How the spin has changed
August 29th, 2006 at 6:40 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald editorial reviews the Field scandal.
They remind us that before Dr Ingram reported, the “prebuttal” from the Labour ranks was that Mr Field was cleared of serious wrongdoing, Field claimed himself “exonerated”. Then he was deemed to have had a lapse of judgment and over time this was upgraded to a serious lapse.
The Herald correctly states:
Had Labour had the ethics to have instituted a commission of inquiry, with power to call witnesses and documentation, it would have had a different official conclusion on which to base its pressure on Mr Field. That option is still preferable to him being allowed to go quietly from Parliament, but the cost and time expended on the Ingram report mean a second inquiry is unlikely. Labour seemingly hoped the news media and the public would succumb to apathy and “move on” from Mr Field’s behaviour. It misjudged the depth of disquiet.
Finally the Herald has a warning for MPs:
Tags: LabourSo, if Mr Field is persuaded to leave Parliament, even belatedly, some decorum might be restored to public affairs. The governing parties ought not to stop there. As they consider overriding the views of the Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer by validating retrospectively their unsupportable election spending, they should pause and breathe through their noses. Surely, then, careful thought will tell even the most self-serving of them that on this issue the public is not for turning. They should pay the money back.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:37 am
She is doing very little and is belittleling everyone who thinks it is obscene to have Field in Parliament. Basically she is being forced into this because of pressure from the media. Clark has no moral dimension at all. Her only morality is the front pages of the newspapers and the agenda of the MSM.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:42 am
At last the MSM are doing what they should do as the fourth estate. Reveal the truth and bring out into the light corrupt and unacceptable practice.Well done granny herald.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:49 am
“Well done Granny Herald”
What the fuck??? The damn lazy leftist bastards at the Herald have to be forced into any investigative reporting. We have the blogosphere to thank for this. Sir Humphrey’s, Kiwiblog and so many others. The Herald and the rest of the mainstream media are useless. The day of the dedicated editor in the eyeshade working at his presses far into the night to expose corruption in city hall are long gone. Now, City Hall and media are hand in hand in duping the public. A financial and political conglomerate dedicated not to exposing corruption but preserving the mutually beneficial socialist staus quo.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Focus groups and private polls must be starting to show that the worm is turning.
Vote:“OOOps, the peasants are starting to revolt, time for a shift in tactics and a small shuffle towards honesty …. yeeech it is so unnatural out here in the sunlight”
August 29th, 2006 at 8:54 am
I see the Law Commission has, just yesterday, announced a review of public inquiries in New Zealand:
This review will include inquiries established as Royal Commissions and other commissions established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, Ministerial inquiries, ad hoc inquiries under specific statutes, and departmental inquiries.
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/ProjectTermsOfReference.aspx?ProjectID=127
Subliminal message or happy co-incidence of timing?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:12 am
noddy, on a previous thread, has opined that it is ILLEGAL for anyone to (a) accuse HC’s Government of corruption and (b) to call for fresh elections.
‘Interesting’ call and worrying that a Labour activist should seriously promote this.
But hold on … HC has clearly indicated she believes the allegations of corruption against TPF have legs. So, whats the difference between the actions of TPF in ‘stealing’ from his constituents and her Government rorting the taxpayer to fund their election campaign.
I’m confused … but then I’m at a disadvantage in not owning noddy’s blinkers.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Umm Ross, no. I am suggesting that accusations of corruption need to be well founded. The word is used so often in such silly contexts that it really has become meaningless. But by all means, say what you like.
“Nice day” – “Klark korruption”
“How about those AB’s” – “Stalinist korruption”
“What health outcome should we be seeking” – “Most corrupt government in history”.
Also, you will be hard pressed to find any comment from me defending PTF. If the weekends allegations of forging a birth cerificate and accepting payments are true then, finally, you have a case of corruption, and as Helen Clark and many others have said, that is a matter for the police. If National have such evidence and are not giving to the police is that obstruction of justice?
I *do* think the case for calling for fresh elections is a very big whopper being spread around by Natiojnal at the moment with the absolute lie that an election was somehow “stolen”. Note the word stolen. Every election has issues with individual actions during campaigns, this was no different. The main difference between this and other elections has been the huge increase on the level of spending by the two main parties *and* the use of secretive proxy funders such as the Ex. Bs’.
I did suggest that National were indulging inthe equivalent of a coup d’etat and in the sense that they are attempting to subvert our democratic processes and rob the voters of our decision at the last election. I stand by that comment in that context. But please don’t be afraid to contradict me, oh I see you have. Bloody Stalinist control not working then?
Finally, just because I often speak out in favour of the government at times does not mean I am an “activist”. One of the effects of attempting debate on this site is just how quickly the arguements gets polarised and degenerates into rubbish. I would really, really, love to be debating policies and discussing what ideas are good / bad for NZ but the hyperbole coming from National and its cohorts right now effectively shuts down any reasonable exchange of ideas.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Noddy – how do you people have the bald faced nerve to accuse National of using ‘secretive proxy funders’ when the Labour party taxes New Zealanders, gives money to unions who then hand it back to the Labour Party?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:39 am
brian – what money to unions? I keep hearing this accusation, can you tell me what you are talking about (in all seriousness)?
No doubt the Ex.Bs benefit from charitable status as well and effectively they “get money from the government” which some of which went on election campaigning.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Helen changed her spin within about 30mins yesterday morning.
First listen to this NewstalkZB interview at 7:50am yesterday: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/audio2/28075622.wma
In this one she accepts that the Sunday programme looked quite bad and even the Ingram report didn’t look good. She says he will have to consider his future. She distances herself from him.
Then watch this Good Morning interview at 8:14am: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/822009
In this one she says that the Sunday programme had very little fresh information in it. Says the birth certificate alteration was “the one thing that didn’t turn up in the report”. “If people have specific allegations they should go to the police.” She still keeps him at a distance (albeit a closer one), but now she is downplaying all the issues raised.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Well noddy, if you wish to make allegations that the bretheren get tax advantages and used these to fund their campaigning, please produce some evidence. Generally members of the bretheren church run successful small businesses and pay all normal taxes on such activities. Why, however, are you so opposed to private individuals being able to campaign against ideas in a legal manner. Free speech only really free for you if it supports your beliefs ?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Ross – well put.
Vote:Helen Clark pleaded for funds from the party faithful yesterday looks like we are in for an early election.
I would suggest that National and those parties that will survive an early election get ready, and quickly!
Wonder what Winston will do for a job after this, who cares.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:01 am
“Why, however, are you so opposed to private individuals being able to campaign against ideas in a legal manner”
I’m not and they didn’t.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Noddy – You claim to wish for a debate on issues rather than partisan lines, but you are clearly very partisan on many occasions so it’s hard to take you at your word.
Could you ever really debate the issues, or would you automatically be writing off any contrary viewpoint as hyperbole or deception? You can only have a proper debate if you are willing to consider the fact that you could be wrong, and that a contrary viewpoint could be valid.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:21 am
“are clearly very partisan on many occasions”
partly that is the atmosphere of this blog and partly it is because I do believe in what I am saying, particularly when it comes to National attempting to take some sort of moral high ground since the last election. I believe they are a long mile away from that place as their actions have demonstrated. For the record I don’t believe Labour are too much closer, but in their favour they have demonstated competancy in running the country for 6 or 7 years. Many have benefitted from this competancy, including, to a very large extent, the business community. This stability they have achieved should not be underestimated.
I think National have some pretty good ideas and there is also ground for challenging some of the left’s (and my own) assumptions about economics and community.
But these are being drowned out by very low “wedge” politics, vicious personal attacks and now the “stolen” election crap. This is not great leadership we are seeing from National.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Is it my imagination or do the left faithful such as noddy, sonic, cadmus almost give the present govt Occult status. Brain washed and subservient.
Vote:Trying to explain the wrongs as rights, corruption as indiscretion, nepotism as fair practise. Time for a change.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:33 am
I would really, really, love to be debating policies
What about Lairbours policy of stealing almost $1 million.
IF that isn’t corruption, then I don’t know what is.
Bring on a fresh election.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:38 am
noddy said “I *do* think the case for calling for fresh elections is a very big whopper being spread around by Natiojnal at the moment with the absolute lie that an election was somehow “stolen”.
well noddy, in case it has escaped you the allegation is that your Party stole from the taxpayers of NZ a considerable sum to illegally fund their campaign. And if you don’t believe me then try the A-G, S-G, and CEO for confirmation.
Stealing; theft, rorting, creative accounting. Call it what you will. You sure have a death wish defending the indefensible but go to it. Its your credibility at stake … not mine.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:43 am
NX and culma, thanks for proving my point. Honourable hand up from gd elsewhere:
“”We always depend on the hard earned contributions of many” No you dont you bitch. Most of your supporters are on some form of welfare. WFF Dole DPB Sickness etc etc.The contributions you seek are recycled tax payments.And a poll would prove this.”
Tell me Ross, *if* you disagreed with these sentiments (and I understand you do not) how would you engage?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:09 am
noddy … if you want to ‘engage’ me then at least have the integrity to refer to something I have said. Your previous post contained the allegation that I agreed with some banal comments re the funding of your Party by individuals. I do not and challenge you to substantiate your allegation.
More to the point, your attempt to divert from the very real issue of corruption is classic Beehive inspired divertionary tactics.
But I expected no less.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Noddy – are you claiming the present Govt is to be credited for the total economic climate since they took office, surely not.
Please indicate briefly what Clark/Labour policies implemented over the last few years that will have lasting value to NZ?
Questions into Helen Clark’s govt started with forged pictures, 6 years later have progressed onto a vast array of questionable activities, natural progression. Ask any PD officer, they will tell you crime always starts small and grows.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Well, thanks for clarifying that Ross, I did talk about sentiments rather than the words themselves.
As for the interpretation of rules, all parties, *including* National got it wrong, deliberately or otherwise.
I await the outcome of this with some interest but I have also noted in the past that in March the AG was quoted as saying the rules were a mess and if the politicians didn’t sort them out he would. As I have said before, I cannot see the moral high ground for National when their leader was himself willing to participate in the EBs subterfuge, remember they also lied about names and addresses on their pamphletes. So for people to start making claims of “stolen” elections by one side or another is just plain nuts.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:54 am
“are you claiming the present Govt is to be credited for the total economic climate since they took office”
No, that would be as silly as claiming that Don Brash was responsible for economic success in the 1990′s.
That being said, they do have an influence. At worst you could say it is benign (which is a bloody good start if you know your history) but I actually think it has been much better than that. Stability and continued growth have been the main features of success. Credit for this should also go to MMP for restraining the more extreme elements in any party, left or right.
As for the longer term, I think Cullen wants to be remembered for reintroducing an economy where savings are a much bigger part of the equation. This is a very big subplot of his time in office. Also, investments in health, infrastructure and education take a long time to flow through and no doubt a National government of the future will be able to claim credit as a result of what has taken place ove the last few years.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Noddy-please tell me how the business community has benefited from the Labour government?? I could ask every business owner I know and all would say they haven’t has this much crap and red tape to deal with ever. They would say how this government is pushing them into the ground with high tax, new Osh regulations and so on. I know four people who have sold up their businesses and gone overseas. I know of three people who sold their companies and got out of it all together just because it’s too hard under this government.
I’d just like to know where you get off saying that.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Sophie
Maybe I know more business owners than you. Also, talking to counterparts overseas (Europe, Aussie and the like) gives me a perspective about just how lucky NZ is with regards to “red tape” taxes and so on. This is backed up by countless international surveys.
Not that the above is the result of Labour, it was like that before they came to office, they just didn’t fuck it up. However, the stability and pretty constant growth that the can claim sone credit for are *vital* for business as is the assurance that sudden changes in direction will not take place. I think the government could and should do more to help SMEs in NZ, but I also acknowledge that they do quite a lot already.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
noddy … then I challenge you to point to “sentiments” that you could have interpreted as supposing I associated myself with the comments referred to. I guess to your mind the fact that very clearly I oppose your Government is proof enough that I should subscribe to such a position. Well, sorry about that old son … most of the 40+% of those who support National are ordinary, decent Kiwis concerned for their countries future (as are many who vote Labour). Its just that your lot are being led by the nose into supporting corruption.
As far as the EB (and Union) funded pamphlets are concerned. Well, the bottom line is that was their money to do what they wanted to within the law. The money your Party stole/rorted from the Kiwi taxpayer is an entirely different issue and that is what you are going to be judged for in the court of public opinion.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Ross, my words in response to your umbrage were “thanks for clarifying that Ross”.
The EB were definitely *not* within the law printing false names and addresses on their material. Don Brash was in no way being honourable or ethical when he lied about his knowledge of that campaign. As a voter the source of material we receive is as important as the actual material itself. If the Unions sent you something attacking National and pretended they had nothing to do with it you, and I, would rightly be up in arms.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Noddy – those in glass houses!
Flip over to the content of the Labour party letter signed by Ms Clark in the next post, then please come back and speak about content and integrity!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
noddy … if that’s how you see the matter of the EB pamphlets then sobeit. But they didn’t break the law in the eyes of the CEO.
But you shy away from the central issue of your mob stealing from/rorting the system to fund their election campaign and I suspect neither will the A-G. Clearly he possesses the integrity clearly lacking on the 9th Floor.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Noddy, I notice you’re very incensed about the EB affair – which is you’re prerogative. But shouldn’t you also have at least some reservations about the thieving of tax payer money by Labour?
From my point of view the EB affair doesn’t concern me greatly.
1. It’s their money & they can spend it how they choose.
2. Dr. Brash saying he didn’t know who made the pamphlets maybe naive, but is not a crime & can’t be proven as a lie. Nor are the EB his responsibility.
3. A lot of the EB pamphlets had citations to the Green’s website.
Compared to Labour’s offence:
1. Has been proven to unlawfully use almost $1 million in tax payer money.
2. Decision was made in ’04, so plenty of time to check rules.
3. They ignored warnings.
4. Clark refused to meet with auditor general.
5. They’ve refused to admit they’ve done anything wrong.
6. They’ve refused to pay back the money.
One is a hell of a lot worse than the other. Where is your moral outrage @ the latter? If you’re not a Labour hack, why do you bring up the EB affair if not to cloud Labour’s offence or to dilute the issues?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
“they didn’t break the law in the eyes of the CEO.”
That will be why the CEO refered the EBs to the police for investigation having himself judged they were in breach, same as Labour.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=264&ObjectID=10352042
Did your case just fall apart
Seriously, this is why I think the EB campaign is relevent in this context, same as Act, NZ First, the Greens and so on.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Someones either paying you or you’re stealing from your boss.
1.How many NZ top 50 businesses closed and went to Australia 7 years or so ago?
2.How many businesses in NZ are no longer NZ owned?
3. Why do the NZ Govt only invest offshore companies (ACC etc, NZ Super Fund)?
4. Why didn’t Helen get pinged for Insider trading on Air NZ shares?
Hell, I know the answers but what I really want to know is…does Cullen post here?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
noddy, please explain why you think the EB have less rights than anyone else in this country ?(apart from the obvious that they dont support labour) You reek of the classic one rule for some etc. Anybody can publish any sort of material at anytime they like and spend as much as they like, as long as it is not linked to a party.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
David, where have I suggested such a thing? What they don’t have are more rights, even if they believe they are accountable only to God.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Unlike Labour which thnks it is only accountable to itself.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Big Ears, 3 actually makes a lot of sense. Do you really want local bureaucrats making decisions that affect businesses on which their pensions rely?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
noddy, its more the inference from the sum of your posts. Things like “the use of secretive proxy funders’ and “no doubt the ExB’s benefited from charitable status” Any of us can make “secret” or anonymous donations, we can all put ads in the paper, you dont have any proof of their Tax position but you seem to continuously slur this minority group for doing just what every NZer is entitled to do.To me your hypocrisy is similar to that which I pointed out to my gay friends who protested at the destiny Church march.Free speech only for one group? Its ironic ( no sad really)
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
“Do you really want local bureaucrats making decisions that affect businesses on which their pensions rely?”
Four words, Shareholding Managers, Infrastructure Auckland.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
David the problem with the EB is that Brash denied knowing anything about them, until it was revealed he had meetings with them, meetings whose content he had mysteriously forgotten.
Thats the sleaze aroung the EB issue, National, potentially, using secret organisations to spread it’s propaganda, and National’s leader having a strange memory loss about the whole thing.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
You are reading far too much into the EB thing, sonic. You seem to assume that Brash et al were behind the EB campaigning, rather than simply meeting with a supportive private organisation.
You say, “National, potentially,” but there are any number of potentials. The correctness of any one would need some supporting evidence otherwise it will have to remain in the realm of fantasy.
If you have proof that National instigated and organised the EB campaign, then present it. Otherwise keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.
You claim the memory loss is strange. Well there are two possibilities. Either, Brash is lying about forgeting and is trying to cover up a closer relationship OR there was nothing much worth remembering in the first place. Reasonable people would assume the second before being given proof of the first, not the other way round.
The sleaze comes from people who make unfounded and unsupported claims about National and Brash, on the basis of nothing more than private speculation and a desire to find something, SOMETHING, to divert attention from their own parties criminality.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Noddy where can I get a job like yours?.
Vote:I have a pc but can only type with two fingers, would I be suitable?.
Not very good at spinning propaganda but can learn.
What is the pay like?
Is the Dear Leader a generous employer?.
Will I have to be to be brain washed?
August 29th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
SSB, honestly, some of us are able to come up with our own thoughts based on our own reading, and life experiences upbringing. Why don’t you accuse people of taking an opposite view to my own of being party functionaries?
By all means send me your cv but I am afraid we will both be dissappointed if we think HC, DB or anyone would pay us for our inane musings online.
If it is any help, I dream of working on a farm again, by the way.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I’ve always found “honestly” to preface some rather nasty dishonesty.
Farm? Would that be Animal Farm?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Big Ears…I have re-read my comment and cannot find anything close to “nasty” or “dishonest”.
Remember, you were the one who said “fuck off noddy” when he turned up to your party with a great big present onceaponatime.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
noddy You are getting very naughty now Golliwog and I are going to have to come and deal to you. You and Big Ears must kiss and make up.(That will get the PC brigade going) How many PC rules have I broken so far.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Noddy – the article to which you refer notes that if any offence occurred in relation to the EB material it was committed by the EB – NOT the National Party. The ‘massive co-ordinated campaign with the religous nutjobs’ is baseless spin.
When Brash was asked about the pamphlets he said, correctly, that he did not know who had done them. Now clearly he had an inkling although at first instance fingering a group without knowing for sure would have been inappropriate – the dumb thing was not having it checked out asap so a clarification could have been made next time he was in front of the media.
That’s dumb politics and handing your political opponents ammunition. It is not lying. It is not corruption.
As has been pointed out on this thread more than once ignoring advice of the CEO to use public money to breach the spending cap (by about 20% for memory) is world apart from poor political management. It is corruption.
Kimble – for reasons that escape me I should point out that NUPE, according to my lefty mate, does not support any political parties – it is also very small
Also someone asked for clarification on how Labour funds unions to fund it. Basically Labour actively encourages people to join unions and the unions then charge membership fees and pass a wack on to the Labour party. The most blatant example of this kind of cronyism that I can recall is the payments to join the PSA – employees who joined the PSA were paid a lump sum bonus (circa $1k for memory). Those who were on an individual agreement or who joined NUPE did not get said bonus. In other words this Govt picks and chooses its favourite unions.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Honestly noddy, I think you’re very erudite. And the suggestion that I would tell you to fuck off, is honestly, absurd.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Field was supposed to be consulting with Russel Fairbrother a criminal lawyer now Labour MP.
Vote:zaybe he has got a criminal law problem and could find himself in handcuffs very soon. There will be angry denials, great protestations of innocence and the Samoan community will rally behind him of course and the Labour Party’s defence of him will look more and more problematic.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
sonic – your comment is correct, why did Don Brash say he knew nothing of the EB’s plans. This is the real issue isn’t it, why did he say no when he should have said yes.
What I can’t get my head around is why an independent group would front 500K of their own money to outline issues they had with the Govt, but then to not partake in the voting process to actually make sure their money wasn’t wasted, if they’d helped themselves to the public coffers as Labour did, then I could understand them not giving a toss about losing the money, but they did front the cash themselves, go figure!
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:05 am
I agree that Brash made a mistake when he said he didnt know about the pamphlet. Even if literally true (and I suspect it was, he wouldnt have known the form the campaign was to take), it has given labour the opportunity to dine out for months.
What is weird, is as Culma says. The pamphlet was more an attack on the greens than labour, and there was no real follow through. It is even more bizarre in that there was nothing in the pamphlet that was really untrue – they pointed out green policy platforms in the green’s own words.
I thought the pamplet was considerably more moderate than the Union attack campaign on national incidentally. The crime seems to be to be Christian and to have strongly held views.
I am not even sure that the EB are a unitary body, so can anyone say whether this was a small group of business people who happen to be EB?, or whether this was the considered view of the church that it has been made out to be?
And if so, so what, are they not entitled to that view?
Whatever it was, they end up looking quite naive really- did they really think challenging socialists would go unpunished?
But I guess the whole episode has probably confirmed for them why politicians are basically evil.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:13 am
the deity formerly known as nigel6888 wrote:
I am not even sure that the EB are a unitary body, so can anyone say whether this was a small group of business people who happen to be EB?, or whether this was the considered view of the church that it has been made out to be?
Well, I’ll put it this way – do you, or snyone else, consider my political views to be official statements on behalf of the Catholic Church? Do I speak on behalf of all Catholics in particular, or Christians in general?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:19 am
indeed craig!
makes the labour hit on them even more egregious.
(unless you got made Pope overnight and i havent heard the news yet?)
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Big Ears
It’s the punchline for a joke. The curious can Google for it. I do admit the use of the word “honestly” was daft.
GPT, the point about the CEOs ruling is on the EBs that if correct it should have been signed off by National and therefore included in their spending. That would put National way over their spending limits. You and I will have to differ on Don Brash’s involvement, I will only note that he had several meetings with them “within a month” of the first set of pamphletes. There were at least four sets distributed which may account for the escalating estimates of the costs of their campaign (though, unlike publicly accountable organisations such as the Unions and FF we will never know).
As far as I am aware the CEO has not made such a ruling on spending by Unions, Federated Farmers or other organisations that would have been lobbying like crazy during the elections.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 10:14 am
… and noddy, if Union advertising had been included in Labour’s return???? your point?
But we digress. This thread is all about a Labour MP who apparently stole from the poor to give to the rich (him). And what I can’t quite can’t get my head around is Labour’s performance in the House yesterday. While I have a deeply held philosophical objection to the essence of socialism I have always had a grudging admiration for HC’s political smarts.
Well yesterday that admiration evaporated. A ‘smart’ political operator would have cut TPF adrift. Instead she continued the line that she had full faith in the integrity of the Ingram Inquiry and had to be rescued on a point of order from having to declare her view on his suitability as a Labour MP (a view she had already expressed in the media).
Then followed the parliamentary version of ‘death by a thousand cuts’ as the Associate Immigration Minister blustered questions concerning the veracity of the 167? immigration interventions made by TPF. His line … there has been no review. Does anyone really believe that? They may be stupid but they’re not dumb. It’s the first thing my Minister would have told me to do (and yes he was a Labour Minister). There’s been a review all right and to me, the silence indicates ‘trouble at Mill’.
Now we will see the allegations, some of which are already in the public arena, drip fed in Parliament. And the Labour Government is left looking like the possum caught in my headlights on the Peria Valley Road last night … just before we ran him over.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Ross, there is no doubt that the actions of an MP like TPF are going to be harmful to whatever party they belong to and that the opponents of that party will play it out for all it is worth. Good on them too.
When you have 120 odd folk in any organisation there are always going to be the odd wrong one, the issue for the Labour party is to minimise the fall out caused by their actions.
OT again, Union advertising was included in Labour’s returns. There is debate on whether lobbying activities for policies that they also carried out should be included but I have not seen anything from the CEO that suggests this. It would be similar to the lobbying by Federated Farmers, BRT and other organisations that are sympathetic to the causes of other parties.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
noddy … Union advertising included in Labours return!!!??? Please direct me to that and point to where the campaign carried out by the PPTA is included.
You are right of course about TPF being “odd”. Odd too is the shambles that Labour is creating for itself over its mismanagment of the issue. Might it just be that TPF is threatening to open the Pandora’s Box around Labour’s fundraising activities in South Auckland (ergo the Otara Market) if he is dumped.
Vote: