2007 Trans-Tasman MP rankings

Written By: - Date published: 10:42 am, December 10th, 2007 - 76 comments
Categories: labour, national - Tags: ,

So DPF’s given his predictable take on this year’s Trans-Tasman MP rankings (PDF – 150K).

Now averages are one thing but more interesting is a trend that DPF conveniently ignores – While many of National’s high profile MPs are static or slipping in the rankings, Labour’s heavy-hitters seem to be lifting their game.

LABOUR

Clark is up 0.5
Cullen is up 0.5
Goff is up 0.5
King is up 0.5
Parker is up 0.5

NATIONAL

English is static
Finlayson is static
Grosser is static
Key is static
Rich is static
Ryall drops 1
Smith drops 0.5

Granted, it’s not a complete list but the impression you could be left with is that while Labour’s top MPs are working hard to lift their game after a tough year, National’s MPs are still content to sit back and cruise.

By Key’s own admission, the Nats have – on more than one occasion recently – failed to meet the standards they should have.

Apparently the editors at Trans-Tasman agree.

(Hat-tip: Tamaki Resident)

76 comments on “2007 Trans-Tasman MP rankings ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Insolent Prick 1
    10 December 2007 at 11:00 am

    What about Labour’s heavy hitters of Pete Hodgson–labour party strategist–Trevor Mallard (labour Party attack dog), Mark Burton, Parekura Horomia and David Benson-Pope? Chris Carter gets Education, yet is only rated as highly as Jo Goodhew?

    They’ve all performed woefully, and are now overtaken in the rankings by Nathan Guy, Craig Foss, Phil Heatley, Chester Borrows, Jackie Blue, and Paula Bennett.

    That isn’t the sort of progress I’d be celebrating from such distinguished Labour Ministers, if I were you.

  2. tutu 2
    10 December 2007 at 11:07 am

    “Labour’s heavy hitters” Trevor likes hitting but the blue coat was a smart arse .

    [IrishBill: Dad, using a different name does not stop your comments being spam.]

  3. dancer 3
    10 December 2007 at 11:28 am

    one difference between the nats and labour numbers is that there’s a batch within labour where mps are retiring and new blood will be coming in. apart from mark blumsky and brian connell are there any nats who will not be returning? realistically how many more mps could they hope to bring in off the list(given they are electorate heavy)? do the mps get judged more toughly if they are in their 2nd (or plus) term? what would that mean for those first term nats next time?

  4. tutu 4
    10 December 2007 at 11:35 am

    I like eating spam from a can

  5. Joe Stalin 5
    10 December 2007 at 11:39 am

    [Tane: Comment deleted. Dad, here’s a tip – if you’re going to make up sock puppets it might pay to use a different email address.]

  6. Insolent Prick 6
    10 December 2007 at 11:43 am

    Dancer:

    If the current polls even closely resemble what happens on election day, then National will have between 8-12 new MPs. That’s a pretty healthy input of fresh blood into a caucus. Conversely, Labour will lose between 8-12 MPs. The so-called “fresh faces” that Labour’s counting on are unlikely to be elected at the next election.

  7. The Double Standard 7
    10 December 2007 at 11:51 am

    And now the standardista’s give their own predictable take on the rankings.

    Still, I suppose you have to make what positive spin you can these days. I have trouble in believing that an 0.5 increase for 5 ministers is anything to crow about. As IP pointed to, it isn’t generally those 5 that are in the news for all the wrong reasons (except King lately I guess).

    Politicians – bah!

    Tane – are you going to be tracking IP addresses now, contrary to your earlier intentions?

  8. Tane 8
    10 December 2007 at 12:10 pm

    TDS, you’ve already been slapped down here:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=830#comment-8898

    We have never and will never reveal personal information about our commenters.

    If you want to score cheap political points out of our decision not to let Dad4Justice use this site as a forum to air his illness then by all means do so, but I think that says more about you than it does about The Standard.

  9. r0b 9
    10 December 2007 at 12:48 pm

    “If you want to score cheap political points out of our decision not to let Dad4Justice use this site as a forum to air his illness then by all means do so, but I think that says more about you than it does about The Standard.”

    Hear hear. Tane and crew, I think you’re handling a difficult situation very well.

  10. Patrick 10
    10 December 2007 at 1:09 pm

    In general, I agree with this analysis. While there are a few poor performing Labour MPs, they seem to be at least evenly matched in number by National’s. At least Helen has a reasonably strong, vital, front bench (I’m thinking of King, Cullen, Goff and possibly Cunliffe). National’s front bench just seems dated and I’m unaware of them actually successfully launching any policy this year, despite their many botched attempts.

    r0b, I agree, The Standard is a far more enjoyable blog to read than all others I visit. Not only does it have great posts, but the vast majority of commenters (be they left or right wing) actually have something interesting and intelligent to say. I’m glad we can get by without a Kiwiblog style ‘moderation’ system and deal with individual nut-jobs on a case by case basis.

  11. Gruela 11
    10 December 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Insolent

    “Conversely, Labour will lose between 8-12 MPs.”
    Seriously, I thought Labour was polling similarly to where they were at the last election. Isn’t National’s new support mostly from the right, (ACT, NZ First?)

  12. The Double Standard 12
    10 December 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Gruela

    I’m afraid that you’ve fallen for Teh Party’s spin on that issue. Perhaps some facts would help:

    Teh Party:
    Last Morgan Poll – 35%
    2005 Election – 41%

    Just a minor drop, hardly worth mentioning really, better refer to 1999 results instead (but don’t forget the Alliance was major left player in that election)

    The Nats:
    Last Morgan Poll – 48%
    2005 Election – 39%

  13. dancer 13
    10 December 2007 at 2:31 pm

    IP – but surely even the most optimist National supporter would not realistically expect their vote to stay that high with minor parties (at least) getting a lift? or do you think Mr Key really is hoping to win FPP style?
    also given some electorate selections i think there will definately be new Labour faces – Grant Robertson in Wellington Central, Brendon Burns in ChCh Central, Chris Hipkins in Rimutaka – also 2 new (list) people in after Xmas when Anne Hartley and Dianne Yates depart.

  14. Gruela 14
    10 December 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Double

    Ha Ha, based on that polling, (and why use Morgan, why not an average?) National are going to get creamed. Once John Key has to defend his Party’s policies in an actual debate, with actually serious questions, facing the leaders of the other Parties, he’s going to turn into a bumbling mess and National’s support will tumble. Always supposing that National have actually gotten around to opening the envelope that the Business Roundtable sent them and reading what their policies are. (And always supposing that John Key still is the National leader by then.)

  15. The Double Standard 15
    10 December 2007 at 3:02 pm

    G – use whatever pole you like. My point was that Te Harty got a fair bit more than their current polling level in the 2005. Do you not agree.

    Keep making those assumptions about Key’s ability. It all helps.

    And keep lying about Nationals policies if it helps you get off.

  16. Gruela 16
    10 December 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Double

    What specific policy did I lie about? (Not that I’ll expect an answer.)

  17. The Double Standard 17
    10 December 2007 at 3:13 pm

    About getting policies in an envelope from the BRT. That’s about as credible as stating that Teh Party gets its policies in an envelope from rich kiwi donors living in Oz. Oh, wait a minute….

  18. Gruela 18
    10 December 2007 at 3:17 pm

    While we’re on the subject, who can’t get in to see a GP exactly…?

  19. The Double Standard 19
    10 December 2007 at 3:21 pm

    TDS, you’ve already been slapped down here:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=830#comment-8898

    We have never and will never reveal personal information about our commenters.

    Well, I gave up on that thread yesterday.

    You said this back in November

    And Santy bro, unlike the censors over at kiwibog we don’t track IP addresses or threaten to reveal people’s names or place of employment.

    So, you are censoring now. I don’t object to you banning D4J, but to dress it up as an “illness” is a bit cheap. At least you might get off your high horse about similar “censorship” of the incoherent and abusive posters at KB. I think D4J is banned there right now too.

  20. Gruela 20
    10 December 2007 at 3:29 pm

    And not getting in to see a GP…….?

  21. Insolent Prick 21
    10 December 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Gruela,

    Next time you’re sick, try calling up 10 GPs from the phone book, trying to get an appointment. You’ll find a fairly large proportion of them are closed to new patients–particularly in Auckland. When you ask why, you’ll be told that because of the funding system, it’s not economic for the GPs to take on more patients. They’ll then direct you to the White Cross service, where you’ll have to pay $75 for a visit.

  22. r0b 22
    10 December 2007 at 3:49 pm

    “At least you might get off your high horse about similar “censorship” of the incoherent and abusive posters at KB”

    It is well known the DPF bans lefties that he personally doesn’t like. There is a big difference between that, and placing some constraints on unwell posters like d4j.

  23. Gruela 23
    10 December 2007 at 3:53 pm

    Insolent

    A ‘fairly large proportion’ doesn’t equate to people getting turned away. Obviously those particular GP’s have full books, but that doesn’t mean that others aren’t moving in to take up the slack.

  24. Tane 24
    10 December 2007 at 4:06 pm

    Well put, r0b. TDS has no evidence of us revealing IP addresses or threatening to reveal people’s names or places of employment, because we don’t. That’s not what The Standard is about. This is just part of his attempt to disrupt the site through constant smears and half-truths. Which is a pity, because he sounds like a smart guy who could play a constructive part in the discussion if that was his intention.

  25. The Double Standard 25
    10 December 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Tane – talking about smears and half truths, please point out where I said that you had revealed IP addresses, names or workplaces.

    All I’m pointing out is that you are now censoring – something that you have criticised Farrar for. Dressing it up as a “mental illness” issue doesn’t change the fact that the standard is now censoring or deleting comments.

  26. The Double Standard 26
    10 December 2007 at 4:20 pm

    G – are you claiming that we have plenty of GP’s in NZ? Better tell Teh Party that their 100 million funding boost isn’t required then. In the real world we and our community have trouble getting a GP appointment on the same day. We are lucky enough to have been here long enough to be on the rolls. If you are new to the area is tougher.

    I suggest you search for (“rural GP shortage” site:.nz) on google if you need more information

    Here a vacancy list in case you know any doctors out of work.

    http://www.nzlocums.com/Site/Vacancies/General.aspx

  27. r0b 27
    10 December 2007 at 4:26 pm

    “All I’m pointing out is that you are now censoring – something that you have criticised Farrar for.”

    I for one have not and will not criticise DPF for stopping spam or taking any action he needs to take to keep his site functional (e.g. limiting abuse by those such as d4j).

    But I have criticised him and I will continue to criticise him for censoring and banning lefties that he doesn’t like. The fact that he does this while banging the free speech drum just highlights his total hypocrisy (and yours too, TDS).

  28. Gruela 28
    10 December 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Double

    “In the real world we and our community have trouble getting a GP appointment on the same day.”

    That’s a bit of a backtrack from

    “As opposed to Teh Parties policies where you can’t even get in to see a GP?”

  29. Robinsod 29
    10 December 2007 at 4:33 pm

    IP – Y’know I recently joined a Wellington PHO and have no problem getting doctor’s appointments and they are a damn sight cheaper than they were in the 90’s. Have you looked into this option?

    DPFDblStdClaws – Is the standard also censoring when it deletes comments selling casino stocks?

    Captcha: J proffered – christ the way today has been going if only!

  30. r0b 30
    10 December 2007 at 4:41 pm

    “In the real world we and our community have trouble getting a GP appointment on the same day.”

    So TDS proves that no one can get to see a GP because GPs are so busy seeing people? A new high in logical reasoning.

  31. The Double Standard 31
    10 December 2007 at 6:49 pm

    But I have criticised him and I will continue to criticise him for censoring and banning lefties that he doesn’t like. The fact that he does this while banging the free speech drum just highlights his total hypocrisy (and yours too, TDS).

    Like who?

    Here’s a link to help you out

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/demerits

    Looks pretty even-handed to me.

  32. The Double Standard 32
    10 December 2007 at 6:53 pm

    So TDS proves that no one can get to see a GP because GPs are so busy seeing people? A new high in logical reasoning.

    No, that there aren’t enough GP’s in the country because they see no future in a business that Teh Party apparently wants to run under a state-controlled model. I don’t know why they don’t just nationalise all General Practices eh?

    Did you try that google search yet G

    Now, where is that speech by Hodgson talking about pumping an extra $100 million into rural health. Must be for no reason eh?

    Pillocks.

  33. Tane 33
    10 December 2007 at 7:04 pm

    TDS, I frankly can’t believe you’re trying to paint our treatment of Dad4Justice’s nonsensical spamming as a free speech issue. We have never banned or censored anyone for their political beliefs, even when they have been quite abusive at times. That is not our way and you know that very well.

    The difference with Dad is that he has obvious mental health issues and doesn’t so much argue as hurl abuse and is utterly unable to post on-topic. His posts are little more than spam advertising his illness and will be treated as such. I will not let Dad bring down the level of debate for everyone.

    You can call that censorship if you like, but you’re not fooling anyone.

  34. The Double Standard 34
    10 December 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Tane

    I haven’t called it a free speech issue. Some of your pals have in some kind of back-handed criticism of me.

    I guess I’m suggesting a whiff of hypocrisy around here. Of course you can ban D4J and label it a mental health issue. He is banned at KB right now too.

    However to take the moral high ground and claim that Farrar ban people for their political views is simply incorrect. Which of those currently banned would you apply that label to? I note that Robbo is permanently banned, mainly for his inability to have anything approaching a civil conversation there (and noted for baiting D4J as well). You have warned Robbo here a few times too.

    What is the threshold for censorship here?

  35. r0b 35
    11 December 2007 at 10:26 am

    “However to take the moral high ground and claim that Farrar ban people for their political views is simply incorrect”

    As far as I know DPF has issued three “life time bans”, all to lefties. Robinsod, Robert Owen, Sam Dixon. Squirm all you like, but DPF censors lefties. And he does this while banging the free speach drum. Which makes him the worst kind of hypocrite.

  36. The Double Standard 36
    11 December 2007 at 4:19 pm

    “but DPF censors lefties.”

    Oh, I thought he banned disruptive, abusive, wiki-vandalising types. All 3 behave slightly better here than they did at KB. The rules there are pretty straightforward. Pity that your three heroes couldn’t keep within them.

  37. Robinsod 37
    11 December 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Fuck of DS, I behaved better on KB than many of the right-wing commenters and got banned for “slander” (thus showing how dumb Davey is – “slander” is spoken, I think he means defamation in which case someone should sue me) when I suggested his KtB campaign was astroturfing and the Boscowen case was a PR stunt. Guess what? It was a PR stunt and the MSM has pointed to the fact Davey and Boscowen represent well-moneyed partisan interest groups.

    Here’s a hint you dumb fuck – it’s not “slander” if it’s true.

    I wouldn’t mind if DPF had the guts to say he just didn’t want me on his blog (hey, it’s his blog – he can do what he likes) but to make up fake moderators and then have them seize upon comments he didn’t like and misrepresent it is the act of a coward.

  38. the sprout 38
    11 December 2007 at 4:45 pm

    well technically:

    slander = spoken
    libel = published
    defamation = both of the above

    contemporary nz law just uses the term defamation.

  39. Robinsod 39
    11 December 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Cheers sprout.

  40. the sprout 40
    11 December 2007 at 4:51 pm

    the “dumb fuck” part was technically perfect though.

  41. The Double Standard 41
    11 December 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Ha ha Robbo

    You are so hard done by. Do you need a hug?

    Seems you fit my description of abusive and disruptive precisely. What do you bring to a site that D4J doesn’t?

  42. the sprout 42
    11 December 2007 at 5:01 pm

    umm, clarity, humour, arguments, sanity…

  43. Robinsod 43
    11 December 2007 at 5:05 pm

    DS – tell you what I’ll answer your question if you answer the one I asked first:

    Why did you name yourself after my little witticism?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

    This is especially of interest to me in light of the fact you continually claim to be smarter than me.

  44. the sprout 44
    11 December 2007 at 5:10 pm

    perhaps he’s really living the dharma of his moniker?

  45. Billy 45
    11 December 2007 at 5:12 pm

    “As far as I know DPF has issued three “life time bans”, all to lefties. Robinsod, Robert Owen, Sam Dixon.”

    I don’t think Sam’s ban can be characterised as a ban for being a lefty. He did vandalise DPF’s Wiki entry in an anti-semetic way.

  46. The Double Standard 46
    11 December 2007 at 6:05 pm

    clarity, humour, arguments, sanity

    “Krazy – I though you were a Christian? You do know you’ll go to hell for that crack-whore habit you seem to have there?”

    “Yo dad- speaking of softeners, I’m starting to suspect your issues stem from long term impotence. A few difficulties downstairs dad? (the difficulties upstairs are obvious to everyone)”

    “Look Robert stay on thread – this is about Dad’s inability to achieve an erection.”

    “Settle down Dad – stress won’t help your situation. Have you tried a vacuum pump and a rubber-band?”

    “Bev – you’re missing so many apostrophes I don’t know where to start. Dis you actually pass school cert?” [actually that one is almost funny]

    “Dad – I just realised you said “spurt” – is that like a Freudian slip?”

    “You people remind me of holocaust deniers.”

    “Hey Dad – don’t talk to Bev like that. He has some special needs and we should tolerate and help him.”

    “So dad, how are your kids?”

    “Krazy – don’t you recall the phrase “an eye for an eye”? Oh and how’s the crack-whoring going?”

    Yeah, right.

  47. r0b 47
    11 December 2007 at 6:09 pm

    I don’t think Sam’s ban can be characterised as a ban for being a lefty.

    Of course not. It’s a pure coincidence that the three banned from KB just happen to be lefties. I see that now.

    Yeah Right.

    And as to the anti-semtic thing – I have not followed the saga. But I would have thought that on a blog where posters regularly compare Labour to Nazis, and accuse each other of pedophilia, and all the rest, that picking on any one particular incident is a trifle – precious?

    Face it. DPF censors political views that he disagrees with. End of story.

  48. The Double Standard 48
    11 December 2007 at 7:07 pm

    “Face it. DPF censors political views that he disagrees with. End of story.”

    No – he bans banned disruptive, abusive, wiki-vandalising types. The fact that all three happen to be leftists must be a political type thing.

  49. Dean 49
    11 December 2007 at 7:36 pm

    “TDS, I frankly can’t believe you’re trying to paint our treatment of Dad4Justice’s nonsensical spamming as a free speech issue. We have never banned or censored anyone for their political beliefs, even when they have been quite abusive at times. That is not our way and you know that very well.”

    What Tane said, TDS. Seriously, TDS, get the hell off your high horse.

  50. The Double Standard 50
    11 December 2007 at 8:20 pm

    High horse? heh

    I see you’ve fallen for Tane’s spin as well.

    I’m not banging on about free speech. I’m trying to work out what the limit is for banning here – that is all. Tane doesn’t want to answer that question though.

  51. the sprout 51
    11 December 2007 at 8:26 pm

    oh, a “boundary pusher”. how fascinating.
    i’m with Dean on this one.

  52. The Double Standard 52
    11 December 2007 at 9:14 pm

    “i’m with Dean on this one.”

    What – ignoring the obvious?

    Did you enjoy Robbo’s charming witticisms pasted above?

    I guess its good that you have stopped trying to defend the indefensible.

  53. r0b 53
    11 December 2007 at 9:23 pm

    I guess its good that you have stopped trying to defend the indefensible.

    Which apparently you will never do TDS. I do admire your tenacity. DPF censors political views that he disagrees with. Why is that so hard to accept? Why does it bother you so?

  54. Dean 54
    11 December 2007 at 9:46 pm

    “I see you’ve fallen for Tane’s spin as well.”

    So, anyone that agrees with Tane with anything at all ever is falling for his spin?
    What a boring world you choose to live in. What colour is the sky there? A sort of greyish-black with just a tine of red, caused by rampant unionists and members of the Labour party burning the money they take from you in taxes?

    You know as well as I do that D4Js rantings are nothing short of crappy trolling mixed in with a healthy dollop of just plain bullshit.

    You can argue all you want that you’re just trying to see what’s bannable and what’s not, but the moment you try and pretend D4Js missives from the pulpit of stupidity are somehow a contentious point is the moment you’re looking like just another hack.

  55. the sprout 55
    11 December 2007 at 11:07 pm

    dean i can’t say i always agree with you but i’ll read your posts a bit more carefully in future

  56. Robinsod 56
    11 December 2007 at 11:17 pm

    So TDS – thanks for the walk down memory lane (I’d forgotten how fuckin funny I am) . You’ve still not answered my question, and I’ve been asking it for weeks:

    DS – tell you what I’ll answer your question if you answer the one I asked first:

    Why did you name yourself after my little witticism?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

    This is especially of interest to me in light of the fact you seem to approach my wt with disdain. So um, are you gonna answer or just dissemble?

  57. The Double Standard 57
    12 December 2007 at 7:29 am

    Geez Dean, do you need to go back to skool?

    Here’s what I said about D4J above

    ‘I don’t object to you banning D4J, but to dress it up as an “illness” is a bit cheap. At least you might get off your high horse about similar “censorship” of the incoherent and abusive posters at KB. I think D4J is banned there right now too.’

    My point is that now that Tane is banning abusive and disruptive posters, so it would seem hypocritical to carp on about KB doing exactly the same.

  58. Robinsod 58
    12 December 2007 at 8:12 am

    TDS – Get a life you moron – you’re starting to look as relevant as dad. Now, are you gonna answer my question?

  59. r0b 59
    12 December 2007 at 8:42 am

    My point is that now that Tane is banning abusive and disruptive posters, so it would seem hypocritical to carp on about KB doing exactly the same.

    If KB banned abusive and disruptive posters they would lose 1/4 of their membership. But they don’t. They ban lefties that DPF doesn’t like.

    I repeat my questions above TDS. Why is that so hard to accept? Why does it bother you so?

  60. Matthew Pilott 60
    12 December 2007 at 9:22 am

    Look team, when someone posts a comment from a right-wing viewpoint, it clearly isn’t incoherent, abusive, offensive or disruptive.

    If you are not intelligent enough to see TDS’ point here then I suggest you go back to school.

    Feminazi, for example, is neither incorrect not could it be construed as anti-semetic, (ain’t that right Billy. I mean if it was slightly anti-semetic, well, DPF would have pounced upon it like a tiger. Right, Billy? No-one says that on Kiwiblog do they? Coz Farrar sure wouldn’t put up with it, anti-semitism is the same coming from the right or left, right?) and therefore acceptable on kiwiblog.

    Referring to Labour as the Labia party, to give another example, is productive, descriptive and not abusive in the slightest. This is what TDS means when he says that only abusive and disruptive posters are banned. Only the left can be offensive, so Farrar does treat the left and right just the same.

    It’s not the right’s fault that no matter how abusive, disruptive, offensive or incoherent they are, they’re not incoherent, abusive, offensive or disruptive.

    Geddit?

  61. r0b 61
    12 December 2007 at 9:27 am

    “Geddit?”

    Ahhh! Thank you Matthew! Yes – all is clear to me now! Black is white. White is black. 2 2 = 5. I love Big Brother!

  62. The Double Standard 62
    12 December 2007 at 11:56 am

    Well, if it gives you guys a thrill to imagine that robbo is banned from KB for his “left wing views” and not the kind comments I quoted above (and remember those are the ones that *weren’t* deleted) then feel free to carry on.

    It’ll be interesting to look back on this thread next time some gets banned here.

  63. The Double Standard 63
    12 December 2007 at 11:58 am

    Matthew

    So you think Robert, Robbo, and Sam should be allowed to continue to post whatever they like at KB. Well, what is wrong with D4J doing the same here?

  64. Robinsod 64
    12 December 2007 at 12:04 pm

    DFPDblStdClaws:

    Once again your handle is lifted from my wee joke. Why?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

    You know you’re starting to look evasive, bro.

  65. Matthew Pilott 65
    12 December 2007 at 12:27 pm

    TDS, you have completely and deliberately missed the point.

    “So you think Robert, Robbo, and Sam should be allowed to continue to post whatever they like at KB. Well, what is wrong with D4J doing the same here?”

    I’ll make it easy for you (although it’s not like you don’t already know exactly what we all mean, and know we’re right, but persist in your style of tring to pretend you have apoint…) but if those comments were made by a right wing poster then they would be still going, and would have probably evolved to making comments that are genuinely offensive, and not humerous.

    I.e. what they have done isn’t ban-worthy given the standard of the bog. A lot worse is forgiven, but only if you meet one particular criteria. Care to guess what that is?

    And you know it’s true. If not, then I suggest to all that TDS doesn’t read Kiwiblog or is neurotically unable to recognise offensice comments that come from the right. Just like someone else…

    I doubt you’ll admit to the distinction, but it’s very obvious to everyone despite your transparent attempts to hide the real issue. You’re not very good at it BTW.

  66. the sprout 66
    12 December 2007 at 12:32 pm

    he is good at wasting the attention and key-strokes of the sane though.

  67. Matthew Pilott 67
    12 December 2007 at 12:35 pm

    Ah, worth it to make sure everyone knows he’s supremely dim.

  68. r0b 68
    12 December 2007 at 12:38 pm

    And besides, highlighting the hypocrisy of free speech campaigner DPF censoring dissenting voices on his blog just never gets old for me….

  69. the sprout 69
    12 December 2007 at 12:41 pm

    ok, there’s the entertainment angle then

  70. The Double Standard 70
    12 December 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Here’s a little exercise for you lads

    Step 1. Create a new ID on KB
    Step 2. Post a few right-wingy comments
    Step 3. Post a comment calling Farrar a fat cunt
    Step 4. Claim that someone else used your account

    And see if you get banned

  71. Matthew Pilott 71
    12 December 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Here’s an exercise for you TDS:

    Step 1. Create a new ID on KB
    Step 2. Make a few right wing comments
    Step 3. Start comparing Labour to the Nazi Party, and persistently make racist, sexist, bigoted and homophobic remarks about the party’s membership, voting base and leadership, in each and every thread, whether it has anything to do with the topic at hand or not.

    And see if you get banned. Because you won’t.

    As for your experiment, I doubt you would get banned if you were sufficiently right-wing.

    Looking at it objectively, a right winger wouldn’t be likely to make that comment, as they are likely to support Farrar. It is more believeable that someone on the left would make such a comment, as they would disagree with Farrar.

    Therefore the right-winger would recieve benefit of the doubt, the left-winger clearly wouldn’t as we have seen! (although I did miss that comment, wish I’d seen it in context…)

    So that wee experiment wouldn’t show much I’m afraid, flawed methodology.

  72. the sprout 72
    12 December 2007 at 3:39 pm

    pilott you and your pesky empirical realites

  73. The Double Standard 73
    12 December 2007 at 4:05 pm

    Objectively?

    Lol Why don’t you try it and see. Then come back here and start whining about how mean everyone is.

    Alternatively, try the same thing to RB at PAS – and see how you get on.

    Left wing censorship – will never happen right?

    Spout – who appointed you to the peanut gallery?

  74. Matthew Pilott 74
    12 December 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Because I don’t want to call Farrar something entirely nasty. Standards and all that. However if you think about it, I go in to bat hard for the right, and then come out with an insult like that – he’s going to assume it wasn’t me.

    Try let me paint you a picture – do you think Craig Ranapia, Whale Oil or Pascal would be blocked if they said it and then said someone had used their accounts. Honestly, just think about it!

  75. robert owen 75
    12 December 2007 at 5:34 pm

    I would like it place on record that
    I do not think that DPF is a short fat bald Tory C**T

    He is after all an, independent commentator

    Grabs coat and dissapears

  76. The Double Standard 76
    12 December 2007 at 7:06 pm

    “he’s going to assume it wasn’t me.’

    See, there is a difference that you need an account to post at KB, so the convenient excuse of “someone else used my name” doesn’t apply.

    Go, on, make a new account and give it a go!