The fall and fall of Brian Connell
September 27th, 2006 at 6:05 am by David FarrarBrian’s suspension from Caucus is indeed not just because of what happend in Caucus two weeks ago (as serious as that was), but really does relate to a series of events over the years, which have all been damaging to National.
All MPs make mistakes from time to time which may damage them or the party. But these are measured up against all the good stuff they do. To take a comparison, Simon Power over-reached in a defence speech a couple of years ago and seemed to commit National to following our allies without question. That was untidy and Simon got pinged for it publicly and privately.
Simon didn’t sulk though as he was moved into the Chief Whip’s role and by all accounts worked incredibly diligently and sucessfully at that (and it is a crucial role) and then since the election as law & order spokesperson has been highly effective at exposing the problems in Corrections and other areas. Hence the defence speech is now history and Simon is again seen as a top contributor to National as he is scoring blows against Labour on almost a daily basis.
This is the contrast to Brian. Most MPs would struggle to name any runs he has scored for the team. And when you not only are not scoring any runs, but getting your team mates run out all the time, it is inevitable they move to drop you from the team.
The run-outs, so to speak include:
* Controversy over candidate selection CV
* Declaring he was Prime Ministerial material before he even was an MP
* Joking he hated cats so much he threw one into a fireplace
* Criticising publicly then Deputy Leader Nick Smith
* Use of extravagent language in opposing Civil Unions Bill, which caused even fellow opponents to cringe
* Publicly calling the Leader stupid over the Katherince Rich sacking
* Contradicting the Leader over the forestry policy during the election campaign
* Publicly attacking Murray McCully
* Calling Dr Brash unfit to lead if he had had an affair
* Suggesting his party membership was of little value to him
It’s the combination of the above which made yesterday almost inevitable. It’s quite sad because on a personal level I’ve always found Brian Connell to be very pleasant, and I have a great fondness for the Rakaia electorate having worked for its former MP. But at the end of the day when you are causing more harm to your own team than the opposite team, a halt has to be called to it – and it has been.
Tags: National
September 27th, 2006 at 7:32 am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
check this out -http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3809829a6160,00.html connell vows not to cut his hair till national have a new leader. I know I support the National Party and all but this is funny as shit.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Finally this charlatan is exposed .A few words about this sleezebag, lunkhead from a former Wrightson executive ” many people got very worked up about the evilness of Connell’s behaviour at Wrightson’s .He was described as a mongrel.Connell was a bad appointment.Wrightson were lucky to get rid of him when they did.” There is no doubt that Connell was pushed from Wrightson. It was not simply a matter of him resigning of his own volition ( history always repeats itself lol) No wonder my meeting with him was a waste of time and I wonder who takes his place in Rakaia ??
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Still, if he criticised both McCully and Nick Smith he can’t be all bad.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Cats are hideous creatures. They kill native wildlife, spread disease and attack children. KKKonnell’s hatred of them is actually a redeeming feature.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Still, if he’s been critical of both Nick Smith and Murray McCully he can’t be all bad, can he?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Goodness Swifty is really a nutter isn’t he.
First they came for the cats, but I did not speak out…..
xxx
S
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:40 am
He is the John Tamihere of the National Party.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:59 am
It’s always fascinated me that his business methods in Australia haven’t been exposed in light of his infamy; brown paper bag anyone?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:06 am
After reading Mr. Farrar’s list I’m less convinced now than ever that there’s valid reason to expel the man. I admit I know nothing of him, and I know nothing of what he’s done other than what I have read recently elsewhere and what has been written on this blog. If Mr. Farrar’s helpful list is a true indicator of Connell’s transgressions then all I can say is “what the hell???”. I write here constantly criticising the National Party for being too influenced by PC bullshit and too socialist, and Mr. Farrar’s list has to be stark evidence that I’m damn right.
The only real transgression I can see in there is his support of the feminazi Katherine Rich, and if I was lucky enough to be deciding who would be suspended from the National Party, she who has the damn immoral gall to suggest more of my money should be spent on the arts, would have been for the chop a long time ago.
Brian Connell joked..!!! He joked about throwing cats in the fire!!! He used “extravagant language” Jeezuz– are we for real here?? This is a party that professes to care about freedom of expression, yet here we have an example of them advocating for the sickening PC motivated crap that is the favourite device of Stalinists everywhere, but most notably in the Marxist Labour Party. When are we going to see some real difference between Labour and National?? (As for Mr. Farrar’s view, I can’t for the life of me see how someone how can be so enthusiastic regarding the “boobs on bikes” parade can then turn around and criticise someone for “extravagant language”.. How the hell does that work???)
Connell criticised Nick Smith, the guy who ambushed him. Nick Smith with his support for the anti private property legislation the RMA and the racist and separatist Treaty industry, has betrayed the principles that the National Party stands for. There should be much more criticism of this Benedict Arnold, given that when it comes to politicians, one must JUDGE THEM NOT BY WHAT THEY SAY, BUT BY WHAT THEY DO. In my humble opinion, the party would be so much better served by Smith’s expulsion than Connell’s.
The other stuff ?? Well hell its all a bit tenuous ain’t it, and if Mr. Connell truly does retain the support of his electorate, the whole thing starts to look pretty undemocratic to me. I expected more of Don Brash. Is he just going to go on disappointing those who were happy to see him take leadership because they believed he would take the party at least some of the way back to its pro individual pro freedom roots???
The more I see of Brash, the less spine he seems to have, and if he doesn’t start acting in a way that challenges this perception, I’ll be forced to the conclusion that not only should he not be the leader of a party that should be standing against leftism, for individualism, and articulating a strong anti-socialist message, he shouldn’t be put in charge of organising a piss up at a brewery.
There has to be a reason why the preferred Prime Minister polls constantly and inexplicably put the horrible Helen Klark so far in front of Don Brash. I suggest it is because the public perception is that Don Brash lacks both leadership skills and strong character.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Dear sonic,
Don’t believe me, but you can call the Department of Conservation in Auckland at 0-9-429 0540.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Of course, add to that the fact he is an absolutely bollocks electorate MP and you begin to see why the Nats suspended him.
Redbaiter, it’s a little hard to lose support in a staunch National seat like Rakaia. Who else would one vote for?? No offense to Tony Milne, but really.
If he truly believes he has the support of Rakaia voters, lets see it, lets have a byelection.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Red, the PPM polls are a ego trip. They don’t win elections. It’s the party vote, stupid!
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Redbaiter:
If you’re so convinced that Brian Connell is a fountain of electoral support, suggest he starts his own party, which he can lead.
Connell is a scumbag. The National Party should have the absolute right to determine who should and should not be in its caucus. Connell’s path in the National Party has many similarities with Winston Peters: both were disloyal, ill-disciplined shits with no future in National. Winston took the honourable step of bowing out. Connell should do likewise.
The biggest transgressions from Connell are not the silly statements that make himself an object of ridicule: I share his view on cats, and there are a number of MPs on both sides of the house who resort to extravagant language. But consistently attacking the Leader in public, attacking deputy leaders, and other caucus members, is a step too far. The evidence that he leaked the details of the caucus discussion is patchy–except NOBODY else in National’s caucus had reason to leak it. Connell is a pariah.
Allegations surrounding the veracity of Brian Connell’s CV are very serious. I personally think the National Board should have an independent person investigate whether Connell accurately portrayed his career when he stood for National selection. We could properly start with the Roger Payne memo.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Sonic,
Vote:You are the man. Quite apart from political affliations , you have the best sense of humour of anyone on these boards
Thomas
September 27th, 2006 at 10:34 am
1) Hey Prick, obviously you’re convinced that Connell had to go. I’m prepared to accept that you know more of the issue and even that in the end, you could be right. However, I have never had an wish to rush to condemn anyone, and I cannot honestly say that I have witnessed anything about Brian Connell that would cause me to feel as strongly about it as you do. The remarks above concerning his time with Wrightson and his “business interests in Australia” and looking for untruths in his CV look like attempts at intimidation or persecution. Why do it now, and not when he first stood for pre-selection?
I could be completely wrong in this, but it seems to me that Connell’s suspension is a Smith initiative, possibly as a result of long simmering resentment, and that Don Brash just weakly went along with it. (I also suspect that Smith is a leading conspirator in plans to destabilize Brash’s leadership and replace him with Key.)
2) It seems to me that without Sonic’s frequent, widely scattered, effete and generally worthless comments on here, 50% of the posters would have nothing to write about.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Redbaiter,
The claims regarding Connell’s CV were raised by Roger Payne, following his defeat for the National Party nomination and Connell’s election to Parliament. Connell made some statements in his maiden speech which alledly contradicted his employment record. Payne delivered a 17 page document to then Party leader Bill English and Party President Judy Kirk outlining his claims, and, amongst other things, calling for an immediate by-election.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Adolf, you cannot say that the preferred PM polls are totally meaningless, and that they do not reflect public perceptions. Is that what you are saying?? Can’t agree sorry. My question to you is this- what are the reasons (note plural) Klark is so far in front in this poll?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:47 am
* Declaring he was Prime Ministerial material before he even was an MP
Im not sure this is a very good reason to hate him. Plenty of people beleive that they are capable of becoming the PM, where is the fault in a bit of ambition?
But overall, Im glad to see O’Connell go. He’s too outspoken in things ‘against’ the National Party and thats not good for anyone….
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Jeezuz Andrew, I dunno.. if what you say is true, (and I’ve no real reason to think otherwise), why was action not taken in respect of the submission from Payne at the time?? If it had been credible, it should have been acted on right then. Threats to raise the issue now just seem to be a device to warn Connell to pull his head in and shut his mouth. Is this how the National Party works?? Jeez, the more I hear, the more this thing reeks of the kind of machinations that Nick Smith has a reputation for.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Red, I can think of about three million reasons, all of them beneficiaries of one sort or another. They know the economy can’t keep dishing out gravy forever but they hope she’ll hang on for another term so that they will get a bit more gravy before the supply dries up.
Pretty simple really.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Obviously I don’t know the inner workings of the National Party and why this information wasn’t acted upon, but we shouldn’t forget that Roger Payne left the National Party and stood against Connell for Christian Heritage. This may not have helped Payne’s cause.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Hang on Adolf.. whilst I agree that buying the votes of the immoral is the main strategy of leftist parties all over the globe, there is still the so far unexplained difference between polls on the party you would vote for, with National in the lead, and polls on the preferred leader, with Klark a long way in the lead. I’m looking for an explanation for this discrepancy.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Why is Miss Clark ahead in the PPM polls?
1. Incumbancy – it is rare (if it has ever happened) that a PM is not ahead in this poll. It’s easier to see someone as a PM if they already are PM. No imagination required.
2. Up until recently she has had a lot of credit with the electorate as a whole. In the late 90s she demonstrated an ability to modify her harsh stance to a more ‘user-friendly’ one, and has been admired as a strong leader – and a role model for women. This facade is slipping – her leadership is under increased scrutiny by the public and more people are being turned off. At least she has not referred to herslf in the third person recently.
3. Don is improving – he scores higher when he is decisive. He is becoming more decisive in public and his PPM scores will continue to improve.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The problem is not the ambition to think one can be PM. Yes many MPs like to think that. But to declare so openly is naive and stupid and just makes you a laughing stock. And that comes to Brian’s core problem – he spouts off in public and damages himself or his party far too often.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Linda, I generally agree with your analysis and consider item 3 to be particularly accurate. It is a course of action I have been suggesting Brash should follow. He is not decisive enough. Actually, I prefer the word “assertive”. He is too apologetic, sheepish, wavering. If he could change this, I’m sure he would increase his ratings. Why can’t the National Party management see soemthing so obvious to you and I?? Why are they apparently happy to encourage him to be so wimpy?? Or is it that Brash just can’t be more assertive?? If the latter, is he really the man??
Can I try and make my position clear on the leadership issue? I am happy for Brash to remain leader as long as he impresses me as someone who is going to lead a government that leads NZ away from socialism. When I see him acting in a manner that implys he is just another socialist, it frustrates me. (In this particular respect, I don’t think the politically suspect Key will be the slightest improvement on Brash, therefore I do not support him as a possible replacemnt.)
I have a long term view on this- The Labour Party is eventually going to self destruct big time. The meltdown will be so bad, it won’t matter who is leading National. So, before the Labour collapse occurs, why not cleanse the National Party of leftists, and put in place a front bench that rejects socialism rather than embraces it. What’s to lose?? Put some seriously pro individual pro liberty people in there, kick out all the compromisers and lefties, and its win win. Where’s the flaw in that plan??
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:25 am
“The problem is not the ambition to think one can be PM. Yes many MPs like to think that. But to declare so openly is naive and stupid and just makes you a laughing stock. And that comes to Brian’s core problem – he spouts off in public and damages himself or his party far too often.”
David, how does that make Brian Connell any different to Don Brash?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I think Don is hesitant because he doesn’t want to say anything ‘misleading’. EG On Agenda on Saturday morning he said he would be ‘wary’ of meeting the EB privately again, because he could imagine that circumstances in the future may change and he may not be able to keep to an absolute ‘ban’ on meeting them. He’s since upgraded this to a ban to satisfy the media. He needs to accept that a ‘politican truth’ may be different to a ‘whole truth’ without telling lies.
His statements of fact are always decisive – and that is where he looks strong.
He also looks strong when talking about his vision for NZ. I support him as leader of National and I think he will make a fine PM. Hs learning is all in public, but people instinctively know he’s basically an honest up-front person and not a back room manipulator.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Redbaiter, the fact is National needs some labour voters to jump the fence to be sure to win next time.Therefore the party has to be centrist at the least. There is an opportunity now for National to move even further left and “take” votes as Labours hypocrisys get revealed.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Spin all you want, but at the end of the day what people will remember is that an MP challenged Don about his extramarital fling, and got sacked for it. Much as the delectable Mrs Rich got demoted when she dared challenge Don Muldoon.
Too much more of this “my way or the highway” iron fist stuff from Don and people will start fearing what might happen if he (Don, not Brian-Damage)ever reached the 9th floor.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:48 am
david (with the small d)- I totally reject that approach. It is the strategy of a bunch of losers and cowards. The National Party stands for certain principles. Principles that conflict strongly with many of the ideas that underpin socialism.
National party members have a job to do, and that is articulate those principles that make the National Party DIFFERENT to Labour and persuade and convince the electorate that National ideals are best ideals. Politicians and members who cannot do this, and especially those present incumbents who are so starkly incapable of meeting this requirement, need to be replaced by those who can.
Making themselves more like Labour is a sickeningly immoral strategy that involves such a compromise of principles no self respecting person would subscribe to it, and that is why I hold so many of the current National front bench in utter contempt.
There needs to be a clean out of National right now. There is a window of opportunity that as the election nears, will quickly disappear.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:51 am
It’s tricky question, about where National positions itself. They could not make concessions to ACT because every ACT vote was one less for National.
United Future and NZ First are natural partners in the centre – except Winston tends to poison things and I don’t expect the relationship with Labour to last. UF were punished last election largely because they supported Labour 2002-2005. The Families Commission was little comfort to their support base when prostitution and civil unions were legalised. Both these parties will die when their leaders retire.
So National cannot appear ‘too right wing’ as there is effectively no centre party to coalaise with.
National need to ‘sell’ the message better. The policies that will make NZ fly are not socialist policies. Selling this is difficult but not impossible.
Do beneficiaries want their children to live on the dole? I doubt it. The vast majority of parents want their children to succeed – so pitching to making life better for their families would be starting point.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Anon,
Your analysis is deeply flawed.
People will remember Brian Connell as a shit-stirring National MP, who achieved nothing in any of his portfolios or did anything to advance the National Party, who consistently made disloyal statements about the leadership and members of the National Party. If he is remembered at all–and I’m not optimistic of that–it will be as somebody who got his just desserts after attempting to sabotage National’s dream-run into Government.
Connell is poison. If the substance of the Roger Payne memo is accurate, now that it’s coming to light, National’s board should have gone through better due diligence before selecting him for Rakaia. Now that it’s coming to light, and given that it seems to be consistent with his subsequent character and behaviour as an MP, National has no choice but to rid themselves of him.
It serves as a wonderful contrast between a decisive leader who’s prepared to get rid of a political liability, and Helen Clark’s cynical attempts to protect Taito Phillip Field.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am
I think Don is hesitant becaue he doesn’t actually stand for anything.
National may be ahead in the polls because Labour is frankly appalling but all they are is the “other party”. Where is their core?
They don’t have one which is why they are the opposition right now.
They should have won the last election easily but they lost because they are losers. National supporters are kidding themselves if they think Don Brash “nearly won” last time and that’s a credit.
Spin all you like that this makes Don Brash look decisive – it doesn’t. All it shows is how shallow the National Party really is.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Linda if you find Redbaiter agreeing with you it might be time to check into some sort of institution.
Redb, that sort of thinking will keep the Nats on the opposition benches for years to come. Perhaps you need to use some of your obvious charisma to set up your own far right political party (that’s not a dig) that can form coalitions with, and be the neocon conscience for the National Party. Then you can do away with MMP and rule like you feel you were born to do.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Linda if you find Redbaiter agreeing with you it might be time to check into some sort of institution.
Redb, that sort of thinking will keep the Nats on the opposition benches for years to come. Perhaps you need to use some of your obvious charisma to set up your own far right political party (that’s not a dig) that can form coalitions with, and be the neocon conscience for the National Party. Then you can do away with MMP and rule like you feel you were born to do.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I accidently posted this in the previous discussion on Connell, but have put it here on the more current one.
From this morning’s Ashburton Guardian editorial: “Without understanding the full inner workings of the party process, it’s hard to tell, but it certainly seems, at face value, that not being part of the caucus would be a serious impediment to Connell being able to effectively do the job that the people of the Rakaia electorate elected him for.
Given the prevailing political persuasion in this region, it seems fair to say most people who voted for Brian Connell did so based not on who he was but because he was the National candidate. Those people clearly see a need for a strong National presence, an MP playing an important role in moving the party forward.
The needs of the electorate must be paramount now. In making his decision, Connell needs to be completely honest with himself about whether he can continue to play that role.
If he can’t unequivocally answer in the affirmative, it’s time he made way for someone who can.”
I would say that the editorial would be a fair reflection of what the average person in Rakaia would be thinking.
As for Connell’s majority discussed earlier in the thread, the winning National MP in 1999 (Shipley) won by approx 8,000 votes, Connell won in 2002 by 6,000 votes and then again in 2005 by 10,000 votes. There is certainly nothing which indicates any real swing to Connell, only a reflection of what happened in pretty much every provincial electorate around New Zealand. Besides, the Labour candidate was Tony.
IMO, Connell is a lazy MP who has false perceptions of his ability and importance. National will be far better off with someone who will work hard for the electorate and the party.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
This evening’s Guardian.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I am from the Rakaia electorate. Connell was elected because he represented National, this is the ONLY reason. A romney in a blue jacket would also have been elected!!!!
This is a case of his ego exceeding his abilities – and foolishly thinking the voters voted fir HIM.
Let him try a bye-election!
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Linda if you find Redbaiter agreeing with you it might be time to check into some sort of institution.
Redb, that sort of thinking will keep the Nats on the opposition benches for years to come. Perhaps you need to use some of your obvious charisma to set up your own far right political party (that’s not a dig) that can form coalitions with, and be the neocon conscience for the National Party. Then you can do away with MMP and rule like you feel you were born to do.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Fuck off Pablo, this is a discussion on policy.. as usual all leftist kunts like you can bring is infantile hate driven personal attacks..
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
RB, Mrs Mactufty in finance has some crumbs under her keyboard, could you pop up and sort it out?
Chop, chop!
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
It always confounds me to see leftists arrogantly sounding off about what tactics and policies the National Party should follow. Socialist are so narrow and channeled in their thinking and so ignorant of what the right stands for, they would never for one instance know anything about such issues. What us it with these detached from reality half educated uncivilized oafs that they always think they know better on any subject.??
Hey, I’ll tell you what the Labour Party needs to do to endear itself to that part of the electorate that isn’t composed of waffling navel gazing academics and immoral unproductive parasites. Jump in a bus and drive it into the Hunua Falls. Hows that??
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
A bye election is Rakaia would be fantastic. All those billboards reminding people of what labour is.Also be a good opportunity to re-test National’s Policies (yes sonic, we have policies) Yum yum. Now, I must re-constitute that Trust so I can make my anonymous donation to fund it.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
red b “Fuck off Pablo, this is a discussion on policy..”
umm.. isnt it a discussion on brian connell?
ok, ok splitting hairs, i know.
“as usual all leftist kunts like you can bring is infantile hate driven personal attacks..”
Bwah ha ha ha! Oh the irony!
but to get on topic,
I havent been following this issue that closely, but if someone who was working for me kept undermining me in public, they would be out the door.
To much damage is caused by such carry on. Of course evaluating whether the comments were correct would have to come in somewhere.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Oh, and here’s Fraser with the usual shit.. all the above quite reasoned and decent debate, and he has to wait until there’s some hatred expressed by one of his dumbfuck semi literate buddies before he can jump in with a like off topic hate driven comment. ..and then tries to camouflage his motivation with a comment he says is on topic but is so obviously a slimy attempt to justify his compulsion to express his hatred of Redbaiter.. Pathetic weak minded loon.. and learn what irony really means you uneducated fuckwit..
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Redbaiter – sounds a bit totalitarian.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I’m not speaking for Dr Brash, but I believe he (like me) stands for a free and prosperous NZ where the economy is high wage and people are encouraged to innovate and be entrepreneurial.
I want to see high education standards so children learn to read and write and count, and where they also learn to think and manage their money by the time they leave school.
I want the vulnerable to be cared for, the sick to be treated and the successful to be encouraged to create new businesses and jobs. I want all of us to be proud to be New Zealanders.
We may disagree on how to achieve these goals, but I’m sure even the left want NZ to be prosperous. Let’s talk about the consequences of policies designed to help but that actually hinder people.
For example, paying young girls to have babies and then paying them more when they pop another 2 or 3 out is, quite simply, crazy. We are suffering the consequences of this every day – yet Labour lack the moral fibre to do anything about it.
Another example is picking winners in business and giving them money – that also is nuts. Businesses should be operating in an environment where they can succeed or fail based on how good they are. Full stop. Helping some puts all others at a disadvantage and that’s counter-productive in the long run.
Yet another example is subsidising the arts. Lovely feel good stuff – but artists are in business like other people and if they can’t make a living doing their art then they should get a real job and do their art part-time until they can. Or fail.
Bring on the next election.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Gee Andrew, do you ever have any comment on this blog that isn’t completely empty of intellect and ideas, and doesn’t portray you as an immature schoolboy?? Shame, it was a good discussion until the knuckle draggers arrived.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Andrei said: “I think Don is hesitant becaue he doesn’t actually stand for anything.”
I can’t even begin to comprehend how someone could hold that opinion without having had some form of lobotomy previously performed upon them. Are we even talking about the same person?!!!!
Andrei, you don’t leave a 500k job as Governor of the Reserve Bank and take an 80% salary cut if you don’t stand for anything. Even if Brash’s record as an MP remotely supported your hypothesis, that fact alone would dispel all doubt.
As it is, Brash’s record speaks for itself. His very principled and unambiguous speech at Orewa restored the National Party’s credibility. He led the charge for tax cuts. If it wasn’t for Brash, National would probably still only have 27 MPs.
If Brash is not principled and doesn’t stand for anything, why does the left attack him so much for being a “cancerous” right wing free market Business Round Table stooge? Andrei must know something that they (and I) don’t?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
“leftist kunts”
“dumbfuck semi literate buddies”
“Pathetic weak minded loon”
“uneducated fuckwit”
You can see why RB complains about “off topic hate driven comment”, it messes with his copyright.
xxx
S
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Out of the list, the dodgiest things are the CV and the cat. If you heard him explain it, he was a 3 year old who got scratched by a cat and hurled it into an unlit fireplace. Hardly earth shaking stuff except for the cat! My kids were worse than that – I caught them trying to give the chicken a whizzy!
As for the CV that was definitely undermined by the fact that PAyne is a nutter. He’s the one who stalks around with his Jesus the Evidence videos haranguing people and has been described as something of a vexatious litigant. I know his former partner was dragged into court multiple times (He always lost) on minor issues which were in the public domain.
Mainly, the big proof is that Payne dropped his allegations when he got threatened with legal action. If they’d been kosher a day in court would have been fine….the guy is nuttier than anything Cadburys ever produced.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Sorry Andrew, given that the editorial was todays and it was still morning,I wrongly assumed it was a morning paper…
Not used to AshVegas being ahead of everyone else
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
“You can see why RB complains about “off topic hate driven comment”, it messes with his copyright.”
Just look back up the thread you bigot.. the exchanges were on topic and interesting until you and your buddies showed up. You reap what you sow you effete commie loser, and that simple truism is evidently far too complex for dimwitted thugs like you lot to ever comprehend.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for that Tamsin, If its all true, it seems to demolish much of IP’s argument.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
I’m “effete” yet also a “thug”
Imagine living in that mind, makes you shudder just thinking about it.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Collin’s English Dictionary-
“effete”
1 adjective
corrupt, decadent, decayed, decrepit, degenerate, dissipated, enervated, enfeebled, feeble, ineffectual, overrefined, spoiled, weak
2 adjective
burnt out, enervated, exhausted, played out, spent, used up, wasted, worn out
3 adjective
barren, infecund, infertile, sterile, unfruitful, unproductive, unprolific
What’s your problem you always wrong half educated simpleton? You got mixed up with “effeminate” didn’t you? Naah, you could be that in person, but on here, you’re effete.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Now that you have finished with it can you give Collin his dictionary back?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
No, Tamsin.
The Payne memo highlights Brian Connell as a personality that is erratic, disloyal, and unable to come up with constructive contributions.
Now, you might want to shoot Roger Payne down, but those personality traits are precisely the very behaviours that Brian Connell has expressed as an MP. That makes the memo really worthy of proper investigation by the Party.
Quite honestly, if Brian Connell had made outrageous claims on his CV, but had turned out to be a stellar MP: diligent local member working hard for his constituents, supportive of the leadership and colleagues, made constructive and useful contributions to policy formation and debates, then I would not care about the CV issue.
But he hasn’t shown that. RB, Brian Connell does not represent some significant ideological position in the National Party. He is not your heralded antithesis of Nick Smith. I am as far to the right of the National Party as the National Party gets. Brian Connell isn’t it.
Connell is a shit-stirrer, and a waste of space who gets his kicks from causing trouble. He can’t work within a team. He needs to be shown the door.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Heh no problem Gary
The Press is pretty dominant down there so the Guardian publish in the evening so as not to compete. It’s actually bloody good having a morning and evening paper.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Well, Insolent Prick, thanks for reminding me re the CV.
The lies in the CV? What were they? Only that Connell said in his maiden speech about returning after nearly twenty years abroad in Australia and there was actually a brief stint of a year and a half in the early nineties when he’d worked in a senior role for Westpac in Wellington.
His CV and his performance were obviously adequate for Westpac who used him for years plus all the other companies listed. Payne just seized on that because Connell provided only a summary cv – normal for executives in restructuring roles – to protect the sensitivity of his clients. Personally, I think he should have released it.
My point is a that the whole Payne affair was driven by a bible-bashing nut who’s more unstable than a 1-legged dog.
Look at how his relationship with the Christian Heritage folk turned out! Or, do what I did and spend a minute or two on a database and read about his litigation which featured 54 court hearings and had him launching personal complaints against 21 District court, High COurt and Court of Appeal judges….before being thrown out as completely without merit. (God I love the internet!)
Now rip into Connell all you want, but my point is that everything Roger Payne touches is drenched with lies. If Payne had been correct anyway, then the National board should be sacked for gross incompetence, but they reviewed the case and dumped it for obvious reasons. Also amusing, as a search will show, is that most media picked up the initial allegation then dropped it promptly once they’d investigated….If you want to go for Brian, go for specific performance issues that relate to his role. Not the ravings of mad master Payne…
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
redbaiter –
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
No offense taken Andrew. Having achieved Labour’s best result in that area in 20 years in 2002 and sustaining that result in 2005 despite the swing away for Labour candidates in rural seats (you may have noted the media commenting that it was the best campaign from a Labour candidate in many many years), I have nothing to be ashamed about…
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
No offense taken Andrew. Having achieved Labour’s best result in that area in 20 years in 2002 and sustaining that result in 2005 despite the swing away for Labour candidates in rural seats (you may have noted the media commenting that it was the best campaign from a Labour candidate in many many years), I have nothing to be ashamed about…
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Cats are hideous creatures. They kill native wildlife, spread disease and attack children. KKKonnell’s hatred of them is actually a redeeming feature.
People do all that too Swift – and more. The difference is that people do it for pleasure, andtheir own selfish gains rather than survival like the animals do.
I’m glad Connell has been shown the door. I might just seriously consider voting National at the next election now.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
God, some of you are bad tempered shits, but your thoughts are good, ROLL ON, rip and kill.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
The front page of the Ashburton Guardian this afternoon is pretty interesting (the whole front page). I like Brian’s option 2 – and by the tone of the interview it sounds like it is the most likly option…
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Good to see Connell gone.
Vote:Until Don goes National will not change sides in the House.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Redbaiter for PM, I can see the socialists filling their pants with the just thought of it.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
” Calling Dr Brash unfit to lead if he had had an affair”
Considering he did it in Caucus it is ridiculous to expell someone for that.
Incidently Stephen Franks was hinting at the same conclusion on National Radio this arvo – ie Don Brash not fit to lead.
Still, we all know how popular the Right wing extremists known as the Business Round Table are in the wider community.
I am absolutely positive that Labour wont go dog-whistling in the next campaign by trying to discuss the influence of the Round Table on the would-be PM – if by some miracle the National Party doesn’t wake up in time.
My guess is that Brash made this a loyalty issue in Caucus, so his supporters all voted for it and all those who werent prepared to bring him down yet felt compelled to as well.
That is probably the reason that Brian (and Maurice was broadly hinting this on morning report as well) seemed fairly relaxed about it.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
The answer, Sean, is that Brian Connell didn’t directly leak the caucus discussion. But he did ensure that the caucus discussion was received by the journalist involved.
I’ve blogged about it at http://www.insolentprick.blogspot.com
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Tamsin you wrote “My point is a that the whole Payne affair was driven by a bible-bashing nut who’s more unstable than a 1-legged dog.” What kind of drugs are you on ? Roger Payne is a cool dude who has suffered a huge injustice .Get a grip of yourself man , Roger is a man of integrity ?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
LOL, Insolent Prick, from your blog:
“Except two facts are crucial, and have not yet come to light. Firstly, Donohue, who is very close to Brian Connell, was able to quote events at the caucus meeting word-for-word. Secondly, Connell has refused to release his cellphone records on the day of the caucus meeting to the Whip’s office. Don Brash, and the National Caucus, have considerable reason to believe that during the caucus meeting, Connell’s cellphone was on, and open in a call to Tim Donohue. Connell didn’t have to comment to Donohue: he had the discussion verbatim anyway.”
If you are going to invent rumours you should try and make them at least believable.
No-one outside the insane world of the Right-wing blogsphere are ever going to accept this “Secondly, Connell has refused to release his cellphone records on the day of the caucus meeting to the Whip’s office” as anything other than delusional fantasising. Which is probably similiar to the rest of your screed.
Now you have exhibited dishonesty (not a crime in the Right wing) but far worse absolute stupidity it is time to go back to your handlers in the office of Mr Corrosive and Cancerous and get a spanking for being so stupid.
The only thing that protects the likes of you is just like with Mr Corrosive and Cancerous having lunch with poison-pen gossip columnist Bridget Saunders, ordinary decent New Zealanders are unwilling to believe that people would stoop to such garbage. So Mr Corrosive and Cancerous gets away with it.
Even Matthew Hooten, imbecile and general immature brat that he is, wouldn’t be that infantile to endorse what you have written.
Would he…..?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Hawk,
Until Don er… came, National didn’t stand a chance of changing sides of the house. How far ahead does Don have to put National in the polls before you concede he might be an asset?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
What the hell???
“Still, we all know ….”
“No-one outside the insane world of the Right-wing blogsphere ….”
“ordinary decent New Zealanders are unwilling to believe……. ”
“Even Matthew Hooten…”
Why the hell is it that so many of you leftists knuckle draggers apparently had parents who were incapable of teaching you basic good manners.. ie, to speak for yourself only and never to be so bloody ignorant and rude as to assume to speak for others. ????
IP, I cannot go along with your confidence in Don Brash. The discrepancy between his own popularity (compared to Klark’s popularity) and the popularity of the National party (as compared to Labour) would suggest that the polls show dissatisfaction with Labour rather than applause for National. If you think Brash has done something to make National suddenly reach a level of popularity so far above its recent polling, what would that thing (or things) be? I don’t think he’s done much, and he definitely hasn’t done much on policy. In terms of effectiveness as a leader, I’m disappointed in Brash, and most people I speak to feel the same way. What is it that has suddenly drawn voters to National??
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Redbaiter, no manners is me in a nutshell.
But at least i dont invent libellous smears and spread them anonymously around the Internet such as this:
“Secondly, Connell has refused to release his cellphone records on the day of the caucus meeting to the Whip’s office. Don Brash, and the National Caucus, have considerable reason to believe that during the caucus meeting, Connell’s cellphone was on, and open in a call to Tim Donohue.”
Of course the distinction between a lack of manners and libellous rumour-mongering may be hard to distinguish in the insane world of the Right-wing blogosphere where the antics of Don Brash having lunch with poison-pen gossip columnists is seen as activity worthy of a National Party leader.
You would never have seen Jim Bolger dead near the likes of Bridget Saunders.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
“Now you have exhibited dishonesty (not a crime in the Right wing) but far worse absolute stupidity…”
So Sean is recommending IP for a cabinet post in this Labour government! Welcome to the big time, IP!
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Whatever Don Brash’s perceived failings, he’s light years ahead of that leftist sell out merchant and closet socialist Bolger. IMHO, Bolger just pips Jenny Shipley as the politician most to blame for NZ’s descent into the gloom and doom of totalitarian socialism. They could have changed so much, but rather, they set the stage for three terms of suffocating neo-communism.
You complain of what IP writes about Connell, but Labour’s only strategy is the cowardly unproven smear, against Don Brash or Bridget Saunders or Ian Wishart or the Exclusive Brethren or anybody they fear may have scored a political point against them, and its a policy that you and other unprincipled leftists have heartily endorsed. You cannot criticise IP for perceived incorrect allegations whilst you morally bankrupt lot collectively and endlessly carry on like a worthless pack of low life smear merchants yourself.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
“You complain of what IP writes about Connell”
I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT.
I revel in the ability of the Right to turn their devious deceitful smearing attacks on their own.
If IP is tolerated in the National Party and his willingness to libellously savage his own party members condoned how can we trust all the pious denials of his superiours : “Honest, we had no idea that all that dirt we were gleefully hurling in the House against David Parker and Benson-Pope had been derived from EB funded Wayne Idour snooping. No idea what-so-ever”
Don Brash as leader has open the way to the anonymous smears like in Insolent Prick’s blog to become accepted in Right wing circles.
That is what is known in the trade as a Corrosive and Cancerous influence.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Sean,
Brian Connell is not “within” the National Party. He has been suspended, after making inappropriate public comments about a caucus meeting.
Connell has attempted to smear all National MPs by claiming that the “leak” is still within National’s caucus. He knows this to be untrue, as he is the leak.
Connell is displaying gall of Helen Clark-like proportions if he thinks the voters will believe him.
Connell’s a nobody. He’s political history. Brash dealt to him appropriately and decisively. If only Helen Clark had the cojones to do likewise to Phillip Field, politics would be a much cleaner profession.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
I know someone who was a tradesperson at Brian Connells property. Brian’s wife hired this person and obviously did not tell her husband. When this tradesperson arrived to do his job he was abused by Brian Connell, to which he wisely predicted that Mr Connell would struggle to survive much longer.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
“Brian Connell is not “within” the National Party.”
So it appears you combine honesty issues with a complete ignorance of even basic political facts.
Brian Connell is “within” the National Party he is not “within” the National Party Caucus. A fate which he has shared with other illustrious members such as Maurice Williamson who was cheerfully predicting on Morning Report that just like him Brian would very soon be back.
And presumably, Maurice hinted broadly, by the same method.
Insolent Prick, what part of Corrosive and Cancerous don’t you understand?
Don’t you realise that true blue Nats are just as much disgusted by this sort of cheap anonymous slander as the ordinary voter?
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Connell is rightfully considered a pariah. He has shown repeatedly that he doesn’t have the self-discipline to be part of the National Party. He has continued to make repeatedly disloyal comments about National and the leadership.
Even now, Connell claims he’s got nothing to apologise for. He quite simply does not get it.
Connell has been given numerous opportunities to pull his head in and make a contribution to the caucus. He’s not capable of doing that.
His deliberate leak of caucus activities, and his subsequent public comments at a time when nobody else was commenting, are absolutely the last straw.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Fine, you are welcome to that opinion.
But that doesn’t give you right to anonymously make an untrue libellous claim about him on the internet.
No matter how much your Corrosive and Cancerous handlers may beg you to……..
This is the same poisonous side of the Right-wing blogosphere that revelled in the snide rumours regarding Peter Davis. Shame on you.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
It’s not an untrue claim. It is simply a claim that you do not believe.
I haven’t seen you making a similar defence for the honesty and integrity of Phillip Field, Sean. If you had your way, no matter how dodgy his activities, Helen Clark would never be able to rid herself of him.
I’ve never made comments about Peter Davis. He is a private citizen who causes no trouble. He deserves to retain his privacy.
Brian Connell is a shit-stirrer, and a complete waste of space. He has alleged that there is a leak in the National caucus, which he knows to be untrue, as he is the leak.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
“It’s not an untrue claim.”
Yes it IS an untrue claim. I can believe a lot of bad and stupid things of the Nasty Party but even the Nasty Party, even under their current diastrous leadership, even they would insist or even ask!!!!!! that an MP hand over cell phone records. That is just pure delusional thinking from someone who spends to much time in Right wing cyber sewers.
Sheesh, perhaps he has one of those pre-paid jobs, lots of people do.
As far as rumour mongering goes that is really pitiful.
Now run off to Matthew Hooten and get the spanking you so richly deserve for being found out so easily.
Go on, you know you want to.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Sean,
You’re an absurd creature, really. Your Helen-loving self simply cannot accept that Don Brash’s hold on the National Party is totally secure. You cannot accept that Brian Connell is the sole leak in National’s caucus. To accept that is to accept that the National Party is totally unified behind Don Brash. To accept that National is totally unified behind him is to accept that despite Labour’s appalling and obsessive spin of late, Don Brash will remain leader, and continue to thump Labour in the polls until the next election. And to accept that is to accept the ultimate demise of your beloved socialist party from power.
You will not accept that Brian Connell is a complete anomaly, despite all his behaviour to date pointing clearly to his poisonous conduct towards the Leader. It galls you, utterly, to believe that Brian Connell does not lead a faction in the National Party, and he is alone.
All the evidence to date suggests that Tim Donohue, to whom in the National caucus, only Connell is very close, had the activities of the caucus meeting verbatim.
Connell alone leaked the material to Donohue. National did precisely the right thing by suspending him. Connell should take the hint and quit.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
“Your Helen-loving self simply cannot accept that Don Brash’s hold on the National Party is totally secure.”
LOL. Secure as the Business Round Table’s Anna Nicole Smith’s grip is on her husband.
In anycase I certainly cannot accept that even the Nasty Party has quite sunk to depths of demanding MP’s cell phone records.
Besides that would make Don Brash a liar when he publically and quite unprompted said he accepted Brian Connell’s assurance that he was not the leaker.
Tempting though it might be to imagine Don Brash in Caucus demanding Brian Connell hand over his cell phone, alas, even I cant bring myself to believe that of the old goat.
So another anonymous internet smear by the new right against one of their own goes pear shaped.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Nonsense, Sean.
Nobody in National’s caucus believes that the caucus leak is still in the caucus.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
So let me take a wild stab at who “Nobody” is?
We know IP is a nobody, but not being IN the Nasty caucas he doesn’t (and probably cannot) count.
So it must be one of his handlers….
And face it IP, the ONLY sane reason Connell has not resigned the Nasties after being stabbed like this, is that either that he plans to stick around until Brash is goneburger, or he still has some sharp knives of his own looking for a back to be parked in.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Connell won’t be invited back into National’s caucus.
There are no parallels with Maurice Williamson. Williamson had been an MP for 15 years, and a Cabinet Minister for nine. He had a falling-out with Bill English. He put his head down and was reinstated.
Brian Connell has been a constant shit-stirrer since becoming an MP, and has made no contribution to the Party.
His time’s up.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
IP, I can;t share your naivete re who leaked the story. A bit of gossip that juicy when there are multiple leadership factions waiting their chance is too good to hold onto. As Sir Humphrey said the Ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top…
I’d be amused to see how many of the other MPs were willing to surrender their cellphone records for the day in question though…I don’t often agree with Labour but I find their claim that the Independent had at least 3 accounts likelier than the idea of just one.
Logically, Connell had no benefit to gain from leaking it. Even if we assume he was stupid enough to do so, there’s still a huge amount for anyone to gain who dislikes Don (Probably a third of the old caucus, minimum, and a smaller fraction of the new intake) and who either doesn’t care about Connell or actively dislikes him.
Don doesn’t believe Connell was the leaker, he’s just trying to establish himself as a strong leader on the back of good poll results to make all of the nervous Brutus wannabes think twice.
Vote:September 27th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
“Don Brash’s hold on the National Party is totally secure”
Has anyone got any thread as my sides have just split.
Thanks
S
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:29 am
To Insolent Prick, Linda, Blair, Red Baiter and ALL of the other Brash-apologists here:
Your employment of vagueness and ambiguity whenever you write of the NZ National Party and Mr Brash, or of the Leader and Mr Brash has been noted:
1. Your ambiguity-technique:
You guys imply that Mr Brash is the NZ National Party. “Mr Brash leads us out of the abyss of 2002″ etc…ad nauseum. “Mr Brash is ahead in the polls?” … etc etc etc. But what of the NZ National Party? Be careful about ambiguous statements, apologists. Mr Brash is first a member of that party and next a highly placed list MP for that Party who subsequently rolled another member of that party to assume his current position in that party. Mr Brash is not the party. It’s simple. Or, try: the NZ National Party is not Mr Brash. Simpler? Stop merging the issues, guys.
Many many many kiwis voted for the NZ National Party and other Party members – MPs other than the hapless Mr Brash – like Ms. Rich, Mr English, Mr Power, Mr Key, etc etc etc. Who voted for this individual, Mr Brash? I want that number. That man is not the Party. The Party is not that man. Get over it.
2. your vagueness technique:
You deliberately lean on the vagueness inherent in the term ‘leader’ whenever you mention the hapless Mr Brash. How? Well, the fact that an individual is nominally a ‘leader’ is not to say that he/she is a genuine leader (as you seem to think)- i.e. that he/she is demonstrating actual leadership qualities, or that he/she should, in fact, lead (arguably, Mr Brash is an undemocratic appointee, and shouldn’t have become ‘leader’ at all – later). Mr Brash is not actually a leader – not in any faithful report of the most widely accepted meaning of the word. Oh, sure, he is ‘leader’ (for a few more moments, I suspect) but only nominally/literally – the term ‘leader’ is a title he and you may legitimately employ – but most folk know it does not describe his behaviour, management or personal style. What is he, then, beneath the title?…well, hapless, less than honest, guileful, slightly elitist, a relatively poor student of Party policy and a weak communicator, and not of such staunch Presbyterian stock as he would have us believe (he cheats on his wife (both wives) and family). One cannot trust Mr Brash.
You cannot teach leadership either. Nope. Your Mr Brash just ain’t got it.
Linda says she thinks Mr Brash is basically honest. But Linda is perhaps being dishonest with her readers. The nation has increasing evidence of Mr Brash’s dishonesty (he appears duplicitous when discussing any association with the Exclusive Brethren, and he has cheated on his two wives (and other females?) and family. Where has Linda been? If Linda was wedded to this 65 year old presbyterian, Linda would probably be chasing her ‘Mr Honest’ with a Divorce Lawyer or a machete – her blog would be very be less naive. ASt the ballot box, female voters are not going to reward Mr Brash’s untrustworthiness. I guarantee it. (it is not a poll question most interviewees will respond to honestly over a telephone – but a voting booth is private. I argue strongly that in the private sphere of the voting booth, the average voter will think mainly of the Brethren and Brash’s frequent affairs with women outside his marriages) Linda – you are lying to the readers and to yourself.
Can Linda learn in time? Perhaps.
It’s a question of character. And character matters in politics.
Your ambiguity with respect to the NZ National Party & Mr Brash, your vagueness with respect to the term ‘leader’ & Mr Brash, and your persistent sanctioning (applauding?) of this flawed individual’s amoral behaviour with respect to marriage and family, and – I suspect – his unethical lapse involving the Exclusive Brethren (more information will become public soon)… is inexcusable. Inexcusable.
Be less vague, less ambiguous, more honest, and try family values (at least publicly – because this is a strong NZ National Party tradition, and we need to reclaim that ground to fight a next election against a primed Labour War-Machine – and right now, Ms Clark appears more ‘family’, more stable, and yes,….more moral (certainly less amoral) than the faulty Mr Brash).
Comprendez?
Politics. People. Motives. Character. Not Brash. Where would he ‘lead’ us? Look where he’s led himself.
Get it?
Best,
James
For a Winning NZ National Party
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:11 am
So, folks, James has laid down the kind of leadership he sees for a “winning National Party” and this country.
“Family values”? Well, what are those James? I was raised by a father who regarded gossips were considered people of low character, and those who were influenced in their opinions of others by their malice were fools.
Also, if my father had anything to say about anyone else, he had the courage to stand in the light of day and say his piece to someone’s face. Not whisper behind their backs, and set himself up to judge matters that were none of his business.
My father was a man of good character, widely respected in his community as a leader. He understood what real ‘family values’ are, James, and they weren’t your toxic waste blend of smear, innuendo and malice.
Get it? Of course not… but thankfully it looks like most people do.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Hi James, Have another look at your last paragraph quoted below. Your post at 4:29AM, no less.
“Be less vague, less ambiguous, more honest, and try family values (at least publicly – because this is a strong NZ National Party tradition, and we need to reclaim that ground to fight a next election against a primed Labour War-Machine – and right now, MS CLARK APPEARS MORE ‘FAMILY’, MORE STABLE, AND YES,….MORE MORAL(certainly less amoral) than the faulty Mr Brash).”
For your own sake you should really try to keep sensible hours and do some rational thinking..
You are lost in a series of ‘double negatives’
db
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 8:55 am
If Connell is such a pariah and so useless, then why was he selected for the National Party anyway?
Also, in the days of MMP, it is ridiculous to claim that people voted for him because he belongs to the National Party, given that the results show that more people in 2005 voted for him than voted for the National Party (party vote)
http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-43.html
And, this is his second election.
There must be something to the man.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:14 am
James,
What a load of mindless twaddle, really.
Let’s get the gist of what you said:
“A leader is only a leader as long as the leader remains the leader. Leadership is merely a leadership title, and the function of leadership remains valid, as leadership, only during that period where the leader leads those who are led.”
Yeah. Right. Very insightful stuff.
Then you launch into a series of personal attacks on Don Brash. Very courageous.
Oh, and here’s another point, James. You’re a cock. Get fucked.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Kent:
If Connell is such a pariah and so useless, then why was he selected for the National Party anyway?
Bloody good question, because I wouldn’t have supported the arse-hat if I’d been involved in the selection process in Rakaia. Who knows – he might actually have come across very well in the selection meetings, which in my opinion is something you need to be careful of. Just because someone comes across well in a formal selection process it’s no guarantee that they’ll be effective on the hustings, or make the transition to Parliament well. In the end, all candidate selections come down to a judgement call. And I don’t know about you, Kent, but I’ve trusted people I shouldn’t have (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and vice versa.
Kent also wrote:
Also, in the days of MMP, it is ridiculous to claim that people voted for him because he belongs to the National Party, given that the results show that more people in 2005 voted for him than voted for the National Party (party vote)
Even with MMP, there are still electorates where they’d return Hannibal Lecter if he was wearing the right coloured rosette. I don’t think Connell has a large enough ‘personal’ vote, that it couldn’t be explained by (with all due respect to my friend Tony Milne) either a pretty poor slate of candidates, or good candidates struggling with weak organisations and a lack of resources. Again, as we have a secret ballot and ban exit polls, your guess is as good as mine. But anyone suggesting to Brian that he could pull a Winston, and be returned as an independent, is just being mischievous.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:42 am
But, Craig,
Connell has been in that seat for a full term. He increased his vote count by 5,000 on last time.
http://2002.electionresults.org.nz/electorate-43.html
I would have thought that 3 years was sufficient to check out a man’s character.
On the basis of his character, another Winston (Churchill) spent most of his career in the wilderness. Who knows what this guy will do.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Kent,
Many National MPs dramatically increased their electorates last election. There’s no evidence that Connell increased his vote by more than any other electorate MP.
You’re really digging the bottom of the argument barrell when you start comparing Brian Connell to Winston Churchill.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:45 am
It is notoriously difficult to pick good candidates for any position. James, I don’t think you can blame National for inadvertently picking a lemon (Connell). Shit like that happens in every party and in every organisation. In fact, have you ever chosen a flatmate that didn’t work out? Even a friend whom you thought you knew well?
People have an incredible ability to put up a facade that suits their needs. It is difficult to get through those facades. The best predictor of someone’s performance in a particular role is their past performance in a similar role. That is why I think National took a very big risk with Don Brash, which I think has worked out remarkably well for them. As much as I don’t like the guy, he has really gotten under Clarks skin and I think he might ultimately be responsible for her demise. If Brash is rolled, the next leader of the Nats will have Brash to thank for that. I don’t like it that he did it, or the way he did it, but he did it!!
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Sorry James, I meant kent.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I’ve given up reading the hapless James’s voluminous screeds, it’s the same old boring “Brash is immoral and shouldn’t be leader” crap. You’ve made your point, hapless James. Now fuck off and die.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
IP,
Vote:you could also use the same argument to show that it wasn’t Brash that increased National Party support – after all, look at his preferred PM rating.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Interesting news about The Maori Party bribe today, sure to take the heat out of Connell’s moment in the sun; is this a sign of the Nats and Maori’s working together?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Andrew,
I’m more inclined to think that governments get voted out. We tried desperately to get rid of Labour at the last election, but at the last minute we just couldn’t do it. With Don there, Helen didn’t need her propaganda card to remain in govt.
To me, Brash represents an attempt at outside influence on the normal development of politicians in NZ. It is more like the US system where candidates ride in on their big business support. Meanwhile long serving National party MPs have to grin and bear it while this rookie slips on a banana every second week.
The irony is that, despite not understanding MMP, National has used MMP to create a party leader who was not even democratically voted. In previous attempts to gain power through the ballot (in the 1980′s) Brash repeatedly failed. He is trying to use his prestige and influence to live a childhood dream for political power. He really has nothing to offer the country politically. All his supposed unseating of Clark is purely negative. Sure, that is little different from what other politicians do, but this is after his complete failure to get in by ‘positive’ means.
The focus over the next few weeks could well be on the likes of Connell and the self-destruction of National.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
New Zeal is right about negative campaigning. Above I said this..
The discrepancy between his own popularity (compared to Klark’s popularity) and the popularity of the National party (as compared to Labour) would suggest that the polls show dissatisfaction with Labour rather than applause for National. If you think Brash has done something to make National suddenly reach a level of popularity so far above its recent polling, what would that thing (or things) be? I don’t think he’s done much, and he definitely hasn’t done much on policy. In terms of effectiveness as a leader, I’m disappointed in Brash, and most people I speak to feel the same way. What is it that has suddenly drawn voters to National??
… and apparently none of the Brash/ national stalwarts were capable of answering those two questions. I’ll answer them. Brash and National have offered nothing. The polling changes are down to dislike of Labour and Helen Klark and unfortunately, not a like of Brash and National. When are National going to reveal their policies and when are they going to start selling them to the public? When National begin dealing with this reality, then we’ll see something meaningful in the polls. (as far as that is possible). If the polls don’t show an increase in voter attraction for National then there’s only two possible conclusions. 1) The policies are bad or 2) The Nats can’t sell them.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
N Zeal and Rb, good points. Labour are very good at using the smear to denigrate the messages. Think of comment like EBs, EBs Ebs, gone by lunchtime etc . Lets face it, the public is generally not polictically aware (does anyone in Mangare read a paper?)but they remember smartarse one liners.And the message gets lost. Thats why Clark, Cullen, Mallard, Maharey are at the front. They are the best at it. I think this attack from National on Labours integrity is the start of a strategy to destroy the effectiveness of their comments. Eventually no one likes a smartarse, especially when they get as venal as Clark. Why is she still so popular in the Polls? Brand recognition, thats all,(how else did Tizard get in?) but the Brand has been exposed now and the awareness she has will work against them. Its quite common now at previouslly chardonay socilist dinner parties to hear Clark described as a rude cow when two years ago, you couldnt say a word against her for fear of being flayed by the WOMEN present.You are right the policies cant be sold at the moment, but the time will come. Let this play out.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
In response to IP,
Winston Churchill was one of the “incompetent decision makers” behind Gallipoli. He maintained right thru WWI that the Germans could be beaten via the Balkans. That and many aspects of his gnarly character made him very unpopular and kept him in the wilderness for decades. It was his abrasive and blunt qualities that made him such a success in WWII.
I don’t want to compare him with Connell since I know very little about the latter, but being feisty and not just a little mutinous can be a good thing for some.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
The desperate grasping to avoid giving Brash any credit for National’s gaping poll lead is beginning to reach farcical levels.
If it wasn’t for Brash, National would still be hovering in the twenties somewhere. End of story.
If Brash wasn’t Leader at the last election, Labour wouldn’t have had to lie and cheat to win it.
If Brash wasn’t Leader now, Clark would not be making a fool of herself with her hysterical denunciations. She would be laughing her arse off at Bill English, or Gerry Brownlee, or whoever, the way she did in 2002. And the public would be laughing with her.
Brash brings out the worst in Labour. He is a lightning rod for expositions of their true nature. He is therefore 100% responsible for National’s current polling success.
Oh and Redbaiter, your reliance on the Preferred PM poll as any indicator of how well Brash is doing is nonsense. Bolger was trailing Moore in that very poll… right before he led the Nats to the largest landslide in New Zealand history. Even Clark was not leading Shipley until shortly before the 1999 election itself.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Moggy Man wrote:
you could also use the same argument to show that it wasn’t Brash that increased National Party support – after all, look at his preferred PM rating.
First, I think the preferred PM question is nonsense in a country where we don’t elect our executive and legislative brances separately – the United States comes immediately to mind. And could anyone point to any poll where Clark, as leader of the opposition, outrated Bolger? As Theodore Roosevelt put it, being at the top of the greasy poll is a ‘bully pulpit’ – by the very nature of the position, the Prime Minister is always going to get more face time in the media. Just the way it tends to work in New Zealand.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Prick, Blair, Baigent, Craig: where to begin?
Dave Baigent –
You are a relatively uneducated. And you fatigue too easily (4.30 am is so beddy bye bye for Baigent) – a weak man – like his Mr Brash?. I suggest you leave the National Party while you focus on your studies. Your ‘critique’ ,above, misses the text’s meanings:
One statement is a command and the other’s a comparison. Try reading comprehension. Moron.
Craig –
You almost always write too much pycho-babble about yourself (in nearly every post): we all realise that you are a ‘sensitive thing’ with the inevitable growing pains that entails; that Mr Farrar respects you etc etc etc. Who cares? You are not a patient on a blog.
The story about your father is mildly interesting – but you are not making any relevant point with its telling here. You alone know ‘Family Values’?? Horseshit, mate. Fewer personal anecdotes and more interesting discussion by reason, logic, evidence, common sense, and stronger experiences than the ones you offer.
Insolent Prick (Coprolalia) –
You are very special. You are a Tourette’s Syndrome patient, we think. Your motor tics can involve your upper limbs so I do not know how the fuck you manage to type (with your toes? – which ones?) And, you are special within the Tourette’s family too: you clearly suffer from a complex vocal tic involving the uttering of obscenities. Hilarious! How folk must laugh at you while you wander the supermarket aisles! F__k, f__k, shit, shit, bugger, bugger. C__t!! You poor, unfortunate guy…still, you must have one over-developed toe, mate.
Either that or you suffer post-viral encaphilitis or Huntingdon’s Disease. Keep at it Coprolalia. But shouldn’t you leave the National Party too? I cannot see you as leader. Can anyone?
Blair – you are a blind man.
If Blair believes 2 + 2 = 5, no-one and nothing changes his mind.
You, Poll-Harlot, are misguided in your assessment of your Mr Brash’s contribution to poll results. Others here see that also. Your exclusive faith in any Polling is foolish. You are particularly guilty of merging your Mr Brash with the NZ National Party. I repeat: that man is not the party (yawn). You are not very politically astute.
Be well,
James
Still Winning for the NZ National Party.
Still, no-one offers a reasonable counter-argument defending the hapless Mr Brash.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Prick, Blair, Baigent, Craig: where to begin?
Dave Baigent –
You are a relatively uneducated. And you fatigue too easily (4.30 am is so beddy bye bye for Baigent) – a weak man – like his Mr Brash?. I suggest you leave the National Party while you focus on your studies. Your ‘critique’ ,above, misses the text’s meanings:
One statement is a command and the other’s a comparison. Try reading comprehension. Moron.
Craig –
You almost always write too much pycho-babble about yourself (in nearly every post): we all realise that you are a ‘sensitive thing’ with the inevitable growing pains that entails; that Mr Farrar respects you etc etc etc. Who cares? You are not a patient on a blog.
The story about your father is mildly interesting – but you are not making any relevant point with its telling here. You alone know ‘Family Values’?? Horseshit, mate. Fewer personal anecdotes and more interesting discussion by reason, logic, evidence, common sense, and stronger experiences than the ones you offer.
Insolent Prick (Coprolalia) –
You are very special. You are a Tourette’s Syndrome patient, we think. Your motor tics can involve your upper limbs so I do not know how the fuck you manage to type (with your toes? – which ones?) And, you are special within the Tourette’s family too: you clearly suffer from a complex vocal tic involving the uttering of obscenities. Hilarious! How folk must laugh at you while you wander the supermarket aisles! F__k, f__k, shit, shit, bugger, bugger. C__t!! You poor, unfortunate guy…still, you must have one over-developed toe, mate.
Either that or you suffer post-viral encaphilitis or Huntingdon’s Disease. Keep at it Coprolalia. But shouldn’t you leave the National Party too? I cannot see you as leader. Can anyone?
Blair – you are a blind man.
If Blair believes 2 + 2 = 5, no-one and nothing changes his mind.
You, Poll-Harlot, are misguided in your assessment of your Mr Brash’s contribution to poll results. Others here see that also. Your exclusive faith in any Polling is foolish. You are particularly guilty of merging your Mr Brash with the NZ National Party. I repeat: that man is not the party (yawn). You are not very politically astute.
Be well,
James
Still Winning for the NZ National Party.
Still, no-one offers a reasonable counter-argument defending the hapless Mr Brash.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
James:
LOL… Why don’t you do something that’s not depressingly predictable – this isn’t the first time you’ve sunk to vulgar and bizarre abuse when you can’t win an argument, and I’m certain it won’t be the last.
I’m not surprised you hate me comparing you to a man of real character and values in my life, because it just inspired you to be even uglier and more hateful (which I wouldn’t have thought possible, but you did it). The truth hurts, but you can’t demean me or a man who’d never have allowed low-class trash like you in his house. The whorehouse and the outhouse appear to be the places you prefer to live in.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Craig –
Mud-slinging is easy, isn’t it (yes, I am very very good at it – you just seem to get angrier. Ha!)
But, I am also reasonable at argument.
I argue that your Mr Brash should not remain leader.
You vehemently disagree with my conclusion. But, you do not say why. Ever.
You offer no reasons that are your own. You have not refuted my argument. It is not impossible to. I do not say categorically that I am right. I think I am probably right about Mr Brash. I say I’ll bet on it. I wager that I am correct about Mr Brash. You, by contrast, withdraw from discussion.
You seem frightened of penning a defense (or is it that you could only truthfully pen/type an attack of Mr Brash?).
Pretend that I do not read it; imagine 2000 other bloggers will read your defense of Mr Brash. Get over your pride. Get writing, mate. Less bile (you won’t win that game against me).
Good luck with your defense. We are waiting…
Best,
James,
For a Winning NZ National Party.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
James:
*yawn* I feel no need to keep indulging your functional illiteracy, or the way you throw dirt then play the victim when people stand up to you.
We all get it, James: You hate Don Brash and we’ve been hearing it for months, but it’s taken a very nasty and tiresome turn over the last couple of weeks. I’ve tried to take you seriously, and at considerable length, and asserting otherwise is a flat out lie. It’s just the way people of good character behave,
You’ve reacted to any disagreement with the same old routine of personal attacks, evasion, and thinking that if keep repeating yourself and becoming ever more shrill and hysterical with every repitition that’s making an argument. (And the way you keep talking about yourself in the third person plural is just weird.) I’m not going to let you get away with that crap, James, but there does come a point when it’s not worth going round in circles.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 2:53 am
Craig:
You wimped out again. You cannot argue, here.
(you have no evidence that I ‘hate’ anyone – let alone ‘hate’ the hapless Mr Brash. I pity him, am angered by his ‘leadership’ – its hapless & duplicitous and elitist, in my view. My argument must seem ‘same, old and routine’ to you if you repeatedly fail to reply to its claims. No doubt the months do go by slowly for you while you stay silent about your real thoughts on Mr Brash. That’s evasion. I do not evade argument/discussion/debate. With respect to your choice of Mr Brash, you are lazy about enlightening us on your reasons, grounds, support for him. Shrill & hysterical? Read your posts? Only slightly less maniacal than Insolent Prick’s. I argue (persistently, I grant you); while you scream back, wounded-like. That is shrill. That’s odd. The woundedness of your responses is tiring. Its not personal, mate. its not about you. Its about politics and Mr Brash, here.
Everything I claim about Mr Brash is an acceptable premise for the claim that he might be unfit for high office.
Here again are some of those legitmate, acceptable and relevant claims about your Mr Brash:
I argue that Mr Brash is
1. an undemocratic and opportunistic appointment to the House and National Party leadership
2. of an elitist background
3. a relatively poor communicator
4. noted for frequent absences from the House of Commons
5. not in possession of a clear idea on Party Policy.
6. despite his self-professed Presbyterian background, admitting to having had affairs on his wives. This hurts his wife, his family and his public reputation as a leader who can be trusted. Character becomes relevant.
7. a weak protest (so far) of any involvement with the Exclusive Brethren. Character is also relevant. Do you trust what he has said?
8. sporadic ‘command & control’ type management style of the party caucus. (Ms Rich, Mr Connell etc)
I am tiring of your method, Craig – the victim, lash out, more victim, lash out.. victim again…
All you have been asked to do is put up an argument or a counter-argument. Simple.
You cannot even do that.
I know two things about you – that you apparently do not have a public position you are able to defend with respect to Mr Brash, and that you do not care to give your views.
You act like some piece of royalty.
Why then blog on a political site? To make friends?
Who’s the real *yawn* here.
I will be patient. You lose all credibility if, once Mr Brash is ‘knifed’ by his caucus, you then blog your defense of the next NZ National Party leader. It won’t seem credible coming from you.
And I’ll remember…
Best,
James
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 6:46 am
James:
Please see previous comment – despite your claim above, I’ve responded to all your assertions above in detail. Adding flat out lies to your usual brew of hysterical abuse won’t change that. Troll on, James.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 6:47 am
James:
Please see previous comment – despite your claim above, I’ve responded to all your assertions above in detail. Adding flat out lies to your usual brew of hysterical abuse won’t change that. Troll on, James.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Craig states –
“I’ve responded to all your assertions above in detail”
Craig – no you haven’t. Where?
Craig – you are a flat out lier.
James
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 7:18 am
James:
Being call a liar by you is like Britney Spears calling you a bad parent and a no-talent exhibitionist. Your relentless chutzpah is hilarious, so just keep trolling on.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Interesting I was looking for some answer and you gave them to me http://male-exam.xhostar.com/
Vote:April 4th, 2007 at 3:04 am
I wish everybody do his job like you do http://gaymedical.juicypornhost.com/
Vote:April 13th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Impossible, how GOOD your work is. I am realy surprised. http://spankzilla.byethost7.com/
Vote: