Bedwetter.

BTW: I was out of town all weekend & only fleetingly caught sight, in a garage, of a Sunday newspaper’s headline “outing” Peter Davis.

I went back to the car & announced to the family, “Holy fuck, the 5th Dr Who turns out to be gay!”

*pets the cute little IT critter on the head*

Lighten up mate, it might all come good in the end (well probably not but shhhhh)

xxx

S

Why are they so limp when it comes to articulating the Conservative position, and making the pro individual small government ideal a reality?

Because you touch yourself at night.

Because positions like yours are the electoral equivalent of Anthrax. If National stood on that platform they would be lucky to get 20% of the vote.

Why are they so limp when it comes to articulating the Conservative position, and making the pro individual small government ideal a reality? Because they’re full of half educated dimbulbs who don’t understand what the party stands for and are more ideologically suited to the Labour party. The most effective way forward is for true believers to join the Nats and work towards the expulsion or marginilization of the mindless inarticulate socialists that currently hold sway there.

I think that in one way, Brash’s entry was an attempt to do this. The idea is OK. The mistake was choosing Brash. Anyone who lets a dopey over confident over paid loud mouthed peroxide blonde beat him up on National TV over the Brethren non issue doesn’t have the balls to fix the National party.

Danyl admits to being drunk or chemically debilitated for most of the 90′s. Is this a picture of the state of the National Party in the 00′s or is it really that hard to decide on a suitable replacement? I suppose, after Bill English’s experience in 2002, no one is in a rush to stage a coup, least of all him. Such suspended decision making is costing National dearly.

However, as has already been inferred to in this thread, Brash’s supporters used the MMP list system to bypass the democratic electoral system and get planted by business into a position of political leadership. I don’t think the NZ public are ready for a PM who isn’t an electorate MP, least of all one who is in their late 60′s. National will be superceded by parties with youthful vigour that owe their allegiance to the voting public rather than minority business interest.

As for the argument that Labour bought the election with beneficiary handouts it may enlighten you to be reminded that in 1965 family benefit was universal and 45% of the population were in receipt of social welfare benefits (visit http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/W/WelfareServices/HistoryOfMonetaryBenefits/en ). At that time the National Party was ‘bribing’ the electorate with handouts. Nothing really changes.

The real architect of Moyle’s downfall was Rowling. Keen to ward off an imminent leadership challenge from Moyle, Rowling insisted on a full inquiry to “clear Moyle’s name”. Had he not done so, the whole thing would have died and the history of New Zealand politics may have been very different.

And here you go again… I do support Wishart and Investigate’s press freedoms, while abhoring the trash it contains. I thought anyone who really believed in freedom of expression wouldn’t need that spelled out, and those who don’t wouldn’t care. But I guess I’m just part of the Stalinist dykeocracy trying to bring down the brave truth-tellers wah wah wah…

I guess you must have been asleep during the 1990′s

Actually I was drunk or chemically debilitated for most of the 90′s. And overseas. So you’re not far wrong.

I understand Ian Wishart was involved in the winebox inquiry and that National was a target – but that was a legitimate investigation about a matter that was in the public interest. It was also (I believe) before Wishart found the Lord and lost any semblance of ethics or morality.

I guess you must have been asleep during the 1990′s

Actually I was drunk or chemically debilitated for most of the 90′s. And overseas. So you’re not far wrong.

I understand Ian Wishart was involved in the winebox inquiry – but that was a legitimate investigation about a matter that was in the public interest.

You are probably right at least in part. The issue is the homosexual agenda that the Labour Party is pursuing. I thought Muldoon’s attack on Moyle was quite wrong and I still do. The situation is now entirely different. Labour stopped screening refugees for HIV. Labour would introduce homosexual adoption and surrogacy if they thought they could get away with it. Labour wants to introduce such things as hate speech and hate crime legislation. Labour wants to promote the homosexual lifestyle as valid alterative. The list could go on and on. If that is what they want that is okay but they should come clean and all the closeted homosexual Labour MPs who are driving this agenda behind the scenes should come out of the closet.

The left wing homosexuals see nothing wrong with attempting to blackmail closeted homosexual National MPs to vote how they think they should but cry foul when the right tries to expose how many closeted homosexual MPs Labour has. Where is their gay pride?

Which of course is the reason that any person who TRULY values the principle of freedom of political expression would be speaking out in support of Wishart and Investigate.

Well, as I’m not a sock puppet for Ian Wishart, perhaps you need to ask him what editorial crteria he sets for his magazine. Myself, I’m more interested in when he’s going to change the paper stock to preforated two-ply.

But if you really think he’s some fan of Don Brash in particular, or the National Party in general, I guess you must have been asleep during the 1990′s. Believe me, I think there would be a hell of a party in political circles (all around) if Ian Wishart and his magazine were hit by a meteor.

Hey, to be fair, back in the day Investigate would quite happily have gotten the innuendo mill grinding if Burton Shipley & (say) Chris Finlayson or myself had been within arms length of each other. He may be a very sleazy operator, but you can’t say he won’t throw it in all directions.

I don’t think this stands up. Wishart doesn’t seem to have touched the Brash marriage story even though it’s been New Zealands worst kept secret for over a year. And, as is also well known, there are a couple of very high-profile closeted gay National MPs who he could have gone after. Instead he’s quixotically focused on the PM and her husband. The guys a partisan nut, and in the way of such things he’s hurting his party a lot more than he’s helping it.