Goldsmith removing Goldsmith signs

Written By: - Date published: 10:31 am, November 16th, 2011 - 80 comments
Categories: election 2011, national - Tags: ,

Most politicians crave attention, especially when they’re trying to win an electorate.  Not so National’s Paul Goldsmith!  A Standard reader (ht Jaynam) snapped these pictures of Goldsmith removing (apparently “unofficial”) Goldsmith electoral signs.  It’s almost as if he doesn’t want to get elected!

80 comments on “Goldsmith removing Goldsmith signs ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Craig Glen Eden 1
    16 November 2011 at 10:45 am

    Thats sad, or should that be sharfted, for John Key’s Gimp no less!

  2. Uturn 2
    16 November 2011 at 10:50 am

    I have to stand up for the principle here. Today, photos taken of National party candidates removing signs – without their knowing – getting into their cars and driving away. Tomorrow, photos of everyday people getting into cars, being taken without their knowing, with possibly some of those cars having a road accident. Would you really want that on your conscience? I’m calling the cops.

    • felix 2.1
      16 November 2011 at 10:59 am

      I agree.

      I’m not at all bothered about these photos, but what if a married couple were out one night setting fire to trees and you snapped a picture of them and then their children were burned at the stake as heretics?

      Eh? What about that?

      • Uturn 2.1.1
        16 November 2011 at 11:03 am

        It would be unethical. I have it on good authority that the person who took these photos lay in wait. Yes, it’s true. No accident at all. Not only are they linked to a left-leaning website, but they actively encourage further incidences. When will the Left decry this vicious behaviour?

        • Ari 2.1.1.1
          17 November 2011 at 1:22 am

          I’d be perfectly happy for a right-leaning journalist or citizen to engage in similar behaviour against a left-wing politician who was doing something I consider unethical, so I don’t see why it should be decried. Paul Goldsmith doesn’t have an expectation of privacy when he’s doing things that relate to his campaign or policies.

          Now, I’m all for leaving people’s love lives out of the media when they don’t show family values types up as hypocrites, but that’s a different thing from saying that we shouldn’t have citizen journalists snapping photos of politicians doing idiotic things.

      • Blighty 2.1.2
        16 November 2011 at 11:08 am

        This is just like when the paparazzi took photos of Princess Diana dying in a Parisian tunnel.

        • mickysavage 2.1.2.1
          16 November 2011 at 12:32 pm

          Well I guess perversely this will result in the death of Goldsmith’s desire NOT to be elected.

          In a really weird way this photo of his removing his advertising may INCREASE his chances of being elected the MP for Epsom.

          My head hurts … 

      • Lanthanide 2.1.3
        16 November 2011 at 11:22 am

        It’s all a terribly slippery slope.

        What happens next when two politicians in a marriage of convenience talk about doing away with their doddery old godfather, only for that to be published in the Sunday news paper and then the doddery old godfather was done away with?

        h/t: boyfriend.

        • lprent 2.1.3.1
          16 November 2011 at 11:33 am

          Terrible invasion of privacy. Even more since those dastardly politicians put in laws that could make you a criminal for not reporting such conspiracies to break the law…

          Terrible how they insist that you do the right thing… (while doing something different).

          It’s all just so BORA

    • fmacskasy 2.2
      16 November 2011 at 11:56 am

      Heh heh heh… I missed your satire at first… I need more coffee in my bloodstream…

  3. jaymam 3
    16 November 2011 at 10:56 am

    The signs are identical to his official business card here:
    http://i44.tinypic.com/6tkcr5.jpg

    There’s a valid authorisation statement, and Goldsmith was handing out smaller versions last week to anyone who wanted one.

    I think we could all help Paul Goldsmith immensely if thousands of those were printed out and put everywhere around Epsom, Remuera, Mt Eden and Parnell. And in letter boxes. We don’t want him to lose the seat do we? And National must be running out of money if they don’t have any Goldsmith signs up. I’ve not seen any election pamplets from National in my letter box. How will the Epsom voters know who to vote for?

    There is a precedent for these small signs. Last election Rodney Hide had lots of them around Epsom and the Council didn’t remove them after being asked to several times.
    http://i42.tinypic.com/2rpuvld.jpg

    National also had similar small signs. So, it’s obviously OK to put little signs everywhere.

  4. mickysavage 4
    16 November 2011 at 10:56 am

    Oh that is cruel.  Pauley was only wanting to make sure that his signs did not get wet and I am sure that he will put them back up.  He does want to get re elected, doesn’t he?

  5. randal 5
    16 November 2011 at 11:26 am

    when is kweewee going to start whingeing about this.
    call the cops immediately.

  6. lprent 6
    16 November 2011 at 11:43 am

    Amusing. While I was looking up goldsmiths elected record, I saw that TV3 picked up the story.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Nationals-Epsom-candidate-removes-National-billboards/tabid/419/articleID/232913/Default.aspx

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    16 November 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Even his standard candidate signs of the normal size , have been changed in the last weeks to only be a picture of Key and party vote national.

    Reminds of the old war story : The Man Who Never Was. But this is the reverse,
    The Man who no longer isn’t

  8. Craig Glen Eden 8
    16 November 2011 at 12:25 pm

    John Key: Ok enough is enough first the left put the correct and truthful wording on our billboards now the left are choosing to help our candidate win Epsom, morally Im outraged our paid contractors get paid good money to put up signs the left have like volunteers like free volunteers who do it for political reasons.How can we compete with that? Don’t ask me about this tomorrow because I wont remember and no I don’t want to see the transcript of what I just said Duncan!

  9. Rodel 9
    16 November 2011 at 1:03 pm

    I don’t vote for Winston but he summed it up. (Stuff.co.nz)

    ‘Peters said it was “bizarre” that Key was “telling” people of an electorate to vote for another party.
    “It is bizarre for a candidate to campaign for an opponent,” he said. ‘

    When you think about it it really is bizarre behaviour…almost…unstable?

    • Nick C 9.1
      16 November 2011 at 6:59 pm

      Bizzare that they are campaigning for an opponent?

      By that I assume you mean it is bizzare that left wing activists are sticking up hoardings of Paul Goldsmith?

      • Ari 9.1.1
        17 November 2011 at 1:27 am

        No more bizarre than National saying they wouldn’t be undisappointed if you don’t vote for John Banks in Epsom.

  10. jaundiced 10
    16 November 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Is the left so short of policy that we resort to these sorts of tactics to get to the voters?

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      16 November 2011 at 1:16 pm

      I’m not sure if you noticed, but the photo is of Goldsmith, the National candidate, removing signs for Goldsmith.

      This post is about National’s candidate deliberately trying to lose the electorate he’s contesting. It has nothing to do with “the left” “[trying] to get the voters”.

      • jaundiced 10.1.1
        16 November 2011 at 1:31 pm

        I did notice this, but also noticed the “apparently ‘unofficial'” comment in the opening sentences that indicates Goldsmith is removing something that is not his publicity material, plus what seems to be paparazzo-like stalking to get photos, plus Jaymam’s comments @10:06am, plus the work of the Green Party activists revealed yesterday.

        It all adds up to a rather poor showing. I can’t help thinking that if this were happening to Labour’s campaign then the cries of outrage would be deafening

        • jaymam 10.1.1.1
          16 November 2011 at 1:57 pm

          The signs were merely a copy of Goldsmith’s publicity material that he was handing out last week which were authorised by him.
          Goldsmith was not being stalked. The photographer was merely photographing who was removing the signs. Now that it looks like it’s Goldsmith removing them, that is perfectly fine. If he doesn’t want to publicise his candidacy in Epsom that is his choice. But that makes the Epsom election look like a sham.

          • Andrew Scobie 10.1.1.1.1
            16 November 2011 at 4:25 pm

            question … why would you say: “The photographer was merely photographing who was removing the signs” in this reply, and then say … “I lay in waiting to see who it was and took a lot of photos” 

            So when you say, “the photographer”, were you actually talking about yourself?  

          • Andrew Scobie 10.1.1.1.2
            17 November 2011 at 3:10 pm

            I also note that you have this to say: “Goldsmith was not being stalked”. But then in your comment on the other post, you say “I lay in waiting to see who it was and took a lot of photos”

            I don’t know about you, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then ………  

      • Andrew Scobie 10.1.2
        16 November 2011 at 1:37 pm

        “I’m not sure if you noticed, but the photo is of Goldsmith, the National candidate, removing signs for Goldsmith.”

        I guess the question i want answered is: were they his own signs, or had someone else made them up and put them everywhere, in which case he should be removing them. 

        • McFlock 10.1.2.1
          16 November 2011 at 3:25 pm

          Why?

          If they are NOT his signs, then surely they belong to someone else? Is he stealing signs?! Egad!
          If they are copies of his publicity material, then they are hardly misleading.

    • Ianupnorth 10.2
      16 November 2011 at 1:23 pm

      What tactics? Goldsmith is removing HIS signs to encourage his electorate to vote in Act!
       
      At least left leaning parties actually have new policy and have attempted to debate these, except the Nats fail to front.

      • rosy 10.2.1
        17 November 2011 at 1:49 am

        I did wonder why he was doing this and not some supporter. Surely Goldsmith something better to do with his campaigning time… and then I remembered he doesn’t.

  11. jaymam 11
    16 November 2011 at 1:46 pm

    The sign that Goldsmith removed was in an area authorised by Auckland Council for election billboards. It was not under the dripline of a tree. The sign was not put there by Labour or Green members or supporters but by someone who has been a long-time National supporter who is disgusted by the tactics of Brash and Banks and doesn’t want them in Parliament again.

  12. In Vino Veritas 12
    16 November 2011 at 1:49 pm

    What a crock of shit (and apologies for the language). This is just a beat up by some LLWT who has blown up a copy of Goldsmiths business card. Have a look at the sign he’s taking away (which he is legally obliged to do, but that’s also probably escaped everyones attention as well).

    I guess desperate times call for desperate measures jaymam, don’t they?

  13. randal 13
    16 November 2011 at 1:49 pm

    ghost who walks.
    the wairarapa national candidate wont even put his piccy on his billboards.
    he has become repugnant to the whole electorate.

    • Hami Shearlie 13.1
      16 November 2011 at 2:45 pm

      Don’t blame them – what a twit!! Ever seen him on BackBenchers? JK talks about old people – John Hayes looks about 90!

  14. Brett Dale 14
    16 November 2011 at 2:27 pm

    So its come to this huh.

  15. travellerev 15
    16 November 2011 at 2:45 pm

    As a relative new comer to NZ political machinations, can anyone explain to me why Banks has to win and why voting for Goldsmith who obviously does not want to be elected would be a bad thing for National. I’m flumoxed!

    • Ianupnorth 15.1
      16 November 2011 at 2:57 pm

      Because Banks would win an electorate seat which means Act would be entitled to list MP’s comparable to the total party vote they gain. If they fail to get 5% of the party vote and do not win an actual electorate seat they would be out of government.

    • Uturn 15.2
      16 November 2011 at 3:01 pm

      It’s a bob-each-way bet from National. Earlier internal National Party polling showed their support dropping below what they’d need for a majority government, so they needed an ally like ACT to make certain. ACT of course would disappear if they didn’t get a seat handed to them, because their support is projected at below 5%. So everyone was waiting for Key to have the now infamous tea party to tell Epsom National supporters to hand ACT a seat in the form of electing Banks.

    • Carol 15.3
      16 November 2011 at 3:02 pm

      The Nact coalition would get more MPs. If the National candidate for Espom gets elected, that’s one MP. If the Act candidate gets elected, being a small party, he can bring with him to parliament up to maybe 3 more MPs, based on the percentage of party votes that Act gets, even though it’s below the 5% threshold for party votes. Without an electorate candidate, Act would have to rely on getting over the 5% threshold of party votes to get any MPs.

      A loophole in MMP that needs to be fixed.

      • travellerev 15.3.1
        16 November 2011 at 3:24 pm

        Thank you so much for the information. Now I get the hold the nose and vote for Goldsmith remark. National must be getting scared. Sounds to me like Epsom progressive voters are going to have to have to swallow a dead rat and vote for Goldsmith to get the racist bigoted bastards out of government.

        • Fermionic Interference 15.3.1.1
          16 November 2011 at 4:22 pm

          Not so much holding the nose to be honest EV.
          Goldsmith will enter parliament next term off Nationals list.
          It’s that simple to anyone who abhors Act, vote for Goldsmith hell be there anyway.
          What could be so hard about voting for a candidate who will be in parliament next
          term no matter what.

          As I have always understood the way to vote (this was especially true under FPP)
          has a major structural point in regard to voting for the least evil option in a two
          horse race.

  16. The Pink Postman 16
    16 November 2011 at 3:31 pm

    The past voting records of the majority of Epsom,voters show they are a lot of Tory sheep. The majority are a lot of rich selfish die inthe wool Tories. They deserve a prick like Banks and they are welcome to him.

  17. jaymam 17
    16 November 2011 at 3:37 pm

    It has been suggested in replies to news stories elsewhere that there is no evidence that Goldsmith was actually removing the sign.

    Here he is striding towards the inoffensive sign:
    http://i44.tinypic.com/2vns0p3.jpg

    Is he taking a cellphone picture of it, or just telling HQ “we have a problem”?

    Here he is taking the sign away to put into his 2009 Toyota Highlander:

    http://i40.tinypic.com/2u3xenl.jpg

    • r0b 17.1
      16 November 2011 at 3:44 pm

      Jaymam – Radio NZ wants to interview you – see comment here: http://thestandard.org.nz/a-wee-reminder/#comment-401617

    • Uturn 17.2
      16 November 2011 at 6:32 pm

      Ah, I see where the misunderstanding has occurred. In the first photo he is merely taking an innocent lunctime stroll. It’s election time and grass is scarce in Epsom. Why wouldn’t he pass one of his own signs?

      In the second photo he is actually walking from his car, to place the sign… backwards… for efficiency’s sake. It’s clear he did not have relations with those signs.

      You don’t need to search the vehicle. These aren’t the signs you’re looking for. Move along. MOVE ALONG.

  18. Michael 18
    16 November 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Forgive me, but a question, did not those photos provide clear evidence of an act of theft by a prospective member of parliament?

  19. Herodotus 19
    16 November 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Should Lab or a left leaning govt be formed, that the election campaign encompasses 1st April. Then this, the stickers, a rumoured walk out would be appropiate. We could co-ordinate them all to fall on the 1st, I would how many people would get the jokes- perhaps even the leaders debate could be scheduled. Especially with the seriousness of students these days 1st has lost alot of its lustre. Anyone remember the mickey mouse add ons to the town clock in Jafaland?? 😎
    Even the seriousness of an election can have lighter hearted moments

  20. anne 20
    16 November 2011 at 4:32 pm

    You can bet that he has been ordered to by the head honcho’s,we may just get a ‘Im out of the
    race statement’ but would those souls in epsom want to see act,brash,banks in parliament?
    I doubt it,but who knows.

  21. Carol 21
    16 November 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Goldsmith, on National Radio, has accused a Standardista as being complicit in a dirty tricks campaign:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2011/91233/epsom-candidate-says-party-sign-incident-a-set-up

    Mr Goldsmith was campaigning on Shore Road in Remuera on Wednesday morning when he says he discovered five purported National signs, that did not carry party authorisation as required by law.

    He said photographs of him removing the signs and putting them in his car were put up a short time later on a left-wing blog.

    “Clearly someone was lying in wait with a camera, and I’m not interested in those sorts of silly games.

    “It’s quite a serious matter to stick up signs in an unauthorised manner, and it’s dirty tricks.”

    At least this time an MSM article has referred to The Standard as left wing, and not associtated it with “Labour”.

    • jaymam 21.1
      16 November 2011 at 5:27 pm

      “National signs, that did not carry party authorisation as required by law”
      Well that’s not true, because the signs all said “Authorised by Paul Goldsmith” with his address.

      Here’s a copy of the sign that I found on the web:
      http://i44.tinypic.com/6tkcr5.jpg
      See the authorisation at at bottom left.

      However the whole point is that he appears to not want any signs promoting him as a candidate.
      There are all these National people out here who want to vote for him, and they should at least know his name. We might accidentally vote for the wrong person.

    • Ianupnorth 21.2
      16 November 2011 at 5:33 pm

      I heard him, sounding like a little cry baby – just like his cry baby, dummy spitting, bully boy boss.

    • ianmac 21.3
      16 November 2011 at 6:51 pm

      Well there you are. The Standard will be referred to the Electoral Commission and the Police as clearly it is a conspiracy of the Standard organisation.
      Actually is it unlawful to put signs out for a candidate, as opposed to removing a candidate’s signs?

      • lprent 21.3.1
        16 November 2011 at 7:21 pm

        Yeah right. One of the authors (not even an aucklander) sees a link to newsworthy photos in the comment stream and pops them up as a post. Goes up as The Standard since it wasn’t material from the author.

  22. Paul Campbell 22
    16 November 2011 at 8:59 pm

    It seems to me that it’s Mr Goldsmith who needs to be referred to the police, he’s stealing other people’s signs.

    (as are the greens who are removing other people’s paste ups from the nat’s signs)

  23. fmacskasy 23
    16 November 2011 at 9:06 pm

    I thought the object of the exercise was to get elected?

  24. Jenny 24
    16 November 2011 at 9:54 pm

    It’s almost as if he doesn’t want to get elected!

    Of course he doesn’t.

    As ACT and National are both party to a conspiracy to get an unelectable extremist (Don Brash) into parliament through back door methods.

    Don Brash seized control of the ACT Party leadership while still a member of the National Party. On replacing Rodney Hide as the leader of the ACT Party, Don Brash then went on to sack Hide as the Epsom candidate.

    Despite taking Hide’s leadership role and sacking him as the candidate for Epsom. Brash as the new leader of ACT chose not to stand in Epsom himself, deciding instead to get into parliament by putting up a front guy, (John Banks) to run for him.

    The inescapable conclusion is that Brash knows that his views are considered to extreme even in the most conservative electorate in the country.

    However it seems that the voters of Epsom can’t be taken for granted after all. All polls show that Paul Goldsmith is leading as across the board the people of Epsom are wisely rejecting this stitch up.

    The canny voters of Epsom are wary of letting an unacountable extremist who seeks no mandate, even from them, into parliament.

    • Mac1 24.1
      16 November 2011 at 10:01 pm

      Especially one who was out-performed as he was in the minor party’s leader debate- by all.

      • Jenny 24.1.1
        17 November 2011 at 9:11 am

        ‘
        The only ones mad keen on seeing Brash in parliament are his billionaire paymasters.

        When Brash, after being pitchforked into the leadership of the National Party by this lobby, proved to be a disaster for all. Brash’s backers then used their money and power in a raid to take over the ACT Party.

        The hope was to parley ACT’s position as a support to party for the government, to get their ‘man’ into a cabinet position. (preferably finance minister)

        Greed and power and money and back door double dealing and insider trading, may be the normal mode of behaviour for the money traders.

        But under the antiseptic light of day, and under the public scrutiny of the democratic process it all looks sordid and grubby and corrupt.

  25. fender 25
    16 November 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Nice work and keep on the trail jaymam, I want to see a photo of Goldsmith driving an ACT vehicle.

  26. Mike 26
    17 November 2011 at 8:26 am

    It is not the first time that National have shafted one of their own candidates to allow one of their rubberstampers to enjoy an easier ride to the top. Question is: do Epsom voters want someone in parliament to represent them, or just someone who is only interested in pushing his own extremist agenda with scant regard for any of the electors he claims to represent. Judging from the last election it seems to be the latter but there is wisdom in the old saying: be careful what you wish for, it might come true.

  27. In Vino Veritas 27
    18 November 2011 at 9:05 am

    How very funny. I see in the Herald this morning that Goldsmith says the signs were a sill stunt by left wingers and put out in an unauthorised and illegal spot. The dim witted moron that produced them, and put them up couldnt even get that right. Symptomatic.

    • jaymam 27.1
      18 November 2011 at 9:44 pm

      Why would anyone trust anything that Goldsmith says? He’s wrong. The signs were in an area allocated for election signs. Rodney Hide had one there last election.
      They were not put there by a left winger.

  28. jaymam 28
    19 November 2011 at 3:28 pm

    A new completely legal Goldsmith sign in Epsom:
    http://i43.tinypic.com/f3b3a0.jpg

    As we know, there is a surprising absence of billboards for the Epsom candidate who will almost certainly win the seat. This actual sign was given to me by Paul Goldsmith himself last week. It has an authorisation notice as legally required. It is installed an area designated by Auckland Council for election billboards. There are quite a few there already. There is allowed to be only the one sign per candidate on any one site. That’s fine because there are no others for Goldsmith anywhere. This is it! There’s a National Party sign behind it, plus the biggest Banks sign you’ve ever seen.

    That is the same actual site where Goldsmith was photographed removing a sign advertising himself that was not of legal height above the ground. You may have seen that photo in the Herald, TV3 etc. Feel free to use these photos anywhere, especially TV3 and the Herald (who already have my email address).

    This sign has 1500mm clearance above the ground, is securely braced with supports at 45 degrees to the sign etc.
    Here’s another photo of the sign.
    http://i40.tinypic.com/16jk32p.jpg

    It’s not very big is it? But it’s completely legal, so there is no justification for removing it. I think it would be nice to have one at all the other Epsom sites as well. Paul is not giving his cards away at candidate meetings any more so he has plenty to spare. And they are printed already! I’ll donate the timber.

    As I’ve said before, I am not a supporter or member of any left wing party. I’ve voted for National more than any other party, and I shall vote for Goldsmith this election. I think ACT have lost their way, even though I agree with a few of their policies.

    • lprent 28.1
      19 November 2011 at 3:46 pm

      Ummm. This could be interesting to watch.

      • jaymam 28.1.1
        19 November 2011 at 7:08 pm

        I meant to mention that there are 10 CCTV cameras in this area (that I am aware of), in order to catch taggers and vandals and thieves. This is now a lovely crime-free area.

        Thank you for allowing me to post at The Standard.
        Since Whaleoil changed his blog to a new layout, I have been unable to post there since my browser doesn’t work on the new layout. And I have trouble logging in to Kiwiblog so have not posted there in ages. My name is slightly different at those blogs.

    • fmacskasy 28.2
      19 November 2011 at 4:31 pm

      Oh my gods – Jaymam, your sense of humour and ability to think outside the square make you one-of-a-kind…

      I hope you’ve sent these pics to TV3, et al. This is the kind of off-beat humour that the media luv!!

Links to post