Dunne angry

Written By: - Date published: 1:39 pm, May 18th, 2012 - 106 comments
Categories: united future - Tags:

Underneath the ‘common-sense’ exterior, and all that hair, Peter Dunne is an angry man. He lashed out that those who pointed out he’s voting for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support. He screamed at losing TVNZ7 – Backbenches is his one chance to get on the telly. And he’s going feral on the Conservatives because they could usurp him.

Dunne knows his only route to continued relevancy is to hope that National gets back in and he can continue to be a limpid on their side. But a new, larger limpid could take his place. What then for Dunne?

And, Dunne knows there’s a lot of cross-over with his policies and the Conservatives. Indeed, its Christian base was once part of United Future and ex-UF MP Gordon Copeland was on the Conservatives’ list. With a thin majority, Dunne knows he could easily be unseated if the Conservatives take even only a few hundred votes from him in Ohariu.

No wonder Dunne’s blood pressure is up. His little micro-niche in the political ecological is under threat.

Oh, and if you think Dunne’s angry now, just wait until Operation Ohariu.

106 comments on “Dunne angry ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    18 May 2012 at 2:20 pm

    who pointed out he’s voting for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support.

    I’m calling bullshit on that, it’s been shown many times that Dunne’s (and UF’s) position was clear to anyone who cared to take any notice prior to the election.

    Repeating this accusation is either blatant ignorance, or…

    It’s not Dunne who’s angry, it’s a handful of unionists who keep trying to overturn the election result because they failed in November.

    [three choices. Present evidence Dunne explicitly said he would support the partial sale of the energy companies and air nz, withdraw your comment, or face a three month ban. You know perfectly well the UF strategy was to never explicitly endorse any sales but, rather, to rule out sales that aren’t on the table, thereby misleading the public on your position on the actual asset sales. You did it yourself here. If Dunne accidentally revealed the truth even once I didn’t see it and nor did anyone in Ohariu. Eddie]

    • Pete George 1.1
      18 May 2012 at 3:32 pm

      I don’t know if Dunne explicity said that in your words, but it was obvious from website statements, election television advertising, election flyers (distributed throught Ohariu) and TV appearances that
      – Dunne/UF have for many years favoured the mixed ownership model (as far back as 2005)
      – Dunne/UF acknowldged the right of the major coalition partner to progress their major election policy
      – Dunne/UF would not oppose National’s asset sales policy but would insist on limits to Nationals proposals

      I don’t think there was any doubt about the Dunne/UF position prior to the election, I don’t recall their being any doubt raised. I’m sure I can find plenty of comments on The Standard suggesting UF was virtually a part of National and would do whatever they wanted. I still hear that regularly.

      So I think claiming Dunne “never told his electorate” is disingenuous. There may or may not be proof of him using your particular words but the Dunne/UF position should have “clear to anyone”.

      http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/asset-sales-1/
      http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/unitedfuture-on-asset-sales/
      http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/four-key-election-issues-animated-video-1/

      One simple question for you Zetetic – what did you think the Dunne/UF position on asset sales was prior to the election?

      • Pete George 1.1.1
        18 May 2012 at 3:40 pm

        By: Zetetic – Date published: 9:00 am, November 25th, 2011

        …and National is on a razor edge, with a 2 seat majority but the rest of Parliament opposing asset sales if ACT and Dunne lose, or on Dunne.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-resort-to-robo-calling/

        Did you have any doubt about Dunne’s position when you wrote that?

      • Pete George 1.1.2
        18 May 2012 at 3:53 pm

        Written By: Eddie – Date published: 1:23 pm, November 12th, 2011

        This is high stakes stuff. If ACT goes and Dunne loses too, as looks likely, National will be bereft of natural allies. And National’s support is tracking down to the point where it can’t govern alone. The Banks endorsement should only make that more likely.

        What happens in this scenario? There would be no parties that would support its asset sales policy through Parliament, except perhaps the Maori Party

        http://thestandard.org.nz/a-cold-cup-of-tea/

        And Eddie, what did you think the Dunne/UF position was then?

        • dd 1.1.2.1
          18 May 2012 at 6:38 pm

          This is classic. This article is blatantly trolling pete george and then he is the first to bite. Classic.

          Anyway, entirely agree with article.

        • SukieDamson 1.1.2.2
          18 May 2012 at 7:21 pm

          Problem solved, create a daily post with some mild criticism on or about the angry budgie or United Hirsuit & PG tailspins into thread with himself.

        • Eddie 1.1.2.3
          18 May 2012 at 7:40 pm

          I told you to show Dunne explicitly said he would support asset sales. You have failed.

          Your links do not show Dunne saying he would support National’s asset sales. Some mention asset sales that he wouldn’t support selling, but none that he would vote for. Indeed, the comments you link to are exactly the underhand muddying of the waters I mentioned above.

          Allegations by Dunne’s critics that he would support asset sales are not Dunne explicitly supporting asset sales.

          See you in three months.

          • Pete George 1.1.2.3.1
            18 May 2012 at 8:06 pm

            This is pathetic, and I’m sure you know it.

          • Pete George 1.1.2.3.2
            19 May 2012 at 4:15 am

            The Dominion Post:
            To Peter Dunne, from Joe Brown: Will you say no to all state asset sales like Labour and Charles Chauvel have this year?

            Dunne Peter:
            In principle, UnitedFuture does not advocate selling state assets, but in the event National putst up its mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand we would be prepared to support that, provided the maximum was 49%, with a cap of 15% on any indivudual’s holdings. We would never support the sale of Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand or control of water assets.

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/election-2011/5927291/Live-Chat-Ohariu-electorate-political-candidates

            There’s the specific proof you asked for.

            Will the original claim be withdrawn by Zetetic? The requirements for proof should be evenly applied.

            • Te Reo Putake 1.1.2.3.2.1
              19 May 2012 at 9:02 am

              Nope. In fact that quote destroys your argument, Pete. Dunne says UF are opposed to asset sales, but would consider qualified support of National’s program. Isn’t it time you went away?

              • Pete George …
                19 May 2012 at 9:13 am

                The original claim:
                “he’s voting for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support”

                The demand:
                “Present evidence Dunne explicitly said he would support the partial sale of the energy companies and air nz”

                What Dunne publicly said:
                “in the event National puts up its mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand we would be prepared to support that”

                Can’t get much clearer than that.

          • Pete George 1.1.2.3.3
            19 May 2012 at 4:38 am

            People’s Power Ohariu acknowledge Dunne campaigning on accepting asset sales:

            “A lot of voters have told us since the election they believed he was opposed to state assets, although during the election campaign he did say provided there were particular safeguards he would support the sale of state assets, so there appeared to be a transition in his position coming up to the election,” says John Maynard, spokesman for People’s Power Ohariu

            http://www.3news.co.nz/Ohariu-concerned-about-Peter-Dunnes-stance-on-asset-sales/tabid/1607/articleID/251883/Default.aspx

            • Hulun Phallis 1.1.2.3.3.1
              19 May 2012 at 1:49 pm

              Well done Pete George. Shooting fish in the barrel.

              Take it, Eddie. Take it.

        • Dr Terry 1.1.2.4
          19 May 2012 at 5:06 am

          OK Pete, many of us are inclined to “protest too loudly” our case, but where you tend to fall down, in my opinion, is through a determination to have the last word (words!). I like the people of Ohariu, having got to know a number of them, and I have nothing against the UF Party as such. I can only confess that I do have a few problems with Mr Dunne in certain situations. I am, nevertheless, sorry for him inasmuch as he appears to take criticism too personally and becomes “angry” as a result. This is very hard for a politician of any brand. Presently, concerning asset sales, he holds the “balance of power” as it were, a huge responsibility which I do not envy him!

          • Pete George 1.1.2.4.1
            19 May 2012 at 8:23 am

            In this case Dr Terry I was proving what I was asked to prove, under an over-reactive abuse of power threat of banning.

            I don’t think Mr Dunne is angry, despite having to put up with decades of abuse and criticism, much of it unwarranted, and some of it blatant misinformation to try and pressure him. That dishonest approach can backfire, can’t it. Who was angry here and threatened to ban for having an error pointed out?

            • DJL 1.1.2.4.1.1
              19 May 2012 at 1:45 pm

              So hes going to sell the power companys because, how dare we critisize (SP, dont care) the great Pete Dunne. That will show us eh Pete.

              • logie97 …
                19 May 2012 at 5:23 pm

                Is Pete George the only advocate for UF. I cannot recall anyone else commenting here on TheStandard in support of Dunne and UF, let alone declaring him/herself as a party member/parliamentary candidate. Just wondering if there are any others out there who may be able to help/carry some of the two Peters’ burdens.

                • felix …
                  19 May 2012 at 6:57 pm

                  There’s a certain Monique someone-or-other as well. Nasty piece of work.

                • Pete George …
                  19 May 2012 at 7:23 pm

                  A one MP party, not a bad average here on a Labour orientated website. Are there 34 Labourites cheering Shearer on? Ah, I probably support Shearer here more than just all of them.

                  • felix …
                    19 May 2012 at 7:35 pm

                    Perhaps you’d find more support for him on Red Alert, being a Labour oriented website.

                    • Pete George …
                      19 May 2012 at 7:51 pm

                      Are you claiming the Eddie and Zetetic, who this is all about, are not Labour orientated?

                      Haven’t you said you’re Green orientated felix? Is that why you’re helping spin this out?

                    • felix …
                      19 May 2012 at 9:11 pm

                      I have no idea what their affiliations are. I doubt Zet has much time for Labour, but that’s just my impression based on not much.

                      I’m not currently a member of any party and I’ve never spoken on behalf of any party.

            • North 1.1.2.4.1.2
              19 May 2012 at 7:16 pm

              Dunne would put up with anything to keep his arse in a fat salary. Serving successive different husbands. He shows the worst of MMP while being the most favoured beneficiary of it. Outrageous really and hardly a performance most can respect at all.

      • Deano 1.1.3
        18 May 2012 at 5:24 pm

        none of those links say that UF would vote for National’s proposed asset sales. All they say is what UF wouldn’t support selling.

        Looks like we’ll be seeing you in 3 months.

      • Georgecom 1.1.4
        18 May 2012 at 6:05 pm

        Pete

        As a suggestion, why don’t you help Peter Dunne make his position crystal clear about assets sales so there is no room or ambiguity?

        For example, http://www.labour.org.nz/operation-ohariu

        Get yourself out there helping to collect 24,000 signatures in Dunnes electorate and put him under immense pressure. That’ll help sharpen him up.

    • Te Reo Putake 1.2
      18 May 2012 at 4:12 pm

      Nope, Pete. The challenge was to “Present evidence Dunne explicitly said he would support the partial sale of the energy companies and air nz”, not to find examples of Standard authors talking about United Future.
       
      Can we have the examples of Dunne explicitly supporting the sales please? I’m only asking ‘coz I don’t want to see you get banned because you didn’t understand the question. I want to see you get banned because you can’t find evidence of Dunne being honest about asset sales, ho ho.

      • Pete George 1.2.1
        18 May 2012 at 4:49 pm

        I never claimed that so have no need to prove it.

        I claimed that Dunne’s position was clear before the election, have shown multiple sources supporting that, and have found that Eddie and Zetetic seem to have thought it was clear too.

        • McFlock 1.2.1.1
          18 May 2012 at 4:57 pm

          When one gives conflicting messages one isn’t being “clear” simply because everyone should have known one was lying. Being “clear” means being explicit, not a worm who says what they think people want to hear.

        • tc 1.2.1.2
          18 May 2012 at 6:14 pm

          EVIDENCE petey, you’re sounding like Lionel Hutz off the simpsons, hearsay, what you say and conjecture aren’t EVIDENCE.

          I couldn’t give a toss how big a workload he’s got, more diversionary whining PG.

    • Pete George 1.3
      18 May 2012 at 5:04 pm

      This is Dunne’s own words on it:

      the position was very clear before the election and anyone who attended of the public meetings in Ohariu before the election would have me state it, over and over again.

      There could hardly have been any doubt, even the so-called peoples select committee now acknowledge my position was clear pre-election – they just wish me to change it.

      So I think there’s now a responsibility to refute that, otherwise “for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support” is an incorrect assertion as I said.

      • felix 1.3.1
        18 May 2012 at 6:22 pm

        Oh, well if Dunne says he said it then it must be true.

        Found any links to him actually saying it? Or are we just going to go by what he said he said?

        • Pete George 1.3.1.1
          18 May 2012 at 8:17 pm

          Felix, it’s a lot better than no evidence to back accusations against him, isn’t it? or does that sort of thing not matter to you.

          I can understand the usual nonces jumping on the bandwagon without any wheels, but this is as bad I’ve seen here in ludicrous attacks and squirming avoidance of fronting up to being called on bullshit.

          [Pete, congrats on tracking down the one time Dunne’s strategy slipped and he admitted he would support National’s asset sales. It took you along time and no-one else had been able to find such a quote. So, congratulations, you’ve proved that Dunne accidentally told the truth once in a forum that no-one noticed. Ban rescinded. Eddie]

          • felix 1.3.1.1.1
            19 May 2012 at 11:31 am

            Sure Pete.

            Have I ever told you about the time I said I was awesome, which proves I am?

          • Pete George 1.3.1.1.2
            19 May 2012 at 11:38 am

            [Eddie] – if you knew before the election what Dunne’s position on asset sales was why have you, up until yesterday, been promoting information to the contrary?

            You obviously knew I was right, and still threatened me with a ban.

            • Pascal's bookie 1.3.1.1.2.1
              19 May 2012 at 11:47 am

              Probably just figured Dunne would act like a rat bastard Pete.

              Way I remember Dunne campaigning wa sthat he would be acting as a brake on National party right wing policy. That’s the way he framed himself, even in his 1 assett sales policy statement that you found. Big deal, right, gonna hold national firmly to umm, their own stated policy.

              But can you name one thing that the Nats would have done that Dunne has stopped them from doing? One policy that he has moderated? He can’t, or won’t. So good luck.

              And one more thing, pretty sure you used to be quite big on the idea that mps should listen to their electorate, and that party policy and whipping should actually pay second fiddle to electorate desires in an electorate mps actions. Do you still believe that?

              • Pete George …
                19 May 2012 at 12:10 pm

                Probably just figured Dunne would act like a rat bastard Pete.

                Dunne has acted with far more integrity on asset sales – pre and post election – than Eddie.

                And one more thing, pretty sure you used to be quite big on the idea that mps should listen to their electorate, and that party policy and whipping should actually pay second fiddle to electorate desires in an electorate mps actions. Do you still believe that?

                I have championed MPs listening to their electorates more and am still actively involved in facilitating and promoting that. But I wouldn’t put whipping at second fiddle, there’s a place for supporting both party policies and electorate interests, where appropriate. An MP conscience position also has it’s place.

                I think if a conscience or party position/vote clashes with electorate interests an MP has an obligation to clearly explain why, and can be judged on that.

                Maybe you are angling towards Dunne should be listening to his electiorate. He’s at least as in touch with his electorate as most MPs, he was re-elected and when you combine his and National’s vote he has a reasonable mandate for his position (that was clear before the election).

                Ohariu People’s Power is a small group from both inside and beyond Ohariu. Yes, they should be listened to like anyone else, but they are nowhere near a majority. They are in fact looking more like an activist arm of the Labour Party. Charles in charge?

            • Eddie 1.3.1.1.2.2
              19 May 2012 at 12:57 pm

              Did Dunne openly say he would support national;s asset sales? Once. In one online forum.

              The fact that I knew Dunne was being a duplicitous son of a bitch in avoiding (save once) giving an express opinion on National’s asset sales programme does not mitigate the fact he was refusing to be open about it.

              You know this, Pete. You ran the UF line and repeatedly refused to express support National’s asset sales programme on this site. I knew what you were doing but that doesn’t change the fact you and your hair cult were refusing to be up front with the people whose votes you were seeking.

              • Pete George …
                19 May 2012 at 1:06 pm

                Did Dunne openly say he would support national;s asset sales? Once. In one online forum.

                How many times do you want me to prove Dunne said it openly?

                From what I saw everyone in UF was clear on the party position on asset sales, some were not in favour and said that.

                You ran the UF line and repeatedly refused to express support National’s asset sales programme on this site.

                Your turn to front up with some proof. Or keep digging – a hole.

                • felix …
                  19 May 2012 at 1:13 pm

                  Just for clarification: Are you asking Eddie to prove that you didn’t do something?

                  How? Surely you’d have to show he’s wrong by proving you did it.

                  • Pete George …
                    19 May 2012 at 1:25 pm

                    That’s what Eddie asked me to do, prove Dunne never said something during the election campaign on the threat of a ban.

                    But in this case “repeatedly refused to express support National’s asset sales programme on this site”.

                    Just a couple of instances of proof of “refusing to express support” would do. As you may infer, absence of expression is not a refusal.

                    In fact I campaigned in Dunedin on allowing National’s sales programme but ensuring limitations. I don’t know if I could prove that, but I’m sure I could find people who would corroborate it.

                    This is all just a nonsense attempt at attacking Dunne (and me) – for which I suggest there is no gain anyway. And, just hypothetically, if someone was running campaigns to try and discredit policiticians by using deliberate misinformation, and were paid by the public purse, I’d be a tad disappointed.

                    As I would expect David Shearer to be disappointed too, he seems like a guy you can take at his word and would oppose Dishonest Politics.

                    • felix …
                      19 May 2012 at 2:15 pm

                      “That’s what Eddie asked me to do, prove Dunne never said something during the election campaign on the threat of a ban.”

                      Eh? That’s exactly the opposite of what Eddie asked for. You were supposed to be finding evidence of Dunne explicitly stating something, not never saying it.

                      Exactly the opposite, Pete. Is that why it took you so long to find? 😉

                      Anyway do I see what you mean now. Eddie ought to be able to show examples of where you were asked about your position on asset sales and you avoid the question, and since he said “repeatedly” there should really be more than one example of avoidance. Furry muff. I reckon it’d be easy enough to find seeing as how avoiding questions is sort of your hobby, but we’ll see.

                      ps what do you mean about the public purse?

      • Te Reo Putake 1.3.2
        18 May 2012 at 6:23 pm

        That’s a quote from Dunne, post election. What counts is a quote from Dunne, pre-election. An explicit endorsement. Can’t be too hard to find, surely?

        • Eddie 1.3.2.1
          18 May 2012 at 7:42 pm

          It wouldn’t be at all hard to find if Dunne was telling the truth when he said “my position was clear pre-election”.

          Yet no-one can find him ever saying he would support National’s asset sales or wouldn’t.

          • Pete George 1.3.2.1.1
            18 May 2012 at 8:07 pm

            Just because you can’t produce anything saying one thing, doesn’t make it honest to say the opposite – with no evidence.

          • insider 1.3.2.1.2
            20 May 2012 at 2:25 am

            I found two very clear examples in only a few minutes. Maybe you didn’t want to find any…

  2. Treetop 2
    18 May 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Dunne is frustrated alright, he knows that the Conservatives will be relevant at the next election and it will be bye bye United Future.

    When the changes to TVNZ 7 were announced, I heard such anger in Dunne’s voice when he was interviewed on Newstalk zb. At the time I thought, if only you could be as concerned over the sale of state assets, then you may gain some respect and votes.

    • Pete George 2.1
      18 May 2012 at 2:30 pm

      Dunne has been putting his political career and his party on the line since last century, while other parties have come and gone. It’s impossible to know the lie of the land in Ohariu for another couple of years, so I doubt he’ll be losing sleep over a Clayton’s Christian Conservative Party from Auckland.

      Funny, Dunne get’s accused of saying and doing nothing (he’s got a bigger workload than most MPs) and then he gets accused of speaking up on something.

      The knockers are acting like tits again.

      • Treetop 2.1.1
        18 May 2012 at 2:51 pm

        “The knockers are acting like tits again.”

        Dunne needs to grow some balls when it comes to stopping the sale of state assets. There is no point in being ambitious unless you will succeed at the task. Being upset and crying about TVNZ 7 is only a million dollars.

        How much worse off is the country going to be when energy assets are sold off?

        Colin Graig actually listens to how people feel about the sale of money making state assets and the increased power bills which low income people will not be able to afford.

      • paul andersen 2.1.2
        19 May 2012 at 9:08 am

        dunne has been to more parties than paris hilton, and has flip-flopped his way through his entire political career. his principles have always been up for grabs, and while their are many in parliament who deserve to be booted out, he especially brings the place into disrepute. does anybody actually know what he believes in(apart from us paying for his lifetime pension )? a stand against selling out OUR energy companies will be his last chance at getting any respect from the electorate, its either that or being lumped in with such reviled ex-politicians as max bradford (seen him lately?)

  3. fatty 3
    18 May 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Gotta give Peter Dunne credit…he is a pathetic excuse for a person, completely irrelevant and useless, but he has positioned himself perfectly within the MMP framework. He is placed in the middle and can side with either team.
    National’s shift to the right might open up new possibilities for United Future at the next election…a middle of the road conservatism may reemerge as National continue down an unethical path, and since the Conservatives seem too out of touch with our hegemonic modern-day liberalism – will we see the resurrection of United Future?
    Or, as Labour continue to slide to the right, United Future may remain a thing of the past, but Peter Dunne would fit in nicely with the new Labour policies, if he remains an elected MP, and if Labour can gain some votes.
    I see the next election going one of those two ways…unfortunately Dunne will be difficult to get rid of.
    Unless Ohariu repent from their sins and change their evil ways.

  4. Adrian 4
    18 May 2012 at 2:33 pm

    The Conservatives aren’t a threat, except to themselves. They have 2 years to throw up a few kiddie-fiddlers and assorted other nutcases.

  5. Te Reo Putake 5
    18 May 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Limpet, Zet. Limpid means clear eyed, which I’m sure Dunne is regarding his parliamentary future. Or lack of future, as seems more likely.
     
    By the way, I think the relationship between UF and National is not dissimilar to that of the Oxpecker and the Zebra. A bunch of arse.

  6. robertguyton 6
    18 May 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Limpid?
    Noooooooooooo!
    Limpet.
    Dunne’s a limpet
    Leech would have done. Remora. Lamprey. Tapeworm even.
    Not limpid though.
    Is that clear?

  7. the sprout 7
    18 May 2012 at 3:31 pm

    He isn’t called Angry Budgey for nothing

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    18 May 2012 at 5:04 pm

    He is angry though.

    Here’s some of the stuff he’s tweeted over the last wee while.

    I’ll take out the boring ‘I opened a thing at a meeting’ crap, and replies to people.

    Right then, a straight down the line list of things Dunne has tweeted:

    “Must only say nice things on Twitter, otherwise Andrea Vance thinks I am curmudgeonly and grumpy – virtues I surely could never be accusd of”

    “t would be great to have a day where the Greens were not whining or grizzling – large herds of pigs would be flying around though.”

    “How much longer do we have to endure Wendy’s vacuity and Jim’s idiocy on TVNZ News?”

    “National will destroy itself if it hitches up to the Conservatives – these people are seriously extreme and nutty”

    “Gloom from the Club of Rome http://t.co/BnU2rzJj ”

    “The Greens are from a planet a long way from here if Holly Walker’s views on Child Support really reflect what they think”

    “IRD website closedown today due to incorrect system setting – no more, no less, but serious impacts for those affected for which I am sorry”

    “Hikoi on asset sales marches to Parliament on a day when it is not sitting – says a lot about the brains behind them.”

    “Half those running People’s Power Ohariu admit to being Green Party members or candidates – says it all really”

    “The Ohariu people’s select committee on asset sales is a joke – see my comments on my Facebook page about how pathetic and inept they are”

    “GWRC – how difficult is it to make sure your buses are not too big for the roads they are using? Your buses are too big for some roads”

    “Wellington bus drivers – you have to stick to your side of the road and give way to oncoming traffic just like the rest of us”

    “To who those who think they know best – it’s normally prudent to see what a deal actually involves before rushing to judgement against it.”

    “No Green/Nat deal: Greens’ bottom line – our way, or the highway. Cannot run a government like that. Labour beware of these friends.”

    https://twitter.com/#!/PeterDunneMP

    It just goes on and on.

    And his replies to people, particularly media, are often quite snipey too. I’m surprised Pete defends him. He’s way more mean on twitter than Mallard, or Tau, who can both engage in a bit of banter and take a joke and make some too.

  9. Georgecom 9
    18 May 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Operation Ohariu:

    http://www.labour.org.nz/operation-ohariu

    If I lived in Wellington I think I’d be there with bells on. Stirring up a load of opposition in Dunnes nest sounds great.

  10. Robert Atack 10
    18 May 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Dunne will become the co leader of the Conservatives, and with their backing bring 5 more seats = National gets back in.
    It isn’t over.

  11. captain hook 11
    18 May 2012 at 7:10 pm

    msn news tonight. Labour could lead in the latest Roy Morgan poll.
    good show.
    Dunne should push off now and let his haircut collect the pension.
    he’s been around for far too long without really doing anything.

  12. red blooded 12
    19 May 2012 at 11:18 am

    Dunne is a vacuous, self-important, self-interested muppet. I hope he’s not in the next parliament. Having said that, I have to say that I knew and I believe his voters knew before the last election that he was going to vote for asset sales. There’s no way that he would take a principled stand – especially if it threatened his cosy situation as John Key’s back-up buddy. He always commented in such a way as to express mild distaste for asset sales but to try to position himself as the person who was in a position to insist on limits.

    Anyway, while Dunne is a condescending drone, I think the Conservatives are a bigger worry. They present as less zany than ACT (who must, surely, be history next time), but their beliefs are pretty extreme and they have plenty of money.

    • David C 12.1
      19 May 2012 at 12:42 pm

      and the Conservatives will happily take tens of thousands of God fearing Polynesian votes away from Labours inner city vote base.

  13. captain hook 13
    19 May 2012 at 11:47 am

    well I guess if they have plenty of money then its a done deal.
    christian sleazeballs go hard.

  14. burt 14
    19 May 2012 at 1:33 pm

    It seems reasonable clear what Dunne’s position was pre election.

    Roflcopter on KiwiBlog
    United Future’s position on asset sales (TV advert), in the lead up to the election.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Ru_miEx-c

    Relevant part starts at 1min 30 sec in.

    • felix 14.1
      19 May 2012 at 2:35 pm

      I can’t watch videos at the moment due to incompetence.

      Can you please quote the relevant section for me?

      • Roflcopter 14.1.1
        19 May 2012 at 3:33 pm

        Relevant section:

        “Asset sales are on National’s agenda, but they cannot be given a blank cheque. Part of United Future’s role as a support partner is to keep the government on a centre path. No extremes.

        So we say there should be three assets that should never be sold; Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand, and our water. And that we also need to keep New Zealand control of all our other assets.”

        • felix 14.1.1.1
          19 May 2012 at 4:11 pm

          Where’s the bit where he says UF would vote to sell assets?

          • Pete George 14.1.1.1.1
            19 May 2012 at 4:38 pm

            You’re taking one thing in isolation. Anyone with half a clue watching that televised and Youtubed advertisement could deduce that UF would support but restrict National on asset sales.

            When you put that alongside all the other things – there are many explicit and implicit examples, plus you can see that it’s clear people like Zetetic and Eddie both thought UF would allow National to follow through with their number one election policy, then you would have to be a fanatic deliberately ignoring the whole set of evidence to nitpick on small – but not contradictory – aspects and argue just for the sake of arguing rather than admit the obvious.

            There’s a lot of evidence supporting a consistent pre and post election UF/Dunne position on asset sales. It is worded in various ways in different places, but it all supports one conclusion.

            Now I think to keep arguing against this you need to come up with evidence – real evidence, not “but he didn’t say it completely every time he opened his mouth” nonsense – to the contrary, otherwise you don’t have an argument at all.

            Thanks for continuing to reinforce this point.

            • felix 14.1.1.1.1.1
              19 May 2012 at 6:34 pm

              Pete, I’m not looking at it in isolation. burt presented 30 seconds of a video as evidence that UF had a clear message on asset sales, so I’m responding to that.

              The only clear message in the video is that UF will definitely not support selling water, rnz, or kiwibank, and would like to keep all other state assets in nz control.

              Now I know as well as you that what that means is ‘sell the assets’, but not because he’s saying it. He isn’t, not out loud. You have to look for the subtext and the context and make quite a few assumptions to get from “keep New Zealand control of all our other assets” to “support national in selling the assets”.

              I can do it, but like I said, only by making a few assumptions and knowing a bit about the issues.

              A more casual observer could easily take the message as ‘UF wants to keep New Zealand control of all our other assets’. And that doesn’t require any assumptions at all, because it’s pretty much word for word what he actually says.

              It’s not much of a leap to take that as a pro-asset message, and that assumption is reinforced by context of “definitely not selling kiwibank” etc. An incorrect leap, but a perfectly understandable one.

              My most charitable interpretation is that it’s an ambiguous message which could be read either way depending what the viewer wants to hear and depending how informed they are.

            • felix 14.1.1.1.1.2
              19 May 2012 at 6:54 pm

              Also:

              1) “support but restrict”. Surely you jest. There are absolutely no restrictions placed on National’s plans by UF policy. The water, bank and radio were never on the block. He may as well have said ‘I won’t let National sell your bike’.

              In fact UF proposed allowing 15% ownership by any one entity – 5% more than National!

              2) “but he didn’t say it completely every time he opened his mouth”

              I think what people are taking issue with is that he didn’t say it completely ever.

              Be honest Pete, if UF really wanted people to know that they were in favour of selling assets, they’d have been saying “If elected we will sell [part/all/whatever] of [x]”.

              Like National did.

              • felix …
                19 May 2012 at 7:00 pm

                Sorry, I take back the word “ever”. He did say it completely that one time that you referred to earlier.

                • Pete George …
                  19 May 2012 at 7:26 pm

                  That’s the one time on record. Dunne also is on record saying he repeated it often during the campaign. People Power Ohariu have conceded that. The evidence keeps mounting up – on one side of the argument.

                  And no evidence on the other side of the argument. Still.

                  • felix …
                    19 May 2012 at 7:32 pm

                    One time on record, yes. What evidence are you talking about now? Is someone supposed to be finding something for you?

                    If so, what?

                    • Pete George …
                      19 May 2012 at 7:49 pm

                      – One time on record – with the very specific words that for some odd reason seem to be important to some people (and weren’t important in the initial accusation.
                      – Corroborated by Dunne and a number of others, including me.
                      – Corroborated by other evidence indicating the same thing.

                      No evidence of Dunne or anyone from UF saying UF didn’t support National’s right to implement their key policy. That’s the evidence you need to have any credibility.

                      And remember, Eddie claimed here that “You ran the UF line and repeatedly refused to express support National’s asset sales programme on this site”.

                      Evidence from Eddie – nil.

                      Multiple accusations made with no evidence. And proof that Eddie knew before the election what the UF position was. A very poor look.

                      Keep emphasising it if you like.

                    • felix …
                      19 May 2012 at 8:27 pm

                      “No evidence of Dunne or anyone from UF saying UF didn’t support National’s right to implement their key policy. That’s the evidence you need to have any credibility.”

                      Evidence of something not happening? Don’t think so Pete. But that’s not my fight and anyway, I backed you earlier on what you said Eddie needed to do. Perhaps you missed it, there are a lot of discussions going on.

                      Did you read my comment above regarding the tv ad? Do you disagree with my analysis and if so, how?

          • David C 14.1.1.1.2
            19 May 2012 at 6:01 pm

            imdeed felix, where is the quote saying Dunne would not support partial sales?

            seems eddie and zetetic owe the young Mr PG some time on bended knee for this load of bullshit.

            • felix 14.1.1.1.2.1
              19 May 2012 at 6:36 pm

              You’re a very strange man and your question makes no sense. Please do not waste my time with such piffle.

              • OneTrack …
                19 May 2012 at 9:50 pm

                Especially when you are on the losing end of the argument. Why can’t you just harden up and admit UF said, before the election, they would support National on their partial asset sale plan. I think PG has already provided more than enough evidence of this.

                • felix …
                  20 May 2012 at 2:41 am

                  You’re talking to the wrong person, fool. I’m not making that argument.

      • burt 14.1.2
        19 May 2012 at 10:58 pm

        felix

        I would have probably have worked out better for you if you had stuck with “I can’t watch videos at the moment due to incompetence.”

        • felix 14.1.2.1
          20 May 2012 at 2:46 am

          The video says exactly what I said it says, nothing more and nothing less. It contains no explicit statements of intent other than what I described above.

          If you think there are further explicit statements of intent in that video, quote them.

  15. RedBaron 15
    19 May 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Has the Ohariu electorate asked Katrina Shanks to vote against the asset sales? Would be a nice point of difference between her and Dunne. If she did, is her electorate committee strong enough to prevent her being replaced as the electorate candidate next time around?

  16. Nick 16
    19 May 2012 at 4:33 pm

    I emailed Dunne to ask him, politely and clearly, what the difference was in supporting partial sales of essential infrastructure such as energy companies and ruling out any partial sale of essential services such as water.

    Despite him being my electorate MP and me waiting patiently a couple of months for a reply I’ve heard nothing. He replied to my previous email asking why he thought he had a mandate for asset sales and he said because he supports National and National wants to sell stuff. This was immediately after the election and before any real pressure started coming on him as National’s ‘enabler’.

    There was nothing provocative, biased or offensive in what I asked this time round, I just wanted a clear answer as to why he had chosen some assets as sacrosanct and not others. For the record I only care about sales of shares in Air New Zealand as they required a bailout last time they were privitised and I would hate to see the waste of money and productivity occur again. I am much more passionate about keeping essential infrastructure in public hands, electricity and water are two parts of the same equation providing social and economic benefits to all New Zealanders and there are benefits above and beyond dividends.

    By essentially ignoring one of his constuents asking a sensible and polite question about an incredibly important policy he’s showing to me that, despite being in parliament solely to represent the people of Ohairu he is much more concerned about doing what he his told by National.

    I don’t care how busy he is, or how much flak he is getting over this particular policy, he is an electorate MP, leader of a party caucus of one and minister of hairdos and tax-collecting. He only has the job he has because of my misguided fellow voters and should have our interests first and foremost. He sends me plenty of glossy newletters saying how he’s here to support me but can’t even answer a simple question.

    He seems to be an out of touch, National Party lacky without firm principles. ACT got considerably more concessions out of National than UF, in fact the Maori party probably did as well and don’t have to support this ridiculous and damamging asset sales policy. Maybe I’ll have to go down and see him in person and talk some sense into him…

    You think HE’s angry? Rant over.

    • Pete George 16.1
      19 May 2012 at 4:49 pm

      Nick – I’ve sent quite few emails to MPs, and including emails to all MPs, and most of them don’t reply most of the time. Some of them send autoresponses saying things like “I get a lot of email but will try to respond” sort of things.

      Most times I’ve emailed MPs from my own elecorate and city they don’t respond.

      I’m not excusing Dunne for not replying to your email, it’s up to him when he replies and when he doesn’t – he usually but not always replies to me when I (occasionally) email him – but the reality is, it’s common not to get replies from MPs, especially when there is nothing they can do about what you have said.

      • Kevin Welsh 16.1.1
        19 May 2012 at 5:01 pm

        Well Pete, if your emails to MP’s are anything like your posts on here; a whole bunch of rhetorical questions (I am assuming they are rhetorical as you never seem to provide answers to them yourself), then I am not surprised they do not respond.

        Maybe the word has got around and there is a Sir Humphrey with a rather large round filing cabinet giving them due consideration…

        • Pete George 16.1.1.1
          19 May 2012 at 5:12 pm

          I get some very good replies too. A very good one from Holly Walker on her lobbying bill this week, good clarification, I’ll blog on that soon.

          Her bill may affect people paid to do a job that includes trying to influence MPs and policy, like asset sale lobbying. That may cover people like Zetetic and Eddie, depending on their employment situations. Probably not me though, I’m not paid to do any of my political lobbying, it’s an expense for me.

      • Nick 16.1.2
        19 May 2012 at 5:10 pm

        I admit that of all the emails I’ve sent to MPs in the past 5 years I don’t get replies from all of them, but I’d say most DO reply. Of course if I’m emailling something slightly sarcastic to the MP representing Clutha-Southland I don’t really expect a response anyway.

        If I email a genuine question to the MP representing my area in parliament I don’t think its too much of a stretch to expect a reply. In this case there IS something he can do about what I’ve said, I just wanted to know why electricity is fair game for partial privitisation and water isn’t. I don’t understand why that line in the sand is the one the Dunne / UF has chosen.

        I’m not actually holding my breath for a reply, I’ll just get on supporting petitions and other action so that Dunne is clear on what his constiuents feel on the issue and what a slim majority there is holding this policy together.

        BTW, David Garret replied to me when I emailled him in the middle of his scandal told him what hypocrite he was as a law and order spokesman – I thought he was and he was surprisingly up front and honest actually, pains me to say it.

        • Pete George 16.1.2.1
          19 May 2012 at 5:15 pm

          I’m not surprised about David Garrett, he is often on Kiwiblog and is open and honest there. I just disagreed with him an hour ago, he’ll probably come back with a counter argument but without personal attack, he’s only done that once to me and later apologised.

          • OneTrack 16.1.2.1.1
            19 May 2012 at 9:52 pm

            Do right-wingers do personal attacks PG?

          • fatty 16.1.2.1.2
            19 May 2012 at 9:56 pm

            “I’m not surprised about David Garrett, he is often on Kiwiblog and is open and honest there. I just disagreed with him an hour ago, he’ll probably come back with a counter argument but without personal attack, he’s only done that once to me and later apologised.”

            Does a personal attack on you count as a personal attack?…That’s like getting labelled anti-Semitic for slagging off Ariel Sharon

  17. Johnm 17
    19 May 2012 at 4:35 pm

    You’ll never receive a reply Nick!

    • Nick 17.1
      19 May 2012 at 4:54 pm

      Yeah, I guess it is difficult to say why you would sell off some state assets (that happen to be the ones National wants to sell) and not others (ones that weren’t even up for debate in the first place). I still have hope, one day in the future he’ll figure it out and get back to me….

      Maybe.

      • Treetop 17.1.1
        19 May 2012 at 5:26 pm

        Oh Nick, Dunne’s electorate constituents will get back to him next election day with their response to certain state assets being sold off.

  18. David C 18
    19 May 2012 at 7:34 pm

    felix, mabe you were born a little slow, maybe dropped on your head, fetal alcoholc syndrome?, I will make allowances.

    Show me one quote from Dunne were he explictly says he will not support partial asset sales.

    Pretty simple in this day and age IF it exists huh?

    but its a big IF.

    PG has put up a lot to support the fact that the lefard fuckwits have been well and truley shownup on this.

    Own goal anyone?

    • felix 18.1
      19 May 2012 at 9:14 pm

      Sure I will, just as soon as you show me one quote from me where I said he did.

      Eejit.

  19. captain hook 19
    19 May 2012 at 7:42 pm

    David c you have got a problem yourself.
    Its not physical but I dont think a trick cyclist would have much trouble diagnosing you.
    treat yourself and find out.

  20. insider 20
    20 May 2012 at 1:58 am

    United Future would support a government with a “reasonable centrist path,” he said. That meant although he agreed to some assets being sold off, there were three absolute bottom lines Dunne would never agree to being sold. 10 october 2011

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/56105/unitedfutures-peter-dunne-calls-debate-privatisation-limits-says-kiwibank-radio-nz-and-wa

  21. insider 21
    20 May 2012 at 2:19 am

    PETER Weve gotta get the language right here. This is not selling state assets. This is a proposal to sell shares of a minority nature in four energy companies and Air NZ. Provided New Zealand control is retained – the government will retain 51% – provided New Zealand control is retained in the shareholding and that no one can hold more than 15%-

    METIRIA You cannot guarantee that, Peter. You know that.

    PETER -and provided we never move to sell Kiwibank, Radio NZ or our water resources, we would be prepared to support that policy.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/transcript-multi-party-debate-part-two-4489736

    • Pete George 21.1
      20 May 2012 at 5:12 am

      Ah, but that’s only on national TV…

      Thanks Insider. More proof of the obvious. It seems ridiculous that this is in question now when it has always been clear. That’s why the motives of those raising it should be questioned. And they will be.

  22. Monique Watson 22
    20 May 2012 at 8:34 am

    It’s as obvious as dog nuts in the Supply and Confidence Agreement between UnitedFuture and National:

    * There will be no sale of any part of Kiwibank or Radio New Zealand.
    * Introduce statutory limits on the sale of public assets to no more than 49% of shareholding to private interests including limits on the extent of single entity ownership

    Also I can personally testify to the fact that he did tell his electorate the details of UF conditional support for State Asset Sales as above. This may have been discussed at the annual conference.

    I was regularly at the UnitedFuture Ohariu Electorate Committee meetings. None of the ham-fisted oiks jumping up and down and forming anti asset sales flame groups deigned to present at any of these well-publicised electorate committee meetings.

  23. chris73 23
    20 May 2012 at 11:41 am

    Hehehehe Pete George wins

  24. Shazzadude 24
    20 May 2012 at 12:28 pm

    I just want to say that I found the attack on Pete disgusting-so disgusting, this could’ve almost been a kiwiblog comments section.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.