Written By: - Date published: 1:25 pm, August 11th, 2008 - 61 comments
Categories: national, privatisation, slippery -
Tags: crosby/textor, national's secret agenda
1) A secret agenda is not something that people talk about in public or when they know the information will get to the public. Therefore, the only way to expose a secret agenda with definite proof is by recording that evidence when the target does not know they are being recorded. The Police can’t just ask a drug dealer to admit their crimes, they do sting operations; just as it took a sting to reveal National’s secret agenda.
2) See John run. Run, John, run. On Tuesday, John Key was accepting the recording as legitimate before in content and as a part of politics “we are on record 24/7″ he said – it was Bill English who was being hurt after all, so that was OK. But Key’s tone changed rather quickly when a member of his faction, Lockwood Smith was caught out – suddenly what had been legit was a ‘new low’, ‘dirty tactics’. But remember, those recordings could have been made yet there would have been no story if not for the fact that the senior Nats were talking about their secret agenda. If you are a politician and you make a statement as to your party’s policy in an area for which you are responsible, the public are entitled to take that statement as official policy.
3) The significance of the Nick Smith recording seems to have been missed by most media. Smith openly admits that National uses Crosby/Textor, the notorious political strategists known for using the dirtiest tricks in the book. When Nicky Hager revealed National was using C/T in June, National refused to confirm or deny. Nats have been amitting off the record to journos that they use C/T but Smith’s comments are the first public admission by a National MP.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I don’t see any proof of a secret agenda. Where is the proof?
umm. senior Nats, in what they thought were off the record remarks to an ally saying they’ll ‘sort out’ Working for Families, sell Kiwibank ‘eventually’, and are swallowing dead fish to win the people’s confidence so they can get into power and do more more interesting things.
“Steve” – now that the public believes that this was a set-up, any value that you can derive from the so-called “secret” tapes has been eroded. That was last week’s story – there is, as the PM would say, hand on heart, “nothing to see here; move on”.
SP, nup.
not proof.
just spin.
I just don’t get the whole Crosby Textor dead horse being relentlessly flogged here (and virtually nowhere else, I note).
They’re basically a fairly unimaginative lot whose idea of strategy happened to fortuitously coincide with what a sizeable proportion of the Australian electorate wanted to hear at one point in history.
Then, like a piano player who knows only one tune, they tried riffing on that at other times and in other places, generally with poor results (i.e. a loss for those that employed them).
As Winston has found, playing the same tune over and over again and adding nothing new to your repertoire eventually drives the audience from the auditorium, hands firmly over their ears.
To argue otherwise is to assume that the NZ electorate are stupid. And they’re not. The polls show them favouring National, yes, but most do so with a feeling of great unease which is reinforced not ameliorated by Crosby Textor’s “strategy”.
Heaven knows National don’t deserve to win this election, because – with Crosby Textor’s encouragement – they’re treating the electorate like children at a magic show. Just keep watching that nice Mr Key and his sequinned assistants and whatever you do don’t look too closely at how they’re sawing that beneficiary in half.
Labour, however, do deserve to lose it, because they’ve treated the electorate like a bunch of slightly backward mouth breathers who need Helen Clark and Sue Bradford et al to tell them how to wipe their noses. Not to mention witnessing behaviour from some members of that same government that makes Winston Peters look like Mother Theresa.
When they’re run out of office and replaced with the vacuum that is National, you can seethe at Crosby Textor all you like. Go ahead – they’ll be only too happy to claim credit for a win they had little real influence upon. But you won’t be fooling anyone.
SP, nup. not proof. just spin.
And, once again, if it was just spin it would never have created the impact that it has. It’s been the top political story for over a week now because it’s true, and everyone knows it’s true.
Labour, however, do deserve to lose it, because they’ve treated the electorate like a bunch of slightly backward mouth breathers who need Helen Clark and Sue Bradford et al to tell them how to wipe their noses.
Yeah righto Rex. Oddly enough I see it as National who think the electorate (“punters”) are a bunch of thickos that can be lied to and distracted and tricked into voting for a bunch of Hollow Men with a pretty face (“nice Mr Key”).
“Yeah righto Rex.”
Deny it all you want, but that is the main reason I hear for everyone voting National. They have had enough of this crap from Labour.
“everyone voting national”
You should get out more.
Maybe that’s the problem. I talk to many people everyday. Strangely enough it corresponds with the polls.
rOb, the impact it has had is not proof. That’s a pretty weak argument.
It has had an impact because of the naughty goings-on of previous nat govts, esp. in the 1990s. There is nervousness out there that it may happen again. Hence the impact. But it is not proof that there is a secret agenda. As I said in another post, not even a stupid person would be so stupid to repeat the mistake of implementing policies that were not heavily disclosed during the election given recent history.
Why do you think labour having been salivating and frantically spinning (another term for lying imo)? It is obvious that nervousness is out there and labour are exploiting it to the max.
But there is no secret agenda that I can see.
And certainly there has been no proof provided.
I still can’t see what everyone is so excited about ?
“Secret agenda” is tabloid-speak, just like Helen Clark & her “Unspoken agenda” Even your PM wants us to move on.
BTW, I smell karma Steve, can you?
rOb, the impact it has had is not proof. That’s a pretty weak argument.
And simply denying what everyone else accepts is a pretty weak argument too. The proof is the words from their own mouths, the media / public reaction, and National’s own reaction to the reaction. It’s the big story because everyone knows it’s true.
As I said in another post, not even a stupid person would be so stupid to repeat the mistake of implementing policies that were not heavily disclosed during the election given recent history.
Prior to the incoming Labour administration of 1999 (which kept its word) the last several incoming administrations did exactly that. Politicians repeat their mistakes ad infinitum. It’s sweet that you have so much faith in them, but really, I see no sign that National have learned the lesson.
But there is no secret agenda that I can see.
You’re in a pretty small minority!
rOb “The proof is the words from their own mouths, the media / public reaction, and National’s own reaction to the reaction.”
The “words from their own mouths” did not prove a secret agenda. That is the spin. I’m sure you have read about the detail and what the situation was. Not going into it.
Re the media / public/ nats own reactions – due to the public nervousness as already stated.
rOb, I’m sure you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind on things without relying on the public/media/reactions. Eh? Trial by media? Surely that’s not you.
I remain completely unconvinced that there is a secret agenda and that these tapes prove there is unless someone comes up with something new.
btw, wasn’t bolger forced into the superann manouevre in 1990 due to the porkies told and actioned by the previous labour govt?
r0b
Your support of Labour is touching ?
What exactly are you referring to in relation to …”the incoming Labour administration of 1999 (which kept its word)”
And what exactly do you think it is that everyone know’s is true.
Just interested.
rOb, I’m sure you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind on things without relying on the public/media/reactions. Eh? Trial by media? Surely that’s not you.
Ahh vto you flatter me. We are all influenced by the information that flows around us. But on this occasion no I didn’t need the taped words and the media reaction to convince me that National had a secret agenda if elected. I believed that already.
What exactly are you referring to in relation to ‘the incoming Labour administration of 1999 (which kept its word)’
Only that. In its 1999 election campaign Labour set out its policies (including tax increases) clearly (remember the first pledge card?). In office it delivered. It was the first new government in a long time that did what it said it would do. A breath of fresh air.
And what exactly do you think it is that everyone know’s is true.
National is swallowing dead rats to make itself electable. It doesn’t like or believe in the things it has publicly signed up for – nuclear free NZ, Working for Families, Kiwi Bank, interest free student loans, etc etc. In their heart of hearts they would like to renege on all of these promises and implement a hard right social and economic agenda. If elected there is a high probability that they will find excuses to renege on at least some of them (e.g. if English rolls Key, he will claim he is not bound by Key’s promises). In short, National has a secret agenda behind the Labour Lite one that they have been forced to adopt, and they will implement as much of it as they can. As shown, for example, by the taped statements of their senior MPs. There, I think that about covers it.
More evidence of a secret agenda:
Nats releasing health policy while attempting to keep the secret that GP’s fees would go up under a national government.
Nats plans to privatise ACC turning up in Australia.
And since we only found about these things through the Nats mistakes – you’ve got to wonder – are there any other things that they don’t want us to know about?
We may never have known about these things until the Nats got into government.
Steve,
On Tuesday, John Key was accepting the recording as legitimate before in content and as a part of politics “we are on record 24/7″ he said – it was Bill English who was being hurt after all, so that was OK. But Key’s tone changed rather quickly when a member of his faction, Lockwood Smith was caught out – suddenly what had been legit was a ‘new low’, ‘dirty tactics’.
How about the fact the second recording saw the episode turn from a potentially isolated incident to a calculated effort by someone to infiltrate a gathering of party faithful? That might have ticked him off a bit.
The significance of the Nick Smith recording seems to have been missed by most media. Smith openly admits that National uses Crosby/Textor, the notorious political strategists known for using the dirtiest tricks in the book.
Yawn. Admitting something that everyone already knew was true is not news.
And as far as how much impact this has had in the “real world”, I think we should wait for the first polls before we start saying “no one cares” or “this is HUGE”.
Yawn. Admitting something that everyone already knew was true is not news.
So why does National continue to refuse to officially acknowledge it? I must admit I’m really puzzled by that – it seems so – pointless.
And as far as how much impact this has had in the “real world’, I think we should wait for the first polls before we start saying “no one cares’ or “this is HUGE’.
Although I think it will have had an impact on public perceptions I’m not expecting anything spectacular in the polls. I’m not a great believer in their accuracy or their relevance this far out in any case.
[Tane: And deleted for smearing us, without evidence, yet again.]
What do the Nat’s mean by ‘sorting out’ WfF?
Don’t know, it’s a secret.
What do the Nat’s mean by “no asset sales in the first term’? Do they mean they are happy with the gov’t owning Kiwirail, a bank, some coal mines, and the electricity generators and that they will not be getting them ready for sale?
Don’t know, it’s a secret.
When John Key explains his ‘no asset sale policy’ by saying that we have a growth problem not a debt problem, and that he plans to increase debt as we head into a recession, what do you think that means down the line? Will the amount of debt that gets run up be kept to 22 percent? What happens to that number when revenue falls and taxes are cut? If a second term Nat gov’t faced an increasing debt would they raise taxes or sell assets? What’s the PLAN?
Don’t know, it’s a secret.
What was Locky on about when he was talking about discussion papers around things we’d like to do? What things? What sort of discussion papers? The sort that say: “examine the benefits of policy x”? Don’t know, it’s a secret.
This isn’t spin vto, these are the actual questions raised by what was said by National front benchers.
The spin is saying, “I could have chosen my words better”, without explaining what you meant. All Bill did was contradict himself.
The spin is saying ‘No asset sales in our first term’, when your long term, but unpopular, agenda is asset sales.
The spin is telling the ‘punters’ that National is Labour plus, when you actually disagree with all the labour rats you have had to swallow, and plan to get rid of them, or just wreck them in other ways.
Glad you think that’s lying.
This is getting silly now.
Is it?
I think people have listened to the tapes and made their own judgement
I certainly hope so. They’ve had a fair opportunity to do that now, thanks to all the publicity National has created which has kept the story alive.
Here at the standard, a blog which has links to the beehive
Frequently asserted, never proved, this kind of accusation does tend to make The Standard authors cross… See the about:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?page_id=2
Its not a secret agenda.
Here’s an exercise for you. Google the following: national 2008 “secret agenda” site:nz
Whats going on here is that I think the collective public have woken up from its flirtation with labour and are going home.
9 years is a pretty long flirtation!
We are a fundamentally centre-right country.
Bollocks. Apart from the current flirtation (a real one this time) with nice Mr Key the right hasn’t had a solid majority powerbase in this country for decades.
rob
Nope I don’t remember the 1999 pledge card would appreciate a link if you’ve got one. I certainly don’t remember such things as the removal of the privy council, buying back rail, declaring AIA a strategic asset being discussed during previous elections – although I except I could be wrong.
I certainly agree with you on the other issue that National are agreeing to things to make themselves more electable, however I don’t think they would go anywhere things such as Nuclear Free policy or Kiwibank … there’s just no point.
As for the hard right agenda I think you’re letting your bias delude you …. in NZ there is as much chance of that as a hard left agenda from Labour, in my view any secret agenda that there may be in place for National or Labour would be incredibly bland as both parties are too busy appealing to everyone. Sadly I think this bodes poorly for the transformation that NZ needs to undergo to start moving forward more rapidly.
Nope I don’t remember the 1999 pledge card would appreciate a link if you’ve got one.
Not a lot of online content for that election, but here’s a reference in a February 2002 speech.
I certainly don’t remember such things as the removal of the privy council, buying back rail, declaring AIA a strategic asset being discussed during previous election
There is a difference between not being able to predict everything you will do in the future (Labour) and saying that you will do one thing with the full secret intention of doing the opposite (National).
As for the hard right agenda I think you’re letting your bias delude you
In 1983 I would have agreed with you. Since then, and post Hollow Men, clearly anything can happen.
r0b
You’re off on a tangent again what is it you think the Nat’s have a full secret intention of doing ?
The biggies from the publics perspective
Kiwibank – they are stymied on this as Key’s on record saying no SOE sales in the first term and regardless I don’t think they’ll bother going there it wouldn’t be worth enough and the public seem to like having it.
Nuclear Free – no political party will change NZ policy without putting it to the public.
WFF – Won’t be changed initially – but they’d be mad if they didn’t just roll this back into the tax system proper at a later date.
Rail – they’ve stymied themselves and can’t touch it during their first term.
Not sure what else would be that exciting to have a ‘full secret intention of doing’ unless you subscribe to Eve’s ramblings.
r0b:
Go back and read my original comment and you’ll see I agree with you on that point. Of course they’re not all “Hollow Men” any more than the Labour Party are all “Feminazis” but I’ve come to expect hyperbole from both sides of the spectrum.
But they’re certainly following Crosby Textor’s “small target, don’t be any more honest with the electorate than you have to” strategy when I’d much prefer they were upfront about their beliefs – a call I note has been made on this blog more than once.
But one of the points I was making – which you seem to have overlooked – is that that’s what the majority of people would prefer and they’re being made very uneasy by the National’s following of Crosby Textor’s strategy. Whether or National are trying to hide a dead rat down their trousers they look as though they are, and that’s bad politics.
So either all this demonising of Crosby Textor by the left means their grasp of strategy isn’t as good as they think it is, or it’s a cunning plan to make National think they’re onto the best thing since Karl Rove and encourage them to slavishly follow the C/T game plan.
I could conclude by asking whether you truly detect not the slightest whiff of hubris from many in Labour and their support parties, but I suspect your answer is as predictable as a Crosby Textor strategy book.
Still no proof of a secret agenda.
Proof of lots of discussion about policies and what they think works, what they think the public likes and doesn’t like, and how they may be able to convince the public of their ideas.
Sounds like politics per normal.
Talk of taking on policies that go against their heart of hearts reminds me of…
1. abandoning the fart tax.
2. Cullen’s tax cuts.
3. etc.
ffs, how on earth do parties come up with policy and change their policy over the years to suit the electorate if they don’t discuss it? And are there not internal factions in all parties over policy direction?
The salivating over this is drying up and all that’s left is a bit of dry goop at the corners of people’s mouths.
vto -
So what, in your opinion, would constitute proof of a secret agenda?
hs:
“they are stymied on this as Key’s on record saying no SOE sales ”
In case you’ve been living under a bridge for the last few years, Key is on record promising all sorts of things and turning around and promising he opposite.
getyourselfanother -
words like “we will sell kiwibank in the first term”
or similar.
You’re off on a tangent again what is it you think the Nat’s have a full secret intention of doing ?
No need to repeat myself from above HS, you’ve repeated some examples for me:
they are stymied on this
Won’t be changed initially
they’ve stymied themselves
How exactly do you “stymie yourself” without an intention that is being stymied?
Still no proof of a secret agenda.
Valiant rearguard vto, but this battle is long over, why try to fight it? Your side lost. The taped conversations would never had the resonance that they obviously have had unless they were so utterly and depressingly plausible.
National’s underhand methods in the last election and much of their secret agenda that time round (“gone by lunchtime”), as exposed in part in The Hollow Men, arguably cost them the last election. They had to sacrifice their figurehead, poor old Don, but they found a new one, nice Mr Key. But the front bench remains the same, straight out of the 90′s. The political minders, Crosby and Textor, remain the same, straight out of the disgusting 2005 campaign. And they are still playing a C&T strategy, lying to the public, and trying to conceal their agenda. Only this time, in part, they got caught.
The alternative, that vto and HS would have me believe, is that National have abandoned all their traditional policies and objectives, and now genuinely believe in “communism by stealth” (Working for Families), “irresponsible” “unaffordable” “fight to the bitter end” policies (interest free student loans) and all the rest. Well I’d like to believe it too folks I really really would, but I’m too busy dodging a squadron of flying pigs right now.
Felix
The Prime Minister is also on record as saying something regarding
” ….it would be against against human nature…”
Political pragmatism meant she had to go against what she had said previously. I would suggest that the Mats having stated that they won’t sell off and SOEs during the first term means that they won’t, if they do they’ll be taken to task.
In terms of Key promising one thing and then turning around and promising the opposite I can’t say anything springs to mind did you have something in particular that’s perturbed you.
PS I’m all for you suggestion of a debate between Randal and D4J …. televised with the worm and Paul Holmes as the adjudicator …. it would be far more entertaining than the leaders debates that we’ll have to put up with.
rOb, had to giggle. Well put. “Why fight it?” Because I couldn’t be bothered with it when it first happenned but its gone on so long and seems like such a beat up I couldn’t resist throwing my true 2c in.
Your description of the faults of the nats have some minor merit here and there. But what you forget, conveniently, is that so does labour. Both are covered in warts.
Don did some dumb things. It will be interesting to see, over the longer term, how smart or silly Key is. Only problem is – this game of politics they indulge in has such a direct effect on people’s welfare etc.
btw, still no proof. wouldn’t stand a shit show in court.
r0b
I know you seem to be taken with spinning the same line over and over but pray tell.
What lies have been told to the public by the Nats ?
And r0b we know you wouldn’t like to believe it at all being entrenched rather firmly in one camp.
when have they ever told the truth?