Dom Post on H-Fee Smear

November 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am by David Farrar

Oh today’s Dom Post editorial is wonderful:

First they take the piss out of Williams and compare it all to a John le Carre novel.

At the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions a swarthy, middle-aged man is hunched over a desk working his way through an enormous stack of documents, The writes

In Wellington a pile of documents is dropped in a Dominion Post reporter’s letterbox wrapped in a copy of the Otago Daily Times. Further documents follow, delivered by someone who calls himself Batman.

The script for an antipodean John le Carre-style thriller? Sadly no.

Le Carre would have approved of “Batman”. It’s a nice touch, hinting at a sense of self-deprecation on the part of the document dropper, but if Le Carre had been writing the script, the man poring over court records in Melbourne would have been a Russian emigre with a limp, not Labour Party president , and the drop would have been wrapped in the Times Literary Supplement, not the ODT.

But then they really put the acid on:

However, two critical facts have been uncovered by document searches in Melbourne. In an interview last year, Mr Key wrongly stated that he left Elders Merchant Finance a year earlier than he did in 1988 and he wrongly stated that he paid for a 1988 lunch that Australian court documents show was actually paid for by a colleague.

These are matters of grave import that go to the heart of Mr Key’s credibility as a prime ministerial aspirant.

If he cannot be relied upon to remember who paid for the champers with which he and his colleagues toasted his departure 20 years ago, how can he be trusted to run the country? Next thing he’ll be claiming he was unaware the crown limo in which he was being ferried from one place to another was travelling at twice the speed limit, signing his name to artworks he did not produce, rewriting electoral laws to suit his party or pretending not to notice that a political ally has been misleading the public.

Ouch, ouch and ouch again.

30 Responses to “Dom Post on H-Fee Smear”

  1. Chthoniid (2,064 comments) says:


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Richard (69 comments) says:

    Those last paragraph you quoted sure is hard – and rightly so!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. homepaddock (441 comments) says:

    The editorial ends on a great note too:

    “It [Labour] is up against a cynical opponent who will stoop to any level to gain power. Instead of playing by the time-honoured rules of the game and smearing his opponents as viciously as they smear him, Mr Key smiles beatifically and steps daintily around the snares Labour lays in his path. It’s not cricket and it’s not politics, but he’s got Labour rattled.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lindsay Addie (1,631 comments) says:

    Key has them wacked, Labour have handed him the moral high ground on a plate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Danny-boy (103 comments) says:

    [Baiter mode] Typical leftist, liberal, Commie-Nazi smears. Lies. Damned lies. Our country’s once independent media is now firmly in the grasp of the socialist Labour Party and their mates in academia. [/Baiter mode]

    Oh, wait! The facts ain’t squarin’ with the spurious world-view I’ve constructed ta make sense o’ all me frustrations and prejudices! Again!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. convicted radical (72 comments) says:

    A vote for anyone other than the Nats, will be a wasted vote.

    The beating of chests, gnashing of teeth and renting of clothes on Sunday the 9th will be music to my ears.


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. GPT1 (2,156 comments) says:

    Ouch. Now that sums it up brilliantly. They certainly are desperate. I got a “Story of Two Johns” pamphlet in the mail. Less about what Labour can do and more about how bad National is meant to be. Very reminiscent of 1990.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chthoniid (2,064 comments) says:

    I feel nostalgic for 1999 when Labour campaigned on policies and ideas. Not saying I agreed with them of course, but it made for a better election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lee C (2,991 comments) says:

    Talk about shitting on your own doorstep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. davidp (3,865 comments) says:

    >a swarthy, middle-aged man is hunched over a desk working his way through an enormous stack of documents

    That’ll be the man that Matthew Hooton dubbed “Tony Soprano”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

    I have it on good authority David that there is another bomb in the wings waiting for Tuesday night. Any ideas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chicken Little (707 comments) says:

    Now, now, Danny boy, Whilst we all heartily enjoyed your spoor tracking, lining up and ruthless execution of phule Red is a bit of an institution around here. The only people who should get upset by him/her are trolls, as he/she trolls as well, if not better, than them.

    I assume you’re not a troll so can only say ‘Down this road lies wrack and ruin’ 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. John Boscawen (133 comments) says:

    I am pleased the Dominion has not forgotten about the Electoral Finance Act amongst the long list of Labour sins with its comments: “Rewriting the electoral law to suit yourself”.

    Convicted radical you are wrong with your comments that a vote for anyone other than the Nats will be a wasted vote.

    If you want a change of government you actually have two choices. There are only two ways to guarantee a change of government – a party vote for ACT or a party vote for National.

    Polls show Rodney Hide is leading 2:1 in Epsom over his National opponent Richard Worth (56% to 27%), so no party votes for ACT will be wasted and ACT will not need to get 5% of the Party Vote to get into parliament.

    Even a 4% party vote for ACT will result in five ACT MPs.

    So long as the combined total of ACT and National exceed 50% of the MPs a change of government is guaranteed.

    With the Peters revelations this morning it is even more likely we will have a change of government and the greater the number of ACT MPs elected into the next National/ACT government the greater the mandate John Key will have to make the changes that are necessary for the future of this country.

    And if Peter Dunne wins Ohariu Belmont there will be one more as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lindsay Addie (1,631 comments) says:

    John B,

    I endorse the tenor of your 11:37am post 100%.

    We badly need a new government that will give NZ a fresh start. There is much to do not just restore our economy, the inner workings of government need a thorough going over after the shambles this failed administration is going to leave.

    Also NZer’s are feed up I think and just want a fair go. The EFA is a symbolic to me of just where this country is going wrong.

    The choices are very clear cut now. Hopefully enough people will next Saturday figure things out for themselves and deliver a strong mandate to a new administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ross Miller (1,762 comments) says:

    John B … unfortunately you are wrong. This bastard system called MMP based on the canard of proportionality can still deliver a Labour/Green/Progressive/Maori Party Government even if National/ACT/UF collectively poll 51% thanks to the ‘overhang’ which will occur thru the MP gaining more electorate seats that their Party Vote % entitles them to.

    MMP is a gigantic hoax and the only Party with the balls to offer voters a binding referendum on whether it should be retained is National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. democracymum (642 comments) says:

    This from the Herald today – what do they know about Helen’s shopping trip?

    “Helen Clark’s full-frontal fall in a Christchurch mall neatly illustrates how she has run this campaign.
    She doesn’t swear or even whimper – and certainly doesn’t want help from her security guards who rarely get close enough to offer any.

    Instead Clark, who probably slipped on a piece of fried chicken, was up and over to the next voter so fast most of her 20-strong gaggle of cameramen, journalists and Labour Party stalwarts didn’t see it happen.

    This is how Clark is heading into the last days of what could well be her last election campaign as Prime Minister.”

    Fried Chicken – what could they be inferring?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lee C (2,991 comments) says:

    “Fried Chicken – what could they be inferring?”
    Yeah I smiled too – then thought along the lines of ‘heading for a poultry turnout on election day.’
    We are getting a chicken today (*long story) Apparently it doesn’t get on well with others and is practically feral.
    I’m calling her Helen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. casual watcher (200 comments) says:

    Dave Strings – do you care to elaborate ? Who is it likely to affect most. Even if Helen had a real bomb in her basket I think it would be too little too late now to affect the outcome. Her credibility is diminishing daily and is beyond repair in my view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PhilBest (4,976 comments) says:

    Danny Boy, re the media’s leftist bent, Redbaiter is still right. Read THIS:

    “Our political parties are corpses and democracy as we used to know it is quite dead”

    By Peter Hitchens in the “Daily Mail”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PhilBest (4,976 comments) says:

    Danny Boy, re the leftist bent of our media, Redbaiter is still right. READ THIS:

    “Our political parties are corpses and democracy as we used to know it is quite dead”

    By Peter Hitchens in the “Daily Mail”.

    Original posting with link has been swallowed up in moderation. Here is an excerpt.

    “…… The costly suits and the dodgy donors have migrated, for the moment, to the Tory Party. Who knows where they will go next? Back to Labour? Or somewhere else?

    Funnily enough, those Tories who have much of a memory will remember their party’s similar death.

    They will recall Blackpool in the autumn of 2003 – unbelievably, only five years ago – when poor Iain Duncan Smith sat alone, much as Gordon Brown does now, listening to the whispers of a thousand plotters planning to get rid of him.

    He knew, as Mr Brown does, that he was finished.

    But, as the son of a Spitfire ace who had himself been raised in the military code, he saw no honourable way to go except to wait for his enemies to come and kill him. This they duly did.

    The assassination of IDS was one of the strangest and most important moments in British politics.

    IDS did actually represent the force and mind of the Tory Party, bewildered and demoralised, after its wholly unjust 2001 defeat.

    He became leader because none of the supposed ‘big beasts’ of Toryism liked Tory voters or party members, or shared their views.

    And most of the medium-sized beasts preferred to go away and make some money, rather than have pails of lukewarm swill chucked over them by a media who were then wholly in the pocket of New Labour, just as they are now in David Cameron’s pocket.

    What happened next is so fascinating that everyone missed its significance.

    The Michael Howard palace revolution against IDS was a blatant takeover of a Right-wing party by the ‘Centre-Left’ establishment.

    It was played out almost entirely on the airwaves and in the newspapers. MPs did what they were told by the media.

    It was made easier because the ‘Centre-Left’ media have always inaccurately portrayed Mr Howard as being Right-wing.

    He isn’t. He is actually a conventionally liberal career politician of the sort you find near the top of both big parties.

    After IDS had been utterly destroyed, it was made plain to all Tory MPs (with the help of the media elite) that they had better not stand against Mr Howard for the leadership.

    So nobody did. And he was ‘elected’ unopposed in a way that makes Vladimir Putin look like a fervent democrat.

    Compare the absence of media fuss about this with the bitter media condemnation of Labour for installing Gordon Brown without a vote.

    The Tory Party had been put into receivership. Its supposed owners – those who voted for it and supported it – had lost control over it.

    The ‘Centre-Left’ establishment, Britain’s permanent government of media types, politicised moneybags and their approved pundits, had taken over, and their task was to make it as unconservative as possible, as quickly as possible.

    Mr Howard made it plain that his coronation was the end of anything remotely Right-wing.

    He ruthlessly sacked two candidates, Danny Kruger in Sedgefield and Adrian Hilton in Slough, for making apparently Right-wing remarks that could be (and of course were) misrepresented in the ‘Centre-Left’ media.

    Then he went a great deal further, and sacked Howard Flight, the serving MP for Arundel, for a similar offence.

    Mr Howard almost certainly had no legal power to do this, but once again the ‘Centre-Left’ media decided it was not a scandal.

    The imposition of the liberal careerist David Cameron on the Tory Party, once Michael Howard had finished being the establishment’s caretaker, was also achieved by the ‘Centre-Left’ media.

    They adopted Mr Cameron as their candidate and propelled him to victory despite a very poor start to his campaign and an equally poor performance on live TV, later on, up against his more conservative rival, David Davis.

    You’ll notice that it is the same people, that ‘Centre-Left’ combo of media types, who did a similar job on the Labour Party back in the late Eighties and early Nineties.

    Interestingly, that revolution was much more about image than about reality.

    The Tories have genuinely dropped most of their remaining conservative positions.

    Labour remains a very Left-wing party. Most of its radical 1983 manifesto has in fact now been implemented, though in more subtle ways.

    The only lasting deep change in Labour policy since the Eighties has been the party’s lobotomised conversion to support for the EU and globalism in general.

    Nationalisation hadn’t mattered for years, the old industrial unions were as dead as the industries they helped to ruin, and the H-Bomb wasn’t an issue any more.

    Labour’s real ‘Clause Four’ – its bilious hatred of selective state schools – remains untouched. What’s more, it has now been openly adopted by the Tories as well.

    The rule nowadays is that you cannot become the government unless you bow to the views of the ‘Centre-Left’ media elite, especially the broadcast media elite.

    That elite speaks for the 1968 generation which fanned out in the Seventies into the civil service, education, entertainment, the law, the arts, rock music and – above all – the media.

    We no longer have elections where two evenly matched parties go into a fair contest with competing ideas and it is over only when the last vote is counted.

    Instead, we have wild swings in which the approved party goes into the Election with a giant poll lead and then wins the Election with a mad, crushingly enormous majority over the unapproved party.

    And the winner is always the ‘Centre-Left’, which claims to be moderate but is in fact a swirling cauldron of wild Sixties Leftism – anti-British, anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-education and pro-crime.

    But if you dare to oppose this stuff, they’ll call you an extremist.

    British democracy, as we used to know it, is quite dead. It just needs to have a new funeral every few years.”

    GET THE POINT? Change a few names, and we are talking about the National Party in NZ. The media are happy to instal a “Labour Lite” National Party that is pretty much of their own making, for a term or two now, just to make sure that the real Labour Party doesn’t go getting too many ideas……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. PhilBest (4,976 comments) says:

    Soooo……a good editorial from the DomPost……..encouraging……….but Danny Boy, who doesn’t expect the DomPost to revert to usual lefty type as soon as any government tries to, say, sell any “assetts” again, or sell Kiwibank, or wind back working for families, or any other welfare programs, or cut subsidies of uni students, or cut bureaucrat numbers, or introduce vouchers and parental choice in education……etc, etc, etc……..get my drift?

    It doesn’t matter, either, whether or not socialism digs NZ into an economic hole. Any courageous government that badly wants to tackle the things that need to be done, will do so in the face of hellraising from the MSM. It doesn’t matter if an “assett” like Kiwibank or Railways is costing the taxpayer a billion dollars per year, the MSM will call it “the family silver”.

    BAH. I could go on. But if you think one editorial is proof that the MSM ISN’T dyed-in-the-wool leftwing, think again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. reid (21,429 comments) says:

    Dave’s comment echoes democracymum’s comment a few days ago re: is this really the neutron bomb? They’ve been talking about it for a year or more. And they send Williams to Melbourne only recently?

    Connect the dots. My money’s always been on the announcement of who leaked Brash’s emails.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Lindsay Addie (1,631 comments) says:

    They’d have to be careful announcing who stole Brash’s email as it involves a criminal act.

    National would take the high ground and ask why they’ve been withholding information.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. reid (21,429 comments) says:

    Lindsay were they Brash’s personal property or the property of the Nats? I don’t know but if its the latter then if a Nat leaked, are they still liable?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    I disagree Philbest

    The Media have been very partisan in regards to the National party especially during previous elections, it is quite obvious to me that they would like to see another term of Labour and it’s social engineering, the rather muted stance in regards to the EFA when to think roughly a year ago they where threating blue bloody murder has proven this in my eyes.

    The only reason they are starting to take a hardened stance towards Labour is simply because they cannot avoid the fact that Labours campaign has been one act of misinformation and thinly veiled deception after another and it has done nothing but harden the Electorate in regards to voting Labour out. So with great resignation they are finally starting to aim the artillery at Labour making themselves look like the true champions when it comes to freedom and liberty for Joe the plumber.

    Make no mistake, they do not want a Banker in charge of our country and they certainly don’t want some of the older National politicians Elected who haven’t forgotten the ills inflicted upon them by our “stalwart defenders of freedom” the MSM.

    So in my Opinion, the reason why we are seeing a more center based National party is because it will gain the most votes and result in an ultimate crushing of the opposition, the more to the center National goes the more votes Act is liable to pick from the Right hence increasing the overall Majority for both partys. It is a good strategy and forces the Hydra to go further left to increase their party’s vote alienating them from the center. You can see this in how much Votes Labour has lost and how much the greens have gained.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. John Boscawen (133 comments) says:

    Ross Miller, with the deepest of respect I am actually correct.

    If you read what I wrote again you will see that I said that if the combined total of Act and National exceed 50% of MPs a change of government is guaranteed.

    For example if there are 123 MPs elected, so long as Act and National have more than 50% of that number, in this case 62, a change of government is guaranteed.

    You are also incorrect with respect to your position on the MMP referendum when you say the only party with balls ( to use your language) to have a binding referendum on MMP is National. Act is also committed to a binding referendum on MMP. So there are at least two.

    The only difference between Act and National is that Act wants to have it as soon as possible, rather than waiting until 2011.

    If we did that we could have the 2011 election under the new rules, if any. If National really did have balls, they would not wait until 2011. That is just one of the many reasons why it is important that there as many ACT MPs in the next Act-National government as possible.

    I made the same point at a candidates meeting on the North Shore a fortnight ago with Wayne Mapp and Phil Twyford.

    So again I say there are two guaranteed ways to vote for a change of government. Either a party vote for Act or a party vote for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. expat (4,088 comments) says:

    Oh how Hulun and Big Mike have fucked up bad, so bad.


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ross Miller (1,762 comments) says:

    John B … than we agree to disagree. If National/ACT/UF get say a collective 51% of the vote = 61 seats. The % is calculated against 120 and excludes the additional seats created by any overhang. So, if the MP score 6 seats (my bet) and 3% in the Party vote (entitling them to 4 seats) then we have a 122 seat parliament and and a guarantee of 62 seats in confidence and supply for any coalition to govern and on that basis a Labour/Greens/Prog/MP monster is entirely possible.

    Re referendum. Suggest you check the ACT Party website. It commits to a “referendum” and no time-line. No mention of a binding referendum. The ONLY Party to offer a binding referendum is National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. PhilBest (4,976 comments) says:

    Banana Lama, it would seem that you and I agree that the media is left wing, contrary to Danny Boy and others who think that one editorial here and there proves the opposite.

    About the only difference between Banana Lama and me is the extent to which we think the media has remoulded the Nats according to their own ideals. You might be right, Banana Lama, but look at all the “dead fish” the Nats HAVE swallowed. But I too hope like you do, that this puts ACT back in the race taking share off National, after all “Don Brash National” made a bigger gain at ACT’s expense than they made at Labour’s, didn’t they?

    I still agree with Peter Hitchens on the type of government that the media end up anointing whether Labour or Tory. Did you read his article?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. TimF (4 comments) says:

    One thing Mike Williams forgot to tell everyone was that the first H Fee was transcated between the BNZ Sydney and Elders in January 1988.
    The BNZ was then owned by the NZ Labour Government, of which Helen was a senior minister – techniically she was party to the transaction and John Key was nowhere near it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote