The mails that changed a nation
March 12th, 2010 at 4:09 pm by David FarrarI take what is probably a final look at the Hollow Men e-mails in NBR 24/7 this week:
The illegal (and it was almost certainly illegal) obtaining of the e-mails, and their subsequent publication, had a major impact on New Zealand politics. They effectively forced Don Brash out of the leadership of the National Party, despite the fact National was ahead of Labour in the polls at the time.
It is very unusual for an Opposition Leader to resign, when his party is leading in the polls. And the Hager book based on the e-mails did not in fact have any smoking guns. However, Brash correctly judged that he would have been unable to make traction in the face of the book, and resigned.
If Brash had not resigned, it is quite possible National, under his leadership, would have gone on to win the 2008 general election, and while it is conjecture what policies a Brash-led government would have had, suffice to say that it is hard to imagine it being happy to borrow $240 million a week to fund interest free student loans and working for families.
And the usual conjecture on how they were obtained.
Related posts:
- Police reopen Brash e-mails investigation
- Police National HQ and the Brash E-mails
- Green Activist Nicky Hager has book based on e-mails
- The McCully e-mails on 3 News
March 12th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
That corpulent fuckwit over at Tumeke reckons you doth protest too much, DPF.
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2010/03/david-farrar-and-john-key-protesteth.html
“If Brash had not resigned, it is quite possible National, under his leadership, would have gone on to win the 2008 general election”
Probably true, but the blood-lust was too overpowering for Klark etc to resist.
[DPF: Few things cause me more enjoyment than reading the conspiracy theories involving the e-mails and me.]
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
The illegal (and it was almost certainly illegal) obtaining of the e-mails,
Why was it almost certainly illegal? I could accept “probably illegal”, but this seems to put too high a likelihood on a massive unknown.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I’d go further and say ‘possibly’ illegal is acceptable. I think ‘probably’ is still a little on the strong and ‘almost certainly’ is just bluster.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
“Probably true”
I meant “Possibly true” I reckon Labour back in ’06 backed themselves to beat the Nats if “the Don” was still leader.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Is it possible to find out who the police interviewed and what they said.eg Hagar, Winston Peters,Guyon Espiner who said on tv that he knew who stole them, Michael Cullen etc, John Key etc
Also I think because of John Keys popularity Hagar did the National Party a huge favour, I liked Don Brash and his policies would have been better for the country than John Key’s but he may not have got the vote from a country that does not really know what is good for it.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I don’t know why the cops just don’t grab Hagar and put the screws on him. Surely he knows who gave them to him.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
***Also I think because of John Keys popularity Hagar did the National Party a huge favour, I liked Don Brash and his policies would have been better for the country than John Key’s but he may not have got the vote from a country that does not really know what is good for it.***
This is true, it is unlikely Brash would have achieved the popularity of Key but he would have had far better policies in terms of the Maori seats and welfare. Also, this scam would never have been allowed:
“That is technically known as polished bullsh*t. Then there’s this:
Minister Turia established the Taskforce on Whānau-centred Initiatives in order to develop a new approach for the design and delivery of government funded services and initiatives to whānau – one that places whānau at the centre and builds on the strengths and capabilities already present in whānau. The Minister believes that a new approach will lead to better outcomes for whānau, and better value for the related investment made by the government.
“The Minister believes” – that’s public service speak for ‘this is a bunch of crap, we know that’s a bunch of crap, but the Minister wants it’. Maybe that’s what Pryor is trying to say too.
The government needs to explain. Turia and Key need to explain exactly what they are going to do with a billion dollars a year of our money, and exactly how that will produce better outcomes.
I have a sinking feeling that this is all just a scam. I fear that interjecting themselves between public service providers and the public is just a way for Turia’s buddies to clip the ticket, grabbing some taxpayer dosh without delivering anything of real value to the people in need. The complete failure of anyone to show what precisely Whanau Ora is and how it will deliver a net benefit to the people it is intended for only deepens my suspicion that it is all a scam.”
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/what-is-whanau-ora/
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I cannot help but look at Bill English’s smug face when I hear about these leaked emails, if in time it is revealed that English was the one behind it then the bastard should be shot.
We could have had real economic reform, instead we got Neville Key and Bill Double Dipton English.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
big bruv, all good things come to them that wait. Kama will apply.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Can someone please explain to me why Nicky Hager can’t be charged with receiving stolen goods – or at least forced to tell the police who stole them?
And to those who say the emails were leaked, not stolen: isn’t ‘leaked by an enemy on one’s own side’ the same thing as ‘stolen by an enemy from the other side’?
If it’s different, how is it different?
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Hmm,Brash would have won, what with Labour bringing up his idea of family values at every chance.
Vote:Having an affair as a politician in NZ, no problem, but, having an affair and being a hypocrite about the same, then as party leader you have a problem.
Would Brash have encouraged other Nat MPs to follow his actions when it came to so called family values ?
March 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I don’t think it has been established that they were stolen. As David mentioned, they may or may not have been obtained illegally.
If the person who leaked them (if they were leaked) had obtained them because he was entitled to have them, it wouldn’t be illegal. Actually it has nothing to do with friends or foe.
On another point, I find this contradictory:
If there was nothing in the emails, why did he feel he was unable to make any traction?
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
This post made me die a little on the inside… again…
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
In 2005 there was a resecession looming after the very good years were wasted by Cullen’s financial mismanagement. Toom many of the National intake were new to parliament. I remember saying to one pollie at the time that I thought that National were too fresh and would be much better placed in 3 years to be a more effective government. the stolen emails may have destroyed Brash together with the reseccion that hit hard in mid 2007. Add into that mix the necessity of that prick Winston holding Brash to ransom and I firmly believe it was a good election to lose.
Now Labour will self destruct and while I admire Don Brash, and have some reservations about John Key (but still am very happy he in PM), John Key will be an effective and long term PM of NZ. Labour have no where to go and will sit miserable in oposition for 9-12 years. Why are Labour so cranky – well they know they are stuck and when Trevor keeps being creepy, it looks like they are cementing their position.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
if Brash was 1/10 good at lieing as Clark, he would have stayed and won. he’s just not suitable as a politician, opposition leader at that.
still can’t help giggling whenever i think Clark’s face when Key kept going on his turn during that TV debate.
such a manipulative witch. bags of dirty tricks.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Nicky Hager has been charged with receiving stolen goods, because nothing has been stolen. The other day, DPF gave his view of what happened – someone walked into an office, stuck a jump-drive in a computer and copied over an inbox.
What has been stolen in this scenario? The emails? No. Don Brash still has them. Then some intellectual property in the emails? No. Don Brash still has that.
If the person who claims they have been stolen from still has what they claim was stolen, how has anything been stolen?
As for the difference between a leak and theft. It’s only theft if you take something you’re not allowed to have. It’s not theft if you take something you are allowed to have, because well, you haven’t stolen it, because you were allowed it.
Vote:March 12th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
That should obviously read “Nicky Hager has not been charged…”
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Graeme, if that is the case then no one should be able to be charged over downloading music files. I mean, the original person still has them, so how has anything been stolen?
Vote:I still think the cops should put the screws to Hagar; give him a good grilling. He has received private correspondence that wasn’t his to view or use. He should be charged.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:11 am
Quite right, Fletch.
Graeme, the point is this. Someone printed out their boss’s emails that they had no authority to print out. (Yes, some were already printed out, but others were only in electronic form. And those that were printed out were clearly not meant to be handed out.)
Everyone working in that office (and I’ve worked there) signs a confidentiality agreement, so handing over those emails was a dismissable act of betrayal. Even if they were authorised to have them, they most certainly were not authorised to give them to a journalist.
I’m no lawyer, but surely if someone breaches their boss’s privacy in this way, that constitutes theft as a servant?
And doesn’t that make a person who profits from such a theft a receiver of stolen goods?
Whether Hager got the emails from an in-house thief (and there were plenty with the motive) or an external hacker, by one means or other they were stolen from the only rightful owner.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 2:43 am
BB
“We could have had real economic reform, instead we got Neville Key and Bill Double Dipton English.”
The sort of economic reform that Roderick Deane, Alan Gibbs and Dianne Foreman preferred?
The sort of 80s neo-reform defended by RD and AG in the 1996 TVNZ doco ‘Revolution’ that sees me earning $15 an hour in NZ but $30 per hour here in Australia in exactly the same role?
I’m sorry but I am glad Dr B didn’t win the 2005 elections.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 7:55 am
BB, I would have thought that if it was English then Hagar would have taken the opportunity to reveal, by now. By the way he twists the truth we know the man’s “journalistic ethics” only extend so far and if it was in the interests of “the cause” to name the offender, esp if it was English, then why wait? Claiming English’s scalp at this time in the electoral cycle would be a major blow to Key.
Re: real economic reform, don’t you think they’re starting to do it? Key painted himself in, in various ways, by e.g. stating he wouldn’t touch KB in his first term. This was IMO a miscalculation due to inexperience because he could have romped home anyway without making all those promises – Hulun was so hated. I’m putting his lack of progress down to that more than an ignorance or unwillingness to do what we all know is necessary.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 9:08 am
I think your post title should read The emails that saved the nation.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 9:21 am
They haven’t been stolen. That’s why no-one who downloads music files is charged with theft.
No. I don’t doubt that there is some breach of an obligation of confidence (or privacy), or breach of an employment obligation, or something of that nature. But that’s what it is. It doesn’t make it theft. Theft as a servant requires there to be theft, which, as I outline above, there probably hasn’t been. If you’re entitled to possession of a paper copy of the email, then giving that paper copy to someone not entitled to it is not theft. It’s a tort, or a breach of equity, not a crime.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Interesting point re theft Graeme.
An employee who does some driving for you takes his mates for a drive in your vehicle while you are sleeping without your knowledge.
They return it before you are awake, undamaged, full of petrol and cleaned and polished.
You still have the vehicle.
Was that theft?
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 10:09 am
It was not.
Perhaps conversion, but maybe not even that.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 10:24 am
So Graeme is the implication from what you say; that no-one can claim proprietary rights over their private professional correspondence? So if I walked into your office and stuck a stick in and downloaded your inbox, I’m sweet?
Really?
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
i actually think hagar is an undercover agent for the right..
with his ‘seeds’ book he knackered the greens’ chance of a coalition..(that time out..)
and by bringing down brash..
he brought in the much more electable ‘nice’ key..
i reckon clark wd have defeated brash..
..and we wd not now be going through all this shit..
(or else..he is a benchmark case of ‘careful what you wish for’..
..eh..?..)
(i wonder if john key has a little hagar-alter..?..that he gives thanks to each night..?..
..d’yareckon..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 10:46 am
phil personally I think Hagar personifies everything that’s wrong about the left.
He’s an arrogant supercilious precious pedantic git.
No way is he a closet conservative, for they are heroic, mighty and generous to a fault.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I think Hager is relatively ethical by left-wing journalistic standards. Yes, he jumped to a few wrong conclusions in The Hollow Men because of incomplete information, but many journalists do that every day.
He also distorted the meaning of a poem of mine by only including the verses that suited his point, then presenting them as consecutive when they were not. That suggests a capacity for deception and a desire to advance his agenda by fair means or foul. Rather similar to an IPCC climate scientist or climate journalist.
So journalistically he’s par for the course. But I don’t think he’s got a track record for outright lying, so I’m inclined to believe him when he says the emails were provided to him by disaffected Nats. There was no shortage of candidates, as others have pointed out.
It was very noticeable that Don Brash was very much alone on the 3rd Floor in being the only one prepared to act in the interests of the country no matter what. I respected him for that.
Of course, such a principled stance can only work if accompanied by superb salesmanship. But nearly all of his speeches – often quite inspiring as he wrote them, albeit containing too much Latin and not enough Anglo-Saxon – were rendered down by others into the standard political mush.
His failing was in being too inclusive to enforce his power when he had it. John Key does not make the same mistake.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“..No way is he a closet conservative, for they are heroic, mighty and generous to a fault…”
thanks for the knee-slapper there…reid..
a shame the facts fly in the face of yr (whatever)..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2010/why-are-we-afraid-to-tax-the-super-rich/
“..Meanwhile, the super-rich are still having a ball.
In his annual shareholder letter, mega-investor Warren Buffett wrote, “We’ve put a lot of money to work during the chaos of the last two years.
When it’s raining gold, reach for a bucket, not a thimble.”
And Forbes Magazine adds, “Many plutocrats did just that.
Indeed, last year’s wealth wasteland has become a billionaire bonanza.
Most of the richest people on the planet have seen their fortunes soar in the past year.”
Which brings us back to the federal budget.
There are two sides to every ledger: the expenses…and the income.
We need to start looking at the income side.
With a fairer tax system, we could retrieve some of that money downpour that the elite has been siphoning away from us for decades.
In the 1950s the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $3 million a year (in today’s dollars) was 91 percent.
By 1990 it was 28 percent..”
mm..???
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
phil try not to conflate wealth with conservativism, they’re two quite distinct things. Many lefties often don’t understand the difference but that’s because they’re pig ignorant and I know you’re not like that.
There is a confluence of mutual interest in that conservatives don’t see the point in running the people who create jobs out of town on a rail, whereas lefties are only too keen to do that, but that’s about the only difference.
BTW, in terms of railing about the wealthy who escape their fair share of tax obligations, how does that reconcile with your choice of lifestyle which “has been siphoning [tax] away from us for decades.” Indeed, your chosen lifestyle is funded in part by those very same wealthy people? Why are they at fault and not you, seeing as how you actually have a choice in the matter and its not enforced by circumstance?
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
91 percent..to 28%..?
steel yrselves for a serious re-adjustment there..eh..?
how cd there not be..?
already we have fran o’sullivan questioning the logic of yr tax-cuts for the rich..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2010/commentwhoarhas-rightwinger-fran-osullivan-done-an-ideological-u-turnhad-an-epiphany/
sniff the wind..eh..?
(and gee..!..d.p.f.. usually carries o’sullivans’ op-eds..eh..?
he must have missed this one..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
“..phil try not to conflate wealth with conservativism, they’re two quite distinct things…:
reid..there are exceptions to every rule..
but the act/national parties are largely the parties of the greedies..
who just want more and more..
and whinge like fuck about how hard done by they are..
and they vote conservative..with their wallets firmly in mind..
because of conservative promises to cut welfare..and cut taxes..
(more for you..and ‘fuck the poor..!’ is the mantra they/you chant..eh..?..)
tell me how this isn’t so..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
phil, I serve on the Vestry of my local Anglican Church and my role on that is as the Mission Motivator. Which means, I spend lots of time thinking about how to encourage increased giving to support myriad projects in third world nations.
So “fuck the poor” is not in my vocabulary.
“Fuck the indolent who by definition are capable of pulling their weight and much much more” however, is in my vocabulary and I make no apologies for that.
Only in the minds of lefties who don’t understand or want to understand; that the world actually works by creating wealth out of nothing and that’s how people get wealthier than others. It’s a very rare fish who gets wealthy by taking wealth off of others. The common-or-garden wealthy person got wealthy through hard work, thrift, wisdom and most importantly, adding value to other’s lives which didn’t hitherto exist. It’s almost impossible to do it otherwise.
It constantly saddens me that many of those who have the least wealth behave, and indeed appear to actually think, like the immature street urchins, rubbing their noses against the expensive shop windows in winter time, gazing at the nice goods within, and thinking it’s beyond them to seize the day.
It’s not phil, it never has been, and nothing’s stopping you, or anyone else.
Vote:March 13th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
reid..not everyone is an horatio alger..
and many have no desire to be one..
but that has nothing to do with the subject of each paying according to their means..
(and..)
“..and most importantly, adding value to other’s lives which didn’t hitherto exist…”
ah..!..you’d be talking about whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote: