Absolute Power
April 21st, 2008 at 7:58 am by David FarrarI have not yet read the whole book, but on Friday I got hold of an electronic version of Absolute Power by Ian Wishart and have read a couple of hundred pages.
He tells the story of Helen Clark’s use and abuse of power, starting with her first weeks in office when she undermined then Police Commissioner Doone by not just leaking confidential information to the Sunday Star-Times, but by leaking false fabricated information and claiming it was in official reports, when it wasn’t. Some of this info has been covered previously but Wishart has done a service by putting it all together.
He contrasts the hounding from office of Peter Doone, with the treatment of allegations against Howard Broad for a similar but allegedly far more serious offence. The Dom Post reports:
The police watchdog has been asked to intervene after the State Services Commission cleared Police Commissioner Howard Broad of any wrongdoing in a 1992 drink-driving incident.
Journalist Ian Wishart claims Mr Broad “pulled rank” to get out of a breath test in Christchurch, saying something like “Don’t you know who I am” to a junior officer.
Mr Broad admitted he had been drinking, and a SSC investigation found he was told to park his car and refrain from driving for several hours.
Wishart has complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
“The SSC claims the junior cop had a discretion not to breath-test despite seeing Mr Broad swerve across a lane, and despite an admission of drinking.
Now on the face of it, there is a gross double standard here. Doone was investigated by both the PCA and the Deputy Commissioner for merely getting out of his car when his partner was pulled over for no headlights on.
Broad allegedly had himself been drinking and driving, was swerving across the road, pulled rank on the officer (using swear words allegedly) and was told to stop driving and park his car. And somehow this is merely an issue for the State Services Commission!!!
Now Broad was not Commissioner when this incident happened, but anyone can see the double standard involved.
Related posts:
- Review of Absolute Power
- Debate on Absolute Power
- Nice to see cheap point scoring avoided
- Another defamation suit for the PM?
April 21st, 2008 at 8:01 am
I will be at the Bookshop at 9 am sharp so I can buy the book. I can’t wait and I’m happier than James Brown.
I thought the PCA was the SSC? Ouch that hurt the white elephant stacked with political appointments.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 8:10 am
Broad should have been breath tested it is absolutely standard to do so. The fact that he wasn’t AFTER admitting he had been drinking is very serious indeed. And before our Labour friends get excited that this happened under National’s watch, it was the LABOUR Party who made him Commissioner against this known background. Put this against the “reasons” she gave for she hounding Peter Doone from his office as Commissioner and the special treatment the Police give the Labour Party and one begins to smell a big fat rat.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 8:13 am
Why was Doone hounded while Broad was promoted? Did one pose a threat to H1′s planned manipulation of the police, while the other represented ‘leverage’ for her?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 8:16 am
While I shall of course read this book, I treat anything written by Ian these days as being as accurate as any utterance by Nicky Hagar. More’s the pity as until about a decade ago, Ian was a fine journalist.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Well said poneke, Ian is a good kiwi.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am
“Some of this info has been covered previously but Wishart has done a service by putting it all together.”
Most of the book is a copy/paste from Investigate Magazine. It’s actually quite boring.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Is that it?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:05 am
Seems the best the trolls can do is vote negetive karma on this one.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:10 am
No Tane – that’s only the first two chapters. Heather Simpson, Chris Carter, Benson-Pope, Peter Davis, David Parker and a cast of thousands more, not to mention the Diva herself, all follow in later chapters.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:10 am
I live in medium sized rural town with one bookshop, at 8.30 am I purchased the last copy of Absolute power, the shop has already sold 30 copies this morning.
The public are beginning to wake up Tane, they now know Labour are corrupt and Clark has been telling lies for nine years.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:13 am
poneke, exactly. We should follow the exact standards that the left followed with Nicky Hager’s tripe – treat it as the absolute literal truth and bring it up every 5 minutes.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
I would place this book as the yin to Nicky Hagars yang. Obviously it would be written from a certain point of view to a probably predetermined end, in much the same way as “The Hollow Men” was, and is probably would be just as balanced.
This makes it no less relevant insofar as the political landscape in NZ is concerned. I’m sure that this book will give the swinging voter in NZ something to think about however, as more information comes to light.
I do look forward to getting my hands on a copy, but I do not know if it would transfer well to another media, such as theater!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
If you don’t like Hager just read the source material he provides. That’s enlightening enough, and doesn’t need any commentary.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
“No Tane – that’s only the first two chapters. Heather Simpson, Chris Carter, Benson-Pope, Peter Davis, David Parker and a cast of thousands more, not to mention the Diva herself, all follow in later chapters.”
Yep. But what has all that got to do with the book being an autobiography of Helen Clark? It’s irrelevant piffle.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Tane
“If you don’t like Hager just read the source material he provides. That’s enlightening enough, and doesn’t need any commentary”
Exactly the same can be said of Wisharts book.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Tane’s sounding nervous.
Loony left don’t like it when the shoes on the other foot.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Tane – I dearly hope you do read the book and give an honest appraisal of it – but unless you read it, you will face criticism for any comment you may make about it without knowledge. I know you will not like the book being published less than six months out from an election, but look at it this way. Labour will be destroyed in the coming elecion. They will then be able to clean out the cupboard, use the next nine years to rebuild and then they may have a shot at the Government benches again. But once National are in Government, the scare mongering of the left will come to nothing, and National will be a good government until they (like labour now) become too arrogant and the people will toss them in a similar fashion to what will happen to Labour in October.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Gooner
What point is a book about a central protagonist without a supporting cast?
Imagine Macbeth without the witches, Duncan, Young Siward and Macduff.
Those around a figure such as Clark put her actions into context. Is that context correct? I’ll leave that to the individual to decide. But her actions surrounding Doone, Benson-Pope, Philip Field, Trevor Mallard, David Carter and Pete Hodgson are central to any evaluation of her as a person. It would be a fair bet that Helen has not granted a one-on-one interview to Wishart, so what other type of evaluation would be open to him?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Tane, reading Hager’s source material would be working from the assumption that he hasn’t paraphrased or doctored any of it. The originals are not available, he hasn’t divulged the source, National have not confirmed all the e-mails as being factual. In short, how would I read his source material?
I believe that Wishart’s book is based on information already in the public domain – surely that would make it more reliable?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:43 am
I’m normally a modest type of chap, but I believe that I was the first of the “Kiwiblog Right” (what a badge of honour that is!!) to review Absolute Power – the Helen Clark Years with a mini-review online by 8.30pm on Saturday. Not a lot of work was done on Saturday, as it’s quite a compelling read. Anyway, here ’tis: http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/absolute-power-first-impressions.html
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:58 am
Broad allegedly had himself been drinking and driving, was swerving across the road, pulled rank on the officer (using swear words allegedly) and was told to stop driving and park his car. And somehow this is merely an issue for the State Services Commission!!!
Maybe one of the lawyers on the site can correct me here, but since the offense occurred back in 1992 I highly doubt there would be legal recourse for a police investigation – who else would you suggest this is an issue for?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
IMHO Doone was got rid of because he made it clear to Clark that he wasnt going to be her patsy.
Rob Robinson was a very compliant Commissioner who just did what the 9th Floor told him to do or not do.
Howie Board was picked because Clark knew about the skeletons in his closet and that she would need to keep him under control given the actions she was planning on his watch.
The last thing she needed was an independent Commissioner who would act with integrity morals and ethics. So ole Howie was told do what your trold and Ill protect you and see you right.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Well I’m willing to have a look at it at some stage, probably won’t shell out the $30 or whatever it costs though. Allegations about police officials from eight years ago ain’t exactly riveting stuff.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Gooner
The cover claims to be a biography of a political machine and of course the implication is it is about Helen. Also on the cover however is the statement it is about “the Helen Clark years” which makes all other players relevant.
And yes, the book is a little boring to read. I put that down to the extensive detail that Ian has put together. Ian has gone places no other media have bothered and joined a lot of dots in the process. Out of all the detail a very sorry, indeed corrupt, picture emerges.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Allegations about police officials from eight years ago ain’t exactly riveting stuff.
Yet allegations regarding someones position during the Springbok tour seem to be all the rage in Labour circles….
Oh let me guess, thats somehow different……
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
The chapter that interests me the most is the David Parker saga. Several aspects of that did not ring true at the time and Wishart presents a compelling case which should be put to the PM by the media.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
gd, just remember – it’s not in the public interest to prosecute a Labour Party member. They’d get away with murder.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Funny how Stuff has a pic on its home page of the Chief Lemon Sucker with a caption “Clark Dismisses ‘Creep’s’ Book” yet when you click on it, it says ‘this story is no longer available’. Gee, the ninth floor is quick off the mark today, indulging its love for media manipulation.
Don’t worry Tane Tutae – you should be able to get one of the 10-11 copies currently floating round dear Leader’s office (who was that in Bennetts this morning?) – you just have to ignore the highlighter and claw marks…
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Pascal – murder? No it was just “confusion”, a “misunderstanding”, and all John Key’s fault.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
“I won’t shell out the $30 or whatever it costs though.”
Tane is actually costs $34.99 at Whitcoulls. I just got mine and the lovely check out girls said it was selling like hot cakes and can you tell your slimy friend over at the sub standard sewer blog Steve Pierson not to bother sending anymore malicious comments to my blog, as my finger hurts from hitting the delete button all the time.Thank you communist coward.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Is the latest mag in the bookshops yet? FUNNY, but “Investigate” magazine, due out today, though listed on the newsagents “packing slip” from the distributor, has been omitted from the bundle of magazines supplied, at TWO places I have tried so far.
I SMELL something very rotten………
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am
I’ll accept the Parker stuff is very interesting. There are some hard questions out of that letter from the OI.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am
Here we go PhilBest she has started the smelly action.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Now about the book. I agree that Wishart has done a good job getting all this info together under one cover even if there aren’t a LOT of new revelations. The real sickening thing is that most of this stuff is completely unknown to the NZ public, the MSM being so far up the Heleban’s arse that all you can see of them are their feet sticking out. In most countries with a constitution and checks and balances, Clark would have been a goner right back at the start over Doonegate alone.
The way the book concludes on the subject of those lack of checks and balances is of major importance. In becoming independent of Britain, the Gov-Gen being emasculated, the Privy Council access abolished, and the Gov-Gen, Supreme Court Justices, Police Commissioner etc all being appointed by the PM, Wishart points out that the PM of NZ probably has the most “absolute power” of any head of a democracy in the world. We never had an “upper house”, but nevertheless, the checks and balances that did exist under our connections with Westminster should have been replaced with SOMETHING, Wishart argues most convincingly.
Amy Brooke’s latest “Critical Review” put in a plug for Switzerland’s form of Democracy. Maybe this is a good idea whose time has come………..
A couple of unexpected niceties: Wishart puts in a plug for Kay Goodger – “…..don’t be too hard on her…..” and Peter Davis – “….unfairly victimised….”
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
THIS IS IMPORTANT, so I’m copying and posting it in its entirety.
Apr. 10th, 2008 | 11:45 pm BY AMY BROOKE From “The Critical Review”
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST. HOW TO RECLAIM OUR DEMOCRACY.
“Former politician Mike Moore is, as usual, half wrong and half right. For example, pushing for a republic, as seems to be one of his pet projects, is no way to limit politicians’ power. It is the constitutional framework of our relationship with the British crown which has long acted as a restraint on politicians increasing their own power – one reason why the Left’s persistent push is for contriving a republic – while it argues wrongly, but manipulatively, that it is “inevitable”.
Mr Moore is right when he says that New Zealand is no longer a Parliamentary democracy. But his thinking is simplistic. He rails against New Zealand’s First’s inherently reasonable refusal to endorse the recently signed “free-trade” deal with China – with all its inherent fishhooks – because, just as with the general public – the important details about this historic agreement had been kept from this party. Moore apparently would like fired those politicians who did not fall into line, but who voiced strong doubts about the morality, let alone the wisdom, of being manipulated by a very powerful militarily aggressive country with designs on the Pacific. He shows little comprehension that there are deeper questions at issues here than just the advantages to New Zealand of economic benefits which may well have more downsides that have apparently been taken into account.
The state of the nation? Few doubt that we are in a poor shape politically, and the social climate has greatly deteriorated in recent years, in some considerable degree due to the machinations of both major political parties. Labour has overseen an increasing attack on the sovereignty of parents over their children; the shocking performance of our education system; the increasing criminalizing of the country – contriving a downward spiral in almost every socio-political area. One party is seen as very crafty, engaged in policies that are undermining our democracy. One is seen as out-manoeuvered, intelligent, but blundering, led by a decent individual who is apparently thoroughly out of his depth on (nor with any background in) issues apart from the economy. John Key was foolish recently to apparently to think that his image can be strengthened by using “virile” words like “buggered”. He, however, does not engage in malicious phrases such as “rich prick” or “feral in-breds”.
So, what the electorate sees is Hobson’s choice. Getting rid of Labour at all costs is now imperative for the majority of the voting public, although Labour seems to have taken steps to attempt to make it difficult, if not, appallingly enough, actually illegal to say so in some circumstances. But what real choice is there, what hope under National for reversing the flawed policies that most concern thinking New Zealanders? Apparently planning to simply apply more icing to a crumbling cake of social disintegration, it, too, seems poised to throw more undeserved treaty settlements to opportunistic Maori radical groups grossly distorting our combined history for financial benefit, and for the centre-staging of a microphone thrust at them, apparently to feed a self-important, bloated mana.
Not only New Zealanders as a whole, but many mainstream Maori have escaped the country to remove themselves and their children from what they see clearly as an ongoing, never-ending rort. Nor does anyone now trust National over its firm commitment to abolish the Maori seats. It looks – as ever, these days – that principles are going to be abandoned in favour of that age-old grab for power, and the country is fed up.
But there is a way forward, and like most of the best ideas, it is inherently simple. The most advanced parliamentary democracy in the world, and arguably, the most effective direct democracy of all, demanded, nearly 150 years ago, the right to be free from the hands-down impositions of a central government. It is over time for us to insist on the same right. And no – it is not simply the right to referenda, per se. There is another far more important step which would have to first be taken – an essentially simple one – but one which would, for the first time, give New Zealanders a genuinely democratic government.
It has been pointed out that referenda do not succeed where the public is basically apathetic mis,- or ill-educated and under-informed. There is no doubt that this is a fairly accurate description of decent, well-meaning, but often confused New Zealanders who have begun to feel that they can make little difference, and have almost no input into what is happening to this country, and who, for this very reason are leaving, in many cases – because they can’t stand to see what’s happening to it.
Switzerland is the country which the rest of the world recognizes as having the most successful democracy of all. However, it also been said that to run a democracy like Switzerland, you need a public as intelligent as the Swiss. Yet if New Zealanders were to take on board the fact that what they said and thought really would make a difference to our future directions, some of the apathy that afflicts many would be removed.
Is there any particular reason we should emulate Switzerland? Well, we can take into account the fact that it has had over 500 years of democracy and peace, “that it has one of the world’s most stable economies, a skilled workforce, internationally recognized export companies, a sound currency and remarkable social harmony, given that Switzerland has four national languages and great religious diversity.”(See: American.com – March/April 2008 issue, filed under World Watch, Economic Policy).
But above all, Switzerland has what we have no excuse whatsoever for not demanding: its people have a high degree of personal freedom as the result of their system of direct democracy. Helen Clark would never survive as leader, dug-in as she has, in Switzerland. They would never be prepared to put up with her, and with the edicts of her politburo. The contrast? Nobody that I have encountered can name the Swiss President, for the very good reason that in order to prevent one individual’s – or an oligarchy’s – monopoly of power, an executive council of seven, chosen from all parties, votes in Switzerland for a different president each year from among their number.
There is no reason why we should not do the same. The Roman Republic itself recognized the danger of any one individual leading the country for longer than one year, which is why it instituted the system of two consuls – each with a right of veto over the other and with therefore the checks and balances needed to prevent its government becoming too entrenched, too powerful, and too little answerable to its people – as has happened in this country.
It is true that Switzerland has a federal system of government, but this need not prevent our demanding the most important provision of all that they have had for nearly 150 years. It is the right of the Swiss nation to insist on scrutinizing any law that the government passes.
No law can actually come into effect for a hundred days. i.e. for just over three months after it has been passed. If it is a law that the public does not like the look of – as so often has happened with the New Zealand public being presented with late night legislation on Christmas Eve; as with overbearing politicians forcing late-night sittings of the House; with the infamous anti-smacking legislation; with some of the deeply flawed treaty settlements; and most recently, with, for example, the new trade agreement with China the details of which the government determinedly actually refused to supply to New Zealanders themselves before they signed it – by which time, as everybody knows, it is too late – then, as in Switzerland, the public would have the ability to toss it out.
This is basically what we now need in this country. It would need no major change to our traditional government framework, and would avoid the usual suspects reportedly drawing up, no doubt with the hope of trying to ram through, a new constitution embodying a suspect agenda. It would remove people’s concerns about MMP: Sue Bradford’s bill, for example, would never have got past first base. In Switzerland, it is no use the minor parties trying to push through unpopular legislation by hijacking the major parties. All there know the reality of these situations. Forcing legislation through will not do. It would be a waste of time, as the public would throw it out.
Neither would we need to make any major changes to our voting system, which the public finds complicated enough already. We simply need now to claim the right which the Swiss already have and which has made them star achievers in any quality-of-life index. We need to be able to say to politicians i.e. You can pass any law you like, but we New Zealanders, too long excluded from anything like a true democratic process, demand the same rights as any real democracy should have – the right to say no – the majority does not want this.
This right can be achieved, quite simply, by a nationwide movement to insist that no law can actually come into effect for the first hundred days after it is passed. In the Swiss system, if concerned opponents of the legislation can amass 50,000 signatures to challenge the legislation, then referenda must be held, and the electorate itself decides. That is, the people of the country are allowed to make the decision as to whether or not they support this new legislation. Their vote is binding on government. Like most great ideas, it is as simple as that. And like most great ideas, its time has come.
The usual objections will be mustered against it – that it would bring the country to a halt. It doesn’t in Switzerland. There can be no reason why this would happen here. However, there is often a very good reason why new legislation should be brought to a halt. A proviso could be added that in times of genuine national emergency such as war, the government must have the right to proceed. But this is an issue that can be debated.
Another objection is that the electorate can get issues wrong. So can the government – and it has often, disastrously. Moreover, as Barbara Tuchman reminds us, governments get most issues wrong. If the public at large gets an issue wrong, then it is their mistake and can be reversed.
One MP has complained that Parliament would never be able to proceed with its business, that he votes on 27 issues a week, and that referenda can’t be held on all of these. This is an utterly simplistic objection. In most instances, the public would not be sufficiently concerned to mount objections through a referendum. Moreover,, politicians would tend to be far more circumspect and put more thought into issues on which they were voting if they knew that they would be challenged if the public was concerned.
The essential simplicity of providing that no law take effect for a hundred days after it has been passed would ensure that politicians would be far more circumspect, careful and considered about issues that they would vote on. When the public knows that it has real power to determine outcomes; when individuals know that their votes are not wasted – they take an interest in what they are voting for. As with an MMP system, the tail can no longer wag the dog, because it knows it will be challenged; that radical, power-hungry policies from the extremes of far Right or far Left will not be endorsed by the public, and that it is simply a waste of time to try and ram them through.
Undoubtedly, this is going to be the way for future. Politicians of most parties in New Zealand are now being seen to have grossly abused their power. An electorate that is feeling helpless is looking for a new way to the future. Nothing could be more simpler than that provision – that legislation cannot be implemented for the period of a hundred days – and that if even 50,000 people take the trouble to object in that time, this represents a substantial body of public opinion. In the interests, then, of a real democracy, to which politicians at present simply pay lip-service, a referendum must be held, and the public’s decision is binding. After all, it is the public that is the democracy.
There is no doubt that this idea is eminently workable. There is little doubt, too, that politicians from all the major parties will find all sorts of excuses to try to prevent this coming to pass. They will argue that the Swiss system is different; that what works in Switzerland will not work here. They are quite wrong. It can and it will: they just will not want it to. No wonder. But if they argue against it, it will be very obvious that their concern is for themselves and for their own power structures, and that they are intent on disenfranchising the public – not serving it. Any MP who opposes this can right be accused of being basically anti-democratic.
So what will the public have to do to persuade politicians that they are not prepared to put up with a corrupt political system any longer? The answer is that public will have to be prepared to withhold what politicians most want – and this is now the party vote. Arguably, neither National nor Labour deserve it. Good constituent MPs deserve to be supported. But supporting the party as a whole is another matter. We should make any support conditional.
National will argue that if its supporters do not give it the party vote, then horror of horrors, Labour will again be returned to power. It is true that Labour has caused incalculable damage to this country – but so then has National. This party has not worked hard enough to listen to, and to engage with the country at large in recent years. It should have no possible objection – as the party of the centre, i.e. standing for individual freedom and democracy against the essentially totalitarian Left – to argue for this essential provision – that the people of a country should themselves have the right to say yes, we approve – or no, that they do not want any more centralized government decisions forced on them. But we can suspect, given its own increasingly totalitarian directions, that National, too, wants its own way over the electorate’s.
The answer to National’s soliciting for the list vote should be – you will not receive this until you pledge to remove Sue Bradford’s infamous anti-smacking Bill from our legislation. It has been one of the most dangerous and destructive pieces of legislation passed in recent years. National, having voted for it, does not deserve the list vote. It is time – as a quid pro quo – for National to pledge to remove it. Or no list vote.
No doubt the Swiss fought hard and long for this 100 day provision for their people to be able to limit abuse of government power. We are going to have to do the same. But the time is obviously right. This is not a political party initiative. This is a reminder to individuals that they have more power than they ever realize – and that if New Zealanders really want a democracy, this is essentially – and obtainably – the way forward. There is nothing like the power of an idea whose time is right.”
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:02 am
In 2006 Miss Clark said Wishart was “the sort of creep who really delights in picking out any little thing that people might have in their background.
“And what it says if you want to meet the Wishart test of public life, you’d better be one of the Vestal Virgins.”
Of course the conduct of Labour towards those in the National Party is always beyond reproach because as Chris Trotter has said, the end justifies the means.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:19 am
Heh. My wife just called to read me the opening graphs of ‘Absolute Power’ – it’s pretty hysterical stuff in which an unnamed (naturally) source describes a teenage Helen Clark trying to drown a box of kittens. Nice to hear Ian hasn’t let me down.
[DPF: She's just lucky the kittens didn't have a tape recorder!
]
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am
heh – only the kiwiblog right could take this kind of conspiracy nut seriously. I look forward to many kiwiblog posts detailing how helen clark sits in large black leather chair, smoking cigars, stroking a black cat, chuckling to herself …. “mine, yes it’s all mine”!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am
roger
You must be sick of trying to defend the indefensible, why not just accept that your party is corrupt (as witnessed by 400 of YOUR delegates applauding an idea to rort the EFA) and that your leader is corrupt.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
Um bruv – I’ve never voted for labour and probably never will. Having said that, I would trust Labour to act in NZ’s best interest before I trust National. National have shown time and time again that it’s the interests of their elite backers they care about, not the people of New Zealand.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am
Roger’s response to Labour being identified as corrupt?
I would trust Labour to act in NZ’s best interest before I trust National
Says it all, really. Blinkers on! Engage Obfuscation Drives!
Roger Nome: only the kiwiblog right could take this kind of conspiracy nut seriously.
His proof is in the public domain and verifiable. Unlike Nicky Hager’s muckraking you’ve touted as gospel. But hey, pick your conspiracy nut. There’s one for every stripe of the political rainbow. You happen to like Hager
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
“Absolute Power ” in the in best interests of every kiwi citizen roger nome. Please read it and get back to me.
Edit ; to read it correctly Phillip John, you must firstly take the commie eye patch off your stupid melon.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
ya crack me up roger.. im not sure what happened to make so bitter, but i feel sorry for you. woulkd a hug help?
will be ineteresting to see what effect this book has. if it actually generates any long term media coverage. if so, labour are screwed! the hard core lefties that hang out here (and you are hard core, to spend hours a day defending the socialists on a right wng blog) are a very small minority. they can defend the fuhrer as long as they like. wont make a difference. real kiwis are sick of this government.
i like to think that if a right wing PM acted like the fuhrer has, us right wingers would turn on them.. ACT! style..
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
“His proof is in the public domain and verifiable”
Quotes from unnamed sources? Doesn’t sound too verifiable to me.
“nlike Nicky Hager’s muckraking you’ve touted as gospel.”
Stolen emails anyone?
“Says it all, really. Blinkers on! Engage Obfuscation Drives!”
I realise that Labour consistently sets out to mislead and manipulate the truth, but I’ve also got my eyes open to National’s deceit – it’s the history of politics. As any serious, open-minded student of politics will tell you, this kind of behaviour is the rule rather than the exception. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t hold them to account though – it would be much worse if we didn’t (and despite his tendency to be manipulative and misleading in his own right, DPF does NZ a service in this regard). But this is the world we live in.
Once you realise this, it’s back to a question of, who will deliver the best results for ordinary New Zealanders? And all the facts and evidence show this is, historically Labour more so than National.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am
“who will deliver the best results for ordinary New Zealanders”
duh roger child abuse stats at all time highs? Shall I continue you twisted dimwit.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:56 am
This is so funny
In 2006 Miss Clark said Wishart was “the sort of creep who really delights in picking out any little thing that people might have in their background.
Yet she does the same thing… lol.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
“duh roger child abuse stats at all time highs?”
Is that due to increased vigilance on the part of the police in the area of domestic violence? I’ve recently read an independently produced report that found this was likely the case.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
roger nome said “I would trust Labour to act in NZ’s best interest before I trust National”
Um rog – I think you’d better go to your local book retailer and buy yourself a copy – ‘cos Labour does NOT come out of this book looking like an honest party – and even it’s President can’t lie straight in bed (or on Agenda)!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Here we are:
“Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”
It’s in the conclusion of this report:
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2006/axist/understanding-crime-statistics-movement.pdf
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Is that due to increased vigilance on the part of the police in the area of domestic violence? I’ve recently read an independently produced report that found this was likely the case.”
Stop talking rubbish Phillip John, as infanticide is spiraling at an alarming rate. Stop spinning crap you hyperbolic cowardly communist creep !!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
By the way, surely Hager the Horrible is active on the blogosphere? Which of the lefty trolls we are familiar with, is him? And which is John Minto and which is Chris Trotter?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Is roger nome Hager the orrible?
Vote:Is Tane the Minto Bar?
Is John Dalley the Chris Pig Trotter?
April 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
shit! double take… someone file this..
“I realise that Labour consistently sets out to mislead and manipulate the truth” roger “i need a hug” nome
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ian might be right that Helen exhibits a predilction for absolute power. No news there. Shame that the stories aren’t written up by someone with more judgement, style and reliability. I can’t read his books – scanned a couple of the last ones (in the bookshop – wouldn’t pay for them) and they were delusional.
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“Absolute power.” Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight….
Mind you, here at Kiwiblog we’ve already seen *quite intellectually rigorous discussion threads* (joke) establishing that Clark is in fact just like:
(1) Adolf Hitler
(2) Joe Stalin
(3) Idi Amin
(3) Pol pot
(4) Bob Mugabe
so I find it far from surprising that, when an angry little hater pens something with a laughably O.T.T. title like “Absolute Power”, that it should be a instant hit around here.
Take a few deep breaths, peeps. Where’s that hating taking you?
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
RRM You forgot;
(5) Helengrad
Vote:(6) Klarkula
(7) Lemon Face
(8) Miss Davis
April 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I hope that all opposition MPs read this book
Clark dismisses ‘creep’s book
Monday, 21 April 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4490505a11.html
Prime Minister Helen Clark says she hasn’t given a moment’s thought to a biography about her written by a man she once called a creep.
Miss Clark was asked on TV One’s Breakfast programme this morning how she felt about Absolute Power: The Helen Clark Years written by Ian Wishart.
“I haven’t given it a moment’s thought,” she said.
Wishart’s book was marketed in his Investigate magazine as “the most explosive political biography ever released in New Zealand”.
It was to look into Labour’s “looming leadership crisis”.
At the weekend a claim in the book that Police Commissioner Howard Broad “pulled rank” to get out of a breath-test in 1992 was released. However, it was dismissed by the State Services Commission which said it looked into the claim.
“I know there was a bit of hawking around of stuff that had nothing to do with me at all at the weekend and that didn’t seem to go anywhere,” Miss Clark said.
“It’s all political isn’t it? I am in the top job, people are going to have a go, that’s all you can put it down to.”
Miss Clark has labelled Wishart a creep previously, over his articles attacking her ministers.
David Parker resigned from Cabinet over attacks about his business practices but was later cleared of any wrongdoing.
Labour MPs David Benson-Pope and Tim Barnett and Mr Broad have also been at the receiving end of Investigate attention.
In 2006 Miss Clark said Wishart was “the sort of creep who really delights in picking out any little thing that people might have in their background.
“And what it says if you want to meet the Wishart test of public life, you’d better be one of the Vestal Virgins.”
NZPA
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Chuck – and Mike Williams was `”confused”!!!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Sooo, a book is written, and Helen refers to the author as a creep.
Well, Diddums to Helen!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Now, Phil dear;
Someone very wise once suggested to me that any very long piece of writing that couldn’t be succinctly summarised in a few short, key points is probably a load of waffle that doesn’t contain any key points!
Vote:April 21st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
How much credence can you give to a book written by the guy who writes serious articles about whether John Lennon is in Hell?
I’m sure it will be worth a read – Ian’s always entertaining – wouldn’t pay for the privilege though.
Vote: