Written By: - Date published: 8:14 pm, August 5th, 2008 - 93 comments
Categories: assets, national, privatisation, slippery -
Tags:
It has been revealed that Bill English isn’t the only senior Nat who has been discussing a secret agenda behind closed doors. On TV3 tonight, a recording was played of Lockwood Smith saying:
“There’s some bloody dead fish you have to swallow… to get into Government to do the kinds of things you want to do… and you have to balance up what really matters.”
“If you try to do everything differently you’ll scare the horses and under MMP it’s very hard to win.”
“Once we have gained the confidence of the people, we’ve got more chance of doing more things.”
“We may be able to do some things we believe we need to do, perhaps go through a discussion document process… you wouldn’t be able to do them straight off. … I’m hoping that we’ll do some useful things that way, that may not be policy right now.”
Earlier today, English, in a humiliating charade, appeared before journalists under Key’s gaze to ’clarify’ that he ‘mis-spoke’ and used ‘loose language’ in his recorded comments and TV1 interview*. The revelation that Lockwood Smith was assuring delegates about the same secret agenda behind closed doors totally discredits any credibility that English’s ‘clarification’ might have had. Unless we’re expected to believe that Lockwood misspoke too….
*(so, when he said National will sell Kiwibank “eventually, but not yet”, I guess a tighter version of that would have been “we’re not telling the punters yet but we’re going to sell Kiwibank” and, when he repeatedly said Working for Families is “complex” rather than say Key understood, it a clearer verison would have been “Key is to dumb or lazy to understand pretty basic maths”).
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Did I not say that in the long term, C/T-style campaign tactics bite in the ass? I believe this is my opportunity to give Lew a big old “told you so”
Felix, I haven’t said “the gummint is doing it”, but saying on the surface, the evidence lends itself to certain conclusions.
I am willing to accept, however, a strident denouncement of such tactics from the Government. If such a statement ever occurs.
I would like to thank Iprent for his or her forebearance, as I prefer posting here to say Kiwiblog where most of the posting is about mutual agreement. For now I prefer to be in the thick of it.
[lprent: Yep - you're usually quite an effective commentator, which of course gets you forbearance. But if you are saying government, then you'd better clarify exactly what you are referring to - spooks?. ]
“Don’t you think it’s a little naive to remove all context from a statement and take it purely at face value?”
Why not? neither you nor i was there so we don’t know the context of the conversation so we can only take it at face value.
I am old enough to remember enough governments back to the 70′s. The national government of today is not the national government of the 80′s and 90′s. A lot of the core principals remain, but the extremist views have been all but eradicated.
Much the same as the extreme socialist views of some in the Labour government have been watered down as well.
whats wrong with a flatter tax structure? reducing compliance costs? give the people back more of their own money and let them decide what they want to spend it on.
Why should i spend 1,000′s of dollars furthering my career to get a better paid job, only to be demonised by society for “earning too much”. remember 20% of the population pay 90% of the tax.
Let’s pretend you didn’t say “national government of today” as I’m sure you were mis-speaking
The point I was making Andrew was that if you indeed remember Dr Smith when he was in govt then you will inevitably apply certain filters to what he says as he has a proven track record of deceit.
This is the context I referred to, not the idea that you had to be there and hear it for yourself – just that some people’s words demand very close scrutiny based on their record – and if you accept the word of someone with Dr Smith’s record you are by definition naive.
As for “extremist views have been all but eradicated” from the Nats, can you demonstrate where this has been the case?
As far as I can see, the extremists are all still there – especially on the front bench. To name a few there’s the two Smiths, McCully, Williamson, English, Brownlee, Ryall et al. A few moderate, centrist Nats have left but the hard-liners are all still there.
Unless you’re suggesting that these seasoned tough right-wing political operators have all had some kind of life changing experience and no longer believe the same things they always have then your statement just doesn’t hold any water.
The last two paragraphs of your comment are just standard Act-troll fare and don’t really warrant further comment except to wonder why you brought them up. Not really on topic but obviously the reason 20% of the population pay 90% of the tax (if those figures are accurate) is that they have well over 90% of the money. You’re smarter than that Andrew, don’t lower the discussion.
coge: I thought when you said
“Is this a common practice by Govts in democratic countries?”
you were implying that you believed the gummint here was involved.
lprent: Yes the audio is pretty rough, could even be from a cellphone or similar device. Even budget recording gear (say a portable minidisc and a concealed lapel mic) can produce much better covert recordings.
Of course that depends on the user knowing how to best use the gear which probably rules out spooks as well – you’d expect them to know what they were doing.
@ coge:
When you become a politician then almost all of what you say becomes public because the public need to know. Both HC and JK have said something to this effect so going around complaining, like JK is, about these things happening is a little precious. If you don’t like it then don’t become a politician.
I was overseas in 2002, and I couldn’t find the answer using a google search, so this is a genuine question.
Did Labour campaign on the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act and the Civil Union Act in the 2002 election campaign?
Sorry, that should have been 1999 for the PRA; it was introduced in 2000.
Scribe: Did Labour campaign on the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act and the Civil Union Act
I don’t recall. But for the sake of argument assume that they didn’t. Your point would be that Labour did something they didn’t campaign on, har har gotcha it’s just the same.
But it isn’t the same at all. The PRA and CUA were not major election issues that Labour made very clear statements on, and then when on to do the opposite.
Here’s what we are looking at with National. Very clear statements (sadly lies) about preserving Labour’s KiwiBank, Working for Families etc. But speaking to the faithful their people are caught telling the truth. The real agenda is privatisation and the gutting of social services. Same old Nats.
“So three or four posters (by their own admissions)approve of the taping of political opponents private conversation. (not interviews with journalists or reporters which are public conversations & are often released to the media) ”
If you think that Ian Wishart’s off the record interview with John Tamihere was fine and acceptable, yet disapprove of National politicians being recorded against their knowledge, then you are simnply revealed as the party hack you are.
only difference is that Wisharts was on the record. I have heard the voice mail of JT asking Ian not to print the story once it was already at the printers
How is this a private conversation? You’ve got two public figures, talking at an event where people try don’t know including National party members, town hall staff memebers and media are present, with people milling around… this is a public conversation. It is not English and Smith having a conversation with family or friends in the privacy of their own homes.
Moreover, what matters is what was said, not where it was said.
Scribe. Not everything you do in a term in power has to be pre-announced before the election, new things come up – things like the Prostitution Reform Act, which was a private members’ bill and was a conscience vote ( members of both Labour and National voted for and against it), or the EFA which was a response to information that emerged after the 2005 campaign.
What isn’t OK is to have policy, have plans for what you will do in government before the election, and not tell the public. That’s a secret agenda.
Let’s say for a minute that these recordings were made by a Labour Party activist, who had misrepresented themselves to get into the conference. Then the person had one on one (clearly private) conversations with some MPs, & recorded them without the MPs consent or knowledge. Then excerpts are selected/doctored & handed to TV3. Would you consider this a principled activity? If Labour do not sanction such activity, would it not be unreasonable for the activist to be hung out to dry by the party?
If not why not?
[lprent: Firstly I refer you to the tapes made in closed session at the labour congress and ask you the same questions.
Secondly, I'm a labour party member and probably would be regarded as an activist.
I do things for the NZLP when I can. However I also do things for myself (like this site). The NZLP doesn't run my life, and can't tell me to do anything.
Thirdly, I'm also a member of Southern Cross, AA, insurance schemes, investment plans, etc. They can't tell me what to do either.
So why do you think that Labour Party can exert ANY control on any of their activists outside of the narrow confines of the labour party meetings? ]
Let’s say for a minute that these recordings were made by a Labour Party activist
Hey coge – you first. Let’s say the same (made by a National activist etc) about the tapes made of Mike Williams at the Labour Party conference. Go ahead and answer your own questions….
Iprent. Should a principled polictical party seek to publicly disassociate itself from said activist when they had been correctly identified? Absolutely they should, as the action could damage the partys reputation. We both know if the activist acted alone, & without prior knowledge or sanction of the party, nothing could be done to prevent it.
rOb, you should already know how I feel about private coversations,
ANYONES private conversations, being recorded without consent. It’s a violation the majority of us do not tolerate.
If there is more to this story to come, I expect we won’t have to wait long to hear about it.
coge,
What makes something a private conversation?
In this case English, Smith1 and Smith2 were talking in a crowded room. They were surrounded by people who could overhear the conversation, many of whom they did not know.
Where is the line between a private conversation and a public one?
Anita. Ultimately it is a matter of intention of the MP speaking. In these cases I believe it is likely that these conversations were one on one, or in very small groups. What is clear is the media were not being addressed. The MPs were not informed that they were being recorded, or who was doing the recording. Or that the recordings would have excerpts edited & handed to TV3.
So I contend, as far as the MPs were concerned, they had some expectation of frank privacy.
At this point there is media interest, so hopefully the true facts will enlighten us in the coming days.
However you look at it, I cannot see how it could be seen as anything more than unprincipled behaviour from someone afforded an expectation of basic human trust. Please don’t tell me you agree with such activities.
coge,
Would it make it more/less ok for you if the person recording was one of the people in the conversation?
How about if they person who went to the media had overheard the conversation and repeated it without recording it?
How about if the retelling was Nat-to-Nat? (“I was at the conference last week and I heard Bill saying … he’s so right!!”)
If I was at a crowded cocktail party and said something indiscreet which was overheard and retold to a client or competitor I would consider it to be absolutely my fault. Shouldn’t I?
Anita it’s not an issue of heresay, chinese whispers or other innuendo. It is a matter of intention. Someone, in all likelyhood, misrepresented themselves, entered a political opponents convention in the possession of a recording device. They then abused the position of unspoken trust they had been given. Their intention, through subsequent events, was very clear from the time they entered the venue.
Again I ask, do you give this your approval?
coge,
I don’t know enough about what happened to approve or disapprove.
To come back to something we don’t have enough information about… you have said that your problem with the recording is that it was a private conversation.
I have asked what makes it a private conversation – particularly given that it was a crowded space full of people who were not personally known to English, Smith1 or Smith2. You (I think) have said that it’s a private conversation because E/S1/S2 intended it to be a private conversation.
So if I’m at a crowded cocktail party discussing work with a colleague in a way that can be overheard by anyone standing nearby, is it a private conversation? If I want it to be private does that make it private? If someone overhears my conversation and tells someone else about isn’t it my fault for being indiscreet?
If this is illegal then Target is f*cked. It is so the “stolen” emails all over again. Let’s hope this time that the media look past teh misdirection…
Oh and didn’t Key say it was just a consequence of being a public figure when it was Bill that was caught out?
Or maybe it just took a day to get Crosby Textor over to do damage control…