Written By: - Date published: 8:25 am, November 6th, 2008 - 98 comments
Categories: activism, bill english, election 2008, john key, national -
Tags: national's secret agenda
The secret taper has revealed himself as Kees Keizer, a leftie from Wellington. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday encouraging Keizer to tell his story, preferably to The Standard or the Herald (more credible), and he steadfastly refused. So imagine my surprise when I see a three page article of him talking to the Herald’s Patrick Gower.
It’s a facsinating read. Keizer says he just walked in, went up to people and started talking. He gave his real name and said he was interested in joining the Young Nats. And they talked back. Kees says he was ‘appalled’ by how readily the Nats talked about their secret plans when among what they assumed were friends. He says that all it took for English to start spouting off about Obama and the EU was for him to mention his interest in European politics. And we can hear on the first tape that English is basically just talking freely when he unfolds National’s view of the ‘punters’, ‘Labour plus voters’, his view of Key, and National’s plans for Working for Families and Kiwibank.
Now, I know Kees. Which is hardly surprising. We both studied international relations in similar areas (myself democratisation, he conflict resolution), we are both into environmental politics, we both went on cycle trips last year (myself through Europe and he through Europe and North Africa) and we exchanged comments on each others travel blogs. We get along well. I wouldn’t say we’re best buddies though. Frankly, as the face of The Standard, I’ve met just about every leftie in town. If National had identified someone else in leftwing activist circles from Wellington as the taper, then they probably could have found some link between me and that person as well. It would be more surprising if I’d never heard of Kees. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy theorists on the Right, I knew nothing of the fact that he’s the taper.
I have no trouble in believing Keizer acted alone. My impression of him is he’s that kind of character: a self-starter and one for coming up with unusual ideas. This is a man, after all, who cycled North Africa, up through Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon by himself introducing himself to various government ministers, militants, and ordinary people along the way. I don’t know who he talked to about the tapes, he says he ‘took advice’ from some people but I seriously doubt it was the Labour Party. His interest is international relations and he’s well to the Left of Labour on that. Times I’ve spoken to him he has been critical of Labour sending troops to Afghanistan and when I’ve taken slightly realist positions on conflicts he has accused me of being too like Labour.
It’s interesting to see Cameron Slater admitting that he and David Farrar work closely with the tax-payer funded National Party research unit to dig dirt on people. It’s also interesting to learn that National has known Keizer is the taper for some time, probably a couple of months since the Electoral Commission finding on Keizer’s EFA regarding the Employer and Manufacturers’ Association ads. That would fit with Key repeatedly saying they knew the identity of the taper but not revealing the name. Why didn’t they? Because they knew Keizer has nothing to do with Labour. Yet, despite that knowledge, they continued to claim Labour was behind the affair. That is disgraceful. Key has repeatedly lied to the media on this issue.
Matthew Hooton has constructed a bizarro world where a grab-bag of people who have been to Drinking Liberally is somehow behind the tapes. Maybe, Hooton should come along to a Drinking Liberally event to get a firmer grasp on reality. Drinking Liberally is not some secretive set, it’s just an organisation that gets speakers along to have a talk and gives lefties a chance to meet each other. Anyone can come along and everyone does. A typical Drinking Liberally Wellington event draws a hundred people. So it’s not surprising that Hooton can look at the pics of the events and the hundreds of members of the DL Facebook group and identify a dozen people (here’s a tip, secret groups don’t have Facebook groups); just about every left-wing activist in Wellington has been along to at least one event. It’s as if I took a whole bunch of pics from St John’s bar, identified the names of a few people in a few of the pics, and concluded there was a great conspiracy between young Tory wannabes in ill-fitting suits and stockmarket wankers.
I have to say, I think Keizer has done very well. He pulled off an audacious piece of work exposing National’s secret agenda (that audacity alone was enough to convince me there was no Labour Party involvement – you’ve never met a group of people more paralysed by fear of something going wrong). Thanks to him, there can be no doubt that National is telling the pubic one thing, while planning something else in private. On that score, isn’t Key’s response when asked whether he is worried there is a tape of him enlightening? Clark would just say ‘I’m not worried because what I say in private is what I say in public’. Whereas Key, dissembles, ums and ahs, and says ‘you would have to look at the context’. What has Key been saying behind closed doors? Perhaps we’ll find out shortly. What we do know is that whatever Keizer recorded can only be the tip of the iceberg. He was one guy at one National cocktail event. Who knows what else, what worse things, they talk about when there’s no-one to expose them?
Keizer has also explained his actions very well in the Herald piece, keeping the focus where it belongs, on the politicans and their secret agendas. If I were to give him one piece of advice it would be to release the full conversations to Duncan Garner so he can be confident that they haven’t been doctored (Keizer insists he just removed his own voice from the recordings). If I have one criticism of the Herald article it is that Gower calls The Standard ‘Labour-affiliated’ when just yesterday I was having a moan to him about how, as a Green Party member, I get sick of my work being constantly attributed to the Red Tories.
Basically, good on you Kees, you’ve done this country an invaluable service. No political party should be allowed to hide a secret agenda. I suspect that I’m not alone in saying I’ll buy you a beer next time I see you.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
[lprent: I'll let this through moderation, but I'll put my note at the top because of length. It appears to be the new attack line from the right. Almost all of the points are probably incorrect, and quite a few are just outright daft. It is noticeable that the politicians concerned haven't denied the conversations.]
Vinsin – Logical as to why Keizer would not release the full tape. I’m pretty sure the tape will be released in full very soon. Why just snippets? How long did Keizer talk to English? An hour? Ten minutes? It doesn’t matter, tv3 is not going to play ten minutes of English talking, they’re going to play what actually matters and what is actually news.
Congratulations on utterly missing the point. The whole tape should be released to show what questions Keizer asked. It’s likely that the tape would go up on the internet where people interested would be able to see the full context of the questions and answers. Furthermore, I suspect that the very questions Keizer asked would be newsworthy.
Mr Keizer said he would not be releasing the entire tape. “Most of it is useless. It wouldn’t do any credit to anyone.”
What a coward. Release the full tape and let the public decide that for ourselves.
This man has done nothing, absolutely nothing for this country or for democracy. What a disgrace to even suggest that he is some sort of patriotic hero doing a just cause for NZ voters.
Let’s not forget:
- He snuck into a cocktail party under a false name.
- He targeted a cocktail party because he suspected MPs would speak “more freely”.
- He pretended to be a Young Nat/member of the very political body he despises so much.
- He did not reveal that he was recording the MP in question.
- He used entrapment to seize answers from MPs
- He cut up the secret recordings and, for all we know, has taken them wildly out of context.
- He extracted answers MPs gave him willingly to maximise their impact.
- Like a typical leftie, he decided for himself what was in the “best interests” and the “public good” of NZ, which really just equated to him putting his political beliefs foremost.
- He drip-fed them to the media.
- He did not reveal his identity until Whaleoil uncovered him.
I don’t see what makes Keizer think we should assume he’s telling the truth about how honest and open he was when his whole actions speak of a diabolical sod who’ll give anything to cast aspersions on his political opponents.
This guy might be a hero to Clinton Smith and the rest of The Standard but no Kiwi would ever consider Keizer anything other than a total geezer.
tsmithfield said: So, why did the attack ad about Key and Iraq just happen to be playing when the English tape was released the other day? Just an amazing coincidence?
No, not a coincidence, but also not a conspiracy.
The day before the US Presidential election would have been the obvious day for Kees to release a foreign policy secret tape, just as it would be the obvious date for the NZCTU to release its video focusing on foreign policy.
Good communications strategy from both of them.
So, does Keizer read the standard?
Before the conference there was discussion here about the dishonesty of the Nats and a suggestion under comments that somebody ought to bowl up to one of their MPs at an airport or wherever and have them up, with a tape recorder running. (Can’t figure out the search facility to link to it, but it’s there)
Could have got him thinking perhaps? Which would completely rule out any and all conspiracy theories regarding the Labour Party or their affiliates.
Thereafter, the only advice he needs is the legality aspect under the privacy laws.
If that is the scenario, then it says a lot for the potential usefulness of the internet, no?
[lprent: search is a bit broken at present. Try google. Put "site:www.thestandard.org.nz" at the start followed by the searches. ]
Trav you have said politics are in “your genes” How does that work? Do you mean extreme politics, as in the examples you & I have cited?
“This guy might be a hero to Clinton Smith and the rest of The Standard but no Kiwi would ever consider Keizer anything other than a total geezer.”
You might not be impressed, but a lot of people will be worried about the Nats selling kiwibank, or getting us involved in wars. The first has been very solidly ruled out by National now, so there’s a big tick for the many people who support it. the latter is certainly in our interests to discuss publicly.
You are more extreme in your views than Clinton or pretty much anyone else here. Maybe not in reality, maybe it’s just your angry tone and over-used rhetoric – either way, you’re hardly the person to judge what other kiwis would think.
While JK’s politics are in his jeans and I don’t want to know how that works, thankyou.
hoolian. I don’t think Keizer rhymes with geezer.
Bill. we don’t reveal the identities of readers or commentators
If the bigmouth bragging in the tapes though what he said is so unimportant, why dosn’t he just clear it up? Simple! Case closed!!!
Unless theres something to hide. (ahhhaaaaaa) Silence……….
More like silence of the lambs. Watch out these pricks are dangerous!!!!
MP – you obviously haven’t been reading SP’s write up’s of the leaders’ debates
LP – as you know, my comments are not directed at the BOFH. You do a fine job and are open about your affiliations.
However, IMO, SP’s is consistently pro-Labour rather than simply pro-left (which I wouldn’t expect given his professed affiliations).
I completely understand that you can’t control the opinions and posts of others nor should you want to. However, you should be concerned about perceptions and I think it is reasonable to assume that that there is the general perception, even if you ardently disagree.
Hopefully stated without an atom of trolling.
S.P.
“we don’t reveal the identities of readers or commentators”
Precisely my point Steve. A form of the idea was in the public arena. Thanks to the internet and the way (some) blogs work, the idea is disembodied as it were. Because of that, all conspiracy theories fall over. There was no need for grand strategies or planning….an individual taking an idea and running with it suffices. And the idea was in the public domain before any taping occurred. Anonymously.
Oh, hang on. You mean the part where I ask if he reads the Standard? Not expecting an answer to that one. Just pointing out a possibility. A claim he could make which knocks all the Hootens and his ilk into touch.
Seriously, people who keep screaming “Release the whole tape, let us see the questions!!!” – please, do comment and explain just what “context” you think there could possibly be, how questions could possibly have been phrased, to make “swallowing dead fish”, “eventually sell Kiwibank”, and “need someone to pull the trigger” into anything other than they appear on face value.
Oh – and without the question being so blindingly obvious a trap that English et al should be publicly mocked for being so stupid as to answer them.
We had a democracy where party conventions were reasonably open, and people could talk candidly to MPs. Most other countries don’t have that, and it was a treasure. Now we don’t it that anymore, thanks to a guy who, on his travel blog, says he isn’t even a New Zealand citizen. It’s a great shame.
Anyway, there is no reason not to release the whole tape now, unless the spy has something to hide. Oh, and by the way Steve – even the spy says he did not act alone, but “took advice”. Whom from, eh?
Daveski – I suppose SP could write about Fitzsimons’ and Norman’s outstanding performance in the leaders’ debate last night, would that make you happy? Do you see the problem there? I think you’re inventing a theme to suit your ideas. SP can be pro-left, and not specifically pro-Labour, but write about Labour a lot as they are the main party of the left, and the one left-leaning voters are more likely to vote for.
So you can manufacture it as being pro-Labour instead of pro-left, but it doesn’t wash. The vote smart series explains it fairly well, I’d have thought. And in reality, the posts don’t really support your theory.
Qot: “please, do comment and explain just what ?context? you think there could possibly be, how questions could possibly have been phrased, to make ?swallowing dead fish?, ?eventually sell Kiwibank?, and ?need someone to pull the trigger? into anything other than they appear on face value.”
Here is a hypothetical example:
“Ah… I see what you are trying to do. You want me to say that I am going to sell Kiwi bank…..”
Simply edit out most of the comment and you get:
…I am going to sell Kiwibank..
Its called cherrypicking. Just looking for soundbites that appear to say something controversial if the surrounding context is stripped away. The media do this sort of thing all the time.
“We had a democracy where party conventions were reasonably open, and people could talk candidly to MPs. Most other countries don’t have that, and it was a treasure.”
Pity we don’t have a democracy where a party feels it can state its true intentions because they know they’ll be unpalatable, and they don’t heve the guts to start an honest public debate over what they believe. Pity we have a democracy where if you want to find out what a party really thinks, you have to be one of their supporters, because the public aren’t to know.
I take it back – the problem isn’t with our democracy, it’s only with one party.
Matthew Pilott: Great letter to the Editor in the Listener re PSA position written by Brenda.
I wonder how Key will handle the reply to Kees revelations?
Stick to “Labour dirty tricks”?
Point to ethics or not of secret recordings?
Lack of context?
Denial?
Counter attack using Research material?
They will use something won’t they!
And congratulations to Kees on courage and initiative.
And that is your fundamental problem Matthew: you seem to want to abolish the right.
MP – I don’t think we are that far apart. Note that my comments were about perceptions so I’m being more of a messenger than a commentator.
The *perception* is that this site is Labour-linked. This is not what I am saying but what others in the MSM particular are saying.
I agree that anti-National does not make this site pro-Labour.
However, I still stand by my view that SP is seen as being pro-Labour rather than left and than creates issues such as this.
I do accept that there is a small ecosystem of actively motivated political beasts on both sides of the great divide.
Regardless, the Batman incident coupled with this coincidence creates credibility issues for the Standard if it wishes to be seen as independent left and not affiliated to Labour. That naturally is up to those who read it to determine, rather than those who are actively involved.
Frankly, i think this is a very healthy debate and I suspect I’m not the only righty to be supportive of the Standard as an entity given the willingness to allow such robust debate. Big ups indeed. Given LP’s strident denials – which I fully accept, I would hope that the independence of this blog isn’t in any way sullied
[we're the biggest leftwing blog. National wants to take us down, hence the constant linking to labour. the h-fee stuff was sent to us because we're the biggt leftwing blog. im a left wing activist in wellington and i know most of the others including the one that happened to be the secret agenda taper. it's easy to read whatever you want into those things. if you want to see a big conpiracy, you will. SP]
A couple of days out from a general election and Labour’s affiliated blog has devoted a huge post to explain their connections, or lack of, to the dodgy secret recorder.
I think that’s rather symbolic of Labour’s faulting campaign.
“…you seem to want to abolish the right.”
The Right, as an entity in or field of politics, or the ‘right’ for a party to basically campaign on false premises, lies and deceptions?
I have no problem with the former, and if you meant the latter, it’s not really possible to aboilsh people’s righ tto lies and deceive – I’m happy for anything that will expose such lies and deception when it is to do with something as fundamental as our electoral process.
Either way, I don’t see your comment making much sense, or being based in what I have said – perhaps you’re just generalising about the left, from a generalised extreme-right view.
Daveski – so what you’re doing is commenting that the media reports The Standard is linked to Labour and such. There’s not a lot anyone can do about that, is there? It’s not as if the MSM reports based upon fact, when a good story will bring in more profit…
When did looking Amish become fashionable Billy? Quite a while ago I suspect, for the Amish at any rate.
Matthew: how on earth do you reach the conclusion that I come from ” from a generalised extreme-right view”? Is it because I disagree with you, that I must be labelled in this way?
milo, it’s probably because of the generally extreme right wing views you express here daily.
Felix – I’m about as right wing as Michael Cullen.
You know, there is more to politics than economic views.
Milo, I still don’t understand what you meant by ‘abolish the right’ but either way it alluded to absolute state control and draconian enforcement, Opposing Thoughts will be Crushed, Dissidents will be Smashed and the State Will Prevail etc etc.
That’s what I consider an extreme-right view of what the left wants. That was the view you presented.
Matthew: we’ll probably chase our tails here – but I think your rhetoric, and it’s sub-text, tends to deny the very legitimacy of right wing views, and the integrity of people who espouse them. I think it important to acknowledge that people with opposing view can still have moral standing and respect.
Indeed, that strikes me as the very rock on which Labour’s campaign has foundered.
Perhaps, although I obviously don’t see it. I try to argue against right-wing views because I consider many of them a recipe for failure – I don’t deny their legitimacy or right to be.
Yes, the trick is to argue against the views, rather than the person. I clam no special status here; it’s a challenge for us all.
[lprent: Yep, including the BOFH]
Coge,
No, I did not say that politics were in my genes.
I made a timeline connection from the Dutch having the first revolution in order to kick the toffs out via having the first royalty free republic and Kees doing some subversive info gathering. It seems we are a freedom and truth loving lot (at least most of the time) and ready to take action.
Don’t see anything extreme in that. If a people are abused by a powerful elite they are entitled to take action, they are entitled to rule themselves and if politicians are lying they are entitled to find out what said politicians are lying about. Quite simple really.
Still waiting for the explanation of the point you were trying to make so I guess the second option is more likely: You were just having a go at someone who does not support your right wing point of view.
Apparently the lead into Bill English’s answer was ” I’m concerned that Obama is too much of a pacifist…”
It’s funny how the advocates of democracy are the first to take action when it may not achieve their desired result.
This guy has not done anyone any favours. Politicians from all parties will talk in sound bites at party events in case some douche bag is recording them. The reality is that all policy evolves from robust debate.
The only ones buying him a beer after the election may be the National party hierarchy.
Hmmmmm interesting who Keizer seems to have a very close association with:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/11/what_a_coincidence.html#comments
And now courtesy KB we find the taper shares a flat with a person who is a Labour/Green staffer and former multiple union staffer. Murkier and murkier…
QoT opines:
Sadly (for the state of politics in this country) QoT is right. While it is possible for someone experienced in politics and on their guard to be set up and taken completely out of context – it happened to me (whole sorry saga here if anybody gives a damn) – to be caught time and time again with your pants round your ankles seems to rule that out.
If senior party people – some with decades of experience – are so astoundingly inept as to make such unguarded remarks then it bespeaks a level of stupidity that’s frankly horrifying.
Ironically, if it were the fiendishly cunning plot some on the left were trying to spin it as, you’d know nothing about it. Instead, it strikes me as some aging adolescents trying to sound all right wing Rambo-like in front of what they naively assumed to be awe-struck young supporters.
The Nats are specially good at this sort of hubris. I still remember, working as a stringer for radio while still at school, setting up an interview with Les Gandar, then Minister of Education. When I started asking him questions he looked confused, then angry. He’d assumed I was there just for the sheer thrill of meeting him. Seriously. (He later became our High Commissioner to London. I assume the Queen was equally thrilled with the honour of shaking his hand).
On the other hand, sneaking round taping conversations bespeaks the kind of snotty little swat who’d annoy the bejeesus out of you all day, then run to teacher when you yanked their underpants over their head.
Not a good look for either side, really.
Apparently the lead into Bill English’s answer was ‘ I’m concerned that Obama is too much of a pacifist ‘
And this negates the left criticism of English’s response because…..?
I can see it could be considered as a leading question that influences the kind of response given.
But, in the context, apparently Keiser was posing as a potential recruit to the National Party. So if this had been for real, would English’s response have been OK?… because…?
….. English says anything that is needed to gainnew recruits?
English had been influenced by a potential recruit’s leading question, and, even though he’s a seasoned politician, he can’t resist such pressures?
English could have replied, as he should to any question that implies a policy he doesn’t agree with, that, he used to think the Iraq war was a good idea, but has come to see the reasons given for going to war were wrong, or that it’s had a bad effect on Iraq, been too many civilian casualities etc., and thinks it will be good if the US withdraws now,
He might even have added that, in fact, Obama isn’t a total pacifist, and wants to strengthen the US’s war in Iraq. But instead English says he’s worried about, not only Obama, but Europe, and then, presumably unprompted, criticises Bush for not window dressing the Iraq invasion well enough.
Trav, covert taping is an activity undertaken by authoritarian states, yes? So therefore it is in violation of the free society which we enjoy. I’m surprised you can support it.