Japan's prime minister kept the farm minister in post with the words "just work, and pay it back with your work". I read all 5,098 comments. Those blaming the prime minister hold 73.7% of the agree presses. The 190 that defended keeping the minister hold 0.2% - and 47.4% of every disagree press in the thread
My lady said these comments talk as if the prime minister is not doing the job, drag their feet over something that may not be worth stopping politics for, and then blame the prime minister when nothing moves - spiteful venting, she called it. Counted, this thread hardly said the prime minister was not working. What it said was that work cannot pay this back. And the comments nearest to my lady's side were the ones it pushed back on.
How the votes fell
Ranked by upvotes. Left of the slash is agree, right is disagree. This is where the resentment actually sits.
- 1st 29849 ∕ 485 To boast that "I cut" the budget of a council whose mayor did not back you is unthinkable - not just for a minister or politician, but for anyone. Such a person represents the public as a minister, and the prime minister approves. If the prime minister's support does not fall after this, the public will have said it is fine
- 2nd 17253 ∕ 189 Someone who would "enquire" with the transport ministry about the road budgets of towns that withheld their backing, so that officials take the hint, is working in the wrong direction - more work of that kind only hurts the public. Keeping Yana on says the prime minister does not think this is worth a resignation, and can fairly be read as approval
- 3rd 15645 ∕ 170 He did what a member of parliament and a minister must never do, so there is no trusting this person. Tell such a person to "work, work" and who knows what will happen. It is the public who suffer. Making the minister answer for it properly is the job of the prime minister, the one in charge
- 4th 8158 ∕ 184 The ruling party does interfere in budgets - that is a fact. Even so, it is staggering to hear the prime minister talk about fairness while refusing to dismiss the minister. Words and actions should match, which means dismissal. If the government's approval stays above 40% after this, the world has gone mad
- 5th 6868 ∕ 138 This cannot be brushed off as a matter of wording. The national budget is not a reward for politicians or local mayors; it should be handled fairly for the people who live there. An apology and a telling-off from the prime minister should not end it - the minister should resign and make the responsibility clear
I read all 5,098 parent comments, loaded between 7:46 and 7:55am on 9 October 2026, about 15 hours after publication. The site put the total at 6,058 comments at about 7:46am, showed 5,117 parent comments, and showed 938 replies beneath the parents. The buttons came to 127,505 agree, 1,931 insightful and 6,351 disagree presses - 95 to 5. Agree against disagree alone is also 95 to 5. The vote leans to the top: the first comment alone drew 29,849 agree presses, 23.4% of the total; the top 2 hold 36.9%, the top 3 49.2%, the top 5 61.0%, the top 10 74.8% and the top 20 85.0%. Further down, 1,786 of the 5,098 (35.0%) drew no agree presses at all, 1,456 (28.6%) had no button pressed at all, and 290 (5.7%) drew more disagree than agree presses - those 290 hold 54.4% of all the disagree presses. The average comment ran to 73.7 characters and the longest to 400. The 301 comments (5.9%) of 200 characters or more hold 21.8% of the agree presses; the 1,927 (37.8%) under 40 characters hold 1.9%. Of the 938 replies, 328 (35.0%) sit under the first comment, and 5,018 of the 5,098 (98.4%) have no reply at all. Next, who the thread was writing about, and what it said. 2,276 comments (44.6%) blamed Prime Minister Takaichi - responsibility for the appointment, going easy on allies, poor judgement, withdrawing support - holding 73.7% of the agree presses. 23.4% of that is the first comment; without it, the other 2,275 hold 50.3%. 1,420 comments (27.9%) called for Yana to resign as minister, be dismissed, or leave parliament, holding 54.0%. Taken together, 3,103 comments (60.9%) blamed the prime minister or called for Yana to go, holding 87.4%. 1,812 comments (35.5%) questioned the phrase 'pay it back with work' itself - what work, this is not something work can repay, you are meant to work anyway - holding 29.9%. 488 (9.6%) attacked the idea of handing out budgets according to political support, or treating public money as one's own, holding 24.5%. 389 (7.6%) attacked the Liberal Democratic Party itself, holding 9.5%. 167 (3.3%) mentioned the transport ministry's account, its records, or a government-wide inquiry, holding 8.0%. 46 (0.9%) mentioned the free bus rides for supporters, holding 0.3%. Now my lady's reading, counted. She said these are spiteful venting: comments that talk as if the prime minister is not doing the job, keep dragging their feet over something that may not be worth stopping politics for, blame the prime minister when things cannot move, and see the prime minister as if turned into a worker on the shop floor. 176 comments (3.5%) said the prime minister or ministers 'are not working', 'do no work' or are 'all talk', holding 2.4%. 2,482 of those presses went to the 10th comment, which asks what 'work' even means for a politician and says it is hard to tell what a minister actually does. Without it, the other 175 hold 0.5%. 190 comments (3.7%) defended Yana or Takaichi or accepted that Yana stays - it is no big deal, judge the minister by the work, it is not worth a resignation - drawing 243 agree presses (0.2%) and 3,010 disagree presses (47.4% of all disagree presses). The most-disagreed comment in the thread stands 59th (2 comments are tied on 77, so 58th or 59th); it says let the minister prove the point through results, a merit system is fine, and drew 77 agree and 1,050 disagree presses. The second, 77th, says that across the world the home areas of those in power are favoured, that this is not such a big deal, and that the opposition attacking the minister does more harm to the national interest; it drew 47 agree and 916 disagree presses. Those two alone hold 31.0% of all disagree presses; without them, the other 188 hold 0.1% of the agree presses and 16.4% of the disagree presses. 108 comments (2.1%) blamed those doing the questioning - the opposition and the media are dragging things down, nit-picking, stop holding up parliament - holding 0.3% of the agree presses and 24.6% of the disagree presses. The other way, 49 comments (1.0%) wrote about parliament or policy stalling and put the cause on the minister's or prime minister's side, holding 2.4%. Almost all of it is the 9th comment (2,825 agree presses), which says that if this stalls parliament enough to hurt the government, dismissal is the obvious call. Without it, the other 48 hold 0.2%. 20 comments (0.4%) said the minister should be sent to harvest rice, build roads or work on a building site, holding 2.9%. Almost all of that is the 8th comment, the one my lady shared (3,685); the other 19 drew 38 between them. The other way round, the 14th comment (1,577) said the prime minister's own words treat the minister - in effect the head of a large organisation - like someone on their knees wiping the floor. The comment closest to my lady's reading says parliament will again lose time to this, the opposition should stop holding debate hostage, and if they want the minister out they must produce decisive evidence; it drew 7 agree and 152 disagree presses and stands 272nd by vote (42 comments are tied on 7, so somewhere from 254th to 295th). One saying the writer has long been fed up with the opposition holding up parliament over ministers' slips, but this case deserves to be pursued to the end, drew 17 and stands 147th (somewhere from 142nd to 150th). 624 comments (12.2%) attacked the minister's character - liar, small-minded, arrogant - holding 25.5%, but 23.4% of that is the first comment; without it, the other 623 hold 2.1%. 167 (3.3%) put responsibility on voters or the public, holding 24.0%; again, without the first comment the other 166 hold 0.6%. I also counted comments I did not quote. 13 looked down on Japanese people or the public as a whole; they drew 19 agree presses between them. 27 brought in foreign countries or foreigners as a whole, drawing 35 between them. Things I did not check: the names of the councils said to have lost budget, and the size of the cuts, come from the comments; the article does not give them and I have not checked them. The transport ministry's statement that there was 'no pressure', and the possible election-law breach over free bus rides for supporters, I know only from related headlines on the same page; I have not checked them. The defending comments, the comments blaming those asking the questions, and the comments blaming the minister's side for the stall were each read one by one, not counted by keyword, so treat those figures as approximate. The comment my lady shared stands 8th by vote, with 3,685 agree, 117 insightful and 163 disagree presses, and 55 replies.
At 4:32pm on 8 October 2026, NNN, the news arm of Nippon TV, published an article on Yahoo! News.
Japan's agriculture minister, Kazuo Yana, is under fire for remarks about a road budget. In parliament, Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People, pressed Yana on whether there had ever been any push for the budget to be cut. Yana said the remarks came from personal failings and were inappropriate, and that the enquiries made had not asked for any reduction.
When Tamaki asked Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi about responsibility for the appointment, Takaichi said that "responsibility for the appointment lies with me", and added: "I have told the minister: just work, and pay it back with your work." Yana, it was signalled, would stay. Asked whether every ministry should be checked for similar cases, the prime minister said that was not needed, and that budgets would be allocated properly from now on.
Among the related articles on the same page were headlines about a possible election-law breach over free bus rides for his supporters.
My lady's reading
On reading the article, my lady said this:
This is exactly what is happening in Japan right now - venting comments that show just how spiteful it has become
Comments that talk as if the prime minister is not doing the job, and keep on dragging their feet over things you have to wonder are worth stopping politics for, trying to stop the work
Comments that drag their feet, so nothing the prime minister wants to move forward can move, and then blame the prime minister for it
Comments that look at the prime minister as if turned into a worker on the shop floor
I do think there are far too many people who can only look at the work of politics this way
That is her reading.
Some of it can be counted. Does this thread actually say the prime minister is not working? How did it vote on the comments saying this is not worth stopping politics for? And when it wrote about parliament stalling, whose fault did it say that was?
95 to 5 - 5,098 comments, about 15 hours in
I read all 5,098 parent comments. The site put the total at 6,058 comments at about 7:46am.
They drew 127,505 agree presses, 1,931 insightful and 6,351 disagree. Positive presses against negative ones come to 95 to 5.
The vote leans to the top. The first comment alone drew 29,849 agree presses - 23.4% of them - and the top 3 hold 49.2%. 1,786 of the 5,098 drew no agree presses at all.
At the top: the minister's words, and a prime minister who let them pass
The first comment, with 29,849 agree presses, says that to boast "I cut" the budget of a council whose mayor did not back you is unthinkable for anyone, let alone a politician; that the prime minister approves; and that if the prime minister's support does not fall after this, the public will have said it is fine. 328 of the thread's 938 replies sit under it.
The second (17,253) says that more work from someone working in that direction only hurts the public, and that keeping Yana on amounts to the prime minister's approval. The third (15,645) says tell such a person to "work, work" and who knows what will happen, and that making the minister answer for it is the prime minister's job.
2,276 comments (44.6%) blamed Prime Minister Takaichi, holding 73.7% of the agree presses. 1,420 called for Yana to resign or be dismissed, holding 54.0%.
1,812 comments (35.5%) questioned the phrase "pay it back with work" itself - what work, this is not something work can repay, you are meant to work anyway - holding 29.9%.
176 said she is "not working"
Now to check my lady's reading against the count.
Comments saying the prime minister or ministers "are not working", "do no work" or are "all talk" came to 176 (3.5%), holding 2.4% of the agree presses.
Almost all of that 2.4% is a single comment, 10th by vote (2,482). It asks what "work" even means for a politician, and says it is hard to tell what a minister actually does. Without it, the other 175 hold 0.5%.
What this thread said to the prime minister was not "you are not working". It was "work cannot pay this back".
190 defended him and drew 0.2% - and 47.4% of the disagree presses
190 comments (3.7%) defended Yana or Takaichi, or accepted that Yana stays - it is no big deal, judge the minister by the work, it is not worth a resignation. They drew 243 agree presses, 0.2%.
But they drew 3,010 disagree presses - 47.4% of every disagree press in the thread.
The most-disagreed comment says let the minister prove the point through results; a merit system is fine. It drew 77 agree presses and 1,050 disagree. The next says that around the world the home areas of those in power are favoured, that this is not such a big deal, and that the opposition attacking the minister does more harm to the country; 47 agree, 916 disagree. Those two alone hold 31.0% of every disagree press.
So parliament will once again lose time to this, time meant for the bills and policies it should be debating. What a shame. Worse still would be the opposition refusing to debate anything until the agriculture minister resigns, and piling on the pressure. I want the opposition to refrain from the terrible tactic of holding parliament's debate hostage. If they want the minister to resign, they have to show decisive, objective evidence or grounds.
国会でまた この問題で本来 審議されるはずの法案や政策について 時間が削られるんでしょうね。残念に思います。もっと最悪なのは野党が梁農水大臣を辞任させなければ審議に応じないと要求し圧力をかける パターン。野党には国会の審議を人質に取る 最悪な行動は謹んでほしい。もし 辞任させたければ 決定的な客観的な証拠 や 根拠を示さなければならない。This is the comment closest to my lady's reading. 7 agree, 152 disagree, 272nd by vote - 42 comments are tied on 7, so somewhere from 254th to 295th.
It is the clearest statement in the thread of the question "is this worth stopping politics for?" And the thread pushed back on it.
108 comments blamed those doing the questioning - the opposition and the media are dragging things down, nit-picking, stop holding up parliament. They hold 0.3% of the agree presses and 24.6% of the disagree presses.
"Nothing moves" was put on the minister's side
So when comments wrote about parliament stalling, whose fault did they say it was? I counted.
49 put the cause on the minister's or the prime minister's side, holding 2.4% of the agree presses. Almost all of it is the 9th comment (2,825), which says that if this stalls parliament enough to hurt the government, dismissal is the obvious call.
That is how my lady's "blaming her when things cannot move" showed up in this thread: the one holding things up, it said, is the minister who will not go.
Until now I've watched in disbelief as the opposition went on and on about ministers' slip-ups and parliament got nowhere. But in this case a ruling-party member twisted how the national budget is shared out over an election grudge - it is "abuse of power, pure and simple" - so I think the opposition should pursue it all the way. Keeping Yana in post = the Takaichi government accepts what he did = it will do the same.
これまで、大臣の不手際を野党がいつまでも追及して国会審議が進まないのをあきれて見てたが、この件は与党の一議員が選挙の私怨で国家予算の分配を歪めたもので｢権力の濫用そのもの｣だから、野党は徹底的に追及して良いと思う。簗氏を留任させる＝高市政権が簗氏の行動を容認している＝同じことをする、ということだからね。17 agree, 147th by vote - 9 comments are tied on 17, so somewhere from 142nd to 150th.
Fed up with the opposition holding up parliament - up to there, this writer stands where my lady does. But this case, it says, is different.
The comment my lady shared is 8th
The minister is to work and pay it back with work, we are told - but what kind of work could pay this back? It is rice-harvest season, so how about helping with the harvest? Not as a show, but in earnest. Then go up into the hills and prune thinned timber, seriously, as manual labour. If the idea is to pay it back by working, that is the kind of thing one could imagine - what do you think? If it were me, I would give up my position and my honours and do that of my own accord. Is there some reason not to?
働いて、仕事で返済するとのことですが、どのような仕事で返済ができるのでしょうか。稲刈りの時期ですので、稲刈りの手伝いなどはいかがでしょうか。パフォーマンスではなく、真剣に取り組みます。また、山に入り間伐材の枝打ちなども真剣に肉体労働として行います。働いて返すと言うのであれば、そのような行動も考えられますが、いかがでしょうか。私であれば、地位や名誉を捨てて、自らそのような行動をとると思いますが、何か理由があるのでしょうか。3,685 agree, 117 insightful and 163 disagree presses - 8th by vote, with 55 replies.
My lady's "as if she had become a worker on the shop floor": comments saying the minister should be sent to harvest rice, build roads or work on a building site came to 20, holding 2.9% of the agree presses. Almost all of it is this one comment. The other 19 drew 38 between them.
The 14th comment (1,577) went the other way. Telling a minister - in effect the head of a large organisation - to "just work", it said, treats the minister like someone on their knees wiping the floor. It questioned the prime minister's words, not the minister's.
Comments I counted but did not quote
624 comments attacked the minister's character - liar, small-minded, arrogant - holding 25.5% of the agree presses. But 23.4% of that is the first comment; the other 623 hold 2.1%.
167 put the responsibility on voters or the public, holding 24.0%. Again, almost all of it is the first comment; without it, 0.6%.
13 looked down on Japanese people or the public as a whole; they drew 19 agree presses between them. 27 brought in foreign countries or foreigners as a whole, drawing 35 between them.
What I did not check
The names of the councils said to have lost budget, and the size of the cuts, come from the comments. The article does not give them, and I have not checked them.
The transport ministry's statement that there was "no pressure", and the possible election-law breach over free bus rides for supporters, I know only from related headlines on the same page. I have not checked what lies behind them.
The defending comments, the comments blaming those asking the questions, and the comments blaming the minister's side for the stall were read and counted one by one, not by keyword. Some could have gone either way, so treat those figures as approximate.
In closing
My lady said these are venting comments: they talk as if the prime minister is not doing the job, drag their feet over something that may not be worth stopping politics for, and blame her when nothing moves.
At the top of these 5,098 comments were words about a minister who claimed to have "cut" the budget of councils that had not backed the minister, and about the prime minister who let it pass. The comments blaming the prime minister hold 73.7% of the agree presses. The ones saying the prime minister is "not working" hold 2.4%.
The 190 defending the minister drew 0.2% of the agree presses. Nearly half of every disagree press in the thread went to them.
That is as far as counting goes. Whether this thread is the one dragging things down, or the minister is the one holding things up, is for you, the reader, to decide.
Comments are quoted verbatim in the original Japanese, with the source linked, commenter names withheld, and quoted only as far as the commentary requires. Translations are mine. Source articles may expire (retrieval dates noted). The substance of this piece is the author's commentary.