "hard working class". ACT was founded by people who despised conservatism, privilege and the "born to rule" mentality. It is still that way.
ACT people are not Tory's, they are Whigs. The are revolutionary liberals who want a fair go for everyone who will get off their arse to make their life better-whether they come from Parnell or Porirua, Avonhead or Aranui.
I'm bloody comfortable being and ACT supporter and League fan Steve.
Perhaps its you who should either change your ideas or your football code?
Trev,
Since you're a league fan I'm sorry I'm gonna have to ruin your night with the following:
League was the invention of "industrial union of workers" working class men of Northern England. These men didn't particularly like rugby union. It discriminated against them. It was the pursuit of the poncey, elitist, inbred, toff bastards going right back to Harrow School. "Rugger me Bugger me !"
Who in fairness could blame them for their common sense ?
Canberra Raiders; ever looked at their jerseys ? CFMEU - Construction Forestry Mining & Energy "Union".
Sonny Bill - his granddad an active unionist.
Stacey Jones - Granddad Emery. A wharfie no less. Same.
Bill Andersen, yes, the evil one, president of City-Newton League.
My very own first cuzzie. Amco Cup, Auckland - staunch union family - our granddad a freezing worker and two uncles wharfies in '51. Commie Beasts !
Real men. Not poncey, elitist pricks.
In contrast, NZRU - right up until the 70s - chairman was always a captain of industry - Sullivan (BP Oil), Ces Blazey, that feisty little ("I love South Africa") lace importer, Ron Don. These guys most decidedly weren't commies.
By your definition all these other jokers were - they were serious unionists and therefore they were commies. Where's your profiles on them Trev ?
In conscience I reckon you gotta change codes. If you're gonna stay "true" that is.....
Well Steve my Saturday night WAS ruined. The highly favoured New ZealandWarriors were beaten 24 to 26 by the Aussie union sponsored Canberra Raiders. Now the Warriors will struggle to host a home semi-final.
However Steve, I have to haul you up on a key assumption-that if I support ACT I must be a "Tory" and should support the "establishment" Rugby Union code.
I support League, not because of some socialist idea of class struggle, but because its a faster, harder, more dynamic, more violent and less rule-ridden game than than Union.
I watched my home team Canterbury beat Wellington in NPC Rugby Union last night (while typing away on the computer). It was good, but hardly thrilling.
Then I watched the Warriors go full tit, head to head with the Raiders (and lose) and was on the edge of my seat.
Rugby League, all in all, is a better spectator sport than Rugby Union.
It's "simply the best".
But Steve if you want to mix politics with sport, I've got a good analogy for you.
If Rugby Union is the "establishment" sport-the game of the public schools, the "toffs" and the rich (forgetting the working class origins of most All Blacks for a minute), then League is the game of the "hard working class".
I remeber talking to an Auckland sales rep once, with "Grammar" or "St Kents" written all over him.
He said he was off to play "footie" in the morning-I assumed he meant Union.
No chance. this guy was League player. When I asked him why he said "because League's a rebel game".
That sums it up.
League was born in a Northern working class rebellion against the conservative Southern English Rugby union establishment.
League has struggled against the Union establishment ever since. Sometimes the rivalry has been extremely hostile, sometimes semi-friendly.
League has kept Union on its toes and even forced it to turn professional for fear of losing its senior position to the rebel code.
Steve, doesn't that sound to you like the relationship between the NZ National Party and ACT?
National is the big "establishment" party. Conservative, slow to change, intolerant of fresh ideas-coasting on its momentum.
ACT is the rebel party. ACT doesn't give a stuff for conservatism. ACT is out there making things happen, trying new ideas.
ACT is a rebel, revolutionary party. ACT is smaller than National but it is, member for member, far more energetic, visionary and enthusiastic.
Like League,ACT came from the "working class", especially the "hard working class". ACT was founded by people who despised conservatism, privilege and the "born to rule" mentality. It is still that way.
ACT people are not Tory's, they are Whigs. The are revolutionary liberals who want a fair go for everyone who will get off their arse to make their life better-whether they come from Parnell or Porirua, Avonhead or Aranui.
I'm bloody comfortable being and ACT supporter and League fan Steve.
Perhaps its you who should either change your ideas or your football code?
posted by Trevor Loudon at
8/19/2007 03:42:00 PM
4 Comments:
Look at league, few basic rules where all players attack the line.
Look at union, too many rules, the fowards don't attack the line without a group hug, the backs will kick possesion away rather than attack the line and everyone is at the whim of an all powerful dictator.
Go the mighty warriors!
Trevor Loudon, why did you even bother dignifying Steve Nice Guy's comments with such a long-drawn out answer.
An ACT Party member should not be concerned with alligning his political views with the brand of football he follows. People should be free to follow whatever sport they wish regardless of whether it corresponds with their political views.
For example, Trevor if I was a unionist who followed League, I couldn't give a damn whether Geoff Toovey is an accountant. The bottom line is Toovey is one of the toughest blokes to ever play the game.
After all, it is the freedom to enjoy the sport, not the political circumstances surrounding its birth, which we are concerned with.
Interesting "relativities" you point up Trev, and you do it rather persuasively too !
Never saw Coddington as a "revolutionary" or spotted her "rebel" stripe. I'll keep that in mind next time I meet her on the ramparts !
You have however missed/obscured the point. I shall restate it: to date your perennial thesis has been that virtually anyone left of centre is a "commie". Apparently not so in respect of your working class, unionist leaguies. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now ?
This is a first ! In fact I detect an interesting metamorphosis going on here - from the days when you said that patent good works done by a socialist simply could not be good works since a socialist did them, to your affectionately calling your mate a "rightist leftie" or a "leftie rightist" or something, to letting that demon Bill Andersen off the hook because he was a leaguie, well.....
What's happened to your McCarthyist fire Trev ? Fair warning though mate: you try to join my "cell" and I'll be obliged to blackball you.....
Oh, Anonymous II above.....you wouldn't have a clue what dignity is chum !
Anon 1 dead right.
Anon 2-lighten up-can't a man have a bit of fun?
Steve-methinks you regularly obscure my position. I try to be accurate in my profiles and I try to be fair.
Even the best of us is not perfect, nor are the worst of us without some redeeming features.
I'm a Whig-a reformer-I'm not and never have been a supporter of the status quo.
That was once considered a leftist position, before socialism came along.
My position hasn't altered-maybe your perception of it has.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home