Tail-spin

73 comments on “Tail-spin ”

• Comments are now closed

1. burt 1

   23 February 2008 at 11:27 am

   Tail spin

   When I say the title of this post I though ‘Wow – the standard are being honest about the latest opinion poll’. But no… it’s just a continuation of the same attack with no substance stuff, probably the same attack with no substance stuff that is helping the tail spin for Labour in the polls.

   Keep it up guys, I do wonder if it’s just a coincidence that Labour’s poll results have plummeted since you guys started showing the world just how venal and out of touch with reality myopic Labour supporters are.

   There is a great letter to the editor in todays Dom-Post. “Labour – ‘do as I say’ party” – You guys should read it.
2. Concerned from Tawa 2

   23 February 2008 at 11:46 am

   The only people floundering behind the scenes are Labour and you guys (well they’re the one and the same…) You can spin all you like on Key, but no one is listening. That this inexperienced stumbling guy can leave Clark and Labour so low in the polls is a testimony to how utterly fed up NZ now is with this government. As for “The lines show a party that has gone into damage control. This is one story they’re desperate to shut down.” You can’t be seriously talking about National and Key. Clark, Owen and the cash-for-honours farce? Tail spin indeed. Captcha: sore establish
3. Wayne 3

   23 February 2008 at 11:50 am

   I find it interesting National’s had to resort to so many different lines if there’s nothing to this story. There will be plenty going on behind the scense, I’ll bet you that much. This story is just beginning.
4. burt 4

   23 February 2008 at 11:56 am

   Wayne

   The “so many different lines” angle is one that should not be touted about too loudly by the left. How many different stories did we hear about Benson-Pope and Setchell (sp?), how many different lines have we heard about Owen Glenn and his big money influence on the Labour party… (the list goes on – shall I continue?)

   By running with the “different stories = lies” angle you are simply reminding people that Labour are up to their eye balls in a real scandal while this made up and out of context fiasco of BS is a non starter.

   Only a complete idiot would believe that Key wants wages to fall in NZ, how many times has he said higher wages (and lower taxes) are luring people to Aussie ?
5. Inventory2 5

   23 February 2008 at 12:08 pm

   Nice try fellas, but the BIG news today is the widening gap between National and Labour. Sheesh, even Tracey Watkins thinks it’s a bridge too far for the PM.
6. Whaleoil 6

   23 February 2008 at 12:21 pm

   Let’s get this really straight: it’s almost two weeks since the Glenn scandal came out and almost a week since the story broke big time in the MSM and this is the best smear against John Key you can come up with? If I was Helen I’d be asking all_your_base and H2 to resign.
7. Chemist Peter 7

   23 February 2008 at 12:26 pm

   53% is real floundering ah!
   The internal mood in Liarbor must be grim at present , more so than the nats.
8. burt 8

   23 February 2008 at 1:06 pm

   Whaleoil

   You are such a funny guy, Helen Clark asking people to resign… ha ha ha.

   You know as well as anyone that she will tell the public to move on a million times before she enforces any accountability on her own team. (Can we still call the Labour party a team ?)
9. Robinsod 9

   23 February 2008 at 1:18 pm

   Hey Whale you never explained why your company went into liquidation or whether Davey is running Curia out of National party HQ – care to comment now?
10. James Kearney 10

    23 February 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Whale- it’s not a smear if it’s true. Are you still photoshopping the faces of schoolchildren onto gay porn?
11. sweetd 11

    23 February 2008 at 2:14 pm

    poor form lads, play the ball not the man
12. Nick C 12

    23 February 2008 at 2:15 pm

    The desperation is definatly showing. The silence on this blog about the whole Owen Glenn saga and the latest poll results is defining, and this is the best they can come up with?!? What a joke, no one actually cares about those comments and Labour is going down in 2008.
13. sweetd 13

    23 February 2008 at 2:16 pm

    also, why do my comments get held for moderation? Am I caught up in your D4J drift net?

    [lprent: I’m afraid so. working on it]
14. Tane 14

    23 February 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Nick there have been two articles on the Owen Glenn beatup:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1170
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1158

    So that’s silence accusation dealt with.

    We will be covering the polls at some stage, but it’s the weekend so it might take a while. We do this in our spare time and on a voluntary basis, so you look a bit shrill to be demanding we post on everything straight away, and in a quantity you’re happy with.
15. Tane 15

    23 February 2008 at 2:22 pm

    I don’t see any attacking the man sweetd, Steve’s just exposing National’s internal lines on this issue and giving his interpretation of what it means.
16. Whaleoil 16

    23 February 2008 at 2:37 pm

    “We do this in our spare time and on a voluntary basis, so you look a bit shrill to be demanding we post on everything straight away, and in a quantity you’re happy with.”

    Oh go on pull the other on. Yes two posts on the supposed beat-up and 4 million posts on John Key. Sheesh you guys need to see a doctor about a classic case of KDS.
17. Tane 17

    23 February 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Yeah, we’re a blog written by people dedicated to advancing the wider labour movement. Why wouldn’t there be quite a few posts critiquing National and Key? Look at any right-wing blog and you’ll see the same volume of posts critiquing Labour and Clark, only with more bigotry and sexism.

    Now take a look at your own site Whale – what’s with those pictures of Helen Clark photoshopped onto a topless woman and suckling Winston Peters and Peter Dunne? Now there’s a sick obsession if ever I saw one…
18. Whaleoil 18

    23 February 2008 at 2:54 pm

    An entirely accurate satirical portrayal of the current government support arrangements. Not unlike the arrangement between Poland and Angela Merkel from where I obtained the idea.
19. Ex Labour Voter 19

    23 February 2008 at 3:18 pm

    This is preposterous. Tail-spin? Name five media outlets that have covered this story since the Standard and the left-wing blogs have been lying in unison over it in the last week.

    Have some perspective, Steve. 23 points ahead in the polls, in polls that haven’t yet included this most disastrous week for Labour, and you’re saying the Nats are in tailspin? Crikey.

    This line isn’t working, Steve. Try harder. Nobody’s listening to your silliness anymore. You’re so amusingly desperate. What next from the Standard? “I saw a National MP have bacon with his eggs at breakfast last week. It’s no wonder Muslims and Jews don’t vote for National, with that kind of callous bigotry. There goes the Muslim and Jewish votes.”

    Just because it’s all that the Standard can talk about doesn’t make it an issue.
20. Barnsley Bill 20

    23 February 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Your comment that nationals action look like a party in damage control are a joke surely?
    As I am the only person to comment on here that A. Lives in kerikeri. And B actually went to the Key presentation I will add my two pennorth.
    It was never said, he was warmly received despite the fact he said bugger all. Not hard really, we are starved of visits by pollies up here unless you count Clark coming to the opening of envelopes or various labour people visiting Kaeo promising to help. Which of course they have not done as evidenced by the fact that Kaeo is flooded again today.
    I fully understand that you guys need to keep on message but you might be better employed beseeching your boss Andrew Little to get into parliament promptly. If ever labour needed fresh blood now is the day.
    Just a brief look at todays papers is enough to make a labour supporter shit blood. I might actually buy the Sunday papers this week to see what the socialist star times does to try and pull some back.
    And it can only get better this week, bauble boy returns from his african sojourn, Dail Jones the rabid homophobe (doesn’t MMP make strange bedfellows?) must be shitting himself, Winnie of course will screech that it is all the fault of the media.
21. Santi 21

    23 February 2008 at 3:37 pm

    “This is one story they’re desperate to shut down.”

    I’m sure you are talking about the latest opinion polls, aren’t you? Nothing less from the loyal minions at The Standard.
22. James Kearney 22

    23 February 2008 at 3:37 pm

    This story’s still in its early days Barnsley. Just wait and see. I doubt National would be scrambling for lines like this if they weren’t worried.
23. Robinsod 23

    23 February 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Hey Bill – I think it was on bfm that Key said he made the comment during an interview in a cafe which he and the head of the KDBA attended. For something that’s a non-story you seem to be pretty keen to comment.
24. Santi 24

    23 February 2008 at 3:41 pm

    “..we’re a blog written by people dedicated to advancing the wider labour movement.”

    Tane, when will you openly disclose your socialist partisanship? Nothing wrong with that, but at least have the decency of saying it.
25. Barnsley Bill 25

    23 February 2008 at 3:45 pm

    James, there is no story. There never was. What you have is a part time reporter for a 12 page advertising feature writing there notes down incorrectly. You guys are clutching at non existent straws.
    The simple fact is that labour are mortally wounded, up until xmas i believed that she could still turn things around. Not now, not ever. The lies, stealing and secret deals have caught up with Clark and co.
    They will be trading the white wash in for paper shredders by June.
    There is now no chance that they will roll her prior to the election but you can put your last fiver on Goff being the leader of the oppoaition by xmas.
26. outofbed 26

    23 February 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Have some perspective, Steve. 23 points ahead in the polls,

    Some perspective then
    Labour are about 7% down on there 2005 election night result
    The greens are slightly up
    The Nats haven’t discussed policy yet
    I would expect Labour to come within a couple of percent of its election night result.
    So labour support will probably be hold up to its almost its previous levels

    That’s not saying that The Nats won’t be the biggest party, they almost definitely will, however that won’t necessarily transform to gaining the Gov benches
27. outofbed 27

    23 February 2008 at 3:58 pm

    bloody tags
28. DS 28

    23 February 2008 at 5:07 pm

    “This story’s still in its early days Barnsley. Just wait and see. I doubt National would be scrambling for lines like this if they weren’t worried.”

    Exactly. National (helped, of course, by a media that seems to have taken neutrality lessons from Fox News) has been desperately trying to promote itself as being totally benign. A sort of loveable political clown as it were. It’s moments like Key’s wage comments (on top of his earlier screw-up on doctor’s fees) that reveal that the “loveable clown” is really John Wayne Gacey.
29. Spectator 29

    23 February 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Barnsley: “there is no story. There never was.”

    Keep on telling yourself that, and you may even begin believing it yourself. You’ll have a much harder road trying to get anyone else to believe it, though. “We would love to see wages drop” is a smoking gun on a par with Don Brash being caught lying about being in collusion with the Exclusive Brethren a matter of days before the last election.
30. Barnsley Bill 30

    23 February 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Spectator, I think you are dreaming the impossible dream. This is a non story, being promulgated by people (that would be you) who are so desperate that they will cling to any straw no matter how flimsy.
31. Adolf Fiinkensein 31

    23 February 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Phukt, I say,phukt. Try the Hussein remedy. Skulk in a dungeon until your necks are stretched and hope your heads don’t pop off for the video cameras.
32. Barnsley Bill 32

    23 February 2008 at 6:05 pm

    why was my last comment deleted?
33. Billy 33

    23 February 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Hey, Spectator. I think you are on to a massive consiracy. Remember when Key said he wanted to be the next Labour Party Prime Minister? He obviously meant that too.
34. Tim 34

    23 February 2008 at 7:16 pm

    The current magnitude of the story is irrelevant, but workers have the right to know what National’s policy on industrial relations is. National clearly has no concrete plan to increase wages. It does not care about workers.

    “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more” (sic) So that’s it? That doesn’t even make sense. People can’t “afford more” because of productivity, it just means that the output of a worker per unit worked increases. Unless there are ways to ensure workers get their fair share (such as collective bargaining) increased productivity just means increased profit for business, not increased wages.

    The low wage economy of the 1990s and the lack of investment is the reason for today’s need to increase productivity. National is responsible for that.

    Everybody’s talking about productivity, and its greatest proponent is probably the NZCTU (and the EPMU for that matter).

    National opposes collective bargaining and many other current legal protections for workers. It has no way of linking increase productivity to increased wages.

    Basically, National’s plan is to raise wages by removing legal protections for workers. It doesn’t make sense and workers should know what National’s real agenda is.
35. Dan 35

    23 February 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Barnsley Bill, you are dreaming. Not all NZers have the phone for polling! Your 23% is dreamland, So many people do not even hit the opinion poll radar. Clark and the Labour party are much closer to the average kiwi than the spoilt wanabees.

    Do not peak too soon Mr key. There is a long way to go yet.
36. mike 36

    23 February 2008 at 10:30 pm

    “Not all NZers have the phone for polling!”

    Sad eh Dan, maybe Helen can erect some cell phone towers in this 3rd world country…
37. Rich Prick 37

    23 February 2008 at 11:07 pm

    Err, 55% see ya all on the other side. Oh, and pretty much every one hates Helen too.
38. burt 38

    24 February 2008 at 12:47 am

    rOb

    please remember that we have the wee formality of the election to get done first!

    Coming from the ultimate defender of retrospective validation it’s priceless that you call it a wee formality, because that is what it is when it’s been purchased and validated – a formality.
39. burt 39

    24 February 2008 at 12:54 am

    rOb

    Sorry I forgot the magic words;

    … because that is what it is when it’s been purchased and validated – a formality – move on.
40. r0b 40

    23 February 2008 at 11:59 pm

    I’m glad you’re having a good time Rich Prick. But before you start measuring the beehive for drapes, please remember that we have the wee formality of the election to get done first!

    Oh and Helen? Win or lose the next one, her place in history as one of NZs great PMs is well assured. Good night.
41. r0b 41

    24 February 2008 at 7:32 am

    Well Burt, your verbal comprehension skills seem to be every bit as strong as your understanding of parliamentary procedure.

    As you’re fond of calling Helen a “lying bitch”, I rather think you’re blinded by your irrational hatred, don’t you? Toddle pip.
42. Santi 42

    24 February 2008 at 9:08 am

    “Clark and the Labour party are much closer to the average kiwi than the spoilt wanabees.”

    Really? Are you saying the average Kiwi is a socialist or at least a closeted socialist?

    Not a chance.
43. outofbed 43

    24 February 2008 at 9:28 am

    No the average Kiwi is a social democrat
44. burt 44

    24 February 2008 at 11:38 am

    Speaking of tail-spins.

    Tane

    You posted this a while back:
    Tane assures us the EFA will not effect the trade unions

    I was reading the Sunday Socialist Times and Matthew Hooton (Opinion: A11) seems to entirely back what DPF was saying.

    CAPTCHA frock expert
45. DS 45

    24 February 2008 at 12:58 pm

    “I was reading the Sunday Socialist Times and Matthew Hooton (Opinion: A11) seems to entirely back what DPF was saying.”

    Hooton and DPF are both Tory activists.
46. Adolf Fiinkensein 46

    24 February 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Here’s a question for party president Irish Bill. How many other interest free loans do you have and from whom? Come on, fess up now. All in the interests of transparency.
47. Scribe 47

    24 February 2008 at 1:33 pm

    let’s get this straight: it’s almost two months since the article came out and almost a week since the story broke and these are the best lines they can come up with?

    How about the fact it took the Labour Party strategists two months to find anything they could use to try to discredit John Key and avoid the impending defeat of humiliating proportions.
48. burt 48

    24 February 2008 at 2:26 pm

    DS

    Hooton and DPF are both Tory activists.

    OK, I’m not going to argue with you, however it’s not about playing the man, there is a ball in this game. Do you think their claims stack up against Tane’s? Did you read the article? Do you have anything to say about Hooton’s reasoning?
49. the sprout 49

    24 February 2008 at 4:07 pm

    nice feed on the National Party lines – we could do with more of those.
    and yes, i’d ask Cosby Textor for my money back too.
50. burt 50

    24 February 2008 at 4:21 pm

    rOb

    That quote you posted. Immediately before it.

    The loan was listed in the Labour Party’s accounts as “loan from supporter”. It is unlikely the source would have become public when the party presents its annual return of donations because the foregone interest will be less than the $10,000 level requiring declaration.

    Now what were you saying about transparency? Is it a selective thing?

    Also I’d like to see any organisation negotiate a non secured loan of $100K for less than 15% interest. It’s very convenient that the interest calculates to less than the threshold… It’s about transparency isn’t it…. Come get honest, this is typical “Labour good – National bad” stuff. If National calculated the interest (for donation purposes) at a rate that was unachievable in the current market Labour would be all over them….
51. burt 51

    24 February 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Once again, on the topic of tail-spins.

    Fran O’Sullivan: All bets are off on Monaco

    Oh dear oh dear;

    National MP Richard Worth, who is Monaco’s representative here, has pressed the Government for several years to appoint a consul.

    Former Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff repeatedly said such an appointment did not fit with New Zealand’s priorities in the world.

    But the Government is now reassessing this stance after discussions between Prime Minister Helen Clark and Labour Party president Mike Williams on the potential appointment of major party donor Owen Glenn to the role.
52. the sprout 52

    24 February 2008 at 4:40 pm

    i’d rather be going into a NZ election as the underdog than as a party “with enough votes to govern alone”.
53. burt 53

    24 February 2008 at 5:03 pm

    DS

    That story os now online via stuff:
    Electoral act catches union

    Tane – You guys supported this legislation ?
54. r0b 54

    24 February 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Adolf: Come on, fess up now. All in the interests of transparency.

    I’m very glad you’re into transparency Adolf. I’m into transparency. So is the Labour Party. National is not. John Armstrong summarises in The Herald:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10494053&pnum=2

    Nevertheless, it should be noted Labour is the only party in Parliament willing to allow public perusal of its annual audited accounts.

    Neither – unlike National – has it used special trusts through which to channel donations and thus avoid disclosing the source.

    So Adolf, you better get on to National about opening its accounts. Please let us know how you get on. All in the interests of transparency. Or – are you just a hypocrite?
55. burt 55

    24 February 2008 at 5:21 pm

    rOb

    I’m not joining Colin in that call. If Labour choose to open their books then good on them. However in the same way that if not declaring the name of the person who donated the interest from their interest free loan is not required because it (coincidently) is below the legal threshold level is valid, then not publishing audited accounts is valid if it’ not a legal requirement.

    How can you hide behind the “there was legal requirement” so it was OK they were not planning to disclose it and also suggest National have something to hide for not disclosing their books when there is no legal obligation?

    However I’d like to see National’s books – I’m just not partisan enough to insist they meet standards that others are not prepared to meet themselves.
56. burt 56

    24 February 2008 at 5:23 pm

    ooops

    How can you hide behind the “there was nolegal requirement’…
57. the sprout 57

    24 February 2008 at 5:25 pm

    with all the lame hypocrisy of a true National man Burt
58. burt 58

    24 February 2008 at 5:28 pm

    rOb

    It’s also pretty easy to offer up an audited set of accounts when you can simply retrospectively validate any stuff in them that makes them illegal. I guess I’d publish my private companies books for the world to see if I simply validate spending my tax money on my advertising.
59. r0b 59

    24 February 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Now what were you saying about transparency? Is it a selective thing?

    Yes Burt, it’s a very selective thing. Labour is the only party in parliament that allows public perusal of its accounts. The world knows that Labour got a loan, and can ask questions about it.

    The world doesn’t know if National has had loans, because their accounts are not open.

    If you are concerned about the transparency of Labour’s funding, then you must be even more concerned about National. Anything else is rank hypocrisy. Even the media is waking up to this:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national

    So how about it Burt. Are you going to be calling for National to open their books? Or is this just another example of your infantile National good, Labour bad .
60. burt 60

    24 February 2008 at 5:38 pm

    rOb

    The worst kind of hypocrite is one who claims that the interest would have been calculated at a rate lower then the OCR. Now that’s a classic example of cooking the books and spinning the facts to suit the law that you are trying to pretend you are working within – just how are these kinds of books audited – by the goodfish ?

    Enjoy the beach.
61. r0b 61

    24 February 2008 at 4:39 pm

    For those that don’t click on the link, Colin tells it like it is:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national

    It’s time for National to put its mouth where its money is.
    After a week of climbing into Labour boots and all over the Owen Glenn saga, one thing has become abundantly clear: the Nats have lost any defence of their right to keep their own campaign donations secret.

    It is the height of hypocrisy for National to claim, as both its leader John Key and deputy Bill English have done this week, that “Labour’s relationship with its largest donor looks very murky indeed’ when National’s own relationship with its donors is not so much murky as totally hidden.

    So Burt, Adolf, are you joining Colin in calling for National to open its books? If not, why not?
62. r0b 62

    24 February 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Burt, stop avoiding the question. It makes you look furtive. Are you joining Colin in calling for National to open its books? If not, why not?
63. r0b 63

    24 February 2008 at 5:30 pm

    So Burt, so sum up:

    (1) you are all over Labour to declare details that it is not legally required to

    (2) you will not apply the same level of scrutiny to National (which is much less open than Labour)

    (3) you like to call Helen Clark a “lying bitch”

    I can only conclude that you are the worst kind of hypocrite, capable of nothing more than a national good, labour bad contribution to the debate. Sadly, it is here for all to see.

    I think I’ll go to the beach. Goodbye, Burt.
64. John 64

    24 February 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Crikey is this the best you can come up with vs National and Key looks like the election is lost for LABOUR already
65. Robinsod 65

    24 February 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Burt – that’s weak. Even by your standards.
66. Rich Prick 66

    24 February 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Adolf, is Irish Bill one and the same as the lying fat slug the Labour Party calls its president? Not that I care with them at 32% and falling. And Helen universally loathed. Loveing it.
67. r0b 67

    24 February 2008 at 11:04 pm

    Riceh Pricek, so glad you’re having a good time. Have you any other words of wisdom for the undecided voters reading this blog?
68. Phil 68

    25 February 2008 at 9:30 am

    what makes you think anyone reading this blog would be an ‘undecided/not-sure’?
69. r0b 69

    25 February 2008 at 10:30 am

    Phil – Because I know some of them.
70. Phil 70

    25 February 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Sure, just like EWS “knows” people in Wellington, and ELV “knows” lots of former Labour voters who are crossing the floor.
71. r0b 71

    25 February 2008 at 3:32 pm

    OK Phil, sure, I’m sure you know better than me.

Links to post

1. The deafening silence at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 25 February 2008 at 10:04 am
2. Transcript proves Key is lying at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 25 February 2008 at 11:59 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS