Written By: - Date published: 9:26 am, January 22nd, 2008 - 99 comments
Categories: housing, Media -
Tags: granny, housing, john key, Media
Yesterday The Herald reported that:
Demographia, an international survey business run by Hugh Pavletich of Christchurch and Wendell Cox of the United States, today issued its fourth annual report, showing New Zealand has slipped drastically on an international scale.
Now quite aside from the shoddy methodology of the study to which the PM has already responded, a moment spent with Google reveals some interesting results.
The highlight is this extraordinary bit of brown-nosing from Hugh Pavletich to John Key back in October:
Dear John,
Housing Affordability
Congratulations on your sterling efforts over recent months in articulating sound policies on this issue. It is clear from your recent speeches and statements and those of your Housing Spokesman, Philip Heatley MP, that the National Party as a team. is researching the issue thoroughly and developing policies which will work & and over a reasonable time & allow young New Zealanders the same housing opportunities their parents had. They deserve nothing less.
My apologies for not writing to you earlier & but my wife Marg and I have been overseas since mid July.
It is particularly heartening to me to see the progress the New Zealand National Party is making & since I embarked on this issue on a voluntary basis in late 2004, when I initiated and with my good friend Wendell Cox, developed the Annual Demographia Housing Affordability Surveys. The 2008 4th Edition will likely be released late January…
I almost wish I had a Herald subscription just so I could cancel it.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Alternative headline for this post? -
The Standard still campaigning for Labour
is that you SlaterWhale, or DPF?
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,917,hard_news_monster_weekend.sm?p=39614#post39614
Really sprout!
its just a problem with cookies
Alternative headline for this post? -
The Standard still campaigning for Labour
I expect they are- “The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0″
This is a left-wing political blog that openly supports a labour led government (though they’ve recently advised their readers to vote green). The Herald pretends to be objective – it’s that these guys are taking an issue with.
“its just a problem with cookies”
guess DPF is still learnin this fancy intarweb thing.
If my party was on 35%, and the Greens were on 4.5%, I’d be doing everything in my power to get Labour voters to push Green over the thresh-hold as well, Daveo. You can merely cite ONE post from ONE author that gives mild criticism of Labour, and a mild encouragement to vote Green. There are good strategic reasons for this. In 2005, Labour luminaries were encouraging Labour voters in Epsom to vote for Richard Worth, in order to keep Rodney out. That was never an endorsement for Rodney.
But we don’t know the Standard’s precise political affiliations, or their motivations for spinning the Labour Party’s line–apart from the fact that the only line they do spin is the Labour Party line–because the Standard has been so secretive and hollow about its donors, its political links, and who funds them.
Crikey. And I thought the EFA was designed to stop this.
“This is a left-wing political blog that openly supports a labour led government (though they’ve recently advised their readers to vote green). The Herald pretends to be objective – it’s that these guys are taking an issue with.”
exactly daveo
IP- If you think “So that’s the main party choice this year – you can vote Labour for low wages and poor working conditions or you can vote National and see it all get even worse. Kinda makes all this talk from both parties about supporting families seem a bit hollow really” counts as spinning the Labour party line then you’re not nearly the political operator I thought you were.
It is not surprising to here Robinsod call for a capital gains tax, since he owns no property he can safely call for such a thing.
So you base this on what, Whale?
Oh and Whale its’ “hear” not “here”. Did you even finish high-school?
its just a problem with cookies
Yes, that’s what it looks like. It’s really not a big deal.
Yeah, gotta agree with Russell guys. I’m willing to give DPF the benefit of the doubt on this.
You would have to give DPF the benefit of the doubt, Tane, since Russell’s already done so. Unfortunately, we can’t give you the benefit of the doubt about your spinning and lying about your political affiliations, since you continue to spin, avoid, and implement aversion therapy as your main course of dialogue.
You have said, Tane, as your main objection to disclosing the Standard’s political affiliations, that you’re concerned that there will be some kind of retribution for you. You have used as an example of retribution, the outing of the Standard’s Stalker-in-Chief. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that if the Stalker-in-Chief actually felt any intimidation–which is more likely to be hysterical hyperbole than real–it would have more to do with his stalking behaviour, than his political opinions.
Further, I note the astonishing hypocrisy between your concern about the consequences of having your personal identities known, and your shameless advocacy for the Electoral Finance Act, and your demands that political activity, and political links be transparent.
Finally, I have never asked for your identities to be known. You could very comfortably write a declaration of political interests–stating, for example, whether some of the Standard’s authors are employed by an affiliated union of the Labour Party, the Labour Party itself, or Parliamentary or Ministerial Services–without revealing any information about the Standard’s authors identities. The reason you choose not to reveal your material political affiliations is that you are engaging in a sneaky, secretive campaign against John Key and the National Party, and you do not want the Standard’s Labour Party connections to be known.
That is astonishing hypocrisy from the Standard, Tane, and it is destroying your blog’s credibility.
That is astonishing hypocrisy from the Standard, Tane, and it is destroying your blog’s credibility.
Yep you say it enough and it becomes true, IP(f) – don’t you have some pigs to fuck?
Monty:
now that there is a heap of land available in Tga do you think this is going to cause a crash in house prices?
NB:
local section sales – many ‘actual’ sale prices have been for far less than the listed price
IP…how is any of what you have said logical?
The EFA deals with people spending money in order to overtly campaign for a certain political party.
The Herald is a newspaper that spends a large amount of money to produce content that is then disseminated to a large proportion of the population. It is our only daily nationwide newspaper and should abide by basic principles of media- balance, fairness, and transparency. Or is should just declare itself tabloid and be done with it.
Your hysteria stems from an openly left-wing blog being helped for a period of time by someone who is a member of the Labour party. This techie has made it clear to you they are not an employee of the party and host many number of sites with differing material. Where the writers of this site- a voluntary opinion site that is free to the public and has no advertising- spend their professional time is really of no business to anyone else. It does not impact on their credibility to analyse arguments and provide differing perspectives. If one of these writers was being trumpeted in the media as an ‘objective commentator’ then it might matter what their back ground was. If one of these commentators were spending vast amounts of money on billboards then I would want to know where the money was coming from. But they are not- running a blog is a luxury open to any vaguely computer literate person who can afford to own a computer (I am well aware this is not everyone). Running a highly successful, high traffic blog is a luxury open to anyone with IT minded friends. But give up with your lies and irrationality. Your quickness to try and re-frame the word hollow is just pathetic in the extreme. Don Brash, John Key, Gerry Brownlee and the strategists behind the 2005 National campaign will not be forgotten for their hollowness. Nor will those that erect smoke screens in an attempt to try and deflect attention away from the continued hollowness within Nationals ranks
From the disgusting, obscene personal attacks that go on in the blogsphere on a daily basis it is no wonder Tane or any other members do not want that in their workplaces or personal lives.
Your friend whaleoil hounded a 15-year-old boy, along was a vast pack of others who happily joined in with whaleoil, personally abusing the boy every time he dared comment on anything on his OWN blog. whale oil also ensures he is obscene about any commentator that dare challange his behaviour.
they are cowards for behaving like this on a computer and you are pathetic for aligning with them. if you treated someone like that face to face you would be hauled up before the courts. tane has worked to make the standard a vaguely sane place to have a conversation. Sadly for him his efforts are being undone by trolls and washed up has beens who gain their jollies from bullying someone online.
Well said
bean:
Given this blog’s obsession with DPF, and his political links (which he has always openly declared), you continue to make astonishingly hypocritical claims.
The EFA deals with anonymous campaigning for, or against, a political party or candidate. You’re welcome to claim that the NZ Herald is biased, or that it is in breach of the Electoral Finance Act. It would appear to fly directly in the face of the Standard’s claims that the media would not be muzzled in election year. But go for it. Lay a complaint with the Electoral Commission.
As far as I know, none of the Herald’s political reporters are members of a political party. If they were, I’d expect the Standard to out them. Nor are they employed by a political party, or an affiliated union of a political party, or Parliamentary or Ministerial Services.
Granted, I will accept that the standards of neutrality of a newspaper reporter, and of a blogger, are very different. But the Standard has always portrayed itself as an independent, left-wing blog. It has said it has no links to the Labour Party.
I am not referring to the political affiliations of the Standard’s techie, who does not control the content of this blog. That is like asking for the political affiliations of a the printer of a political pamphlet.
What I have asked, as have others, is a declaration of the Standard’s political interests and affiliations. Kiwiblogblog has already made a disclosure: none of its authors are employed by a political party, a lobby group, think tank, union, ministerial or parliamentary services. That is abundantly clear.
We already know that the Standard receives material financial support for its blog from the Labour Party. What makes the Standard appear so secretive and hollow is that it is being so secretive about the political affiliations of its authors.
bean,
I hardly think the Standard is the epitome of good commenting behaviour. The Standard’s Stalker-in-Chief was bragging just a few days ago that I was on his “shit-list”. He has continued to launch into the most extraordinary level of abuse, which to date I have not responded to, because it actually says much more about him, and his friends who repeat the defamatory claim, than it does about me.
I note you have not said anything to admonish him for that. I don’t expect you to admonish him. I haven’t seen you encourage him, and I don’t hold you responsible for his actions. Nor should you hold me responsible for the actions of others who overstep the mark in their comments.
I also note that far from Tane discouraging the Stalker-in-Chief from engaging in his defamatory abuse, Tane has done nothing to delete the constant links from the Standard, to the Stalker-in-Chief’s blog. Tane is evidently aware of these links, since he has posted twice on this thread at the Stalker-in-Chief’s blog, and at no point did Tane express his concern at the Stalker-in-Chief’s behaviour.
Like I say, to date I have done nothing to discourage that behaviour. It shows their true colours.
where the heck did i say the herald was breaking the ERA? I was addressing your obsession with calling the standard out on political affiliations. You used supporting the ERA as some reason for Tane having to say who he was. This claim has no logic.
The standard have been calling the Herald out on their lack of declarations in regards to political affiliations of their sources. This is quite separate from the EFA. Have you heard of the Press Council? They certainly are bending those stipulations currently.
“It has said it has no links to the Labour Party.”
Really? they may have told you to go jump when you demanded all commentators told you what their links were but I don’t recall the writers saying they have NO links. you’d be a little lacking in mental capacity if you thought the politically obsessed bunch of people that lurk around these little echo chambers (DPF’s blog included) didn’t have any links to political movements. Some like DPF gain more from revealing their identity as it gains publicity for their business, public profile and repulsive billboard campaigns. Many choose to not make their blog a public declaration of identity.
You may have noticed, but probably why would you, I used to engage on this blog and with robinsod quite frequently. As the dialogue has gotten more offensive I have tapered off. your consistent trolling is part of the reason why robinsod has gotten so insistent in his attacking.
i take your tag team act with whale oil this morning as an indication you support his level of cyber interaction
bean,
No, I had not noticed your lack of interaction with the Stalker-in-Chief. I merely observed that you didn’t appear to be encouraging his deranged behaviour. On the other side, you may not have noticed an interaction I had with dad4justice and James Sleep at kiwiblog, where I told d4j that as a 50 year old man, he should have better things to do than trying to wind up a 15 year old boy, and to James that he should have much better things than winding up cranky old men.
Like I say, I don’t hold you responsible for others’ behaviour, and I’m surprised that you choose to hold me responsible for others. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, with respect to a tag team between Whale and myself. There may have been a couple of messages from each of us on the same topic, but I’d hardly call that a tag team. Given that Tane has done nothing to condemn the defamatory personal abuse which no less than four of the Standard’s regular commenters directed at me this morning, as I say, I find it astonishing that you would assert that Tane has made a genuine attempt to clean up this blog. That claim has as much credibility as Tane saying that blog authors have no relevant links to the Labour Party or the union movement.
this blog started out clean, Tane did chide people that stepped over the line. After your hysterical trolling over the last while and the bile that has started to creep through from other forums I rather think Tane has realised slight chiding is no longer the answer.
Why does it matter what the blog authors links are if they are doing their writing in their own time and not taking donations/financial help or editorial guidance from the organisations? That statement is illogical. Am I not allowed to blog if I have affiliations to political parties or unions? Or is it only blogs that threaten DPF’s blogging monopoly that get you all upset?
and before you lie…the standard received help from a techie friend not the labour party
bean:
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Tane said that at email went out asking for support to get its server going, and the Labour Party responded with an offer of help. We don’t know who sent out that appeal. We don’t know who responded on behalf of the Labour Party. This is not a matter of a Labour Party techie acting all on his own. There have been markedly different responses from the techie, and Tane respectively, on what support was received.
It is material that the Standard is supported by the Labour Party. The Labour Party did not gift its resources to the techie for the techie to use as he wished. They gifted their resources to the Standard, so that the Standard could continue to publish their blog.
I am not saying that the Standard would have no credibility if the political affiliations of its authors were known. I am saying that people would take those political affiliations into account, and make judgements accordingly. But despite the Standard campaigning all year for the Electoral Finance Act, and championing the cause of third parties, and political parties, disclosing their funding sources, their expenditure, and their political affiliations, the Standard has done everything possible to spin and lie about their own affiliations.
When Bryce Edwards yesterday claimed, at kiwiblog, that the Standard was authored by employees of the EPMU, Tane responded that the EPMU does not pay for the Standard to be published. That wasn’t the point that Bryce made, although he seems to have trusted that Tane was giving a full and complete response. Subsequent follow-up questions show that Tane was giving a sneaky, weaselly answer to conceal the Standard’s authors’ connections to the Labour Party.
IP says:
“It has said it has no links to the Labour Party.”
Tane says a while back:
“Many of the contributors are Labour Party members, others are not. We’re all labour activists with a small l, though.”
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=616#comment-2976
This is why no one takes you seriously IP, because you lie.
IP you don’t have any idea of what happened and the little bit you do know you have twisted beyond reason. how do you know lynn was not the person that responded to the email? does this still count as the labour party just because lynn states he is a member?
you have no idea how the resources got passed on. knowing the technical illiteracy of many members of the party it is likely lynn snaffled them up because he was the only one who knew what to do with them.
You have no credibility for being a weaselly, twisting troll. being a collective of volunteers with nothing to hide they obviously didn’t realise they needed to be intimately involved with every detail to satisfy your trolling. instead they have each said as much as they know or thought was going on.
IP, so why not take them at their word that their content is in no way endorsed, vetted or in any other way interfered with by whomever their employers may be?
That’s what has been said, and any further attempt to press the issue is just lying on your behalf, as is your modus operandi.
Bean,
The Labour Party owned the IP cluster. They then passed it to the Standard. This is not a matter of a Labour Party member, who happened to be a techie, contributing his resources. This is a matter of the Labour Party contributing its resources for the Standard’s use. For that to happen, somebody with the authority to make that donation in the Labour Party, had to make a decision to make that donation. This was not merely a techie who happened to be a Labour Party member, choosing to independently register the IP as owned by the Labour Party, and then passing it on to the Standard. It was the Labour Party who gifted that resource to the Standard.
Matthew:
That is a matter of judgement based on the facts. It is a judgement call as to whether the Standard’s authors blog on their own time. The Standard has, since the beginning, relied on the Hollow Men for its principal source to argue in favour of greater transparency in links between political parties and their supporters. There is never any direct evidence that Don Brash ever read any emails from the Exclusive Brethren. There is no evidence that he ever took any of their advice. Yet the Standard has been hammering the position that the National Party’s parallel campaign was set up in conjunction with the EBs.
The Standard has insisted that connections such as the EB and National be made clear. The EFA, supposedly, provides this transparency. How would you respond if the National’s party position was that meetings between Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren were conducted in an unofficial capacity, had nothing to do with campaigning or funding, that the National Party did not vet, endorse, or in any way encourage the EB’s activity?
You would have laughed that argument out of the park.
It is a significant, and material fact, whether somebody who insists on political transparency actually is employed by a politically affiliated organisation. That includes employment in a union, a lobby group, a think-tank, a political party, or for ministerial or parliamentary services. It is for the reader, knowing that background, to assess whether the author’s view is influenced by that affiliation.
Except Tane wants to make that assessment for us. By doing so, he continues to lie, spin, and conceal the secretive and hollow relationship that the Standard has with its anonymous backers.
At the end of the day Labour will be toast after the next election.
hmmm million dollar campaign vs temporary use of server. yes i understand your deep concern IP. go on spinning out about it. just do it on your own blog
at the end of the day, to be frank, and honest, the way the wind is blowing, when all is said and done, those that use cliche phrases in a bald assertion should be given as much notice as…flying pigs