NZ Herald openly campaigning against Govt

36 comments on “NZ Herald openly campaigning against Govt ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dave 1

   12 November 2007 at 5:50 pm

   why is it astonishing?
2. Deborah 2

   12 November 2007 at 5:53 pm

   [comment deleted at Deborah’s request]
3. Tane 3

   12 November 2007 at 5:53 pm

   we all know what happened in Germany prior to WW2 – it started from small beginnings and look where that ended.

   Our largest metropolitan daily comparing Helen Clark to Adolf Hitler? That’s pretty astonishing.
4. Deborah 4

   12 November 2007 at 5:54 pm

   Faaaarrrrrkkkkk! Tane, he’s done it again! Could you do the delete thing for me, again.

   I will speak sternly to him.

   Deborah (the real one)

   [Tane: Done]
5. Tane 5

   12 November 2007 at 5:56 pm

   I’m guessing that’s Deborah’s partner again rather than Deborah. In any case, you’ve misunderstood the point of the bill – to stop the wealthy and the powerful from abusing their position to unduly influencing our elections. No one’s going to ban a Listener editorial, and nor would they want to. To say they will is just misinformed scaremongering.
6. Deborah 6

   12 November 2007 at 6:00 pm

   Thank you, Tane. You’re a champion.
7. Deborah's Partner 7

   12 November 2007 at 6:06 pm

   Sorry Tane (and thanks). Well that leaves me without a moral leg to stand on. So I guess I’d better retire from this particular fray!
8. Daveo 8

   12 November 2007 at 6:09 pm

   This is an absolute disgrace. Who the hell do the Herald think they are? When a newspaper has a monopoly in its area I think it’s frankly unethical for it to come out in such a partisan way like this. What’s next? ‘Vote John Key or the Puppy Dies’?

   I never would have thought I’d take the side of Fairfax, but here we are.
9. gobsmacked 9

   12 November 2007 at 6:35 pm

   Basil Fawlty of the NZ Herald, speaking on TV One last week (the Waldorf salad episode):

   “I’m trying to run a hotel here! Have you any idea of how much there is to do? Do you ever think of that? Of course not! You’re too busy sticking your noses into every corner, poking about for things to complain about, aren’t you? Well, let me tell you something! This is exactly how Nazi Germany started! A lot of layabouts with nothing better to do than to cause trouble! Well, I’ve had 15 years of pandering to the likes of you, and I’ve had enough! I’ve had it! Come on! Pack your bags and get out!”
10. Santa Claws 10

    12 November 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Not just the Herald, Tane.

    Better get your earplugs out along with your blinkers.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/aft/the_panel_part_3
11. Spectator 11

    12 November 2007 at 7:14 pm

    So much for the myth of the left-wing media…
12. r0b 12

    12 November 2007 at 7:50 pm

    I’ve said previously that I think there are problems with the EFB in its current draft form. And while The Herald has certainly gone a bit overboard here with the scaremongering (and auto gratification), we should at least look on the bright side. It’s good to see a robust media taking on perceived injustice. (If only the American media were one tenth so brave eh?) We will certainly want this level of – ummm – zeal – if the worst happens and we do get a National government next year. Shudder.
13. Tane 13

    12 November 2007 at 7:54 pm

    Except, r0b, somehow I can’t see the Herald jumping onto a cause of the left with such gusto. In fact, ‘the Left’ was explicitly attacked in the Herald’s editorial.

    Oh well, at least we know for sure that we don’t need to take a word of what they say seriously.
14. Tane 14

    12 November 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Wow, just listened to that National Radio piece. So, ah, left-wing media bias, eh?
15. Lee C 15

    12 November 2007 at 8:22 pm

    superb – you had it your own way for so long, and when it was under the media radar, you were smugly dismissing detractors based on the premise that the media hd no interest in this ‘beltway issue’ because Labour were doing the right thing..

    Now, the media is taking an interest, and criticising Labour, suddenly you are smugly using the fact to ‘prove’ that they are following a right-wing agenda to bring down Labour. The common thread in both tapestries – smugness.

    It was the smug arrogance of Labour that got you into this mess, and foolishly you assume that your smug arrogance will extricate you.

    I think you will be proven wrong on both counts.
16. Psycho Milt 16

    12 November 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Yep, left-wing media bias. It’s a fact conclusively proven – Redbaiter said so!
17. Daveo 17

    12 November 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Lee I think you’re talking shit, or at least grossly misrepresenting what people have said to suit yourself.

    And the big error on your part is this: The Herald are actually following a right-wing agenda. They’ve said so themselves in the past.

    Riddle me this: when was the last time the Herald called for more social spending instead of tax cuts? Supported workers in an industrial dispute? Or called for reason and evidence over hysteria in the crime debate? Not in my lifetime they haven’t.

    And all the while the right have complained about left-wing media bias. Well here’s your bias, and it has a decidely Tory smell to it.l
18. Insolent Prick 18

    12 November 2007 at 9:57 pm

    The Left deserve to get an outright bollocking: yes, this includes you, Tane, and the rest of the people at the Standard. It simply isn’t good enough for you to blithely say “I’m not happy with the Bill in its *draft* form”, yet do everything you can to justify this shoddy piece of legislation. You haven’t come up with any decent reasons for the Bill, other than attack the opponents of it.

    This legislation is a desperate attempt by the Labour Party to stay in power, at any cost. At least there are some parts of the Left who are honest enough to call it what it is. Perhaps it is the fear that National will thrash Labour at the next election anyway, and they know how much the legislation will muzzle them under a National Government.
19. r0b 19

    12 November 2007 at 10:12 pm

    As usual, No Right Turn has a thoughtful take on the issues:

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/
20. Tane 20

    12 November 2007 at 10:24 pm

    Prick. There’s nothing wrong with supporting the principles of a piece of legislation while having issues with certain parts of it. The intent of the EFB is clear: to reduce the influence of big money in our political system. There’s some work needed around the definition of election advertising etc, but you’d have to be a card-carrying member of the tinfoil hat brigade to believe for one second that Helen Clark and the Labour Party actually plan to ban free speech. They fucked up, but they’re the Labour Party and you kind of expect that from them.

    But if you’re generally interested in a fair and transparent electoral system then the answer isn’t to throw rocks at it. You campaign in support of the solid principles behind the bill and work to iron out the bits you don’t like. There have been many on the left who have put pressure on the govt to ban anonymous donations, and it looks like that might be happening too.

    There’s no need to be hysterical Prick, leave that to Granny Herald.
21. Insolent Prick 21

    12 November 2007 at 10:43 pm

    So, Tane, at last you have the integrity to admit that the legislation is a fuck-up.

    If the Government really was interested in cleaning up what it claims to be a broken electoral system, the resonable action would be to set up an independent commission of inquiry, headed by a high court judge, and/or a citizen’s jury.

    Instead the Labour Party has deliberately tried to stack electoral law to its own advantage, at a very time when they’re getting shat on in the polls.

    This is the biggest change in New Zealand’s recent constitutional history. If you really believe that electoral law needs changing, then you will support scrapping the bill, and starting again in an unbiased, non-partisan way.

    Take it out of the politicians’ hands. They have too many vested interests at stake. Democracy is too big to sacrifice to this shoddy law.
22. Tane 22

    12 November 2007 at 10:59 pm

    Prick, I’ve said many times that the Government has mishandled this legislation. I just think it’s important that something is put in place before the next election. Afterwards we’ll have plenty of time for something like a citizens’ assembly (which they should have done from the start). But for now, I’m not willing to see a repeat of 2005. If that means slightly rushed legislation then it’s price I’m willing to pay. As it stands, I’m hopeful it’ll come out of select committee with the major concerns around things like the definition of advertising fixed, the third party expenditure cap raised to a more realistic level and anonymous donations scrapped.

    We on the left are not actually trying to ban your speech Prick, and that’s something that both you and the NZ Herald need to understand.
23. Insolent Prick 23

    12 November 2007 at 11:22 pm

    You know, Tane, that anonymous donations won’t be scrapped. National had agreed before the Bill was presented to dealing with the Government’s critical issues: anonymous donations, and limitless third party expenditure. Instead the Government has tried to railroad through legislation that DOES limit New Zealand’s closely-held tradition of free speech.

    You haven’t put a good case for the legislation. The “risk” of 2005 being repeated isn’t a risk, and you know that. What would happen if the Exclusive Brethren sent out an anonymous pamphlet again? The media would be crawling all over it, and National would get shit on, just as what happened in 2005. The EB’s handling of the pamphlet in 2005 was an utter fiasco, and it probably cost National the election. The content of the pamphlet was actually very good. I would have been pleased to distribute it myself, but if I had done so, I would have put my name to it and been upfront about my motives.

    That’s an aside. The great “risk” of the events of the 2005 election WILL be repeated. The great crime of 2005 was that Labour stole taxpayers’ money that it wasn’t entitled to, and used it to illegally spend money on its campaign. It broke electoral law. Now Labour has tilted the playing field in its own favour to allow it to do the exactly the same again next year.

    Labour silences its critics, ensures that it has massive “public information” campaigns, worth tens of millions of dollars enforcing Labour Party policy, and legislates to allow itself to spend millions of dollars of parliamentary funding for election purposes. That, Tane, is the most disgraceful, cynical, and self-serving use of political office in the last century. You of all people should be holding your head in shame. By attempting to justify it, you are an accomplice to that disgrace.

    That disgrace will cost you the election. Sometime around 2013, once your beloved party has hit absolute rock-bottom, you will finally have the courage to look back and admit the great mistake of 2007 that was your Electoral Finance Bill.
24. r0b 24

    13 November 2007 at 10:00 am

    Well IP, that was the longest, and in some ways the most coherent thing I think I’ve ever seen you write. Well done, you may be growing up. Not that I agree with any single part of it of course.

    It seems almost petty of me to remind you that you don’t have such a good record in the prediction department. But – I’m going to do it anyway:

    “Sonic, phillip, james, etc:You pinko shits have been predicting Don Brash’s demise ever since he became leader. Fact is he has survived every one of the personal attacks and dirty tactics that the Labour Party has thrown at him […] Brash will be our next Prime Minister.” Insolent Prick on Kiwiblog | November 22, 2006 11:36 AM.
25. Insolent Prick 25

    13 November 2007 at 10:17 am

    Wow, r0b, that took a lot of thought on your part.

    Watch your party’s polling numbers tumble again. The public don’t like being cheated.
26. TomS 26

    13 November 2007 at 10:27 am

    We should make a pamphlet! “The Great accurate predictions of Insolent Prick”

    It would be completely blank.
27. burt 27

    13 November 2007 at 10:42 am

    Tane

    Our largest metropolitan daily comparing Helen Clark to Adolf Hitler? That’s pretty astonishing.

    Yes it’s astonishing. Now what should we do – I know: denigrate the people making the claims and ignore the points being made. I think it was Nicky Hager that first publicly drew this parallel.
28. Insolent Prick 28

    13 November 2007 at 10:55 am

    You really did thump my argument there, Toms. Totally took the wind out of my sail, old chap. Now I’ve rethought my position, and I’ve changed it. All thanks to you. Despite the Labour Party introducing the most vile, self-serving, dishonest piece of legislation in recent political history, to benefit itself over everybody else, I think it is perfectly justified to do so. Because electoral law should be the play-thing of the Labour Party.
29. the sprout 29

    13 November 2007 at 2:47 pm

    the editorial’s headline “Democracy Under Threat” is yet another ironic, unintended double-entendre.
    yes, under threat by APN corporate power worried about a piece of legislation that might 1) curb its ability to manipulate public opinion by spending lots of cash and 2) curb its ability to get more advertising revenue during elections.
    it reminds me of that other great Herald clanger, its motto “The Herald: there’s a lot more to it”.
30. Dean 30

    28 June 2008 at 8:07 pm

    r0b, it seems almost petty of me to remind you that you don’t have such a good record in answering hard questions about your party. But – I’m going to do it anyway:

    What is your opinion on Labour selecting a candidate for this years election who has previously gone on record as saying that “all trade is immoral”?

    There are bonus points for not using the whole “National did it before us so nyah nyah nyah” defence. I will be grading appropriately.
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    28 June 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Just quietly, dean, you got the wrong thread. Also, why don’t you ask the candidate himself? And yes, very, very petty. If you can see it, why do it?
32. Dean 32

    28 June 2008 at 8:16 pm

    “Just quietly, dean, you got the wrong thread. Also, why don’t you ask the candidate himself? And yes, very, very petty. If you can see it, why do it?”

    I think you missed the part where I was using r0b’s exact same language to question his motives. If you check, its in this same thread.

    The fact that you think it’s actually petty shows more than the fact that you are unwilling to debate the point at hand.

    Which isn’t really much of a shock. Petty? Quite probably. Weak on your part? Attacking the messenger and not the message on your behalf? Sadly so. But again, hardly surprising coming from you.
33. lprent 33

    28 June 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Dean – This thread is from last year. It is also what the ‘sod calls a pick-fucker question. It says more about the questioner than the target.

Links to post

1. coreg: posted on 15 November 2007 at 12:22 am
2. deck and pool images: posted on 5 June 2008 at 3:22 pm
3. lloyds tsb internet: posted on 28 June 2008 at 7:56 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS