Brethren costs Nats win?
The SST reports Katherine Rich as agreeing with Gerry Brownlee that the Brethren involvement cost National the election. I basically agree with this in that I have long thought they lost more votes off National than their pamphlets lost off Labour. Whether it was enough to change the result is speeculative but the notion that their $500,000+ helped National is not the case.
Their problem, as I have often said, is not being upfront with their activities. One press conference or press release announcing what they were doing and why would have changed the reaction entirely.
That secretive behaviour, combined with the private detective hiring, do make them electoral poison. Of course National MPs should not refuse to meet with members of the Exclusive Brethren over constituency issues or at public meetings but any private meetings with church leaders to discuss political issues and strategy should be ruled out. Otherwise they remain Labour’s universal answer to any allegation:
Nat: Labour broke the electoral act spending limit
Lab: But you meet with the Exclusive Brethren
Nat: Labour won’t pay back the $800,000
Lab: But you meet with the Exclusive Brethren
Nat: Labour has the largest current account deficit in history
Lab: But you meet with the Exclusive Brethren
Nat: A Labour Minister has been savaged over his marina decision by a Judge
Lab: But you meet with the Exclusive Brethren
Nat: Prisoners are getting flat screens TVs which sost four times a normal one
Lab: But you met with the Exclusive Brethren
The SST also has a more in depth article on The Brethren.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
What a terrible week this must be for Nat supporters, every new day brings a new revelation of just how deep their party was involved with the EB’s and how badly they have been lied to by the hierarchy.
I just feel sorry for the loyal grunts who spend all their time on this blog defending the current spin only to have the position moved the next day depending on the latest revelation.
And don’t worry team – this is the tip of the iceberg – there’s plenty more to come yet.
Sit back and enjoy the slide.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I am just a tad bemused by reported Exclusive Brethren beliefs — that God appoints and removes governments. Must mean that He needs some help from people in an alternative universe. Please explain this, Messrs Simmons and co.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
garths,
Perhaps Brash might be able to explain some more. As slide points out: the entertainment is only just beginning. I just hope we get the full involvement of Brash in bed with the Brethren before he gets the toss. I’ve got shares in Fairfax.
Hint: If you are in deep s**t with your own party accuse the opposition of ‘corruption’.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Rich and Brownlee should be kicked out of the party for providing the USSRT with this copy. Brownlee at least should have to resign as leader. Why acknowledge any perceived wrong doing? This is handing Labour a victory. Sack them.
The strategy on this issue should be to say “we have no connection with the EBs, we have not ever had any connection with the EBs and that is the situation that will prevail in the future. The allegations that we have close relations with the EBs is completely false and designed to distract media attention from Labour’s corruption”.
Rich and Brownlee’s words help Labour in that they make it seem as if there is indeed something to hide or that National have been guilty of something untoward. Hopeless. Why why why fan the flames????
September 24th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Rich makes this interesting point too, reported in the same article.
“My gut feeling is that their all-male line-up, in that famous Brethren press conference, made many women voters wonder just what their conservative vision for New Zealand was, and tipped the scales in favour of Labour.”
I wonder to what extent women also saw Dr Brash as having a deeply conservative vision that did not include them (not part of the ‘mainstream’), and voted accordingly.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Oops..
Brownlee should have to resign as Deputy Leader.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I find it deeply comical that the same Nats who so gleefully made use of Brethren sourced dirt on Benson-Pope and David Parker are suddenly recasting themselves as issue-obsessed cleanskins.
Not to mention Don Brash’s lunch with Bridget Saunders to discuss “An Uncomfortable Truth”**
I just love it when journos and pollies talk with those forked tongues.
** I would just like to make it absolutely clear that I fully believe that this refers exclusively to the Al Gore movie by that name.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
“The strategy on this issue should be to say “we have no connection with the EBs, we have not ever had any connection with the EBs and that is the situation that will prevail in the future. The allegations that we have close relations with the EBs is completely false and designed to distract media attention from Labour’s corruption”.
Why yes redbaiter, and that strategy would have entailed those MPS lying through their teeth, because a) the nats have a connection with the EBs, b) they have had a connection with the ebs, and c) as don confirmed yesterday they are likely to have in the future. Sorry to invoke the reality card here. Funny that you think these MPs should be sacked for telling the truth, but I guess that speaks volumes about yourself.
Secondly
“Rich and Brownlee’s words help Labour in that they make it seem as if there is indeed something to hide or that National have been guilty of something untoward. Hopeless. Why why why fan the flames????”
Err there is something to hide, and National are guilty of something untoward. As for your final question “Why why why fan the flames????”- hmmm shall I get a pols 101 student in to answer that one? No, ok ill spell it out to you: What gain has Rich and Power got in tarring the current leader, plus the other leadership contenders with associations with the EBs, while putting forth that they are the only two leadership contenders to have not had association with the sect? What possibly might they gain by fanning those flames – come on I know you can do it red.
Was that slow enough for you or do you need it drawn in pictures in one of those baby rubber chew proof books?
Less a redbaiter, more a maths debater me thinks.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
A number of left-leaning posters on this blog seem to think that everyone critical of Labour is a National supporter. That is not true.
I am not a National supporter. I voted Labour in the last three elections. What do you have to say to me about Philip Field, the pledge card, and the recent smears, hypocrisy and outright lies emanating from Labour ? Is it all okay as long as long as you hang to power ?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Can anyone actually come up with a statement about what is ‘wrong’ with the EB?
As DPF points out – all that needs to happen now is that someone needs to mention them, and the context is negative.
Yes – they wanted a change of govt – but they funded that with their own money.
Yes – I don’t agree with their beliefs.
But they are entitled to voice their opinions.
Can anybody (especially on the left) actually be objective about what the problem with them is?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Anyone else smell a leadership coup in the air? Brash is starting to gather the smell of death about him (not a comment on his age) and the flies are starting to gather. First key has come out saying that his faith in Brash has been shaken by his dishonesty. Kathryn Rich obviously has it in for Don after he knocked her down the political ladder a rung or two for criticising his proposed ruthless attacks on welfare. Brownly has clearly had enough of Brash tainting the party’s image by getting into bed with the Brethren behind the back of his political spouses. There is clearly a caucus split gathering momentum, I only hope that Brash can convince the party that the anon donations that are promised by the NZBRT are worth enough to keep him on. That would aid the chances of another centre-left government no end.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Qucik thrash the poor dead horse of Don Brash being rolled.
We haven’t had that one beaten to death since….what last week when John Campbell tired it for the 89th time since the election?
Get another theme.
You’d do better to take a look at whats going on inside labour.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I just love the journalists that say things like ‘National Party’s relationship with the EB’ or ‘National’s associations with the EB’.
I just like asking someone if they’ve stopped beating their wife.
The assumptions is that there is a relationship or association, and any denials or contradictions are taken as admitting to the relationship or association as fact.
THERE IS NO ASSOCIATION. THERE IS NO RELATIONAHIP.
Dr Brash told the truth, as far as he knew it at the time, all along the way.
EB are not invloved with funding National.
EB do not have input into strategy or policy for National.
It’s really simple guys.
Now, what’s not simple is the situation Labour find themselves in. After all, no-one could honestly hold the pledge card in one hand and honestly place the other hand over their heart and swear that it was not elections spending.
Having chosen to take taxpayers’ money to pay for election spending, they now do not like being called corrupt. Boo Hoo.
If you can’t stand the truth, quit. But don’t keep lying to us about how you thought it was OK. It is obviously not OK.
I’d go as far as to say the WFF advertising earlier in the year that included the line “You’re better off with Labour” was crossing the line as well. Only Margaret Wilson could have approved that rubbish going out funded by taxpayers.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
There is probably nothing ‘wrong’ with the EB apart from their lack of transparency as DPF has pointed out, but they do represent a minority (and shrinking) viewpoint that dare I say mainstream NZ finds distasteful. There is nothing wrong with ice cream and pickles but it tastes yech!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Good questions Spam. I have asked them too, and they remain unresponded to. The answer is of course that the EBs are merely a convenient choice for the left as they engage in their usual strategies, diversion from the real issue and demonisation of those who oppose them.
Slide- you are the liar. The Nats have not had any special connections with the EBs. They have met with the EBs in manner not any different to any other group of New Zealanders who might want to free this country from the clammy grip of totalitarian socialism, and in a way not any different to any meetings that Helen Klark may have had with the extremist nutjobs who inhabit her side of the political spectrum.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
“Dr Brash told the truth, as far as he knew it at the time, all along the way. EB are not invloved with funding National.”
Sorry Linda but that’s not the way Key, Brownly and Rich see it, and that’s not the way most New Zealanders see it. What everyone knows is that Don Brash has been conducting secret meetings with the EB without the knowledge or approval of anyone else in the National Party. Why would he do this? I smell a rat, and so do many people.
May I also ask, David, now that you are posting negatively on Don’s relationship with the EB, does this mean that you are joining the growing tide for a leadership coup within National?
September 24th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“Slide- you are the liar. The Nats have not had any special connections with the EBs.”
RB please see my comment at the very top of the thread. specifially: And don’t worry team – this is the tip of the iceberg – there’s plenty more to come yet.
Sit back and enjoy the slide.
We will see whos laughing at the end of this one.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Slide- you call Brash a liar without any evidence. You have nothing but allegations. All of this was signalled by Pete Hodgson when he said the following on Agenda-
“You will see us respond as long as National calls us corrupt, and what we respond with is our business.”
National (Brownlee and Rich in this case) are fools for letting you guys beat the Brethren connection up into something that it never was.
Has Helen Klark ever met with members of the Maori Sovereignty movement and has the Labour party ever received funding from pro communist groups such as the Socialist Worker’s Party?
September 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Labour is losing this one hands down I’d have thought – what little respect I had for the Prime Minister is quickly slipping away. National aren’t capitalising though because they’re hamstrung by a dead duck leader. So it looks like the dead duck party versus the dead duck leader. The solutions is simple, Labour and National should swap leaders to get a “better strategic alignment”.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
As a National insider it is part of David’s role to hold back the inevitable as long as possible, otherwise he might be seen as an instigator. Leadership coups are always difficult and painful. People like Rich and Brownlee take calculated risks on their careers and Key gets slightly loose with his answers.
Personally I find the process very interesting, especially the way that the outgoing leader self-destructs. When Brash goes Clark’s comments of ‘cancerous’ will seem right on the money. Brash will have no defence, because he will be gone and allegations of affairs with the Roundtable and the Brethren will be all that is left in his wake.
We have only to witness now the grisly details of the last chapter in Brash’s political life and look forward to fresh leadership, most likely under John Key.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I have been thinking that Miss Clark’s leadership may be under threat from sensible people in her own party who can no longer swallow her attitude. But they all seem pretty scared of her so I guess she’s safe until she loses the next election. Then there will be blood on the caucus floor.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Labour savaged by Judge over Marina decision??
A couple of procedural mistakes in a law that that had never been tested by the courts before. Plus the majority of the grounds he decided for Carter. Oh yes the JUDGE DECIDED CARTER WASNT BIASED. Maybe you didnt read down that far.
The Court of Appeal sends back , sorry savages, other Judges decisions all the time. This particular Judge may find himself being ‘savaged’ as well.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I once gave $50 bucks to ACT. I have met Rodney Hide and other Act members. They probably deny meeting me or can’t recall doing so without a series of guided prompts. I don’t like Helen Clark and the Greens, I think NZ First and UF are opportunists of no account. I have told a lot of people I do not want to see a Labour coalition ruin this country any further. I put up posters saying so.
SO WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN?????
There is none except the EB had more money and spent it on their fliers.
The Prime Minister and her cronies are in panic mode, and are lashing out like girls in a playground fight. Flailing, toxic, ineffectual and hopefully soon to go.
Apart from the public sector flunkies and beneficiary unions the nation will breathe a sigh of relief.
Pay it back girls!
September 24th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Labour do want Brash gone but that is because he has almost single-handedly put more pressure on Labour than at anytime since they were elected in 1999. They cannot plot or predict how he responds – the breaking of the club rules on MP’s resources is a classic example.
Bill English would tut-tut Labour but move on because he is “as bad as them” but more importantly he knows the club rules – politics is about others not our resources and how we use them. I also think they believe Key might be inexperienced – I think they think they have his measure – they think he isn’t hungry enough. Nor does he appear to have built a support base in the National caucus – which is hard to do when one is a leader already.
