A new low for Key Derangement Syndrome

April 24th, 2015 at 8:35 am by David Farrar

Laila Harre basically compares the Prime Minister to Rolf Harris.

This is a new low for sufferers from Key Derangement Syndrome – a disease for which no cure has yet been discovered.

But this isn’t some anonymous troll on a blog or Twitter. This is from the (former) leader of a political party.

We’ve yet to hear Laila’s views on political figures who pressure staff to have tennis balls smashed into their bodies at high speed. Oh wait, she was working for him and on his payroll, so that is fine.

There is no one in NZ saying what the PM did was fine. But as Rob Hosking noted:

I marvel Not for first time, Key’s biggest asset is the lack of sense of proportion of his opponents.


UPDATE: After defending her tweet and claiming it was justified, she has now deleted it.

$122,000 for a lame video

March 6th, 2015 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

3 News reports:

The [Internet] party spent more than $1 million on election related advertising, including $122,000 for a YouTube parody of Prime Minister John Key and US President Barack Obama.

$122,000 for that lam parody video? My God – someone did well out of it.

The election returns reveal the party’s explosive press secretary Pam Corkery was paid $15,000 for her 15 weeks’ work – that’s $1000 a week.

Worth every cent!

Party Leader Laila Harre was paid $66,000 – more than $4000 a week.

$4,000 a week. I guess that makes you the 1%, not the 99%. The Greens obviously couldn’t match that pay scale.

Free feijoas for all

February 17th, 2015 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Five months on from her political party’s implosion Laila Harre had her thumb out on the roadside in Taranaki, hoping to find out how to make politics work for New Zealanders.

Former Internet-Mana Party leader Laila Harre and sister Niki are hitching around the North Island hearing what ideas the public have to make the world a better place. …

Ideas they’ve encountered include a basic living wage, schools putting more emphasis on teaching children to be part of the community, avoiding people falling into a debt-dependant lifestyle and, in Whanganui, the introduction of a feijoa festival.

“It’s free, we all share it and paying money for feijoas is just ridiculous,” Laila said.

Absolutely. Free feijoas is a human right. It is barbaric that people have to pay for them.

Laila quits her membership

December 16th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Laila Harre facebooked:

Today I have officially stepped down as Leader of the Internet Party. I have also resigned my membership.

It is no surprise she has resigned as leader, but to resign your membership also can only be read that she never actually believed in the principles of the Internet Party. It was just a vehicle for her to try and get more MPs for Mana.

Harre quits Internet Party

November 23rd, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Laila Harre said on The Nation yesterday that she is quitting as Leader of the Internet Party, and is no longer on the payroll. Dotcom’s $4.5 million has all been spent it seems.

While saying they mismanaged the last month, she seems to have a long list of others to blame, namely:

  • Georgina Beyer
  • The media
  • Labour
  • Greens
  • The “right” attacking

A week after the election I blogged on why the Internet Party failed. What I put it down to was:

  • Dotcom’s motives were not trusted with the $4,5 milion he out into it
  • Laila was the wrong leader for it
  • The Fuck John Key video backfired massively
  • The Moment of Truth fiasco

The Herald on Sunday profiles Dotcom today.

Three years ago the mansion bustled with up to 50 employees but that is now believed to have dwindled to fewer than 10 people, including a butler, security men, kitchen staff and gardeners.

Having only 10 servants instead of 50. That must be very tough.

Waa waa waa says Internet Mana

September 14th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

TVNZ reports:

The Internet-Mana Party says the Prime Minister’s reported intention to release documents showing spy officials may have considered mass surveillance is an abuse of his authority.

Waa, waa, waa.

They are seriously claiming that the PM should not release documents which prove their bombshell is a fizzer. What  planet are they on?

ONE News understands John Key will release documents showing spy officials may have considered mass surveillance but the proposal never went ahead.

How dare John Key reveal the truth. He must be impeached.

In a joint statement, Mr Harawira and Ms Harre say the reported intention of the Prime Minister “to arrange the selective declassification and release of documents for his own political purposes” represents an abuse of the Prime Minister’s authority in his capacity as the Minister in charge of the GCSB and the SIS.

Seriously, these people have lost their marbles. They think it is okay to release stolen classifed documents as part of their election campaign, but it is not okay for the Prime Minister to declassify a document in response, to show they are wrong.

An issue I agree with Laila on

September 14th, 2014 at 10:13 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Internet Party leader Laila Harre is standing by her policy to decriminalise cannabis following the publication of a study highlighting the damaging effects of regular use on young people.

An Australasian research paper into the effects of cannabis use on adolescents was published in The Lancet medical journal on Tuesday.

It found that under 17s who use cannabis daily were 60 per cent less likely to complete high school and 60 per cent less likely to gain a degree.

Ms Harre said such research demonstrated the need to decriminalise cannabis.

“It is that kind of evidence that has led us to the firm view that cannabis should be dealt with as a health issue rather than as a criminal justice issue.

I agree that cannabis should be primarily dealt with as a health issue.

Two US states have legalised cannabis for personal use. In around three years we should have some fascinating data to assess such as whether drug use or drug affected crime has increased or decreased (or stayed the same) with legal sales.

Laila supporting the sisterhood

August 13th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

“Obviously wanting to be fit and relatively less portly than most members of Parliament become, ‘she said diplomatically’.”

Will she name names? “I think their breasts speak for themselves.”

That comment has not impressed a few.

I’ll resist the temptation to point out the size of Laila’s funder.

The circus gets bigger

August 11th, 2014 at 4:45 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Organisers of a political event in rural Auckland tonight have relented and agreed to let veteran political activist Penny Bright speak after she threatened legal action if she was refused. …

Tonight the prime minister is due to stand alongside the likes of Laila Harre and Hone Harawira in the Kumeu Baptist Church for a chance for locals to meet candidates in the Helensville and Te Tai Tokerau electorates.

I’m wondering if there is another country around where the PM agrees to do a public meeting with the leaders of two parties on 2% between them and someone who got around 0.1% last time they stood?  I’m trying to imagine Tony Blair doing a public meeting with Nick Griffin as the equivalent.

He’s basically appearing with bad, mad and sad. You can assign each as you see fit 🙂

Have I got this right?

August 7th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

3 News reports:

Prime Minister John Key doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with referring to Kim Dotcom as Internet Party leader Laila Harre’s “sugar daddy”.

Mr Key made the comments on RadioLive todya and Ms Harre told the same radio station she found them deeply offensive.

Asked later if he stood by them, Mr Key said he did.

“I think it’s totally accurate,” he told reporters. “He funds her.”

Mr Key denied the comments were offensive or sexist and said he would say the same thing about Mana leader Hone Harawira.

“I think she is literally being funded by Kim Dotcom … if he wasn’t putting up the money, she wouldn’t be there,” Mr Key said.

Laila has openly said she abandoned the Greens for Dotcom, because of the resources he offered. The Greens were not paying her $150,000 a year, as Dotcom is.

But I love their thought patterns. It is outrageous for the PM to call Dotcom a Sugar Daddy, but it is fine for Dotcom to lead a crowd in chanting “Fuck John Key” and then be so proud of that, to stick it on You Tube as an official party ad.

Lying Jew


If you want offensive, than the above qualifies I would say. Probably inspired by the person who leads the crowd chanting “Fuck John Key” and alleges he is a stooge for Hollywood.

Garner tells Harre to harden up

August 6th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Duncan Garner writes:

Laila Harré – harden up.

And welcome back to politics. It hasn’t changed.

So, the Prime Minister said you’re backed by a sugar daddy – Kim Dotcom. So what? Many people will actually agree with him. It’s not really wrong. Is it?

To take offence is to be far too thin-skinned. Harden up, shake it off, but – best of all – just ignore it.

The truth is the Mana-Internet Party is backed by a German billionaire on the run from the authorities. It is what it is: he’s paying you and he’s paying for the party to exist. If he goes, the party goes.

Harre is playing the sexism card. Yawn.

Incidentially Your Dictionary says a definition of sugar daddy is:

A wealthy male benefactor to a charity or other cause

Sounds a very apt definition. Mirriam Webster also define it as:

a generous benefactor of a cause or undertaking

Laila is getting paid a full-time generous salary to campaign on behalf of Kim Dotcom. She shouldn’t complain when people point this out.

Hide on Harre’s hypocrisy

July 21st, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Rodney Hide wrote at NBR:

I am worried about Laila Harré: having dropped any pretence of principle she now finds hypocrisy addictive. There’s no other explanation. She should have OD’d by now, but no, she just keeps loading it up.

Her latest dose is to assert property rights in Green Party policy.

That’s right. That’s her response to criticism of her announcing Green Party policy as hers just hours ahead of the Green’s release. Ms Harré was working for the Greens. She then decamped to lead the Internet Party taking Green Party policy with her. No wonder the Greens are little annoyed in their touchy-feely, caring way.

But as she explains it, “Look, I contributed huge intellectual property to the Green Party in the 15 months that I spent working for them.” So what’s theirs is also hers.

That’s a bellyful of hypocrisy. Remember this is the Internet Party. Her party’s founder, funder, paymaster and visionary is fighting to avoid facing copyright infringement charges. Intellectual property doesn’t mean that much to Mr Dotcom.

For his proxy leader to be defending herself by spuriously claiming intellectual property is breathtaking hypocrisy. Intellectual property matters to Ms Harré – but only when she’s claiming it as hers. No one else’s appears to matter. …

Mr Dotcom is not the top 1% that Ms Harré complains about. He’s more like the top 0.0001%. But he’s okay because his money is useful to her.

Oh and here she is the hard-core, all-controlling, lefty pushing for the internet. It’s not the central committee that produced the internet: it’s capitalism. Internet commerce is a fine example of anarchy. We don’t need or want central control. The hypocrisy of the Left pushing for internet freedom is gobsmacking.

The Left oppose freedom and their system of economic control is the internet’s antithesis.

I think it is fair to conclude that Rodney will not be voting for the Mana-Internet Party.

It got me thinking that if we had a true Internet Party, Rodney would be a very good leader of it – someone who is passionate about fighting state control.

The Greens and the Internet Party

July 14th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Yesterday the Internet Party released their environment policy and to me it sounded very similar, if not identical to the Greens. They want to ban fracking, ban deep sea drilling, and bring in a carbon tax.

I’m not the only one who noticed this. Danyl McLauchlan blogs:

In the hypothetical Labour/Green/New Zealand First/Mana/Internet Party coalition that voters are being asked to put in charge of the country this election year, its hard to figure out which inter-party relationship is the most poisonous, or who would like to destroy whom the most. But now that Laila Harre’s gone and started pre-releasing Green Party policy on the same day as the Greens and justified it on the basis that she worked for the Green Party for fifteen months, and therefore owns all their intellectual property, somehow, I’m gonna nominate the Green/Internet Mana relationship as, from here on in, probably the most toxic.

What’s the strategy here? The original vision for the Internet Party was that it would be a, y’know, Internet Party, focused on digital issues and changing the government by turning out young non-voters. My guess is that Dotcom’s money has paid for some market research which has found that the number of non-voters passionate about copyright restrictions is close to zero, and that the demographic most sympathetic towards the Internet Party are current Green voters. Harre doesn’t share Dotcom’s interest in digital rights, or his legal problems, so her focus – like any other political leader – is purely on maximising her party vote. Which explains why the Internet Party is now a tiny cannibalistic version of the Green Party.

Now I don’t generally mention family members, but it is no secret that Danyl’s wife is the political director for the Greens. I mention this not to suggest he is speaking on her behalf or writing what she thinks. But to make the context that this isn’t an opinion of someone who has absolutely no idea of what people in the Greens think of the Internet Party.

Since the Internet Party formed the Greens have dropped from 13% to 11.5% in the polls. That is lower than they were polling just prior to the last election, so they run the risk of losing MPs.

The Internet Party looks like it will have a set of policies almost indistinguishable from the Greens. But the one big difference is the $4 million they have had from Kim Dotcom to appeal to people who like Green Party policies.

Love on the left

July 8th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Wouldn’t a Government of them all having to work together be such great fun. You could sell tickets – from your new homes in Australia!

Laila and Kim upset with Cunliffe

July 8th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe is “premature” to rule out ministerial spots for Internet Party leader Laila Harre and Mana leader Hone Harawira, Ms Harre said yesterday.

Her comments come after Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom took to Twitter to mock Mr Cunliffe over his statements at Labour’s election year Congress at the weekend.

The thought that Kim won’t want any Ministers for his pet party, in return for helping make Cunliffe Prime Minister is laughable. This is a guy who decided to destroy John Banks because Banks wouldn’t help him get a pillow in jail.

Dotcom mocked Cunliffe’s statement, because he knows there will be a price to pay for his support.

Is it any coincidence that Dotcom’s lawyers have managed to have his extradition hearing delayed again – until February 2015. So any decision, if a court finds he is eligible for extradition, would be made by a Government propped up by his pet party.

Will Laila get a leader’s salary and funding, even if elected on Hone’s coat tails?

July 7th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

I’ve had raised with me an interesting issue. If Laila Harre becomes an MP, will she be treated as a party leader, even though she only get in through the combined Mana-Internet alliance? Will both Hone and Laila get a leader’s salary?

This involves a fair bit of taxpayer money. As a party leader her salary would be $162,200 instead of $147,800 – an extra $14,400.

On top of that she would get an extra $100,000 leadership funding for her parliamentary office. So the taxpayer would be paying an extra $114,400 a year or $343,200 over a three year term.

So what does standing orders say about what constitutes a party – SO 34(1):

Every political party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and in whose interest a member was elected at the preceding general election or at any subsequent by-election, is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes. and

That would suggest she won’t be recognised. But recall that the Mana-Internet agreement expires six weeks after the election. Then read this clause SO34(2)(c):

Independent members, or members who cease to be members of the party for which they were originally elected, may be recognised, for parliamentary purposes as members of a component party in whose interest those members stood as constituency candidates at the preceding
general election if they inform the Speaker in writing that they wish to be so recognised.

So Laila splits from Mana six weeks after the election, and then the Internet Party is a recognised parliamentary party. And that means she gets an extra $114,400 a year of taxpayer funding.

Very neat eh. This helps explain why the agreement lapses just six weeks after the election.

Laila gets a salary and a clothing allowance!

June 29th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Life is pretty gear when you get handpicked to lead a multi-millionaire’s pet political party. Michelle Hewitson reveals:

She looked swish in the Internet Party official pics and I wondered whether she’d also been seeing a stylist but she said, no, she just “did a big shop”. Where did she do her big shop? “At Smith & Caughey’s.” Good heavens. Who paid? Dotcom? “Um, I’m being paid for the work that I’m doing.” I hope she spent a lot of Dotcom’s money. How much did she spend? “Oh, look, I don’t want to go into that. It’s expensive looking nice. You know. I’ve spent very little on clothes over the years.”

I wonder what other perks of the job she gets? Does Uncle Kim also give her a car?

She says Dotcom’s values are “aligned” to her own, but really? I asked if he was left-wing now — he did give 50 grand to the right-winger John Banks’ mayoral campaign — and she said she doesn’t go around asking people whether they’re left or right and he says he’s neither, he’s “up”.

Anyway, his wealth is okay because he made it as an entrepreneur and “I do think there’s a very big difference between the kind of person who’s climbed the corporate ladder to the top of the bank, making several million dollars a year off shareholders and workers … ” She said she wasn’t suggesting Dotcom’s money was made in an honourable way and John Key’s wasn’t. “No. But now that you mention it … “

What twisted values. She suggests that Dotcom made his money honourably despite being a convicted criminal, and facing extradition, while she regards someone who makes money for a corporate as somehow being an exploiter of shareholders and workers.

 was busy biting my tongue at the time. I’d had to put the recorder back on because she’d made me turn them both off and refused to say Another Word until they were. This was over an innocent comment made by the press sec, which I agreed not to mention because it was, honestly, of so little consequence, in my view, that it doesn’t require mentioning.

But, kaboom, a tremendous fuss blew up and I’m buggered if I know how it all came to be my fault. We might have got to some questions more to her liking if not for this carry-on. But by then we were all entirely fed up which each other — at least I was — and there was little point in going on.

Sounds like Harre is getting pretty brittle. She thinks she can accept Dotcom’s money, effectively be his paid advocate, yet not answer questions about him. Doesn’t work like that.

Laila in Wonderland

June 6th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Trans-tasman hit the nail with their piece on Laila in Wonderland:

But we kind of crashed through the looking glass last week with the anointment of Laila Harre as leader of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party. It is possible, back when she was an ardent campaigner for feminism and against capitalism, racism and corporatism, Harre foresaw the day she would sign up to front a party funded by a convicted German fraudster who made much of his money from pornography and who also has a fetish for racist, not to say out- right Nazi, humour. Harre wasn’t even elected: she was anointed by the aforementioned convicted German fraudster who has trafficked in pornography and who thinks n-word jokes are hilarious. 

There are many terms for this sort of thing, none of them complimentary. We will avoid the ‘h’ word – not just because MPs are not allowed to use the term hypocrisy in the House, but mostly because hypocrisy is part of the human condition. All of us fall short of our ideals. But this is not mere hypocrisy, not a minor falling short. This is moral bankruptcy of a particularly shameless kind.

Sold out for 150,000 pieces of silver.

Throng on the Internet Party

June 5th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

The Internet Party tweeted:

Thousands of NZers have been blocked from http://bit.ly/1rF1H6a  We need meaningful reform and better infrastructure.

Throng points out:

Let’s be blunt. Not having Netflix in New Zealand has nothing to do with infrastructure.

This tweet was 2 days after the Sunday Star Times published a story about how an estimated 30,000 Netflix subscribers had been unable to access the streaming content service. The problem had actually been resolved 3 days earlier to that as we reported.

The Internet Party’s statement seems to overlook entirely the number of subscribers to Netflix. 30,000 is not an insignificant number for a service that isn’t technically available in New Zealand. With that number of subscribers being prepared to hand over cash every month it would be safe to assume that the current infrastructure is entirely capable enough to deliver the service its subscribers are paying for.

Throng is correct that the Netflix problem had nothing to do with infrastructure.  Also NZ copyright law has no impact on Netflix not being available to NZers. There is nothing the NZ Parliament could do to change the non availability. The issue is the decisions by content producers to not grant Netflix a licence for their products in NZ. I want that to change, but again it is not something NZ can do unilaterally.

Throng also notes Laila Harre tweeted:

Reaching out to Postie Plus workers. I know @FIRST_Union will be there in force. @GayMaxine@SamHuggard

As I’ve said before, Laila is an effective and passionate advocate for unions and workers. But not so for Internet issues. What helped kill Postie Plus? The Internet.

Whale points out:

Now we all know that the Internet Party is nothing but a scam, and the whole process of using MMP to score a hit on Key on behalf of Mr “I’ll destroy, anybody” Dotcom, but to have it so clearly illustrated mere days into her job is rather sooner than I expected.

She has absolutely no idea what she’s doing.   How this is possibly going to make it to the election without some sort of a complete structural and public failure is beyond me.

She now heads a party that has, as one of its objectives, the aim to optimise the use of the Internet.  That means this will destroy traditional employment as we know it.   You only have to look at postal workers as an example of the steady transformation that the Internet has caused within their industry.

A mail order company that doesn’t embrace the Internet is a dead duck.  

The Internet is the greatest creator and destroyer of jobs we have known. An Internet Party should be embracing the change.

Harre was on Greens campaign committee until a fortnight ago

June 3rd, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Meanwhile, Norman revealed that new Internet Party leader Laila Harre had wanted to be a Green Party MP before she quit her adviser role in Decembern. 

A spokesman confirmed she was also on the campaign committee until a fortnight ago.

If this was Game of Thrones, Harre would be a sellsword or a mercenary. How can you be on the national campaign committee for one party a fortnight ago, while negotiating to be leader of a competing party?

Also enjoyed this quote from Matthew Hooton on Q+A about how the Mana-Dotcom alliance will appeal to young non-voters:

This talk of the the youth vote is just awful when aging baby boomers think they’re going to connect with Gen Y through their kids … Harre is 48, Hone Harawaira is 59, John Minto is 61, Pam Corkey who is designing the comms strategy to appeal to youth is 58, Annette Sykes is 53 and Willie Jackson is 53.

It’s like a sex pistols reunion tour. It’s a bit of fun, but it risks being embarrassing for everyone.

It is looking like the Alliance reborn.


Espiner on Dotcom

June 2nd, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Colin Espiner writes:

The media was expecting Dotcom’s Internet Party would announce a flake as its new leader. Or a complete moron. Either would have done just fine. We could have ridiculed them, and moved on to more important matters.

But Harre isn’t a flake. And she’s certainly no moron. She’s one of the most driven, persuasive and intelligent politicians I’ve met. I don’t know how Dotcom managed to put a ring on the darling of the Left but on the face of it, it’s a major coup.

The question, though, is for who?

Harre is an old-school socialist. She’s from a trades union background. She’s a former member of the Labour Party, of New Labour, and of the Alliance Party. She’s most recently worked for the Green Party. …

On the face of it, then, Harre is likely to appeal to older Lefties who admire her feminist principles and strong trade union credentials.

It’s hard to see her appeal to young, internet-savvy geeks though. Last time Harre was in Parliament the internet was barely out of short pants. And the people she’s trying to persuade to vote for her weren’t born and certainly wouldn’t know her from a 33K dial-up modem.

But does it matter? Probably not. As long as Harre gets votes, neither the Internet Party nor Mana will care where they come from. And she’s got $3 million of Dotcom’s money to spend – that’s more than any other party contesting the election, including Colin Craig’s Conservatives.

On the face of it, the Left has engineered a spectacular reverse takeover of Dotcom’s party. It’s like a reunion of every failed candidate from every disappeared political party of the past 20 years, funded by an avowed capitalist whose fundamental philosophy – the freedom of movement of capital and people – runs counter to everything his candidates stand for.

Exactly. Dotcom is just funding a party to change the Government. His personal political beliefs and Harre’s are vastly different. There nothing wrong with large political donors – but generally they donate to a party or leader whose policies they agree with.

But remember, Dotcom doesn’t really care. His political aims are pragmatic, not philosophical.

In my opinion, there are two reasons why Dotcom is manipulating the political process. First, he wants rid of Prime Minister John Key. Second, he doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in a United States penitentiary. If the Internet-Mana party is elected with more than a couple of MPs, then Dotcom is likely to achieve the first objective.

There is no possibility the party could side with National. So a vote for Internet-Mana is a vote for a Labour-Green-Internet-Mana-and-possibly-New Zealand First-Government.

Remember that. It would be the most left wing Government in our history.

The Internet-Mana party may also either confuse or scare the bejesus out voters and strengthen National’s hand. Blue-collar, socially conservative, Labour-leaning voters – who’d only just got their heads around the idea of dealing with the Greens – may not countenance their vote ushering in a potential coalition led by far-Left feminist and Maori radicals.

I think there is already a backlash, which is why several Labour MPs have spoken out against the Internet-Mana alliance.

In her acceptance speech of the Internet Party leadership last week, Harre admitted her party was gaming the MMP system in a bid to get into Parliament. But she said it was “time for New Zealanders to take back MMP”.

It was a nice line, with a ring of socialist rhetoric to it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The Internet-Mana party may be successful or it may fall flat on its face.

But it is Dotcom who is attempting to take over MMP. And it is for no-one but himself.

On one of the weekend TV shows, Harre referred to the Internet Party having 30 to 40 staff. That is a huge amount. On top of that Harre and all the candidates will be on pro-rata $150,000 per year salaries. I suspect Dotcom will end up putting more than $4 million in. Whatever it takes to change the Government and increase his chances of not getting extradited.

And if Harre really think Dotcom won’t want any favours for his $4 million. Well think about this. Is he the type of person who would donate $50,000 to a candidate, and then ring him up when in jail wanting him to intervene with prison authorities to get him a pillow – and when no assistance is offered – vows to crush and destroy him.

If he’ll do that when someone who receives $50,000 from him won’t intervene with authorities to assist him – just imagine what his expectations are for a $4 million donation?

Translating Laila

June 1st, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The HoS interviews Laila Harre:

Is it your purpose to destroy Prime Minister John Key, as this appears to be a motivation of your party founder Kim Dotcom?

We are determined to change the government of New Zealand come September. The global financial crisis in 2008 and the Canterbury earthquakes had a massive impact on people’s sense of security. This climate led to a rise in conservatism and a fear of change. We are now moving beyond that.

Translation: yes

What do you think of Kim Dotcom, his business practices and the charges he is facing?

He is a world expert in his field – a highly intelligent man who is serious and passionate about this party and public policy issues. I think New Zealanders feel embarrassed by our Government’s treatment of him as well as the misuse of our intelligence agency with regard to a number of other New Zealanders they have admitted to spying on. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the charges against Kim Dotcom.

Translation: He’s paying me $150,000 a year to lead his party before I jump ship to Mana. It’s great. He pays me much much more than the CTU and Greens did.

Your party is targeting young, disillusioned voters, but does a middle-aged woman have the credibility to pull this off?

I am connected to young people through my own two children, who are now young adults. 

You’re claiming a connection to young people, because you’re a parent? Oh dear. That’s exactly what old people say.


Gower on the dirty deal

May 30th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Patrick Gower blogged:

The Hone-Dotcom-Laila political triangle is one of the dirtiest deals in New Zealand political history.

It is as dirty as National-Act in Epsom.

It is as dirty as the Key-Dunne deal in Ohariu.

Frankly, Lalia Harré made me feel sick today when she said “it’s time for New Zealanders to take back MMP”.

That’s because Laila Harré is wrecking MMP.

Hone Harawira is wrecking MMP.

And Kim Dotcom is wrecking MMP.

They are using Harawira’s seat and MMP’s “coat-tail” rule to get a back-door entry into Parliament.

It is a rort.

It is a grubby deal, made all the worse by the fact Harawira holds the Te Tai Tokerau seat – a Maori seat.

The Maori seats are special. They have a unique constitutional role which is to give the Tangata Whenua a place of their own in the New Zealand Parliament.

The Maori seats have been hard fought for.

Never, ever was it envisaged they would be used as a back-door entry for a German millionaire to get his proxy into Parliament.

His $4,000,000 proxy. We should refer to Laila as the four million dollar woman!

Gower is right to point out that this does weaken the case for retention of the Maori seats.

This will give those opposed to Maori seats ammunition to get rid of them.

A referendum on keeping MMP at the moment would be very interesting. Likewise on the Maori seats!

Sadly, the Internet Mana deal has diminished the mana of the Maori seats.

And even sadder too, this deal involves money.

Harawira wants Dotcom’s money.

Annette Sykes wants Dotcom’s money.

John Minto wants Dotcom’s money.

They are all willing to pervert the MMP system for the sake of money and it is a venal deal.

Don’t try and tell me Laila Harré cares deeply about the internet. She cares about getting into Parliament.

Her first press conference was about pretty much every leftwing issues there is, and almost silent on Internet issues except vague platitudes on the importance of the Internet – something that was dated even back in 1996 – when Harre entered Parliament initially.

I have a lot of respect for Harawira, Sykes and Minto. They have spent their lives fighting for what they believe in – for points of principle.

But that respect has been tarnished.

They are obsessed by power, obsessed by money and will trample over the rights of New Zealand voters to get it.

This Internet Mana deal is so wrong.

I feel sorry for all those who signed up to the Internet Party thinking it was about Internet issues. Instead it is merely a vehicle for Dotcom to fund the Mana Party into Parliament. They should be honest and cut out the middle man, and just have Dotcom give the money directly to Mana. Harre is not a candidate for the Internet Party. She is a candidate for Mana. I bet you there isn’t a single Mana Party policy she disagrees with, and she probably doesn’t even know what policies the Internet Party has.

The Press editorial is no less strong:

There can have been fewer link-ups in New Zealand politics more cynical and crassly opportunistic than the one just formed between Hone Harawira’s Mana Party and the Internet Party, masterminded and financed by the internet developer Kim Dotcom. There is not the shadow of any principle involved in it.

Before he arrived in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom’s public image was of a high-living, luxury-loving party animal. For all his technical skills, there is not the slightest evidence that either now or in the past he has had a serious political thought in his head.

It is almost certain his only contact with the poor and dispossessed whose interests Harawira purports to represent would have been as employees. Indeed he may be a little startled to find that he is financing the far-left Laila Harre, the newly announced leader of the Internet Party.

As for the internet issues the Internet Party is supposedly concerned about, if Harawira and Mana had any particular interest in them before Kim Dotcom and his money came on the scene they kept very quiet about them.

Sames goes for the Internet Party Leader.

The ultimate composition of the next New Zealand government may wind up in the hands of a fringe collaboration bankrolled by a German fugitive from American justice. New Zealand politics should be better than that, surely.

The Dom Post editorial notes:

Harre’s arrival sharpens a dilemma for Labour. If its Te Tai Tokerau candidate Kelvin Davis defeats Harawira, it could cut Internet-Mana’s throat and waste a lot of votes for the Left bloc. The best strategy might be for Labour to go softly on Harawira without actually cutting an Epsom-style deal with him. This would require a U-turn, even if it is done in semi-secret.

I understand there is a huge shit fight in Labour over this. Kelvin Davis thinks that he can win the seat as Hone cuddling up to German multi-millionaires will go down like cold sick with many Te Tai Tokerau constituents. If Davis is allowed to run an aggressive campaign for the seat, he could win it.

But Cunliffe and McCarten don’t want to win it. They need Mana-Dotcom in Parliament. So they’ve decided that they will unofficially not campaign to win the seat. This makes Davis the sacrificial lamb who would love to the MP for Te Tai Tokerau, not a List MP.

What is Laila’s stance on capping political donations?

May 29th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

I’m pretty certain Laila Harre has in the past campaigned on capping the amount any one person can donate to a political party. The CTU submitted in 2007 that there should be a maximum cap of $5,000. The Greens have supported a cap. These are her last two employers.

Does she still support a cap of $5,000?

Does she have no problems leading a party that so far has had (at least) $250,000 donated to it by one person?

Amazing how flexible principles are, when you’re receiving the money.

Laila Harre is the Internet Party Leader

May 28th, 2014 at 3:31 pm by David Farrar

NBR and the Daily Blog both report that Laila Harre is the Leader of the Internet Party.

I think this is great. Laila is a good politician, but she will attract zero votes from National supporters. She will however attract votes from the Greens – the party she worked for just a few months ago.

I also love the hilarity of a life long unionist getting paid a whopping great salary from the multi-millionaire convicted criminal who was accused by his staff of not even paying them minimum wage.

I also don’t think Laila has ever shown any interest or involvement in Internet issues. She is a staunch unionist and hard left activist. Laila becoming Leader of the Internet Party because she presumably uses the Internet is like me becoming Leader of the Greens because I eat them sometimes.

Next we’ll see Rajen Prasad being announced as the new female co-leader of the Maori Party.


Heh just had this e-mailed to me.