Hollowing out the Hollow Man
It is becoming clear that the Hollow Man book seems based entirely on the stolen e-mails and Hager has in no way gained confirmation from anyone as to the context of some of them, and what actions if any followed an e-mail.
Now this is not to say the entire book can be dismissed. On the face of it I have some concerns over MPs being too involved with fund-raising. I won’t comment more until I can read the book, but I am a strong believer in having this very much done by the organisational wing.
But many of Hager’s wild claims are melting away. The so called “smoking gun” e-mail which Hager claims was forwarded on to the Steven Joyce by Brash, was in fact never seen by Brash, according to him. Now of course some may say “He would say that wouldn’t he” but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion, and I doubt he can. Plus I know more than 99.9999% of people about how Don’s e-mail system works and can verify certain things.
Don is known to be a very proficient e-mailer. He does read and respond to his e-mail. In fact he is so diligent at doing this, that he would spend hours every week doing thoughtful replies to members of the public who e-mailed him. But once he became Leader the demands on his time were much greater, and he somewhat reluctantly agreed to have e-mail sent to his publicly known addresses to go to a staff member, and he got given a new e-mail address which was only known to a relatively select few, which he maintained.
So while I can not speak to any individual e-mail (esp as this happened after I left Parliament), I can say that it is absolutely correct that e-mail sent in May 2005 to Don’s public address would generally not have seen by him and staff would have made the decision on how it is responded to. If it had been forwarded onto Steven Joyce, then that would indicate they decided to refer it to HQ, and wouldn’t show it to Don.
Also Rod Deane has stated he had never given a cent to any political party, in response to Hager claiming he was a big donor to National. Can Hager verify his assertion?
Talking of funding, I understand I even get a brief mention as a funder because I attended one of the fund-raising dinners last year. My God it doesn’t take much to be counted as a funder.
This article in The Press also deals with more details of what the book has wrong.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:21 am
No David, burden of proof only applies to conservatives.
Socialists can say anything they want and everyone has to take it fact.
Look how many times Dear Leader has just run off at the mouth with nothing to back it.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:43 am
I guess Hagar follows the theory – Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Some e-mail systems allow an e-mail to be sent and then deleted. That is, an e-mail can be sent, the sender can print a copy of the sent e-mail but then that e-mail can be removed – by the sender – from the recipient’s inbox. This can give the appearance of an e-mail having been sent but in reality the sender couldn’t read the e-mail or even know of its existence.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Deanes denial about being a national donor is just the sort of duplicity Hagars book exposes.
Even the NZ herald had liar quotes around the phrase….
Dr Deane contacted the Herald to say he had never attended a political fundraiser, never been a member of a political party, and had “never given a cent to any political party”.
Remember of course National set up ‘trusts’ to hide who the donors are. So Deane could deny the money went National , just he happened to send a chq to the Ruahine Trust instead.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:03 am
“Don is now toast toast toasty toast toast”.
Hmmmm, toast.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Just listen to Kathryn on Nine to Noon challenging Mike Williams to provide evidence for any of his claims – & guess what he couldn’t – even with a book of stolen emails.
Kathryn managed to shot down one of his claims on air stating that to be consented by the Nats, the EB pamphlets needs a signature from Joyce.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:04 am
correction; “This can give the appearance of an e-mail having been sent but in reality the RECIPIENT couldn’t read the e-mail or even know of its existence”.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:04 am
It amuses me that if the stolen emails had been from the PMs computer the Police and Secruity Services would have had to drop everthing and go hunting for the theives.It would have been declared a matter of national secruity and anyone publishing would have been arrested and tried for treason as with Tim Selwyn.Oh well we are used to the 2 faced hypocritical Socialists and their supporters by now.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:06 am
was in fact never seen by Brash, according to him … but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion
David, Brash’s “not to my knowledge” line is wearing thin. I don’t know how many times I have heard it now. The frequent use of those 4 words suggests to me that he either has some serious cognitive issues, or he had no idea what was going on around him, or he is lying through his teeth.
Also, if Brash denies having seen the email, it is impossible for Hager to prove otherwise and you know that. Don’s visual sensory input was not recorded.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:07 am
If Hager’s assertions are so baseless, then he will not be protected by qualified privilege, so I assume you are confident that we will see a defamation suit, no?
The criticism of Hager’s book has (thus far) been extremely weak (and quite trivial). In hindsight it is little suprise Brash resigned pending its release.
The cumulative effect of all the assertions in (and inevitable conclusions any reasonable reader will draw from) the book is devasting for the National party, and provides ammunition for quite some time to come.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:08 am
“Remember of course National set up ‘trusts’ to hide who the donors are”.
If that’s true, then what you’re suggesting is that National didn’t know who was wanting favours in return for cash. Doesn’t this go against one of Hager’s central claims that donors made themselves known so they could obtain favours (ie, policies) for cash?
November 27th, 2006 at 10:11 am
“The cumulative effect of all the assertions in (and inevitable conclusions any reasonable reader will draw from) the book is devasting for the National party, and provides ammunition for quite some time to come”.
Trying taking your blinkers off. How devastating was it that fraudster Allan Hawkins and co. donated large sums of money to the Labour Party prior to the ‘84 election? Not very.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:12 am
“The cumulative effect of all the assertions in (and inevitable conclusions any reasonable reader will draw from) the book is devasting for the National party, and provides ammunition for quite some time to come”.
Trying taking your blinkers off. How devastating was it that fraudster Allan Hawkins and co. donated large sums of money to the Labour Party prior to the ‘84 election? Not very.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Whats Toms got to say about “Panty slut-boy” meantime…? ;-0
November 27th, 2006 at 10:14 am
If he didn’t read it…
Interesting then the email attributed to Brash about third party “parallel campaigns” with the EB as an example. Of course, this could concievably be just referring to the ‘wake up nz’ capaign.
An email sent the same day, apparently, as ‘Don and John’.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Oh, and surely it’s clear that at least National in general knew. And denied it.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Toms: Rod Deane has been appointed to several government appointments by Helen Clark personally over the last seven years. Deane was one of New Zealand’s most distinguished public servants before his business career. I find the claim that he was a National Party donor utterly staggering.
Deane was a deputy governor of the Reserve Bank; Brash was a Governor. Deane was an economist, as was Brash. They have known each other for over forty years. It’s no surprise that they are close friends. But Hager is stretching the realm of probability to suggest that Deane was a National Party donor. He hasn’t produced any evidence for the claim.
Former Labour Deputy Leader David Caygill also wrote to Brash indicating his support for Brash’s leadership–at the same time that Caygill was chairman of a number of government-appointed boards. Caygill was Finance Minister when Brash was Governor.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:26 am
IP,
I’ve made the point before that many so-called National Party donors have previously donated large sums of money to the Labour Party. These individuals have no particular political affiliation. They simply want to see certain policies in place and they must’ve assumed that National were more likely than Labour to deliver on those policies. Hardly earth-shattering news.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:27 am
“Doesn’t this go against one of Hager’s central claims that donor’s made themselves known so they could obtain favours”
What ross is trying to tell everyone is that he has not read the book he is commenting on, and has no idea what many of the central claims actually concern.
ross, (I assume) you are referring to the insurance controversy? And thus far I have not heard any realistic denials in that regard, perhaps you can be first to spin the inevitable excuse for that one.
You could try: “not to Don’s/Key’s knowledge” (the current favourite), or “Don/Key does’nt/didn’t read that email” (the second favourite), or “the sender of the email was mistakenly referring to a meeting/donation/agreed policy purchase that did not occur”, or even “the sender of all the many questionable emails to National were making up mysterious meetings and agreements that never occured while successfully passing themselves off to be (well-organised or even respected) conservative organisations/individuals” (the last two being the only possible explanations for the content of the emails, and that applies only after one accepts the dodgy ‘I didn’t read it claim’).
November 27th, 2006 at 10:41 am
It is only blind Labour loyalists who see the unsubstantiated ramblings of Hager, hitherto described by Clark as a nutter of inconsequence, as worthy of even a cursory glance.
When one looks at character one usually looks for signs of hypocrisy. I see a Labour Party in their entirety meet the criteria for gross hypocrisy. Retrospective legislation to legalise their blatant looting of State coffers. Winston Bauble Peters over his ongoing and staggeringly hypocritical and sniggering gossip, and the recent destruction of the STOLEN emails during a police investigation. Taito Philip Field a man who so clearly breached the ethic systems of almost every known society, particularly the one Labourites hold so sacrosanct the ‘employment’ones, not to mention common old graft and immigration scams.
And last but not least , the endless excuses of the ‘within normal range of discipline” of the heinous and sadistic acts committed against children by DBP, and for which the police found a prima facie case.
All glossed over while Hollow Men is proffered as gospel, the book of a man who their own Party has often dismissed as a nutcase.
Hollow Men – yeah right and definitely LEFT!
.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Why doesn’t Brian Tamaki send Helen Clark an email? Whether she reads it is irrelevant, seemingly. Destiny Church and Labour in bed!
November 27th, 2006 at 10:59 am
my word Jess, you took a lot of words to say nothing at all.
If you are seeking to dismiss Hager’s claims, then read the book, it cannot be dismissed on comments prieviously made about the author, that is a lame and lazy cop-out.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:06 am
What does Helen Clark think of Hagers credibility again?
Or are you socialists flip flopping on that one too?
November 27th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Ben, and the substance referred to in the emails? even if one accepts the highly unlikely claim that Key and Brash managed to leave several emails unread (including emails with a personal ‘matey, matey’ tone).
How is the email substance explained (meetings, policy, funds, etc)?
November 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am
DPF sounds uncannily like Sonic did during his spirited defense of Labours electoral fraud – the only difference being that I think Sonic actually believed his own spin.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:24 am
I thought this from a Herald article was hilarious:
” “Mr Williams said one area being looked at stemmed from a Labour complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer that Exclusive Brethren pamphlets should have been attributable to National. He said that during that process, National’s Steven Joyce wrote to the office “saying they knew nothing about it”.
“The book clearly demonstrates that that letter was untrue,” Mr Williams said.”
I guess he’d know about misleading the Chief Electoral Officer…
November 27th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Jeff, the book has substantail emails and other party documents, making 50% of the text.
Like Brash suggesting free contraceptives for those on DPB , ever the economist, he sees savings in lesser number of children.
Or when the hidden policy to raise the age of super to 68 is discussed, Don muses about ‘lying ‘ about it.
All this is documented. Hagar doesnt make it up.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:55 am
James:
I say an author’s credibility can be called into question on the basis of his previous work, not on commentary about his work, although the two are usually employed together in critique.
But why would we deny you your jollys!
Such drivel supplements the Obstacle Golf and Bumble-puppy diet of you Gammas and Deltas and mirrors the poverty of your imaginations.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Jess,
So that is all you have then. Make a choice between reading it or not commenting on it, otherwise you just sound silly.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
james dearest
You don’t do sarcasm that well!
But hey – thanks for pointing out my inadequacy – it means a lot to me, especially when I consider it in the context of your contributions in general to DPF.
Happy Xmas!
November 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
“What ross is trying to tell everyone is that he has not read the book he is commenting on, and has no idea what many of the central claims actually concern”.
Yes, I can confirm that the book has only gone on sale today and I’m not a speed reader!
November 27th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
James said: “even if one accepts the highly unlikely claim that Key and Brash managed to leave several emails unread…”.
Do you have proof that the e-mails were actually received? No, I didn’t think so. I hope you don’t serve on a jury any time soon.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Just listening to Nat rad interviews and stuff in the paper, it seems to me that Hagar is almost completely humourless and believes everything he reads is written with equal humourless sincerity, particularly when it points to a right wing conspiracy, even if those items with a more realistic reading are clearly intended as ironic and parodying.
That as much as anyhting should undermine the conclusions Hagar reaches.
I loved Michael Bassett on the radio comparing Hagar’s research technique to David Irving.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
james.c, have you read the entire bible? I’m guessing not, but you have probably long ago made some kind of judgement about its accuracy.
The same is true of Hagers book. I don’t have to buy Hollow Men book to be able to have a high level of certainty, based on my knowledge of Hagers previous work and the comments of folks who have read this little gem, that the book is fiction masquerading as fact.
The other reason I don’t want to buy the book is that I already hand over plenty of my hard earned money to rich socialists.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
ross, don’t kid yourself.
You referred directly to “one of Hager’s central claims”, yet this ‘central claim’ you referred to was contextually incorrect.
I don’t expect integrity from you (or for any claim you make to stand up to even slight scrutiny), however, feel free to put the blow torch to any claim I make to see how it holds up, I myself am more than happy for such scrutiny.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
ross, even if one accepts that none of the emails were read (which no reasonable person will conclude for all of the emails), they are still damning of National (regarding contents, and subsequent actions).
And it is impossible to prove that Key or Brash read any of the emails. What can be proved is that they acted in complete consistency with them, so we will leave it to the electorate to accept on the balance what they will.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Hager thinks people actually read their emails. Don Brash would receive 100 emails a day or more and he would read 5-10% of them.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Could someone shed some legal light on inaction when in receipt of information.
If someone sends me an email (or letter, or courier pigeon message) saying they’re planning to rob a bank, am I liable as an accessory if I take no action and that person makes good their threat? If so, are claims that “I didn’t read it” or “I read it but didn’t believe it to be credible” sufficient defence?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I guess that’s what happens when you accept stolen emails from NZ First and then put them into a book wrapped up in conjecture, heresay and conspiracy bollocks – all the while never checking out the veracity or context of any of the emails.
I wonder when someone will bring out a book about PSA members assisting Labour (folder, enveloping and distributing literature) whilst on full pay?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“Don Brash would receive 100 emails a day or more and he would read 5-10% of them.”
And apparently, he has other people read most of them so he doesn’t have to – correct me if I’m wrong, but might that not explain the alleged leaks?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Hush andrew, we’re all waiting to see where jess and james are going with this sexual tension thing they’ve got going on.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I see that excuse for a Prime Minister is making noises about not paying the money back using the book as an excuse. Why do politicans remind me of pus ozing from a sore?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
It is common practice in any large organisation to have the CEO’s email (even if personally addressed) screened by a secretary charged with the task. I get about 100 emails a day over some periods so I am sure Don Brash would have received many more -especially at exciting times.
The Secretary would dump all the SPAM and junk and then pass on most to other people to respond to and only pass on to Don those few which it seemed demanded his personal attention.
Over the years I have been in regular email correspondence with many politicians of many political parties and most of them have given me a private email address so as to bypass the filters – especially when they are exploring ideas and issues.
My guess would be that senior politicians, like major CEOs would get to read and respond to only 10% to 20% of the email addressed to them.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
DPF
“but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion, and I doubt he can. Plus I know more than 99.9999% of people about how Don’s e-mail system works and can verify certain things.”
Can you verify when a mail was read? As one of the top 4 people knowing all about Don’s email in NZ, surely you can help with that. What is the mail client and server? Does it have read receipts and are they turned on? Or ‘deleted without being read receipts’ even better. Can you check the logs to see when it was collected? You could probably disprove this whole thing in a few minutes, surely that would be even better than just putting the onus on Hager to hack the system. If it’s never been read it’s probably sitting in folder somewhere patiently waiting to prove Hager wrong.
Honest Don need never have resigned if you’d just put your talents to work straight away.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
This book is a bit like a blow job – its all over very quickly there aint much substance to it and enjoyable only cos its a bit naughty Seriously tho hagar the horrible aint no journo – checking any facts and corroboration and context are what makes a story – otherwise its conjecture. I have been involved in two campaigns – one by an interest group – ( not the bretherens) who ran a campaign wacking the greens and the other for ACT and both times you end up looking at all sorts of wild and interesting stuff in passing . However much of it does not pass the can do test for a host of reasons. Hagar seems to read every word as if everyone was deadly serious – hooton is a the meister of self parody and can be cynical and it clearly shows through in the book. Interestingly he comes out as one of the most seriously internationally connected people in the country.
If Hagar really thinks he is doing a social service how about he start looking at some of the ginormous bank accounts of some unions and the buildings and assets they own and how the same union rake in union due to guess what – spend money on parallel campaigns to get their party of preference in power!!!
all hollow men, which remember is written by a shallow self agrandising fiction feeder, is some successful and enterprising people looked at some creative ways to support their political ideals.
Hagar needs to get a life and write kids stories…
November 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
“but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion, and I doubt he can.”
Not now that this is in the court of public opinion – the best soundbyte wins! (I say that cynically rather than gleefully)
“Plus I know more than 99.9999% of people about how Don’s e-mail system works and can verify certain things.”
I hear that the most damaging email published was to his national.org.nz address, not parliament.govt.nz, which clears up niggling doubts I had about alleged hacking etc.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“I don’t expect integrity from you (or for any claim you make to stand up to even slight scrutiny), however, feel free to put the blow torch to any claim I make to see how it holds up, I myself am more than happy for such scrutiny.”
I prefer a challenge.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
It’s fair enough, I suppose, to bag the claims in Hager’s books on the basis that Don didn’t read half of the emails, however, the ones that concerned me most were the ones Don had written. Anyone here disbelieve those emails?
November 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
ross “i prefer a challenge”, what you really mean is “I am miles out of my depth, and cannot even nearly justify that comment of mine you totally discredited above”. That is closer to the truth eh ross
Or would like to re-visit your claim?
November 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
This book is just like a blow job, its not got a lot of substance, its a quick read, and its a littel fun cos its naughty.
That being said its a crock . and Hagar has no right to be called a journo – musing over the possible interpretation of someones two way conversations is bizzare without context – journalism is about shedding light and you do that by context and corroberation not by speculation.
Having been involved in a couple of election campaigns – one for a poly party and one for an interest group – I know the weird and wonderful plots, schemes and ideas that we came up with but that never came to nought cos they were just ideas and schemes.
Perhaps Hagar should take a look at the assets and bank accounts some unions control and the way they continually ask for increased subs from joe worker while funding campaigns and Pr strategies to ensure that their party of preference is kept in power. And how they are linked with some murderous extreme union factions overseas and in some cases criminal networks. – Now thats a real story!
If there is one real interesting bit it is the international influence and connections of Matthew Hooton – He is starting to shape up as the James Carvelle of NZ politics…
November 27th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
This book is just like a blow job, its not got a lot of substance, its a quick read, and its a littel fun cos its naughty.
That being said its a crock . and Hagar has no right to be called a journo – musing over the possible interpretation of someones two way conversations is bizzare without context – journalism is about shedding light and you do that by context and corroberation not by speculation.
Having been involved in a couple of election campaigns – one for a poly party and one for an interest group – I know the weird and wonderful plots, schemes and ideas that we came up with but that never came to nought cos they were just ideas and schemes.
Perhaps Hagar should take a look at the assets and bank accounts some unions control and the way they continually ask for increased subs from joe worker while funding campaigns and Pr strategies to ensure that their party of preference is kept in power. And how they are linked with some murderous extreme union factions overseas and in some cases criminal networks. – Now thats a real story!
If there is one real interesting bit it is the international influence and connections of Matthew Hooton – He is starting to shape up as the James Carvelle of NZ politics…
November 27th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
This book is just like a blow job, its not got a lot of substance, its a quick read, and its a littel fun cos its naughty.
That being said its a crock . and Hagar has no right to be called a journo – musing over the possible interpretation of someones two way conversations is bizzare without context – journalism is about shedding light and you do that by context and corroberation not by speculation.
Having been involved in a couple of election campaigns – one for a poly party and one for an interest group – I know the weird and wonderful plots, schemes and ideas that we came up with but that never came to nought cos they were just ideas and schemes.
Perhaps Hagar should take a look at the assets and bank accounts some unions control and the way they continually ask for increased subs from joe worker while funding campaigns and Pr strategies to ensure that their party of preference is kept in power. And how they are linked with some murderous extreme union factions overseas and in some cases criminal networks. – Now thats a real story!
If there is one real interesting bit it is the international influence and connections of Matthew Hooton – He is starting to shape up as the James Carvelle of NZ politics…
November 27th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
This book is just like a blow job, its not got a lot of substance, its a quick read, and its a littel fun cos its naughty.
That being said its a crock . and Hagar has no right to be called a journo – musing over the possible interpretation of someones two way conversations is bizzare without context – journalism is about shedding light and you do that by context and corroberation not by speculation.
Having been involved in a couple of election campaigns – one for a poly party and one for an interest group – I know the weird and wonderful plots, schemes and ideas that we came up with but that never came to nought cos they were just ideas and schemes.
Perhaps Hagar should take a look at the assets and bank accounts some unions control and the way they continually ask for increased subs from joe worker while funding campaigns and Pr strategies to ensure that their party of preference is kept in power. And how they are linked with some murderous extreme union factions overseas and in some cases criminal networks. – Now thats a real story!
If there is one real interesting bit it is the international influence and connections of Matthew Hooton – He is starting to shape up as the James Carvelle of NZ politics…
November 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Bustedblonde, joining the list of those who criticise the book by loudly shouting ‘it’s rubbish’ without actually trying to justify why that is. Nothing actually said yet many words to say do so.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
This book is just like a blow job, its not got a lot of substance, its a quick read, and its a littel fun cos its naughty.
That being said its a crock . and Hagar has no right to be called a journo – musing over the possible interpretation of someones two way conversations is bizzare without context – journalism is about shedding light and you do that by context and corroberation not by speculation.
Having been involved in a couple of election campaigns – one for a poly party and one for an interest group – I know the weird and wonderful plots, schemes and ideas that we came up with but that never came to nought cos they were just ideas and schemes.
Perhaps Hagar should take a look at the assets and bank accounts some unions control and the way they continually ask for increased subs from joe worker while funding campaigns and Pr strategies to ensure that their party of preference is kept in power. And how they are linked with some murderous extreme union factions overseas and in some cases criminal networks. – Now thats a real story!
If there is one real interesting bit it is the international influence and connections of Matthew Hooton – He is starting to shape up as the James Carvelle of NZ politics…
November 27th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
November 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
If so why did Brash through in the towel before Hager published the book?
No doubt Brash didn’t want to face the media as Nat leader when the book was released.
Don Brash will be remembered as a naive Nat Leader who was duped by not only the Religous loonies, but the far Right also.
You can also thank Rt Hon Winston Peters for putting Brash under the blowtouch, again Brash turned to wax, and couldn’t take the heat.
In someways Dr Brash will only be remembered as a man of Straw!
November 27th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
ok guys…can u imagine don and co’ ignoring a million dollars plus worth of help…
nah.
its more likely they lied…just get over your pride, face it and move on.
Also, what else can the nats do??
besides admitting they lied, all they can do is discredit hagar and hagars book, blame the labour party, and continue to make the lame excuse of “Don didnt read those emails”
pretty pathetic.
c’mon.u’s should be brighter then that.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I see Key is running the same line as Bassett: the emails were stolen and the Brethren email didn’t exist anyway. How can it have been “stolen” if it didn’t exist? And how was it that Stephen Joyce __never mentioned__ to anyone else running the campaign his meeting with some people who wanted to spend a million dollars on “our/your campaign”?
This also rather dodges the fact that Hager seems to have had a great deal of other correspondence circulated to and between the top end of the party, including communications Brash wasn’t included on, but also including a fax to Brash’s home.
Can we be a bit honest here? Brash’s decision to meet again with the Brethren this year, without bothering to tell his caucus raised serious questions over where his loyaties lay. Richard Long left because he couldn’t convince Brash to stop playing with these people. Part of the appeal of a leadership change has been that getting rid of Brash meant getting rid of the Brethren issue. And just maybe some people in the party got pissed off with the whole thing quite some time ago.
I’m still waiting for an interviewer to ask what was in the “package” Brash was to receive from the Brethren at Otara Market …
November 27th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Has anyone found Ron Hickmott yet?
November 27th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
oops sorry for all the repeats – the site kept saying it was down so I just kept pressin the button.
this bloggin thing takes a bit of sorting.
It appears that Key is getting some good advisors around him – He has just put our a presser saying he has employed Kevin Taylor as chief press sec. A smart boy.
As for the book its still crap – mildly titilating but crap – and definitely not illuminating…
As I said lift the lid on Labour and see the worms squirm.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
And of course, if the book’s such a “tissue of lies”, why did Don Brash resign over it?
November 27th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Frankly David, your attempt at spinning the “smoking gun” is ludicrous :
I can say that it is absolutely correct that e-mail sent in May 2005 to Don’s public address would generally not have seen by him and staff would have made the decision on how it is responded to. If it had been forwarded onto Steven Joyce, then that would indicate they decided to refer it to HQ, and wouldn’t show it to Don.
A bit of syntactic analysis of the email in question :
* The sender obviously knew that it would be read by a staffer. Which is why the substance of it is in an attached document, marked “urgent and confidential”.
Two possibilities :
* the staffer respects the confidentiality of the attached document, and forwards it to Brash
* the staffer doesn’t know the sender and opens the attachment to see if it’s worth forwarding to Brash.
In the second case, clearly they are going to forward it to Brash anyway. The staffer is not competent to decide that an offer of a $1 million election campaign should be ignored.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
bustedblonde, are you saying this is a can of dead worms? I guess that’s slightly less yucky, but I wouldn’t want it anyway. I’d wipe it away with a tissue of lies.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Alistair. One can not prove or disprove whether Don was physically shown a copy of said e-mail. However one can easily prove that if an e-mail was sent to his public address and forwarded onto Steven Joyce, that could not have been done by Don.
And one of the staffers who cleared Don’s e-mail for him was very senior and certainly could decide to refer things onto HQ without checking.
The stuff Danyl and Russell raise I can not yet comment on not having seen them in context.
Ben Wilson – I no longer work at NLO so not my call as to whether e-mail audit logs are pulled up. It could be a horrendous amount of time though as the e-mail system is backed up daily, and you can not access just one person’s inbox – you need to restore to a HD the entire complex. Now imagine restoring 250 days worth of e-mails for the whole complex, and then looking each day for each e-mail. If Don was still Leader probably worth doing it, but may be too much work now. Not my call.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Thanks David, that’s a bit clearer… as Brash is a sophisticated e-mailer, there were probably some elaborate protocols covering that sort of material.
So what you’re alleging is that a senior staffer would have routed the mail directly to Steven Joyce (though this would probably be redundant, apparently Joyce and Hickmott had already worked together on the previous campaign so we can presume they had each other’s e-mails)… to save Brash the bother of seeing it.
The only reason for doing this without referring it to his boss, would be to maintain deniability, i.e. to cover Brash’s arse. “Oh and there’s an email proposing to fund a million dollar campaign for us, I guess you won’t want to see that in writing, Don?”
November 28th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Alistair says: “The only reason for doing this without referring it to his boss, would be to maintain deniability.”
The other reason would be to save time.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:30 am
I’m sorry David – but I’ve watched you jump up and down and scream corruption until you and your Kiwiblog friends turned blue in the face, to watch you all now give us such bullshit excuses defending Brash is an intellectual embarrassment. The reality is that National and those on the right need to take a long hard look at what values you and your ilk actually support. The level of deception and Machiavellian guile on display in Hager’s book should shame you deeply and to see you try and gloss over this shame is dishonorable, if you refuse to learn the lesson here, it will simply be repeated.
“The secret of success is sincerity and conviction. Once you can fake that you have got it made.”
National party strategist Peter Keenan.
The Hollow Men
http://www.tumeke.blogspot.com
November 28th, 2006 at 10:39 am
In a way I agree with Bomber….National should find out what values it supports and bloody well stand by them!With Brash it looked like National finally had some after years of sell out Socialism and flip flopping populist bullshit….now with Key its back to the past and “us too” handwringing wetness…..just what Kiwis don’t want after being in support of what Brash was doing don’t forget!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:54 am
DPF, clearing Don’s name would be worth it, I would think. Not your call, sure, but somebody’s.
I hope it’s not because some Yoda said to you ‘If into the security recordings you will go, only pain will you find’.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:17 am
You can imagine the staffer saying
“Oh look another mail promising to spend a millions bucks to help us win the election, better not bother Don with this sort of trivia”
Really? thats your best shot?
November 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Or the staffer already knew about the issue and knew the Party GM was the appropriate person to deal with it (as he was).
Bomber – I have not read the full book yet. I have said on the surface of it there may be some issues to do with funding which are not appropriate. I will comment more once back in NZ.
The point I am making here is that some of Hager’s facts are wrong, and that I can verify that for example a public email to Don forwarded onto Steven Joyce would have been done by a staffer not Don. That does not rule out Don was aware of it, but it means Hager’s proof is not there.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
David if it was just one email you may have a case, however not denied are Brash’s “parallel campaign” email or the quote about “your brethren friends”
Taken as a whole it is obvious that Brash was tight with the EBs and lied about it repeatedly.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
RB said: “I see Key is running the same line as Bassett: the emails were stolen and the Brethren email didn’t exist anyway. How can it have been “stolen” if it didn’t exist?”
Quite easily, I would’ve thought. An e-mail can exist for the sender but not necessarily the recipient, and vice-versa. It all depends on if and when it was received and if and when it was deleted from the recipient’s inbox and sender’s outbox.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Sonic, the comment about “your brethren friends” was possibly ironic. Do you know what irony is?
November 28th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Ironic or not, stupid thing to put in an email – reminds me of the Immigration guy scrawling “I thought we were all going to lie in unison”?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Oh he was being ironic, like rain on your wedding day perhaps?
Nice try though.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Hey! Ironic. Rhymes with Sonic
November 28th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Until I see the e-mails in context of the book I can’t comment further, but I will acknowledge that what is there certainly seems to suggest the EB had been talking to National for longer than publicly known.
However I’m not sure if how long they had been talking is the big issue. What is more relevant is who was pulling who’s strings. Was National somehow controlling the EB and suggesting secret plost to them to get around electoral laws? I see little evidence of that.
What I see is a cult of amateurs who were instructed from on high to get involved in politics and they blundered their way into the landscape running defence campaigns no-one wanted, and then wanting a pro-National campaign which they were told was illegal, and so then turned it into an anti-Labour and anti-Greens campaign.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
“what I see is a cult of amateurs who were instructed from on high to get involved in politics”
That is no way to speak of Brash and his free market reformer buddies (you forget your place sir).
November 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
“Was National somehow controlling the EB and suggesting secret plost to them to get around electoral laws? I see little evidence of that.”
Brash spoke about “parallel campaigns” and used the EB’s leaflets as an example to emulate.
Open and shut case David.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
“What I see is …”
What you see David, is nothing until you read the book. The Exclusive Brethren were colluding with the National Party, they were running a parallel campaign worth a massive sum of money, with a political tone that changed considerably after advice from the National party to depart from the “Supremacy of God” line.
Are you going to join Key in implicitly condemning Brash? Or do you intend on staying on the ship with the rats who will not flee?
November 28th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
What James and some others can’t get their heads around is why, if Don had read the e-mail in late May 05, would he lie about it? After all, Don admitted that he knew about the EB’s campaign in August ‘05. So what’s another three months between friends (I’m being ironic)? What has Don to gain by referring to August instead of May? Not a lot.
Now, if Don’s relationship with the EB went back several years, that might be another story, although I note that no journalist has asked him whether it goes back that far. But why would Don lie about a measly three months? I don’t think he would because there’s no payoff.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I also note that some commentators, admittedly with a vested interest, claim that Hager’s book shows that National breached the Elecoral Act. It’s apprently too late – by a month – for the police to prosecute.
But how long has Hager been holding this information? Probably long enough to supply it to the police who could’ve made a case against National. Clearly, Nicky didn’t think National’s sins were so great after all. Or did he think that National wouldn’t be prosecuted such is the strength of his “evidence”?
November 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Brash lied.There is a whole damn book of evidence.Get over it.
The real question is, how involved was Key with the Brethren….?
November 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
ross, Brash lied (a lot), his integrity has been utterly destroyed.
Perhaps you should begin distancing yourself from him like all the other (extremely silent) prior Brash fans, including Key.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
what’s becoming clear in reading the book is that National (or more importantly the spin doctors) lied to the public and never intended to be as hard line on the maori issue as they said. What is becoming clear is that brash was used and exploited.
With Brash gone, the hard line approach is going to go and National will slip in the polls.
Don’t take the reports on the book to be true, read it for yourself and go into it with an open mind. It will shock you, it will sicken you, it will hurt reading this if you, like me, are a National supporter but its important to read it.
more of my thoughts on the book can be found at http://www.myspace.com/lizshawnz
November 28th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
what’s becoming clear in reading the book is that National (or more importantly the spin doctors) lied to the public and never intended to be as hard line on the maori issue as they said. What is becoming clear is that brash was used and exploited.
With Brash gone, the hard line approach is going to go and National will slip in the polls.
Don’t take the reports on the book to be true, read it for yourself and go into it with an open mind. It will shock you, it will sicken you, it will hurt reading this if you, like me, are a National supporter but its important to read it.
more of my thoughts on the book can be found at http://www.myspace.com/lizshawnz
November 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
“ross, Brash lied (a lot), his integrity has been utterly destroyed”.
The question was and remains: “What has Don to gain by referring to August instead of May?” Surely you can do better than to simply avoid the question. And why didn’t Nicky go to the police – it apparently took him two years to write the book, plenty of time for the police to investigate and possibly prosecute? If you had information of a potentially illegal activity, wouldn’t you go to the police? I know I would.
BTW, what of David Benson Pope’s integrity?
November 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
ross, Firstly: Hager not going to the cops? No idea, one could only speculate, and I am not going to, it does not in any way change the facts.
Secondly, Brash lied with such venom and regularity over the EB’s because: 1. They were breaking the law, and 2. It would be devastating for National in the polls if the public knew the extent and history of the relationship between them.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Ross.Why should Hager have gone to the police? The whole point of writing the book was to make a moral point to the public by actually telling the truth about the relationship between National and the EB.The illegal actions of the National party is only part of the book – the rest is to show general voters the dishonesty and hypocracy of a possible future governement.Hager is a journalist, not a prosecuter and to take a court case is in fact, very expensive.The legal side of things is completely up to the labour party – not Hager.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:26 am
DPF: “The point I am making here is that some of Hager’s facts are wrong, and that I can verify that for example a public email to Don forwarded onto Steven Joyce would have been done by a staffer not Don. That does not rule out Don was aware of it, but it means Hager’s proof is not there.”
Today’s Dominion-Post:
The Brethren email was marked high importance and referred to an urgent and confidential letter attached.
It was apparently cleared by Dr Brash’s aide, Bryan Sinclair, forwarding it to the then National leader, with the comment: “From the Brethren. I usually avoid tangling you up with this, but this is worth reading as it looks like $$ are involved here.”
The documents show Dr Brash replying later that day: “Thanks Bryan. Yes, our friends from the Brethren bailed me up at breakfast this morning. I have forwarded this for reaction from Steven (Joyce, National’s campaign manager). Don.”
November 29th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
“Hager is a journalist, not a prosecuter”.
Please, I never said he was a prosecutor. All Nicky had to do was to provide the police with the smoking guns. The police would’ve done the rest. I can only assume Nicky didn’t do that because his “evidence” is weak.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
“Hager is a journalist, not a prosecuter”.
Please, I never said he was a prosecutor. All Nicky had to do was to provide the police with the smoking guns. The police would’ve done the rest. I can only assume Nicky didn’t do that because his “evidence” is weak.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
“Brash lied with such venom”.
Did he really? He was clearly mistaken, whether he lied is another story. As I said, what did he have to gain by lying? Of course, Helen Clark was possibly mistaken when she said she didn’t notice the car she was in was going 160kmh. Did she deliberately lie? Well, applying your logic, the answer must be yes.
I note that the police found a prima facie case against DBP. The police have found no such case against National or Brash. I also note that DBP is a Cabinet Minister. Should DBP resign? If not, why not?
November 29th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
So since Hager’s “”evidence” is weak” then why doesnt Brash and the National Party sue him and his publisher for slander/defamation??…….because they know Hager’s evidence is TRUE!
November 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
In 1992 the Queen in a famous speech said she had suffered a horrible year- an “Annus Horribilis”
Don Brash has suffered an Hager- an “Anus Horribilis.”
November 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
As a point of interest, I have heard Hager make the following statements
1: The emails he had were not personal emails. (In the TV interview where Don Brash said he wanted the book pulished).
2: He had Don Brash’s personal emails.
3: He no longer had the emails (this when the injunction was in place, and all emails were to be turned over to the police)
4: He was in posession of unpublished emails. (Now passed on to the Dominion Post)
He is the same person bleating about the EB’s trying to influence the election behind a screen of secrecy, whilst also admitting to having secretly realeased information from the stolen emails during the election campaign, to influence the election.
In all fairness, if Brash is to be held to account for alleged lying & inconsistency, then Hager should be held to the same standard of accountability.
Further- if he did hold on to emails during the suppression order, was that not a breach of the law, even though the order was later lifted?
November 29th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
National radio has Brash saying that, pending verification, he (and the rest of the party, one assumes) may have had a lapse of memory. With a memory like that, he’s well out of it.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
LOL, Hager is a clever guy. Witholding some of the juiciest emails to catch out the post-book spin. I wonder how many more lies will be told and caught before Brash does what he should have done from day one, own up to his allegiances.
I certainly question the ethics of what Hager did to get these emails. But that does not excuse Brash’s continuing lies.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
For those having trouble keeping up with the shifting story …
Old Don (National Radio):
KATHRYN RYAN:
I began by asking Dr Brash what content in the book he says he believes is untrue.
DON BRASH:
There are so many I can’t possibly deal with it even in the Nine to Noon programme, Kathryn. But let me give some examples. He claims very strongly that both John Key and I received an email letter from the Exclusive Brethren in May, 2005, detailing their election planning, or campaign, or whatever the word is. John Key denies ever having got that email, and I certainly deny it. Not only not having got that; I deny getting THAT email, and indeed I didn’t get any emails at all from the Exclusive Brethren before or after the election. I’ve never had one.
New Don (NZ Herald):
“Dr Brash today said he had no memory of the email, which led him to believe he had never opened the attached letter.
Dr Brash said through a spokesman that if he had read it he was sure he would remember it, “given the big dollars involved”.
However, Dr Brash said he was still not ruling out the possibility the emails were forged.”
November 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Simon G – I accept that those new e-mails point that Don did see that e-mail.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Don Brash was asked by a One News interviewer today if he was a liar. His response, “Not to my Knowledge”. So Don just doesn’t know whether he’s a liar or not.
He’s now saying that he thinks that the emails may not be genuine and that we all know how easy it is to fake these sorts of things.
This is tragic and desperate continuation of the fake that is don brash(doesnt deserve capitals) as revealed in the emails/book.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Don Brash was asked by a One News interviewer today if he was a liar. His response, “Not to my Knowledge”. So Don just doesn’t know whether he’s a liar or not.
He’s now saying that he thinks that the emails may not be genuine and that we all know how easy it is to fake these sorts of things.
This is tragic and desperate continuation of the fake that is don brash(doesnt deserve capitals) as revealed in the emails/book.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:30 am
I am amused by the similarity between my invented fragment of dialog :
“Oh and there’s an email proposing to fund a million dollar campaign for us, I guess you won’t want to see that in writing, Don?”
and the newly released email :
“From the Brethren. I usually avoid tangling you up with this, but this is worth reading as it looks like $$ are involved here.”
November 30th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Lyndon: “National radio has Brash saying that, pending verification, he (and the rest of the party, one assumes) may have had a lapse of memory. With a memory like that, he’s well out of it”.
Are you suggesting his memory is worse than Helen’s or DBP’s? Helen had no memory of speeding at 160kmh (or why the govt didn’t tell the public about contaminated corn), and David Benson Pope denied stuffing a tennis ball into a pupil’s mouth. At least Don can say he had a senior moment. What excuses can the other two offer?
November 30th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I’m sure details of things are sometimes forgotten by politicians, but not remembering an extremely controversial set of emails is believable for about as long as it takes to get on your computer and look them up. Brash could have typed “Brethren” into a search and refreshed his memory pretty quickly.
I find the idea of injucting against ’stolen’ emails one day, then claiming they are forgeries the next, even harder to believe. Can’t wait for the next round of spin. Here’s some ideas:
*I didn’t know them by that name. I thought they were just saying they were ‘my brothers’.
*I suffered a blow to the head by an evil labour supporter who was never found that addled my memory around that time
*Why would I bother to remember only a paltry million?
*Well frankly it was only $999,999 so I wasn’t sure what you were all talking about.
*Everyone does it
*I leave all details to my subordinates
*This is just another attempt by Labour to take attention away from the real issues of lying to the public, exceeding campaign budgets, and pandering to extremists.
*Oh my god, those evil Tongan terrorists need the bash
November 30th, 2006 at 11:44 am
“At least Don can say he had a senior moment”
You’re taking the piss… right?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
“an extremely controversial set of emails”.
How many e-mails are we talking about? Have you seen this set of e-mails that you are referring to? If the answer is no, then they may not actually exist. Right?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Have you ever actually seen Paris? if the answer is no
Well it may not actually exist. Right?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Strange logic, Sonic, but then I wouldn’t expect anything else from you. I’ve been to Paris.
You will be aware, no doubt, that Nicky produced only one e-mail, allegedly from the Exclusive Bretheren, in his book. I guess we have to take his word for it that other exist.
I’ve read chapters 1 and 15 and what strikes me is the number of weasel words he uses. For example, “probably”, “possibly”, “seems” are used a lot. For someone that had access to a huge amount of e-mails and other material, Nicky sure likes to beat around the bush.
Nicky says that National spent $4 million on the last election – “possibly (that word again!) the highest amount ever spent on a NZ election campaign”. And what is his evidence that National spent $4 million? There is none. And does he provide us with any evidence that other campaigns have spent more? Nope. What about expenditure by Labour prior to the ‘87 election? We know that convicted fraudster Allan Hawkins donated $250,000 to the Labour Party. We know that there were other large donors too. Hager names Rod Deane, David Richwhite, Barry Colman et al as large donors to National – did he bother to find out whether they had also donated large sums to Labour? That’s what a respectable researcher would do.
In chapter 15 he mentions the various “potential” breaches of the Electoral Act by National. He also criticises the police for not prosecuting the EB. But he later says that the law is “complicated”. There is no mention of why he didn’t provide the police with information of which he was in possession.
Much has been made of the million dollar campaign by the EB. But did EB spend that much? Did Nicky bother to find out how much they actually spent? No. Was the EB entitled to spend money criticising the Greens and Labour? Absolutely. At least they did with their own money.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
For these e-mails to have been supplied to a third party from within National itself, should not this be were National looks first.
Allowing DB. to keep claiming Hager stole such
e-mails simply could not HAPPEN.
Who supplied them is the /////
November 30th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Ok Ross if you are right we would have expected Brash to tough it out and for National to deny the allegations.
Yet Brash is gone and National are running for cover.
Still want to defend them?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Ben,
“I’m sure details of things are sometimes forgotten by politicians, but not remembering an extremely controversial set of emails is believable for about as long as it takes to get on your computer and look them up. ”
Whoa. Lets back up the truck for a minute.
How about the line from Helen Clark about not remembering sticking the knife into Peter Doone with her false statement to a journalist?
Are you saying that Helen LIED to us? I mean, we KNOW she did, but are You admitting that she did?
Is Don’s assertion that he either did not read the attachment to an email any less believable than the assertion that the Helen could ride in the back of a car that was averaging in the region of 160 kmh on the open road, reading no less, and not notice? This when a race car driver failed miserably to average anything like the same speed in a similar car around the fastest race track in the southern hemisphere, and the back seat passenger, a journalist, eneded up puking?
The question is, if Don Brash has lied, is this any different from Helen Clark’s lies, and why have the lies of one required resignation, when the lies of the other have not?
Double standard anyone?
November 30th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
I agree, Peter.
Who believes David Benson Pope’s lies and denials? And what has been his punishment? A ministerial portfolio.
There’s the answer to your question, Sonic. Don no doubt belives he acted appropriately and told the truth but believes he is a liability to National. He also knows that the public perception (right or wrong) of him is that he llied. So he resigns. But what happens when Helen or DBP or Taito Field lie? They remain as MPs with significant responsibilites. What a stark difference between the two main parties.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
So Peter and Ross, I take it you admit Brash lied, and your take is that it’s OK cause everyone does it? I think I covered that one already in the bullet suggestions.
And I think it is about all you have left, but feel free to stun me with your spin.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Best. Spin. Ever.
In the bizarre world of Peter S and Ross, we have the following:
1. National ahead in the polls.
2. National’s leader does – or believes he does – nothing wrong.
3. There may be mistaken “perceptions” that he has done something wrong. Note, however, that not one opinion poll has come out in this short period. So he doesn’t yet know how bad these “perceptions” really are.
4. Therefore, Don Brash resigns as leader, from the team, and from Parliament altogether. Even though he wanted to stay on the front bench, and make a contribution.
Oh, and 5. Not a single person in the caucus speaks out to try and save him. An innocent man.
Principled bunch, aren’t they?
December 1st, 2006 at 6:59 am
Wake me up when Hager is running for Prime Minister.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:17 am
“So Peter and Ross, I take it you admit Brash lied, and your take is that it’s OK cause everyone does it? I think I covered that one already in the bullet suggestions.”
Ben, you obviously didn’t read my last post very carefully. I said that the “perception” is that he lied, and, in politics, perception is everything. Of course, nobody has explained what Don had to gain by lying about 3 measly months. And I’ve only seen one e-mail about the matter, far too little “evidence” to admit anything.
The point, which you continue to miss, is that Brash is now gone because of that perception, but Helen, PTF and DBP remain in Parliament. You seem to be quite happy with this arrangement.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:17 am
“So Peter and Ross, I take it you admit Brash lied, and your take is that it’s OK cause everyone does it? I think I covered that one already in the bullet suggestions.”
Ben, you obviously didn’t read my last post very carefully. I said that the “perception” is that he lied, and, in politics, perception is everything. Of course, nobody has explained what Don had to gain by lying about 3 measly months. And I’ve only seen one e-mail about the matter, far too little “evidence” to admit anything.
The point, which you continue to miss, is that Brash is now gone because of that perception, but Helen, PTF and DBP remain in Parliament. You seem to be quite happy with this arrangement.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:18 am
“So Peter and Ross, I take it you admit Brash lied, and your take is that it’s OK cause everyone does it? I think I covered that one already in the bullet suggestions.”
Ben, you obviously didn’t read my last post very carefully. I said that the “perception” is that he lied, and, in politics, perception is everything. Of course, nobody has explained what Don had to gain by lying about 3 measly months. And I’ve only seen one e-mail about the matter, far too little “evidence” to admit anything.
The point, which you continue to miss, is that Brash is now gone because of that perception, but Helen, PTF and DBP remain in Parliament. You seem to be quite happy with this arrangement.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:20 am
“So Peter and Ross, I take it you admit Brash lied, and your take is that it’s OK cause everyone does it? I think I covered that one already in the bullet suggestions.”
Ben, you obviously didn’t read my last post very carefully. I said that the “perception” is that he lied, and, in politics, perception is everything. Of course, nobody has explained what Don had to gain by lying about 3 measly months. And I’ve only seen one e-mail about the matter, far too little “evidence” to admit anything.
The point, which you continue to miss, is that Brash is now gone because of that perception, but Helen, PTF and DBP remain in Parliament. You seem to be quite happy with this arrangement.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:27 am
“Not a single person in the caucus speaks out to try and save him.”
I can only assume you’ve been out of the country in the last week. Don’t you recall John Key, new leader, saying that he, too, didn’t recall getting the May 24 e-mail and that Don was a man of integrity?
You refer to National as a “principled bunch” but conveniently ignore DBP and others in Labour who appear to have broken the law. Certainly there was sufficient evidence for police to charge DBP but for political reasons they chose not to. What’s it like wearing that patch over your eye?
December 1st, 2006 at 8:13 am
Ben,
I do not know if Brash lied or not, or whether he told the absolute truth as he remembered it, or told partial truth & tried to just leave out information.
Is there any less liklihood that he failed to remember reading an email than Helen Clark failed to remember giving false information to the press over Peter Doone?
If that is the case, is either one worse than the other?
The other thing is, have you ever had someone send an email to you that they think is important, and you have glanced at the subject & forwarded it on to someone you feel is more appropriate, with an added comment, but not really read the contents. I know I have, when I have been really busy & not been inclined to spend time on it.
No one has commented on the language that Brash refered to the EBs in his email- he talked about being “bailed up” by them. That is normally something you would say about someone you don’t want to talk to, rather than your bosom buddy. In fact the language would suggest a “pass the email on to someone else” frame of mind is a possibility.
The interesting thing is that Brash, even though he has resigned (and has little left to lose) still shows every intention of trying to clear his name. That suggests that, even if no-one else believes him, he still does.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:59 am
“have you ever had someone send an email to you that they think is important, and you have glanced at the subject & forwarded it on to someone you feel is more appropriate, with an added comment, but not really read the contents.”
True, the last time someone sent me an email offering to spend one million dollars on my pet political campaign I almost fell asleep reading it. Happens every day.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:14 am
Peter S, you persist with this line that two wrongs make a right. Brash could surely have toughed it out if there was no truth in any of this email scandal. I don’t think he’s trying to clear his name, he’s given up on that completely, and he’s just hoping to fade out of a very uncomfortable limelight.
Ross, why do you think I need to explain Brash’s lies? It is enough that they were lies repeatedly told, and still being told. If that creates a bad perception, then good. Most people don’t like liars for good reason – they are untrustworthy.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:43 am
Ben,
Brash would have found it extremely difficult to tough things out, and the damage to the party that would have happened whilst doing so would not be worth the while.
Brash does not have the media skills & character type to do what Helen Clark has done when caught telling lies. The press do not have the courage to take her on head to head, so she scares them, and they back off.
Brash is not scary, so the press push & push, and he, not a good thinker on his feet, flounders.
If he lied, then he will fade out, if he did not, then he will do what he is good at. He will take the time to do some research, and come back with a measured and researched response.
I do not agree with either lies or dissembling. I do believe that all public figures should be held to account.
If this is the account that we hold Brash to on the suspicion of lying, then Clark should be held to the same level of account. Hagar should be also, because he has put himself in the same arena as a herald of decency, but also told lies himself.
One rule for all.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but to punish only one for the same offense is worse.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:14 am
Perhaps, just perhaps, Peter, Brash told bigger lies, and no matter how much coaching he got they couldn’t continue to be covered up.
How much of Hager’s book have you plowed through? I’m about halfway, and we’re not talking about the odd lie here and there, man. However unethically Hager got his material, it’s bloody good material. Hard to beat the actual correspondence of the people in question. I have never read anything quite like it. I read it with a healthy pinch of salt, in that Hager’s conclusions from the evidence presented are debatable, of course. But the evidence itself is absolutely fascinating in a voyeuristic kind of way. We only speculate about how spin machines work, it’s amazing to see one that we have recent memory of all the ins and outs of ourselves, in all it’s naked glory.
The way I read it, the most damaging thing to Brash in there is not what the public will think of him, but what his own party will. With a print run of 5000, that means stuff-all NZers will ever read it. But most high ranking Nats will, or at least be told in gruesome detail of the juiciest parts.
I don’t think for a minute that these Nats didn’t know about it at the time, and weren’t fully prepared to bask in a glorious victory if they got it. But being made to look like irrelevant nobodies in such a public way is probably unbearable. To have the Brash spin machine consider their position ‘completely unelectable’ is something that even I disagree with. I really am not that cynical about NZ conservatives. I’m sure they can make a coalition government one day, if, like Labour, they are prepared to compromise.
But I agree that Clark was better with media. She knows when not to just lie.
I’m sure Labour have their spin meisters and dirty secrets too. But by and large what Clarkist Labour promises, they give. That is actually what matters in democratic politics. I don’t want to vote for somebody because I trust them to make all my decisions for me. I vote for them because I have already decided that I want what they are promising, and I believe they will deliver.
I did not vote for them, btw. I did not particularly want what Labour was promising either. I voted Green, and the decision to do so was mostly made by Fitzsimmons unequivocal statement that they would certainly ally with Labour after the election. I may not agree with the Greens on everything (I think anti GE is ridiculous), but I believe they are also people of their word, and I think they learned their lesson about strong-arming the whole country from a minority position.
I really couldn’t care less if she burned off some of her land in flagrant hypocritical denial of core green values about global warming. Or if Clark was in a speeding incident and told lies. Such pissly irrelevances don’t even pop up on the radar – what matters is what they will do politically. That is why I don’t care who Brash shagged, and nor does Nicky Hager, who I’m sure has plenty of juicy gossip there.
What matters to me is what Brash was going to do to NZ. Fortunately we can never be entirely certain, but there is very good reason to think it would have been a repeat of Labour’s 1984 debacle, masterminded by most of the same players. That such a policy was ‘unelectable’ doesn’t mean it’s ok to lie that you have more palatable policies. It is contemptuous of NZers, the oft-derided ‘punters’ that feature only as a clueless morass of prejudiced buttons and levers in so many of Brash’s messages to his true peers.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:45 am
Ben,
I have not read Hager’s book, I simply commented on the email that he released post book, and the parts that have been published in the MSM.
The lies that Hagar has told that I mentioned are ones I picked up just by listening to his interviews. They were blatant and unchallenged, but he clearly says one thing when it is convenient, & another when it suits. Kind of ironic when he is promoting a book about the lies of others.
Helen Clark is a liar. That is not inconsequential, and to say that it is is exactly what you accused me of a couple of posts ago.
Character is character.
If Brash is a liar, then, even though I agreed with his stance on many things, good riddance.
Now- equity. I don’t care how many promises Clark has kept- we would disagree on the number I am sure. She has lied and mislead the public.
Throw her out and replace her with someone who has some moral fibre.
I am all for cleaning up the cess pool that our house of representatives has become.
I am no hypocrite- I want the liars thrown out, whoever they are.
Can you say the same, or will you find excuses to justify somehow why it is ok for the left to lie but not the right?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:53 am
Ben,
“I really couldn’t care less if she burned off some of her land in flagrant hypocritical denial of core green values about global warming. Or if Clark was in a speeding incident and told lies. Such pissly irrelevances don’t even pop up on the radar – what matters is what they will do politically.”
There is a reason why this attitude is wrong.
In a democracy the govornment is there to represent the people and to administer the law making.
If the accusations against Brash are true, then he comitted the moral crime of misrepresenting the people.
What Clark has done is to show a contempt for the law.
If that is the case, then between the two of them they have attacked two of the major foundations of democracy. I find the two things equally reprehensible.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Peter, it’s going to be very hard to make informed comment on Hager without doing the homework, painful though that may sound.
If Clark has lied, it’s still with plausible deniability, unlike Brash. And about some pretty minor stuff.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
The very fact that people are still bringing up ‘the motorcade incident’ (which happened some 2 and a half years ago) as some sort of half-baked defense of Don Brash indicates to me the absolute banality of their argument and absence of any kind of perspective.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Ben
I thought you might make excuses for Auntie Helen. A clear case of double standards.
I have seen Hager lie on TV- different interviews, contradictory statements. That tells me a lot about his character.
Brash has resigned, so I am not going to waste my money feathering Hager’s nest.
Just remember you yourself wrote this
“It is enough that they were lies repeatedly told, and still being told. If that creates a bad perception, then good. Most people don’t like liars for good reason – they are untrustworthy.”
I do not like either Helen Clark or Hagar, and I am glad to know you understand the reasons why, and approve.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Peter, there’s really no point listening to anything you have to say about Hager if you won’t actually read him.
As for lies, there are definitely scales of lies, as every child knows. You can lie about liking Grandma’s soup, or you can lie about stealing money from Dad’s wallet. Do you perceive any difference?
In a job interview, you could lie about being good at public speaking, or you could fabricate your entire employment and academic history. Which is worse?
December 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Ben,
I listened to Hager, and I found 3 distinct lies. They are not hard to spot, and they relate to the type of emails he had & whether he actually had them or not. Just as you are not interested in my opinion of Hager, because I won’t read him, having seen him lie on the issue, I am not interested in his opinion on the truthfulness of Brash. He and Brash can sort that out themselves.
Lies are lies, and little lies lead to big ones.
You can act as appologist for Clark if you want, but it is a question of character. If she has lied in one area, then there is no reason to suspect that she is any more truthful in another.
I can see that you are someone that will always justify the actions of those you approve of, and critiscise those you disaprove of- moral relativism. We are obviously not going to agree, so I’m out of this.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Peter, do tell about these lies. I hope you’re not lying, or at least stretching the truth. Just remember, I’ve actually got the book right here in my hand.
As for apologizing for Clark, the day someone catches her out for telling lies of the same magnitude as Hollow Men lays bare, I will cheerfully join you in condemning her. If I am underwhelmed by the gravity of ‘possibly lying about how fast someone else was driving’, then it could be because it’s underwhelming.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Ben,
Simple lies in interviews.
First, when he was interviewed with Brash, & Brash said he wanted the personal emails protected, Hagar said that he had none of the personal emails, it was only parliamentary issues ones.
He later made statements saying that they were personal emails.
When the injunction was in place, and the court ruled that all emails had to be turned over to the police, Hagar claimed that he no longer had the emails. Yet, once the injunction was lifted, lo and behold, the emails appeared again- evidence the latest email release.
There was a third “inconsistency, but I honestly can’t remember it just at the current time. I did mention it in another post somewhere.
I picked these things up just from listening to a few interviews.
Had the book been about something other than honesty & integrity, I suppose I would have given more leeway, but with Hagar’s stance mixed with his weasel words- I have no time for him.
I was a Labour voter in 1999. It was the lies of Clark that turned me off from that party completely, and there is NO WAY Labour will ever get my vote whilst she is still an MP.
Had Brash stayed, and Clark resigned, then I would be saying something similar but with party names reversed.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Peter, lol, that’s it? Hager playing slippery with the words ‘personal’ and ’stolen’? Since only he and his sources know if any of the emails are either personal or stolen, I think you’re doing exactly what I said, stretching the truth.
As for the third inconsistency, you might notice that the memory defence has worn pretty thin recently. Look it up if you want to use it.
I counted hundreds of references to emails in the book so far. You’re going to have to do a lot more work to discredit Hager. I already found one little inaccuracy, an unchecked reference to Hard News. Turns out Russell Brown did say what Hager says, on the date quoted, just not in Hard News. These little inaccuracies creep in when you have almost a thousand citations.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Ben,
Yep, true to form, the right lies, the left is slippery. I don’t have to discredit Hager on a personal level, he does not need my help.
I really don’t care what anyone else thinks of him, I would not buy any second hand property off him. I have found that it does not take much exposure to a person to gain what is, > 90% of the time an accurate impression of their personality.
So, what I was talking about was not any stunning revelations, just that Hager had let slip enough information for me to see that he was extremely parsimonious with the truth when it suited him. When that is coupled with a crusade on the issues of honesty in others- then the sleazball radar starts sounding off the alerts.
If you want to justify the little and acceptable lies of the left then that is your perogative. Just don’t expect me to agree, and when their lies are exposed, I won’t even hark back to this conversation.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Peter, I’m glad you admit these ‘lies’ are little. At least you have a sense of magnitude. I’m also glad you admit to forming your opinion of a huge work, containing hundreds of direct citations, from the flimsiest of evidence, your ’sleazeball radar’, and it’s 33% data loss ratio. That radar seems not to have detected anything untoward in the lies you wanted to believe, so I have to say it seems a bit faulty, wasn’t second hand from some other opinion broker, by any chance?
December 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Ben,
Thanks for the complete twisting of what I said. It is really refreshing to encounter someone that is capable of misiterpreting something so comprehensively.
I suppose I should have double quoted the “little.” As far as I am concerned a lie is exactly that.
My judgement of Hagar was that. Not the book. The man and his character. He rates as devious and sleazy. The casual way that he gave one set of information in one interview, and another when it suited, that type of ease with lying is something that requires practice with most people.
I put more weight in people’s attitude to the law than to politics. So my sense of magnitude probably differs from yours with regard to lies.
I really not interested in continuing this conversation, Ben. But, in spite of the opinion we may have each other, I do wish you a pleasant weekend.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:46 am
Cheers Peter, same to you, have a good one.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
“Most people don’t like liars for good reason – they are untrustworthy.”
sucessful policticians are all liers in the sense that matters. they all at some stage get asked questions that will sound realy bad (even if it is not) if they tell the honest truth so they mislead /lie. it’s like a bf being asked ‘do I look fat in this dress’.
the main factor is always going to be how good at it you are. If you elect someone who is really good then there will be a massiver incentive for him to do it.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
anon, there’s still big lies and little lies. Almost everyone, politician or not, tells little lies, like your fat gf example. Lying about cheating on a gf is worse, for example. Bigger lies are often harder to hide, so I disagree that it’s just about how good you are at lying. You could be a mastermind, but you still can’t tell people black is white (although left is right seems to still be problematic). A good part of success in politics is not needing to tell big lies.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:18 am
If you mean it is worse because the crime is worse then I’m sure there are greater crimes than meeting with the EB. I can think of a couple some labour party members would be guilty of. maybe we havent proven beyond any doubt some of those things but that again says more about our comparitive abilities than their morality.
and If you mean making people think you said somthing you didn’t then maybe. That would be a skillful politician, but that is no better than flat out lying – since lying wouldn’t be a problem at all if it didn’t result in deception.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Anon, obviously I’m not referring to the meetings, which are anyone’s right in a free society. Yes, I’m talking about hiding those meetings, discussions, mutual help and coordination around the Brethren campaign to discredit Labour and the Greens, which Brash flat out denied at the time, and for a long time afterwards. And that is just the first chapter of lies, the most blatant.
I do think going out of your way to systematically hide from the electorate who is pulling your strings and how they are donating untold money to you via one loophole or another, is worse than saying ‘I couldn’t really say how fast we were going’.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Hi David,
You are still doing a good job as propaganda writer, son…
using all the old tricks in the book.
But, who can take you serious with statement like:
-”It Is Becoming Clear that …… Seems Based Entirely”
make up your mind, its either clear Or it seems.
-”has in No Way gained confirmation from Anyone as to the context of Some of them”
he has used the resources and methods he could use, nothing more, nothing less.
or are you just sad that he didn’t call you for your deep insight comments again?
And “he can’t prove it, so its not true!, if i don’t want it to be” comments like:
-”but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion”
-”Can Hager verify his assertion?”
You see… its not up to the writer to prove things to people who don’t even want to acknowledge the option.
Its up to the reader to make up his/her own mind,
and those who don’t want it to be true will find ways to deny/dismiss facts any time of the day.
The poor Ex_MP and his smiling successors stand accused of some rather serious braking of laws and fooling the people they say they represent, and it seems that they are to clear their name if they can do so.
Pulling the very old Stalinists propaganda trick “we can prove one item on the long list to be no entirely true, so now we will dismiss all information”, should be left at kindergarten where it belongs.
Which leads me to conclude again,
that you sound and act more like a religious fanatic then a man who uses common sense to look at each issue with an open mind.
I guess you still have the billboard defacing articles hanging above your bed, reminding you of your great, playing victim, spin-doctor achievements.
Big Hug to you, because you seem to lack some love in your life..
*Anna.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Hi David,
You are still doing a good job as propaganda writer, son…
using all the old tricks in the book.
But, who can take you serious with statement like:
-”It Is Becoming Clear that …… Seems Based Entirely”
make up your mind, its either clear Or it seems.
-”has in No Way gained confirmation from Anyone as to the context of Some of them”
he has used the resources and methods he could use, nothing more, nothing less.
or are you just sad that he didn’t call you for your deep insight comments again?
And “he can’t prove it, so its not true!, if i don’t want it to be” comments like:
-”but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion”
-”Can Hager verify his assertion?”
You see… its not up to the writer to prove things to people who don’t even want to acknowledge the option.
Its up to the reader to make up his/her own mind,
and those who don’t want it to be true will find ways to deny/dismiss facts any time of the day.
The poor Ex_MP and his smiling successors stand accused of some rather serious braking of laws and fooling the people they say they represent, and it seems that they are to clear their name if they can do so.
Pulling the very old Stalinists propaganda trick “we can prove one item on the long list to be no entirely true, so now we will dismiss all information”, should be left at kindergarten where it belongs.
Which leads me to conclude again,
that you sound and act more like a religious fanatic then a man who uses common sense to look at each issue with an open mind.
I guess you still have the billboard defacing articles hanging above your bed, reminding you of your great, playing victim, spin-doctor achievements.
Big Hug to you, because you seem to lack some love in your life..
*Anna.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Hi David,
You are still doing a good job as propaganda writer, son…
using all the old tricks in the book.
But, who can take you serious with statement like:
-”It Is Becoming Clear that …… Seems Based Entirely”
make up your mind, its either clear Or it seems.
-”has in No Way gained confirmation from Anyone as to the context of Some of them”
he has used the resources and methods he could use, nothing more, nothing less.
or are you just sad that he didn’t call you for your deep insight comments again?
And “he can’t prove it, so its not true!, if i don’t want it to be” comments like:
-”but the burden of proof is on Hager to prove his assertion”
-”Can Hager verify his assertion?”
You see… its not up to the writer to prove things to people who don’t even want to acknowledge the option.
Its up to the reader to make up his/her own mind,
and those who don’t want it to be true will find ways to deny/dismiss facts any time of the day.
The poor Ex_MP and his smiling successors stand accused of some rather serious braking of laws and fooling the people they say they represent, and it seems that they are to clear their name if they can do so.
Pulling the very old Stalinists propaganda trick “we can prove one item on the long list to be no entirely true, so now we will dismiss all information”, should be left at kindergarten where it belongs.
Which leads me to conclude again,
that you sound and act more like a religious fanatic then a man who uses common sense to look at each issue with an open mind.
I guess you still have the billboard defacing articles hanging above your bed, reminding you of your great, playing victim, spin-doctor achievements.
Big Hug to you, because you seem to lack some love in your life..
*Anna.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Ps. Sorry for posting it more then once it seems, but the CGI takes way too long to respond, so it looks like its not processing it, and one tends to try again..
Have a lovely day
*Anna.