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!
I decline to argue anymore. Good night, I look forward to the morning Winstonian headlines.
looks like great debate going on here this morning
Great debate as usual on the standard
Here you have two leaders of National speaking their mind about matters that go against what they know is what the majority of public want.
Kiwi’s like a bank owned by New Zealand, National wants to sell it. Kiwi’s want MFF, National wants to “change” it. Kiwi’s don’t want privatised health care, National wants to privatise it and more over they show an incredibly arrogant attitude towards “the punters” comparing them to easily panicked horses.
They speak their mind about topics obviously discussed behind closed doors to people whom they believe have the same attitude. The only problem is that someone in the audience(a journo or someone just sick of the lies)records the conversation.
It is almost as if National’s leaders have been caught conspiring isn’t it? LOL.
Sort of; We will tell the suckers (the horses, the sheeple, whatever) what they want to hear and when we are in power we will do what we want (Borrow, Spend and Sell and make lot’s of money when we end up on the boards of all those privatised assets leaving the punters to sort out the debt we’ve left them with).
Ah, John Key brings Wall street to NZ. Welcome to the real world.
I suspect if National were more forthcoming with their policies and less secretive, then Journalists wouldn’t have to resort to guerilla tactics. They’ve played a silly game and really National are making there own bed here, but are not prepared to lie in it.
I shall now tell a conspiracy story… 6 months after National gain the Government Writs, John key is either (a) assasinated by a little known radical group or (b) Quits due to ill health or (c) A financial scandel causes his fall (leaked by a member of the Business Roundtable) Bill English becomes PM, removes all KEYITES from positions of influence and proclaims “Yes A National Party led by John Key said “…..” But I’m not John Key and in the best interests of the New Zealand we will unfortunately have to privatise Health, Education, ACC, Kiwibank, Kiwirail…
LOL.
I’m interested in this Tanya thing. Is it another poster who is male pretending to be a woman, or a previous poster with a new name? yo appear to have ‘something’ on him/her.
Two issues; one is of privacy, the second is about blackmailing someone to suppresscomment.
Put up or shut up rob and you too ‘Tanya’.
Rob – your attitude comes across like a bully-boy, and begs the question, how do you ‘know’ if Tanya is misrepresenting him/herself, and also what gives you the right to exploit this info?
Monkey boy – I’ve got something on lots of people (including you) and I am a bully. HTFU.
[Tane: Sod, pull your head in.]
The incisive debate continues, not.
sod, can you cool it? people have a right to privacy when they comment on a blog
Did anyone hear Cullen on morning report? Very slippery indeed. Resused about four times to answer whether Labour were behind the covert tapings, answering instead that he didn’t know the identity of the person who did the taping. Quite intentionally not the same thing.
This really is a beat up of monumental proportions.
Perhaps someone here will answer this question. Do Labour sanction the use of taped private conversations of political opponents?
And I notice on their 9 o’clock news bulletin, National Radio are reporting the story with the focus on who is behind the taping.
I once played a game of soccer in which we scored a 30 metre own goal (‘keeper at the edge of the box, central defender spoon-foots over his head, one bounce, goal). This remarkable effort may just have been bested.
For what is “HTFU” an acronym?
Billy, Cullen said he has no idea who recorded the tape.
don’t pretend there’s some moral issue around the recording, hell even Key said ‘we’re on record 24 hours a day’ – it’s a fair cop, politicians shouldn’t be saying one thing to their supporters and another to the public
Classic Crosy Textor repsonse: dont address the issue, shoot the messenger, act like nothings wrong and then press home that ‘New Zealand sucks’.
“don’t pretend there’s some moral issue around the recording…”
Better tell Radio New Zealand.
I have no doubt Cullen does not know the identity of the person who made the recording. That is not the same thing as not knowing that the recording was planned as a strategy. Cullen’s insistence on answering the question as if he were being asked who the person was, when he was really being asked did he or the Labour Party have any involvement in procuring the recording, tends to show that Labour are behind it.
And Smith’s comments were hardly earth shattering. Was I invited to vote for Labour last election on their policy of buying back rail? Or their policy of extending Kiwisaver?
And whose strategy is it, leftrightout, to covertly tape private conversations at cocktail parties. Maybe there’s someone worse than Crosby Textor directing Labour’s strategy. Come
Steve, can you please answer my question. The evidence is compelling, your willingness to sanction this activity is demonstrated in your posts of yesterday. I will speculate that you appear to be part of the pro-Labour apparatus. So on the surface
it looks as though elements of Labour do wholeheartedly approve of the taping of opponents private conversations.
[lprent: Coge - don't be a ignorant dipshit. Steve has publically said before that he is more likely to vote Green than Labour.
I think it is a bloody good idea that the hypocrites in the Nat's are pulled up on the difference between what they say in public vs what they say in private. Writers on this site have been pointing out that is probably the case forever, based on the revelations in the Hollow Men. Looks like that has been confirmed by someone. Doesn't look like the Nat's have changed much - they still look shifty. Now I consider that is good information for the public to know.
As far as I'm concerned Steve or anyone else can put posts up about this. I sanction it - if you have a problem with that then I can sanction you not being here - clear? If you take that tone (trying to tell a writer what they can post) here again, you will find out what I have a reputation of being a bastard at times.]
Billy: I think the point is that Labour never ruled out the prospect of buying back rail – they’ve had a history of re-nationalising struggling infrastructure (such as Air New Zealand), and extending Kiwisaver wasn’t something wholly unexpected from them.
National seem to be deliberately hiding some policy because they think it won’t be liked by the public, and we can’t look at the previous things they’ve done in power as a guide for what to expect – or would you like us to look more closely at the 90′s? Half of Nationals front bench was in power then too…
I also wonder who did the same thing to the NZLP congress earlier this year with Mike Williams. Perhaps coge, as a National supporter/member, you could tell me if National sanctioned the use of taped closed sessions of political opponents.
I think I’m the only known member of the NZLP of the writers on the standard. I didn’t “sanction” it – but I think it is a good idea. As Steve said – parties should not be telling their supporters one thing in private and then putting a completely different emphasis/policies in public. That is what makes politicians to look so damn shifty and unreliable.
Could be NZF supporters. Could be green supporters. Could be anyone – could be disaffected Nat’s or Act – who knows?
I suspect that activists of some persuasion did it off their own bat. Frankly journo’s do not seem to have the abilities to do this in NZ. Politicians tend to be too reluctant. It is left to activists to find out what is really going on, to do the blogs, to do the investigations, and to generally make sure that the public does get the information they need. Who cares if a few politicians get caught on the way through.
They must have been pretty convincing.
I guess Lockwood will say he is guilty of ‘loose’ talk too. The question is, where now is the credibility of English and Smith.
What is loose talk? is it lying? is it saying things that you don’t want heard by other people? is it being careless and letting your innermost thoughts slip out? {think Mel Gibson}
I don’t think English/Smith want us to think they were lying or bullshitting, as it were. If they want us to think that then their political crdibility is gone.
No, I think English just said exactly what he thinks and the expression ‘loose talk’ is just a smokescreen he’s trying to hide behind.
Billy, I wouldnt be surprised if it was someone from within the party itself, just like the ‘hacked’ emails. You give National too much credit if you think that their party is full of loyal members who’ll stand by their leader.
leftrightout,
Maybe you’re right. But then, why did Cullen go to such lengths to say he didn’t know who the person was (when that wasn’t what he was being asked)? If Labour had no involvement, Cullen could have avoided looking so slippery by just saying Labour had nothing to do with it.
“And whose strategy is it, leftrightout, to covertly tape private conversations at cocktail parties. Maybe there’s someone worse than Crosby Textor directing Labour’s strategy”
I suspect that even the commenters here are going to frame some of their comments as “misspeech” soon. Covertly taping conversations may not be honourable, but how many National voters would condemn Bill Sutch who was entrapped through similar circumstances?
Secondly, as has been already suggested, this was arguably a response to the mole within the Labour conference who recorded Mike William’s comments.
While Billy might think it is stock and trade, and even legitimate for politicians to blatantly lie to voters, many voters, including I, want to observe a higher standard of honesty and transparency in government. It’s certainly easier to run down, and downsize government if you have politicians there who don’t act in the public interest.
Iprent. Of course peoples voting habits & memberships are their own business. What goes on in the polling booth usually stays there. I don’t belong to any political party & have not yet decided which party or candidate I will cast my vote for.
“I didn’t “sanction it” – but I think it’s a good idea”
Perhaps “tacit approval” would better describe your support of using taped private conversations of opponents? By your own admission you are part of your parties apparatus. And witness SP’s
willingness to publish edited transcripts yesterday.
The remaining evidence is equally compelling as to who or what is sanctioning this activity. Clearly Labour ministers & the PM have not been targeted. I’m sure that would make for interesting coverage. But you won’t see this, as most kiwis are fair-minded with unspoken morals. Good people would never even entertain such ideas. Clearly there is someone or more likely some political group
with a barrow to push. The electorate deserves to have this cleared up, as the evidence does point to Labour right now.
[lprent: Don't be daft - I spend $15 per year to be a member. I have zero/nada/no position in the NZLP apart from being an enthusiastic volunteer for various tasks when I have time. I will admit to having wound up as a branch secretary in the past before I left that to people who like to organise.
I'd say that Mike Williams was targeted at conference earlier this year when he was taped - perhaps you have forgotten about that? Or was that a legitimate target in your rather confused mind - was that 'moral'?
Presumably that tape carried other conversation as well - just nothing that was newsworthy. Does that say something about the relative levels of public/private hypocrisy between the parties?]
Billy – I heard part of that interview. It sounded to me like the interviewer made an assertion that it was labour party people or activists or something. Cullen said that he didn’t know who made the tape.
The interviewer then made the same assertion several times again, and Cullen said that he didn’t know who did make the tape.
So technically you are correct. The question wasn’t asked. Of course that just means that the interviewer was trying to be slippery by not asking the question, and trying to pass it off as an assertion.
It souynded like whoever was doing the interviews was one of the more obnoxious fwit commentators off KiwiBlog. They try to use that same technique on the basis that if you make an assertion enough it may magically become true.
The perfectly legal but dastardly spying plan wouldn’t have come to much if senior Nat MP’s agreed that the National party under Key was a new beast.
But they don’t, so it’s news. What’s the problem?
HC makes a good point about public life here.
As Prime Minister Helen Clark said of Mr English being caught out: “That’s public life isn’t it – we live in a goldfish bowl. There always a possibility that anything we say can get picked up, spun around and end up on the front page of the newspaper.”
I don’t have any qualms about our politicians being recorded saying what they believe in at what could be considered in public hearing.
Ok, lets go through this one at a time shall we.
“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.’
Ummm, nothing wrong with that statement. National would love to replace things like WFF with something better, but cant as all the public dont want to lose what they know.
“If you try to do everything differently you’ll scare the horses and under MMP it’s very hard to win.’
very true, you can’t come in all guns blazing and change everything. It would deffinately stare everyone.
“Once we have gained the confidence of the people, we’ve got more chance of doing more things.’
Once again, no rocket science there. Once people realise you are not the monster that Labour portrays they trust you to make decisions for them and do what’s right for them.
“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.’
And finally, what’s so wrong with that paragraph … “perhaps go through a discussion document process” i think thats the key line of the paragraph.
JESUS … JUST WHERE IS THE HIDDEN ADGENDA??? IM FU**ED IF I CAN SEE IT IN THOSE QUOTES!!!!
Once again, it’s the lovely sensationalist media twisting the story round to make it sound worse than it is.
[lprent: I'd suggest that you avoid using that first line (and others like it). I view it as a particular type of trolling used in KB that attempts to state assertions as facts. Just state your opinion - don't try and dress it up into anything more. ]
Coge, if there was no recording and the questioner relayed the converstation to a journo, would that be spying?
The reason I ask is that I’m trying to find out what the problem is here.
Is it that Nat Mp’s were tricked into saying things that they would rather not have the public hear? (Which is very close to a very famous definition of what ‘news’ is.)
Is it that evidence exists? Should the politicians simply be allowed to claim they never said it, when they did.
Is it that the public are aware?
Those are all good things in my view.
I tend to agree with Andrew that while the comments will sell shift some product, it’s not like there is a *detailed* hidden agenda – just core beliefs.
I also – much to my surprise – agree with HC’s comments about the goldfish. I thought she showed a good touch there – rather than politicising it further, she made what I think is a sensible observation about the need to say what you say in public in private … or is it the other way around??
I really don’t like the way this is going. Perhaps when the phony war is over and the election proper is underway, then we can get on to substantive matters. It’s all assumptions and supposition at present.
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)
Is this a common practice by Govts in democratic countries?
[lprent: What ? I haven't heard anyone apart from yourself suggesting that any government body has done it. Shall I add you to my mental list of conspiracy theorists?
From the quality of the recording on the TV1/3 sites, I'd say that it wasn't particularly good equipment. Way too much background noise. I'd suspect that spooks would have better gear than that. So for that matter should journo's - but I've heard some pretty bad tape from them in the past.
Sounded like DSE level gear.]
Andrew that’s one interpretation, a generous one but perfectly valid.
A more skeptical listener might take more notice of the context – that is: who the speaker was, his known political views, the nature of his likely policy desires contrasted against his party’s public position, his history of honesty/dishonesty etc.
Then a far less generous (and equally valid) reading may emerge.
Don’t you think it’s a little naive to remove all context from a statement and take it purely at face value?
Perhaps it depends on the length of your political memory. Not many who were of age when Dr Smith last presided over a govt portfolio would give him much credit for speaking plainly and honestly.
edit: coge, why do you keep saying it’s the gummint who are taping people?
Dont panic lprent, just portraying my exasperation at the media/labour beat up on the so called ‘Hidden Agenda’ at the moment.
Face it … there is no hidden agenda, i challenge anyone to show proof of otherwise. There is nothing in the two conversations of anything hidden. Labour has been more guilty of a hidden agenda than national.
anyhoo, thats my 2 cents worth. keep on fishing. You had better warm up the opposition benches for when they belong to you.
[lprent: I wasn't looking at the content of the comment - just the format. It is a particular annoyance of mine because it usually leads to flamewars.
You will probably find that some people here think differently about the relative agenda's - but that can wait until I'm out of the BOFH role. ]