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!
r0b
I’m a bit concerned that you’ve tagged the current government’s agenda as communism by stealth – if that’s the case we certainly do need to remove them forthwith
The Prime Minister is also on record as saying something regarding
I see that quote around sometimes. I’ll look into the context one day, but not tonight.
In terms of Key promising one thing and then turning around and promising the opposite
Do please check out this link. But in any case promising the opposite is precisely what a secret agenda isn’t. A secret agenda is doing the opposite.
Both are covered in warts.
Some, I put it to you, more than others.
btw, still no proof. wouldn’t stand a shit show in court.
There’s no proof that the sun will come up in the morning either. And as for court, the only relevant one is the court of public opinion. I guess we get to find out in about 3 months.
Anyway folks, always fun to chat, but must wander off now.
I’m a bit concerned that you’ve tagged the current government’s agenda as communism by stealth
Not me that was Key on WfF. The programme that he now supports completely. (Only, Bill wants to “sort it out”). Hmmmm.
Byee
(Only, Bill wants to “sort it out’). Hmmmm.
Coz that nice Mr Key didn’t get it, just like ol’ Brashie. Must be tough, being a pretty face and knowing the real brains are laughing behind your back.
vto:
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.
1 – still pushing for an ETS, even though MMP is making it difficult
2 – been over this repeatedly, search ‘keynseian’ on this blog and you’ll get it explained to you by about six different people
3 – that was a short list
r0b
“There’s no proof that the sun will come up in the morning either.”
Ahhhhh, might just be me but I think there’s plenty of proof that the sun will come up in the morning .. it concerns me that someone educating the young and impressionable would make such a comment.
“And as for court, the only relevant one is the court of public opinion. I guess we get to find out in about 3 months.”
Aye, no argument from me on that.
‘words like “we will sell kiwibank in the first term’ or similar.’
how about
“we would love to see wages drop”
?
Ahhhhh, might just be me but I think there’s plenty of proof that the sun will come up in the morning ..
Well HS, it turns out that notions of proof and causality are rather slippery things to pin down. Outside of closed formal systems like mathematics, or godlike omniscience, you can pretty much go on denying that anything is “proved” ad infinitum. As for example the tobacco companies denied for decades that there was a proven link between smoking and cancer risk, or vto above is claiming that there is no proof of National’s secret agenda.
it concerns me that someone educating the young and impressionable would make such a comment.
Good thing I don’t do that then isn’t it.
And Rex, I missed your comment in the rush today: I could conclude by asking whether you truly detect not the slightest whiff of hubris from many in Labour and their support parties . Ahh – hubris? With our poll ratings? Truly, truly, truly, in my experience, hubris is the last thing on any Labour Party member’s mind at the moment. I suspect you will find the whiff of hubris rather stronger around the National Party campfire these days…
[lprent: Obviously you have had a brain disfunction because you usually aren't this thick.
Try reading the About and Policy during your one week ban. We do not appreciate having people smearing us on our own site. Do that at Whales if you want to become a sewer rat.
BTW: I'm a active NZLP member (and proud of it), but I'm also one of the few amongst the writers and moderators who is.]
r0b
Sad to disappoint you but there is no proof (viz A rigorous, compelling argument) of the Nat’s secret agenda.
There is plenty of proof that the sun will come up in the morning.
Sorry for the education comment I must have confused you with someone else on the back of a comment somewhere.
Sad to disappoint you but there is no proof (viz A rigorous, compelling argument) of the Nat’s secret agenda.
No just their ideology, their history, and their words.
There is plenty of proof that the sun will come up in the morning.
I’ll resist the temptation!
Sorry for the education comment I must have confused you with someone else on the back of a comment somewhere.
I’m not offended. Yay educators I say. But I have made no claims about my profession or personal details (other than that I’m a grumpy old cyclist), and they aren’t relevant to discussions on a blog.
I’ll pay 100 to 1 that the sun will come up in the morning. Any takers?
how scary is this captcha?… mountains eastbound
vto – words like “we will sell kiwibank in the first term’ How is this different then what we were discussing in the other thread. Key says about WfF “we intend making no change to it.’ English says a few days later: “So later on we’re gonna have to have a bit of a sort out. Yeah, we’re gonna do something, but we can’t do it now.’ I know public consultation or mandate like you were saying. But it’s still campaigning on one thing and planning another. Do really expect National to seek a public mandate on everything they do in office which they haven’t campaigned on? They have told the public very little about what they’ll do anyway. And how are they going to do it? Are we going to have refernda on every bit of legislation? Public consultation from the party that wants to gut the RMA? To me I’ve seen nothing from National yet that would convince that there will be more public consultation or mandate seeking if they get elected. If they want to seek a public mandate why don’t they release more policy now and let the public give them a mandate in the polls?
Show me the science, the stats and hard data and also the proof that they have a secret agenda, this “Politics of Fear” that those who support Aunty Helen is up their with Karl Rove and the republicans.
“Show me the science, the stats and hard data and also the proof that they have a secret agenda.”
Show me the science, the stats and hard data and also the proof that they _don’t_ have a secret agenda.
vto
I’ll pay 100 to 1 that the sun will come up in the morning. Any takers?
That is a probability, not a proof.
Brett,
Consider.
1. The Nats have spent years spewing all the manic vitriol they could muster opposing various Labour policies, policies they now claim to support.
2. The ONLY Labour policies they have committed to support are the apparently popular ones like KiwiBank, WfF and KiwiSaver.
3. Other less popular ones like the EFA and the repeal of S59, they have either committed to repeal or been entirely ambivalent about.
4. It is fair to conclude that National is being selective about which Labour policies it supports, entirely on the basis of what is popular with the electorate or not, and not on what they actually believe.
5. What policy we do have is either consistent with their long-term neo-liberal positions, or so intentionally vague and undetailed as to be effectively meaningless.
6. A lack of detail in a declared position or policy creates the space creates wriggle room; the essential ‘plausible deniability’ that allows a party to convey one impression before an election, and then implement something with an entirely different effect afterwards.
7. Internal evidence that when they are only talking among themselves, the Nats say distinctly different things that are consistent with their historic hard-right positions, than what they tell the public. (ie the Hollow Men and the recordings from this last weekend.)
Now all this is rather tedious to type out all the time, so we use a bit of jargon and short-hand it down to ‘secret agenda’.
So what, in your opinion, would constitute proof of a secret agenda?
words like “we will sell kiwibank in the first term’
That’s just silly. You don’t need to have the details of the agenda to prove that it exists.
What if they said something like:
“There are lot’s of things that we have to promise not to change, but we intend to change those things as soon as it’s politically possible. Once we are on the gov’t benches of course, what’s politically possible is different from what we can talk about now because we will be controlling the agenda. There are, also, other things we have planned that we know won’t be popular, so we will not be talking about them before the election.”
That’s explicit proof of an unspecified hidden agenda. It’s also pretty close to what they said on the tapes.
hs,
Labour included the abolition of appeal to the Privy Council in its 2002 manifesto, then passed the legislation after winning that election.
I’m a bit rushed so you’ll need to put up with references from Wikipedia and the Republicans.
Your analogy with a police sting is ridiculous. Any evidence obtained by police involving obvious entrapment would be inadmissible. Any “evidence” as flimsy as that which you try to claim is proof of some sort of secret agenda wouldn’t even make a jury.
I’d say there is more evidence that they do than they don’t. They don’t have a secret agenda coz john key sez so?!
As i read somewhere recently – it used to be that Labour had to convince us that National _do_ have a secret agenda. Now, thanks to the tapes – National need to convince us that they _don’t_ have a secret agenda.
So come on guys – please provide proof that National _do not_ have a secret agenda.
What happened to all the righties who were hoping that National has a secret hard right agenda?
Lets all stop kidding ourselves. National want to sell state assets. The majority of the public don’t like this. Who can blame them? Where is that guy Max Bradford? I’d like to find him and shake him by the throat.
One company owns the power station. One company owns the lines. One company sells us the power – truly inspirational.
Telecom – Hmmm yeah. Its suspicious how there are no synonyms for the word monopoly.
Why are National doing some kind of bizarre drag act to convince the public that they aren’t for asset sales? Be proud of being big-business brown-nosing tories and reclaim your rightful place.
“So come on guys – please provide proof that National _do not_ have a secret agenda.”
The only way to prove that negative is elect them and wait and see.
How else can anyone prove that.
Can you prove Labour will not legalise dwarf throwing if they are voted back in. Of course you can’t prove this.
“elect them and wait and see.”
wow – Is that all you’ve got? Good luck with that, you’re gonna need it.
“How else can anyone prove that[?]”
The same way you prove any other point – provide evidence. See above.
I took this from Wikipedia. Looks like very little has changed from 2005 election, and look at what Labour has delivered, and how much nothing has changed from National.
I’ve got the 1999 Pledge Card around (thank goodness for being a hoarder) so I will find the campaign platform on that and post those points up seeing as some dissidents here tend to have a thing about the 1999 card.
Labour Party
The Labour Party platform included:
student loans: writing off interest if the recipient stays in New Zealand – achieved
health: a pledge of extra public-hospital operations – achieved
Treaty of Waitangi: accepting no lodgements for Treaty-claims after September 1, 2008 – close out date is going to be achieved
increasing rates-rebates
a “KiwiSaver” program, aimed at getting first homeowners into their own homes – achieved
sponsoring 5,000 new apprenticeships – achieved
increasing community police-force numbers by 250. – not achieved due to the “natural attrition” being far higher than the number of recruits going through Police College. The rate is 8 new members for every 10 that leave.
a “Working for Families” tax-relief/benefit programme aimed at lower to middle-income families – achieved, with concessions.
National Party
The National Party campaigned on the platform of
taxation: lowering income-tax rates – still the same
removing references to the Treaty of Waitangi from existing legislation; and resolving all treaty claims amicably by 2010 – haven’t heard on this yet
making student-loan repayments and $5000 of pre-school childcare costs tax-deductable – haven’t heard on this yet, but sounds like the lump sum reward is a variation of this.
“reworking” the New Zealand Resource Management Act to make development easier – still the same
“removing excessive bureaucracy” in the education system, in particular by overhauling the NCEA, and by re-introducing “bulk funding” of schools – still the same
abolishing early parole for violent criminals. (As of 2005 most prisoners became eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence) – most prisoners are now only eligible for Parole after serving 75% of their sentence
a return to “market rents” for state-housing tenants, including a system of paying housing-subsidies (for the poorest tenants) directly to private landlords – most likely to happen
part public/private ownership of the public health system – still the same
a “work-for-the-dole” scheme – still the same
abolishing the Maori electorates – still the same, as evidenced by JK’s speech at Waitangi.
Thanks Jasper!
Nau Mai r0b.