But Brash worries them he is a tough as Clark. He has the focus and determination to pick on one issue and drive it on day after day and it is starting to contribute to a change in the perception of her Government. The inference that she might be personally dishonest also makes her smart.
Brash’s leadership raised more money for National than they have ever raised before and cost Labour funding too. He almost won the last election despite Labour rhetoric that he is a “bogeyman” or a hate figure for middle New Zealand. He appears to be a bit of a political cockroach (radiation proof) – even the allegations of infidelity don’t appear yet to have damaged him but does appear to have damaged the PM’s reputation for straightness.
The pledge card ‘corruption’ allegation has risen to prominence because Labour is out-of-steam – it has no programme that captures the public imagination. If it had a programme then the issue would not have the prominence that it does.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
George , If you think the EB are the same as you Ive got news for you. But then again you are are slightly barmy.
Labour soon to go ??. This aint Thailand. The next election is 2 years ( thats 24 months, thats 730 days )away.
Helen will be there for the next one , who will she face , a young finacial technocrat who will send national back to 20%?
Remember the last time national was in coalition ,they had 3 versions in 4 years ( the United party, then NZFirst, then Mauri Pacific, Act and AK)and they had the guiless Alamein Kopu locked up in the behive like Rapunzel.
If we believed the newspaper headlines,like you obviously do, then there would be a change of government every 18 months, and for the losing party a new leader every 6 months. Do you think this has more to do with selling newspapers than the reality. Wait for the next poll . It allways acts like a bucket of cold water over those like you whos excitement isnt being directed into natural outlets
September 24th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
“Brethren Cost Nats win”.
Pitiful excuse. Perhaps this pair should look to themselves as to why National didn’t gain the Treasury benchs and Labour did.
Whining that it was somebody elses fault – phooey
September 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I too think the EB affair cost National the election. Not because of the EB as such, but because of some sections of NZ society freaking out over any perceived Christian involvement in politics coupled with Nationals incompentant way of handling something that could have been turned around as bigoted scaremongering.
Blaming the EB for National’s own incompetance in being able to deflect attacks makes Rich and Power look pathetic.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Sorry, that should have been Rich and Brownlee looking pathetic, not Power.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
In psychology there is a error of reasoning known as the actor-observer bias. The idea behind this is that people attribute their personal successes to internal, or dispositional factors and their failures to external or situational factors. Other people’s successes are attributed to external, or situational factors and other people’s failures are attributed to internal, or dispositional factors. It is not 100% predictable, but it’s pretty damn good.
So National lost the election because of the involvement of the EB. If National had won the election it would have done so because of its leadership and good policies.
Hmm….
September 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I can’t believe the “EB cost the Nats the election” meme has gained currency. A week before the election, National was still ahead in the polls, quite some time after the EB activites came to light.
National lost the election because they took the heat off in the last week and thought they could cruise. They ran no newspaper ads in that last week while Labour had one in there every day. The charge was that National’s tax cuts would me cuts to health and education spending, and a repeal of the nuclear policy. National did not counter it in the way it should have, which may have come down to either Don’s inexperience (and I doubt he would have made the same mistake today), or the possibility that National had reached their spending limit.
If the latter is true, then Labour really did steal the election with the pledge card spending. And the EB are a red herring.
As for the leadership issue, I never underestimate the stupidity of the average National MP, but I am pretty damned sure enough of them realise the madness of getting rid of Brash. Firstly, you don’t change leaders when you are ahead in the polls! Why this basic Politics 101 concept seems to be beyond most commentators I am not sure.
Secondly, if Brash goes, he is going to take all that lovely money with him. None of the pretenders other than Key are business friendly, and even Key’s Cameron-like centrist positioning may be too unpalatable for some.
Thirdly there is also a real possibility that Brash may simply bolt over to ACT, which would make them a viable political entity once more and deplete National’s gains.
Fourthly, Brash is SCARY. The people who may replace him are simply not. Labour would relish the relief a change would bring.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
The EB is being used by Labour as a big distraction from the pledge cards. wonder who funded the pledge cards?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I want Brash replaced because he’s too apologetic. If he can lift his game, and be a bit more assertive then fine. (going by his Agenda performance this could be possible) If he can’t there needs to be a leadership change quickly. IMHO there is nobody to replace him amongst the current front bench (other than perhaps at a pinch Judith Collins). Key never says anything to show he has a grasp of the broader issues. He may be a good finance minister but on general policy, he’s far too wet and inarticulate.
Key Brownlee would be an absolute disaster and I think the most immediate improvement that can be made to National would be to get completely rid of the dissembling politically confused Gerry.
It baffles me that the clique of leftists who monopolise this blog keep telling National what to do when they have absolutley no empathy with the party at all, and why the damn hell they imagine anyone is interested in their views on the National Party leadership is unfathomable.
No matter who is leader, they left will be sniping away with the same old undermining strategy, saying he/ she is about to be challenged blah blah blah.. they never cease..
September 24th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
When the EB fliers story first broke Fitzsimons was screaming it was a litany of lies. Paul Holmes asked her what those lies were. Guess what, she could not come up with even one apart from a claim the Greens would put capital gains tax on homes. The Brethren got that wrong, it was meant to be second homes. The policies listed in the flier were supposedly all taken off the Green’s website. Therefore the fliers promoted Green’s policies and should be added to Greens spending if anyones.
EBgate could and should have been kicked to touch by Brash straight away. Instead he played stumblebum and has continued to do so. His inept performance indicates he has more on this issue to hide. I suspect the slide is correct and there is more to come.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Self-serving balls from Katherine Rich, as far as I can tell – if her ‘gut’ can actually read the minds of several million voters, could it also tell me the winning Lotto numbers for next week? I prefer mine to tell me when I’m hungry and leave it there.
Of course, it didn’t help and I wouldn’t deny the whole EB mess could have been much better handled. But I also talked to several people during the campaign who said they largely supported National’s platform, but weren’t exactly inspired by media reports of infighting – which indicated that if the caucus couldn’t get their shit together how could they be trusted to run a government. Now, perhaps we can say lingering disquiet over Rich’s own performance cost National the election? Who the hell knows?
September 24th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Lucyna, thats a view I agree with. I was at my Granny’s place when Brash was being interviewed by that socialist lamer Susan Wood on the Brethren issue. Brash’s spineless behaviour during that interview turned my Gran, who had been going to vote National up until then, right against him.. (and then she voted for bloody Winston for Chrissake)..
September 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
“Nat: Labour broke the electoral act spending limit
Lab: But you meet with the Exclusive Brethren”
Worth pointing out that at this point that only party that is confirmed has having broken the electoral act spending limit is National.
That is why the National party has 115 000 dollars sitting in a bank account to pay their GST obligations for their advertising.
Or is David Farrar’s position that if you actually refuse to pay your bills then that doesn’t count as spending?
The only party to be confirmed as breaching the electoral spending limit and in Brash’s words “engaging in a corrupt practice” as National.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Sean Lamb as usual is wrong on the facts and just about everything.
In response to PJ – my comments are not a reflection on any MP. It is saying that an organisation which hire private detectives to dig up dirt on MPs is not one I want my party associated with anymore. Any meetings before Friday are not a problem, but I would be very disappointed if there were any future meetings.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Oh, and here’s another thought for Rich. I’ve long argued (sorry team) that National’s greatest asset was a truly lousy campaign from Labour. IMO, on paper the 2005 election should never have been competitive. I was expecting Labour to run a textbook “morning in Aotearoa, you’ve never had it so good, it’s the economy stupid” playbook with sharp, upbeat messages until the country lapsed into a collective diabetic coma. Instead it was… well, none of the above: reactive to National’s policy agenda, strategically focused on negative attacks on Brash and Key in particular, the advertising was blah from a party whose previous campaigns were brutally efficient. Sorry to say, but I think Labour came into the 2005 campaign season with a little too much born to rule attitude, and they never got off the back foot when it turned out National wasn’t going to obligingly replay the 2002 debacle.
But in the last week, Labour finally got something right: As Mike Williams said at the time, a lot of resources were put into the grassroots in key constituencies, in Labour’s electoral heartland of South/West Auckland particularly, to get the base motivated to haul arse for the only poll that counted. And good on them for doing so, I say – it’s Practical Electioneering 101. If your base stay home, it doesn’t matter if every other aspect of the campaign was genius (and Labour’s was nothing close).
That was Labour’s margin of victory, IMO.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Sean
“The only party to be confirmed as breaching the electoral spending limit and in Brash’s words “engaging in a corrupt practice” [is] National”
No one is has been found guilty of a corrupt practice by any court. Simply pointing to a statutory provision and saying (in the absence of a judgement) that so and so is guilty of this or that is really just levelling an allegation. We don’t know whether a court would have convicted any official from National or Heather Simpson for that matter.
I think that the deployment of the term “corruption” should be done carefully otherwise one simply debases the meaning of the term. If Field took personal favours in return for the use of his influence as a MP or Minister in immigration matters as is alleged then this would be a case of corruption. However there will be a conviction that establishes that the allegation is proved.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
“Sean Lamb as usual is wrong on the facts and just about everything. ”
Mea culpa, I have been believing what is written in the Homosexual dominated liberal media again.
I thought that
a. National hasnt paid the GST on its electoral advertising spending.
b. This money is sitting in an account waiting to be paid.
c. Don Brash introduced a private member’s bill to enact retrospective legislation to enable the money to be paid without breaching the electoral act.
d. If the money is paid without retrospective legislation then National would have breached the spending limit.
e Breaching the spending limit is defined as a “corrupt practice”
Please point out where I am in error.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
You lefties are so full of shit you put my shit ponds to shame. Atleast the EBs spent their own money, Nickolas O’kane says it all in one line.
I have been told that many union members are pissed off having their membership fees go to supporting the slag in the beehive, they are not impressed to put it mildly and reps have been told.
Prehaps Dear leader and her henchmen are afaird to go back to the unions for a handout, no doubt they would be told to fuck off and steal someone elses money, no wonder they won’t pay it back, they can’t.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
It’s naive to suggest that Labour will start addressing the issues if National eschew any furtehr links with the Brethren.
Nat: Labour broke the electoral act spending limit
Lab: Don Brash is about to be rolled.
Lab: National takes cash for policies.
Lab: The previous National government…
Nat: Labour won’t pay back the $800,000
Lab: Don Brash is about to be rolled.
Lab: National takes cash for policies.
Lab: The previous National government…
Nat: Labour has the largest current account deficit in history
Lab: Don Brash is about to be rolled.
Lab: National takes cash for policies.
Lab: The previous National government…
September 24th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Labour has the largest account deficit because of stupid neo-liberal policies that National would only institute in a purer form, making the account deficit worse. i.e. tax cuts would increase spending on imported goods.
September 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Even thought politics is irrelevant, there is no place for cults in it – whether brethren, muslim or even clarkism.
We normally don’t bother discussing it, but someone had a great idea that people should have had to had a job before being elected to parliament. Think of it – no Clarks, no Brashes … in fact 90% of the bludgers there wouldn’t qualify.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Do we really have to wait 2 long years for the next General Election?Short of a military coup(out of the question because we really don’t have any military left to speak of) what can be done to “bring it on” as the actress said to the Bishop?
September 24th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
49%
49%
That is, what we call in the trade, a “fuck off poll rating”.
The Nats haven’t polled that well since the ’80s. Brash is doing the business. Now fuck off.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Mara:
Well it’s not tremendously complicated:
1) The Government loses a division on a matter of confidence and supply. (Which strikes me as exceedingly unlikely unless Labour is stupid enough to utterly FUBAR it’s relationship with the Greens.)
2) The Prime Minister scans the polls, throws some chicken entrails at the wall (which is much the same thing), makes sure Labour is ready to roll, takes a deep breath and some Dutch courage then calls a snap election on a flimsy pretext that fools nobody. After all, it worked like a dream in 2002 – though the caveat is the same tactic bit Muldoon in the bum eighteen years earlier.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
You reckon that the problem with the EBs was the fact that they were secretive about their election activities. Rubbish – it’s because of their attitiued towards the rest of the world. They are a bunch of fascists, who should be ignored. I went to school with a number of them and I feel sorry for their children, who are forcibly excluded from normal activites….
September 24th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
By the way,I would vote for the first aspiring leader who gave a huge belly-laugh the next time some pissant,sweating little leftie wanker asked a stupid question on radio or TV.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Sean Lamb also got it wrong blaming the Exclusive Brethren for exposing the pervertedness of Benson-Peep. That was done by a former pupil who became alarmed at the Bully he knew as Benson-peep being put in charge of liabour’s stratagem against school bullying..Likewise he blames exclusive bretheren for exposing Parker as a con-man.Wrong again that was done by a victim a former partner in a joint development ending in the partner’s bankruptcy while Parker lost not a cent.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Can anyone give one GOOD reason for the negative tag the EB have been branded with? They may have different beliefs to many but this is supposed to be a Democracy. They are entitled to their opinions, contribute financially to a political party of their choice and are allowed to campaign publicly for this same party. So what is wrong with this “picture of Democracy”. Democracy means freedom of choice. At least it was until someone challenged Clark.
We all know Helen is agnostic. It follows that the majority of Labour and supporters will also be agnostic / atheist. Is this why they oppose the EB supporting the Nats? This is no better than Muslim extremists wanting to eliminate Christian or other religions. Are we see a new breed of religious persecution?
September 24th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
“Sean Lamb also got it wrong blaming the Exclusive Brethren for exposing the pervertedness of Benson-Peep. ”
I was relying on what Wayne Idour told John Campbell on TV3
If I may quote:
“Mr Idour also revealed information they had gathered had played a hand in the scandals surrounding Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope’s conduct as a former high school teacher and colleague David Parker’s former business dealings.
Mr Idour said he and his colleague had also collected information on Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen.
“There was information concerning Mr Benson-Pope, there was information concerning David Parker, there was information concerning Michael Cullen.
“A lot of this information is not yet public. I don’t want to go into it, but we do know a lot.
”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3805983a10,00.html
That’s Wayne Idour’s claim. Maybe he lives in a fantasy world, but given his admission casts him in a rather bad light I tend to find it highly credible.
So for the last 12 months the National Party has been gleefully cavorting in the House with the dirt dug up by Exclusive Brethren’s PI.
And if thats the best they could dig up……..
Cancerous is the word.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Sean Lamb – ” Maybe he lives in a fantasy world, but given his admission casts him in a rather bad light I tend to find it highly credible. ”
You confuse me. You say above that he may be living in a fantasy world, but you find him highly credible.
Make up your bloody mind.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
“You confuse me.”
Now why doesn’t that surprise me?
However, I have a feeling sharper knives than you in those oddball place in cyberspace will understand it quite clearly.
For you, my dear, when ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
How many ways is Sean Lamb wrong. Here we go.
a. National hasnt paid the GST on its electoral advertising spending.
Wrong. National has paid GST on all its advertising.
b. This money is sitting in an account waiting to be paid.
That money is for election broadcast ads which were mistakenly booked in excess of the allocation from the Electoral Commission.
c. Don Brash introduced a private member’s bill to enact retrospective legislation to enable the money to be paid without breaching the electoral act.
Bzzt wrong. Nothing to do with the electoral act.
d. If the money is paid without retrospective legislation then National would have breached the spending limit.
Also wrong. TV and radio ads do not count as part of the limit. They are part of the broadcasting act.
e Breaching the spending limit is defined as a “corrupt practice”
Wrong Act.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Sean Lamb – Arseholes like you will believe anything you chose. It is not in your ignorant demeanour to let facts get in the way. Wipe the shit out of your eyes and use what little brain you have before making stupid statements which cannot be proven.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I have to say I find Right wingers vastly educational.
Hitherto I was not aware of the fact that electoral broadcasts were not advertising but so it seems.
Let me quote “Honest” Don himself
“LISA But you choose to single this one section out, I mean what about your party’s $120,000 GST debt following broadcasting for the election campaign, why not pay that back right now?
DON I’m dead keen to, I’m dead keen to, legally I cannot.
LISA Well you could pay it back you just face legal consequences.
DON No no this money is sitting in a trust account now to be paid to all the broadcasters concerned, this was a genuine mistake, it was not noticed until after the election, we found it ourselves, we drew it to the attention of the electoral commission and we said tell us how we can legally pay, right now we cannot do that, we want to introduce a law to enable us to pay our debts”
“Legally, I can not”
So let me get this straight….what exactly would happen if Honest Don was to pay that money back? Money that is sitting in a trust account? Money that he wants retrospective legislation to prevent TVNZ and TV3 taking the National Party to court over?
Apparantly over-spending doesn’t count if you don’t actually cough up the money.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Sean Lamb – ” I have to say I find Right wingers vastly educational. ”
At last you have seen the light. Sit back, shut up and pay attention. You will learn much. Maybe even make a success out of your life. People may respect your opinion one day if you use your newly found education wisely.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Sean:
I could refer you to the relevant sections of the Broadcasting Act, and the PMB under Don Brash’s name which you’ve totally misrepresented, but literacy isn’t really in your skill-set.
Still, I can only hope you’re not a position where real people listen to your financial or legal advice. It shows an *ahem* eccentric take on ethical conduct to argue that the best way to remedy an unintentional breech of a law is to break it again, on purpose this time.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Geez you guys are great!
National sitting on poll numberers giving them an absolute majority in the house – or at worst an ACT coalition – and you’ve the knives out for Brash? How stuipid can you get!
The key things to remember are simpley:
then Labour really did steal the election with the pledge card spending. And the EB are a red herring.
Yes. That is the case. Don didn’t lost the last election: like Al Gore in 2000 he f**king won it. Don is the Leader whom by far the majority of the NZ population want as PM now!
But that’s only half of the story. The other half is:
As Mike Williams said at the time, a lot of resources were put into the grassroots in key constituencies, in Labour’s electoral heartland of South/West Auckland particularly
Translation: Philip Tiler Field corrputly bought the Tagata Pasifika vote. Think Tammany Hall. Oh and of course the huge Maorimander seen in the Maori seats (electorate vote Maori, party vote Labour – result Labour govt).
The first two of these are corrupt: the third an unethical manipuation of the electoral system.
1) The Government loses a division on a matter of confidence and supply. (Which strikes me as exceedingly unlikely unless Labour is stupid enough to utterly FUBAR it’s relationship with the Greens.)
Not really. Nationa & the Maori Party will force a confidence vote once the AG report comes out. If its critical of Labour – there is no guanantee the Greens would vote FOT a corrupt Labour govt. If it is not critical of Labour then clearly labour have whitewashed it: same result.
The Nats should already be offering deals to Peter Dunne: on this issue, all agreements must be null and void. That only leaves Winston: pirty the Nats ran so hard against him last time wasn’t it…
except that it was the right strategy because the Nats ran and won and Labout with the funding, TIlerGate and Maorimander came through and formed a govt anyway
September 24th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Phil Goff was phtographed holding Arafat’s hand, on Labour’s logic that makes him a terrorist.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
“National sitting on poll numberers giving them an absolute majority in the house – or at worst an ACT coalition – and you’ve the knives out for Brash?”
Not me, I can assure you.
I can think of no person I would rather have as the leader of the National party.
You would be bonkers to get rid of him. Honest.
I mean look at all the lovely scandels you have had in the House to play with since he became leader. That doesn’t come about just by accident you know.
Ooops, I mean, yes it does come about totally by accident. Complete co-incidence. Quite extraordinary, when you think about it.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
“LISA But you choose to single this one section out, I mean what about your party’s $120,000 GST debt following broadcasting for the election campaign, why not pay that back right now?
DON I’m dead keen to, I’m dead keen to, legally I cannot.
LISA Well you could pay it back you just face legal consequences.
DON No no this money is sitting in a trust account now to be paid to all the broadcasters concerned, this was a genuine mistake, it was not noticed until after the election, we found it ourselves, we drew it to the attention of the electoral commission and we said tell us how we can legally pay, right now we cannot do that, we want to introduce a law to enable us to pay our debts”
Sean Lamb: And I suppose you think that Lisa Stewart is the ideal individual to front a serious political progamme such as Agenda? Isn’t it the primary function of the media to uphold the rights of ‘free speech’ in a democratic society? Or, is Stewart just a puppet of TVNZ who are really the string pullers? Either way, she doesn’t yet have the journalistic balls for this type of interviewing or programme.TVNZ is the circus and Stewart is just one of their clowns.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Lab: National broke the electoral act spending limit
Nat: But you meet with Ratana
Lab: National did pay back the $10,000
Nat: But you meet with Ratana
Lab: A National spokesnam has been savaged by a Judge
Nat:: But you meet with the Ratana
Lab: Prisoners are getting getting flat screens TVs which cost four times a normal one
Nat: But you met with Ratana
Hmmmm, it just doesn’t sound as scanalous does it? Why do you think that should be? Probably because in a “secular society” National doesn’t go around demonising religions that don’t happen to tow the Labour Party line.
Pay it back Helen.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
tim barclay “Phil Goff was phtographed holding Arafat’s hand, on Labour’s logic that makes him a terrorist”
Or on EB’s logic that makes him gay!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
tim barclay “Phil Goff was phtographed holding Arafat’s hand, on Labour’s logic that makes him a terrorist”
Or on EB’s logic that makes him gay!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Sinner raises a very good point. The Greens are up in the polls and will make further inroads when the AG report comes out. They will be begging for an early election and will not support Labour on confidence and supply.
Nor is the Maori Party likely to do so either. Their position is dicier, because although they stand a good chance of picking up another seat or two, they risk a backlash for bringing the government down. However, their lust for the balance of power would probably make it worth the gamble for them.
The man who really holds the key here is Peter Dunne. United Future cannot lose by ditching their C&S agreement. They would be almost certain to gain support, seats and influence.
This government is in more trouble than you might think. Labour will have to start making some major concessions to keep these three parties on board, because all of them could pull the plug and almost certainly gain from it.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
rosie, the EB are not a political party, who really cares about what they think.
Oh and Goff should be in Arafat’s box where I am sure they would both be comfortable.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
T Barclay :
>
… and on National’s logic, that makes him gay…
September 24th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Oh yeah, pay it back Helen. Thieving cow.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:36 am
I’m sure Helen will pay it back once the final report comes out and especially in the face of the polls. Offering to pay it back now would be seen as losing face as well as admitting validity to Brash’s OTT claims of ‘corruption’. Ol’ Brash needs to watch a few episodes of SuperNanny and get some idea of how to make a disobedient person give something that is not theirs back. This approach like his many other approaches to politics is deeply flawed and shows a misunderstanding of human relations.
Once Brash has been rolled then Clark will have a double victory: National will be in disarray and she will pay back the money in a big public fanfare of redemption.
To steal the now famous quote: Brash will be “gone by Wednesday”.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Will Labour stop at nothing in it’s insatiable lust for power? See: Investigator Hired To Dig Dirt On God
September 25th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
DFR,
Your comment about Brash and EB,
“I wonder to what extent women also saw Dr Brash as having a deeply conservative vision that did not include them (not part of the ‘mainstream’), and voted accordingly.”
Believe me, this is exactly what happened. I was hugely concerned, as were a large number of my very well-educated female friends. We did not vote National.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
DFR,
Your comment about Brash and EB,
“I wonder to what extent women also saw Dr Brash as having a deeply conservative vision that did not include them (not part of the ‘mainstream’), and voted accordingly.”
Believe me, this is exactly what happened. I was hugely concerned, as were a large number of my very well-educated female friends. We did not vote National.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Don really has not got what it takes to be a professional politician I’m afraid.
From this interview
http://agendatv.itmsconnect.com/Archives/Transcripts/2006Transcripts/Transcript23September2006/tabid/1186/Default.aspx
“Lisa continuing to meet with implies an ongoing regular pattern of meetings. I’ve met with them once since the election more than a year ago, am I gonna rule out meeting with anybody. Look we’re talking about hate speech here, do I meet with Muslims? Yes. Are some of the terrorists? Possibly. I’m not gonna stop myself meeting with any group who wants to talk with me as Leader of the National Party.”
So if you are listening Osama, Don would be happy to meet you. Any financial help would be great as he has just lost the entire Muslim vote for the next election..
September 25th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
blah blah blah sonic.
You have destroyed any credibility you may have had, so why do you think your opinion matters to anyone here anymore?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
response to Kent Parker,
It’s most unlikely that Dr Don would want to rush
to the defense of the EBs. It’s even more unlikely that we will get any illumination on our favourite
spectator sport from the shallow end of the gene pool.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
MBM,
What exactly has Don Brash done to make women think he is deeply conservative? Or is this is simply another case of female hysteria?
hehehhee
Seriously though, is it simply because he is a member of National AND a middle-aged, white male?
Would any recent indiscretion change your minds? Or would you simply consider him a traitor to the ideals you have attributed to him, but dont yourselves support, and a hypocrite?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Sonic:
Oh, and every Muslim citizen of this country’s just declared their voting intentions for the next election? Why don’t any of the psychics around here tell me the Lotto numbers this Saturday – I’ll give you a cut!
I’d just suggest folks actually read the carefully extracted quote in full context, because he’s right. Every Muslim is possibly a terrorist, in the mind of paranoid bigots that’s a near certainty; just as every Christian is potentially the kind of loon who thinks the way to oppose abortion is to empty a shotgun into the head of an abortionist, or bomb his place of work.
Hey, perhaps every MP should just do a Howard Hughes and stay away from other human beings because they might be weirdos. It’s the only way to be sure.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
garths
I’m not suggesting Don would rush to the defence of the EB. It’s the extent of the association he continued to have with them that we may not be fully enlightened about and which might be the subject of leaked emails sitting in the Labour war-chest. Given that he wasn’t open about it on the week of the election, National Party hacks will be concerned that there is yet another massive scandal waiting to unfold. What do you do: risk the possibility that there isn’t, or take out the knives now and cut the off the leader?
The problem is not the EB’s themselves as a minority societal group but the lack of transparency with which they and Brash have conducted themselves. In a democracy we expect transparency, even if we don’t get it. Blatent opacity (can’t see thru) like the Brethren is anathema to democracy.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Craig, is there anything from National that you would not try and spin?
” do I meet with Muslims? Yes. Are some of the terrorists? Possibly”
The man is a fool.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“I’d just suggest folks actually read the carefully extracted quote in full context, because he’s right. Every Muslim is possibly a terrorist…”
Craig, I’d expect better from you. How would you feel if Don was saying similarly offensive things about the homosexual population of New Zealand? “Do I meet with homosexuals? Yes. Are some of them paedophiles? Possibly!” and so forth?
Sure, it’s technically a possibility and therefore on one level true, but that’s not the problem with what he said. The problem here is that Don is introducing a link into the conversation that is neither related to the topic at hand or necessary to raise in public at all. There’s enough irrational shit said in public about them Muslims being terrorists and them homos being nonces without Don raising links when being interviewed on other topics entirely.
For example, would it be low politics if he came out with a phrase like “Do I meet with Helen Clark? Yes. Is she a lesbian? Possibly.” when discussing a barely-related issue? Yeah, of course it would. It’s certainly no improvement on the infamous “Speaking of affairs…” interjections that have gone down so badly in your outlook in recent weeks. It works to create an association in the mind of the listener, and if that association isn’t one that is justified or supportable (and accusing NZ’s muslims of terrorism certainly isn’t either of those things) then it should not be aired in public.
With all that said though, I doubt the Nats have lost much of the Muslim vote given this kind of stuff isn’t exactly out of character. I’d be surprised if they had a significant slice of that vote in the first place.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
It is odd though Err, as many European Right of Centre parties work hard to secure votes from muslims.
Think about it, many Muslims are socially conservative, small business owners, who are worried about Crime, taxation, civil unions etc etc etc.
What does Mr Brash do? calls them all “possibly” terrorists.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Face it, Brash stumbles over every racist, sexist, and any other kind of -ist out there in the rumble tumble, Lions and Tigers world of politics. He belongs to an age that passed with Muldoon.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
People are not pedophiles because they are homosexual. However are many of terrorists, terrorists because they are Muslim – yes massively so.
Terrorism is supported by around 20% to 30% of Muslims worldwide.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Yes, but DPF, when you go to visit the queen do you point out to her that she has a mole on her left cheek and there is a slightly methanol smell emanating from her behind?
I think when in politics the idea for success (unless you’re someone like Hitler) is to offend the fewest number of people the least number of times. It is unavoidable that sometimes you are going to offend, but this comment by Brash was totally unnecessary. The National Party often levels accusations of PC at things which are carried out for the sake of discretion, politeness, kindness etc etc.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
David have you got a source for that statement?
Would you say 30-30% of NZ Muslims support terrorism?
Do you agree with Dr Brash that Muslims he ahs met are “possibly terrorist” just because of their religion?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Don Brash didnt say that they were possibly terrorists because of their religion. He said that he had met Muslims and that it is not inconcievable that one might be a terrorist, but that shouldnt mean he doesnt talk to them at all. He said despite the possibility, he would not cut off communication.
This is in response to people constantly questioning his meeting with Exclusive Brethren, essentially saying that Brash shouldnt talk to a people with specific religious beliefs.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
“I think when in politics the idea for success (unless you’re someone like Hitler) is to offend the fewest number of people the least number of times.”
Kent, it depends whether you want to achieve anything or not. Your strategy worked wonders for Jonathan Hunt, but did he actually make a difference?
Contrast that with Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, both loathed by a majority of the populace and whose political careers were abruptly cut short. And yet those two politicians have done more to improve the quality of life of the average New Zealander than most of the others of the last twenty years put together.
Brash will be New Zealand’s next Prime Minister (assuming Clark is not rolled before an election!), and he will join that esteemed company.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
KImble, why do you just straight out lie when you know you are going to get called on it, you say
“He said that he had met Muslims and that it is not inconcievable that one might be a terrorist’
No he did not he said
” do I meet with Muslims? Yes. Are some of the terrorists? Possibly”
September 25th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
“People are not pedophiles because they are homosexual. However are many of terrorists, terrorists because they are Muslim – yes massively so.”
You have proof of this statement? People are terrorists directly because of their religion, rather than because of other factors which find expression in an extreme interpretation of their religion? And Don has proof that any of this is even remotely relevent with respect to the Islamic people he meets here in NZ?
Regardless, why make the association in day-to-day conversation on another topic?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
ooooo my bad, sonic, here is a correction.
“He said that he had met with Muslims and that it is not inconcievable that one or more might be a terrorist.”
Happy?
He did not say that any WERE terrorists, only that it was possible.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possibly
September 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Blair, I agree with your idea that unpopular decisions are not necessarily bad ones. Unfortunately it isn’t very easy to evaluate the impact of those decisions.
To claim that the actions of Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson improved the quality of life of the average New Zealander is not a fact. I am not saying it isn’t true, but how on earth do you measure that?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Kimble, while you’re technically (linguistically) correct, the fact remains that this was a political statement.
Generally speaking when discussing the actions of other people the polite thing to do is to describe them as things you are certain they are, not unable to verify they’re not. You wouldn’t describe your friend to a policeman as “possibly a murderer” because it tables that possibility as something that should be considered – why else would you mention it?
Linguistically you’re not saying that this person is in fact guilty of murder. But you’re certainly making that association and you should be able to justify doing it. It’s not the kind of thing you just do at random if you’ve got any sense.
For example, that PJ character got banned earlier for calling Don Brash “syphilitic”. A good call, if you ask me, but would he have been saved if he’d instead called Don “possibly syphilitic”? It’s certainly possible, but adding that word doesn’t negate the fact that the statement is insulting and unnecessary given the total absence of evidence to support that possibility.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Blair,
When I made that comment I wasn’t talking about being/not being popular. It was about offending people with what you say. Even Bush is careful not to offend. He can strafe and kill Muslims in Iraq while at the same time croon to them in the US. Smooth talk. Second-hand-car-sales talk. A professional politician learns to be as inclusive and inoffensive as possible with what they say, because anything that is offensive immediately becomes newsworthy and a bit of a headache.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Obviously the problem you have with the statement, sonic, is that it contains a reference to Islam as well as a reference to terrorism. Given that a very, very, very large proportion of the acts which we would call terrorism are commited by Muslims, the association of Islam and terrorism can hardly be blamed on anyone else.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim.
Consider this, would you be cringing so if it was 1980 and DB had said, “Have I met Irish people? Yes. Were they members of the IRA? Possibly.”
September 25th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
err… consider this. Picture a pedophile (do it now).
It was a dude right? Why? Because every time you hear about pedophilia it involves a male. Not all men are pedophiles, but the vast majority of pedophiles are men.
Now picture a prostitute. Same thing, you picture a woman rather than a male, same reason.
The crux of what the Don was saying was that he meets with people, and despite the possibility that they may be objectionable people to others, this will not mean he wont meet with their social group.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
“Now picture a prostitute. Same thing, you picture a woman rather than a male, same reason.”
Yet strangely Don didn’t feel the urge to say “I’ve met with women. Are they prostitutes? Possibly.”
If he had he’d be in a world of shit, because he’d have every woman in the nation up in arms because the statement makes the clear implication the first thing he thinks of when he thinks of a woman is whether they’re a prostitute or not.
What I’m saying here is not that Don was factually incorrect in his statement, merely that it was politically moronic.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Sorry for two in a row, but another thing Kimble: Don would have been ill-advised to say something like “I’ve met with men. Are they paedophiles? Possibly!” given that he has had Wayne Mapp frothing at great length this year over Air New Zealand’s policy of seating such “possible paedophiles” away from children. Mapp seemed to think that precautionary measure was unjustified, to the extent that he laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission about it.
For some reason a few people seemed to be finding being considered a “possible paedophile” on a routine basis rather troubling, despite its technical truth.
As I said, it’s not generally good manners to go around describing people as possibly not things you can’t confirm they aren’t. It leads to horrible grammar, too – so many negatives! Why not just stick with asserting what you know to be true instead of what you don’t know to be false eh?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
err..
Agree that it wasn’t particularly politically astute. In terms of the example chosen though, he was drawing an analogy between two different religions, and things that people say about those religions.
Is he going to stop meeting with all EB because some of them hire private detectives? No.
Is he going to stop meeting with all Muslims because some of them are terrorists? No.
It isn’t like he just pulled this one out of thin air and it had nothing to do with the conversation at all. I also think it was a little bit of a deliberate point about how the left has some groups that it makes exceptions for, and other groups that it doesn’t.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Wait, did the Don meet with Ahmed Zaoui?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
“Is he going to stop meeting with all EB because some of them hire private detectives? No.”
Sorry, but the comparison doesn’t stand. Islam is a wide religion with an incalculably vast number of different, diverse and often opposing organisations contained within it – rather like Christianity. Nobody is criticising Don for associating with Christians as a whole, just with a particular group of very extreme Christians who have behaved badly.
A better comparison to draw would have been another tightly structured organised religion like the Church of Scientology. Or an extremist Islamist group with documented ties to terrorist activities. Unfortunately that would have dug Don an even deeper hole, because he honestly shouldn’t be meeting privately with any of those people without solid reasons either.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
The only decent reason to stop all dialogue with the EB is because of their actions. But it is their beliefs which are more often cited.
They should always have access to political party leaders. Whether you like them or not, they are constituents of NZ’s government, they can have their say.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Sonic wrote:
Craig, is there anything from National that you would not try and spin?
Somebody needs a warm drink and an early night, because he’s getting a little tetchy. Are you ever going to learn the difference between an argument and an assertion?
September 25th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
“do I meet with Muslims? Yes. Are some of the terrorists? Possibly. I’m not gonna stop myself meeting with any group who wants to talk with me as Leader of the National Party.”
Leaving aside the bigotry for a moment (a remarkable confirmation of the way the man’s mind works) :
In any case, his analogy is false, There are two strawmen in this argument :
1) he is implicitly claiming that people are criticising him for meeting with Christians. This is not what he is being criticised for. He is being criticized for meeting with an organised militant pressure group that channels money, propaganda and manpower his way because they have shared policy goals.
2) He is pretty much obliged, as a politician, to meet constituents, of whatever stripe. This is not what he is being criticised for. He is being criticised for meeting with an organised militant pressure group that channels money, propaganda and manpower his way because they have shared policy goals. Such repeated meetings, with no criticism of them expressed by him, can only be interpreted as approval of their activities as they concern politics. Clearly, he regards them as allies.
If he wanted a more accurate analogy, he could have said “do I meet with Wahabis? Yes. Are some of the terrorists? Possibly.”
Yes, I like that analogy.
He certainly has shared values with that sect, too. Polygamy, for example.
(OK that’s a cheap shot…)
September 26th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Do I meet with posters on this blog?, yes. Are some of them puppy stranglers? possibly.