Nats spending your money to build “Brand Key”?

72 comments on “Nats spending your money to build “Brand Key”? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco TB 1

   7 July 2008 at 5:48 pm

   Now this is going to be interesting. Can’t wait to see where it leads…

   Captcha: Account Police – sounds like they could be needed 8)
2. travellerev 2

   7 July 2008 at 7:08 pm

   Ah, this just gets better and better. LOL
3. Anita 3

   7 July 2008 at 8:32 pm

   So National are using as disreputable company as Crosby/Textor and getting the taxpayer to pay for it. Assuming that they were aware they might get caught, what were they thinking?

   Are they so sure they’re going to win that they’re willing to take this kind of risk in an attempt to get an outright majority?

   Do they think they are entitled? That somehow being on the opposition benches entitles them to cheat?

   Are they so used to the greys of politics that they have lost sight of moral black and white? Well, except as can be used to their PR advantage.

   Are they so confident of their ability to spin that they were sure they could cloud the issue?

   Finally, why use their PS allocation for this? What’re the spending the rest of their money on? What not run invoices as controversial as this through the party?
4. Robinsod 4

   7 July 2008 at 8:36 pm

   Maybe they are keeping party funds back for legal challenges/snap election expenses next year – y’know just in case things don’t turn out how they expect. Again.
5. vto 5

   7 July 2008 at 8:47 pm

   Hey, you’re stealing their policies!

   flip flop!
6. Lew 6

   7 July 2008 at 8:58 pm

   Anita: “Assuming that they were aware they might get caught, what were they thinking?”

   That the electorate might not care. This does seem a bit overconfident, but so far the electorate doesn’t seem to care.

   “That somehow being on the opposition benches entitles them to cheat?”

   It’s not a sport governed by a sportsmanlike code of honour. It’s just not cricket. It’s not even beach cricket!

   “Are they so confident of their ability to spin that they were sure they could cloud the issue?”

   I reckon so.

   “Finally, why use their PS allocation for this? What’re the spending the rest of their money on?”

   Can’t answer this. I can only answer what they seem to not be spending their money on, and that’s policy.

   Raises an interesting issue, though: since the Auditor-General ruled that Parliamentary Services money (specifically from the leader’s budget) couldn’t be spent on electioneering, National clearly consider the employment of Crosby/Textor to not be electioneering. At this stage I’d agree it isn’t – but the campaign is yet at a simmer. I wonder if this is a possible avenue for challenge – either in the courts or in the court of public opinion?

   L
7. Murray 7

   7 July 2008 at 10:08 pm

   [lprent: Banned I believe..
8. r0b 8

   7 July 2008 at 10:42 pm

   Finally, why use their PS allocation for this?

   Well it worked pretty well for them last election, so why change? Spend the money early on something with no tangible product to be challenged, avoid any audit associated with the months before the election, then get stuck in to any other party that spends their PS money on any kind of communication with the electorate.

   It’s an option available only to a party with plenty of private money to spend. Shut down the other voices any way you can. Brilliant in a way, if you care only about winning, and nothing about democracy.
9. lprent 9

   7 July 2008 at 10:59 pm

   Hey – now Whale really has something to sink his teeth into. He seems to really dislike parties rorting public monies.

   I think I’ll watch his blog for a few days to ask him when the big story of the election starts… Unless of course he doesn’t really mean what he says?

   For that matter – DPF?
10. LabourSucks 10

    7 July 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Heres the thing. I don’t care. I don’t really think much of National but I will vote for them at the next election because I absolutely loathe Labour and the Greens. For me, the tipping point was the ludicrous anti-smacking bollix. I don’t need the government to tell me how to raise my children. Then theres all the anti-smoking bullshit. Not only that, but Labours hidden agendas such as civil unions and legalised whoredom have turned me against them as well. They had no mandate from the people for any of this liberal rubbish. Come November they will be gone, because the election is now Nationals to lose. Goodbye to Labour and the awful Helen Clark. Into the dustbin of history you go, theres a good socialist.

    [lprent: Look – another stamped out of the mould troll – but this one is better educated – it can use capitals. I like trolls. Mostly I like banning them for idiotic behavior.]
11. r0b 11

    8 July 2008 at 12:17 am

    For me, the tipping point was the ludicrous anti-smacking bollix.

    Bad news sweetheart, National voted for that too!
12. Steve Pierson 12

    8 July 2008 at 12:28 am

    Why not vote for a party whose policies you actually support? Sounds like the Kiwi Party is right up your alley.
13. leftrightout 13

    8 July 2008 at 9:37 am

    I wonder if police will be investigating the venting system at Parliament to see if Nicky Harger might have been able to sneak in (like in Mission Impossible) and pay the invoices without National knowing. After all he can hack impenetrable government computers.
14. LabourSucks 14

    8 July 2008 at 10:48 am

    So anybody who disagrees with you is a troll? Is that how it works? As for voting for a party whose policies I support, well, unfortunately there isn’t one.

    [lprent: Nope, there are a lot of people on here who disagree with both me and the party I support. Some of them write posts, some comment, and some moderate. Hell – I disagree with almost everyone including the people that I agree with.

    What we do tend to agree on is that people who cannot argue a point, don’t have a sense of humour, and just throw up the same old tired lines over and over again – can be called Trolls. What I have determined (after a long and careful investigation) is that I don’t like mindless trolls. My rule of thumb is that if I could build a program to replicate a persons comments with a phrase dictionary and a randomisation function – then I treat them as a troll.

    To date you’ve thrown up an opinion rant which I’ve seen many times before with no backing evidence or argument about why these things are wrong or even if they are correct.

    So as you can see, the solution for you is simple. Write something that convinces me you aren’t a bad program that needs substantial debugging. Show me that there is some intelligence there somewhere. Otherwise your life span here gets very short.]
15. LabourSucks 15

    8 July 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Well, it was just my own opinion, thats all.

    [lprent: It looked more like an opinion for whales blog. Have a look around here and you’ll find the ‘standard’ is higher (chortle – now I wonder who is going to argue about that statement).]
16. LabourSucks 16

    8 July 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Haha, a bit thin skinned aren’t ya mate?
17. Steve Pierson 17

    8 July 2008 at 4:13 pm

    LabourSucks. Anyone is welcome to comment if they make intelligent comments but three things tend to wreck threads

    – commentators who hurl mindless abuse
    – commentators ranting or repeating slogans without any thoughtful argument
    – commentators who get all egotistical

    If you want to comment in one of those styles, please take it to kiwiblog.

    By clamping down on it here, we get much better threads and that encourages more people to participate who would stay silent if the thread was full of the above.
18. barnsleybill 18

    8 July 2008 at 4:21 pm

    “Nat’s spending your money to build brand Key.”
    Great title for the thread lads.
    In light of todays revelations about this blog we can rest easy in the knowledge that “Labour is spending your money to destroy brand Key.’
    Unless DPF and WhaleOil are lying of course.
19. bill brown 19

    8 July 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Well I know who I’m more likely to trust (and it isn’t a pornographer and his mate).
20. Steve Pierson 20

    8 July 2008 at 4:34 pm

    We receive no funding from Labour or any organisation. The only cost is the $160 a month Lynn pays for the server.

    Word is, Lynn once stole a leprechaun’s gold and pays for the server out of that.
21. barnsleybill 21

    8 July 2008 at 4:37 pm

    bill brown, they have written some fairly comprehensive posts today outing some of the posters here as paid bloggers and it appears some of them are funded by the tax payer. They are fairly serious allegations and probably deserve a response.
22. LabourSucks 22

    8 July 2008 at 4:38 pm

    So basically you are recommending posting at kiwiblog because… you are opposed to free speech. Ok then.
23. barnsleybill 23

    8 July 2008 at 4:39 pm

    That may well be the case steve (or whatever your name is [it’s Clinton Smith]) But can you answer this question?
    Are you or any of your fellow posters employed by parliamentary services? If yes, is it okay for any of you to be blogging on publicly owned equipment while drawing a taxpayer funded salary?

    [Tane: No, we receive no taxpayer funding or assistance. This blog is run voluntarily by activists in their own time and our opinions are our own.]
24. Dilip 24

    8 July 2008 at 4:42 pm

    How many people have the standard banned now lprent?
25. higherstandard 25

    8 July 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Here is a list of things about which I do not care.

    I do not care that National utilise C/T and have done so for many years.

    I do not care if the Standard is or isn’t manned by public servants and in cahoots with Labour. (It’s a blog lighten up people)

    I do not care if the posters and commenters on this site blog on occasion during work time (- so do I – a bit of a break every now and then is quite pleasant).
26. barnsleybill 26

    8 July 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Tane, you are being slippery. The question I asked was are any of your posters employed by parliamentary services? In light of the title of this post I believe the question is on topic and germane to the argument.
27. Steve Pierson 27

    8 July 2008 at 4:48 pm

    LabourSucks. I’m opposed to crap speech – we want to provide a forum for intelligent debate from all angles and views. we don’t have to provide a forum for insults, mindless slogans etc if we don’t want to, and we don’t.
28. Steve Pierson 28

    8 July 2008 at 4:50 pm

    barsnelybill. We’re not going to go through every name or organisation you can list. We are not funded by the taxpayer or any organisation, nor are we directed or controlled by any other organisation. we are individuals writing as individuals and that’s that.
29. T-rex 29

    8 July 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Are you or any of your fellow posters employed by parliamentary services? If yes, is it okay for any of you to be blogging on publicly owned equipment while drawing a taxpayer funded salary?

    That is such a weak attack barnsley. Why should parliamentary services employees using publicly owned equipment drawing a taxpayer funded salary be any more culpable than someone doing the same thing for a privately owned company?

    Yes, it’s ok. So long as they’re still doing their jobs to a reasonable standard I couldn’t give a damn. You might claim they’re not doing them as well as they could if they gave them their undivided attention, but the same is true of every person who checks out some auctions on trademe while at work. The secratary at Price Waterhouse playing solitaire is increasing the cost of your accounting services just as much as a public services employee writing on a weblog is increasing your tax spend.

    If they’re underperforming they’ll get fired, and if they’re not then you’ve got no basis for complaint. Unless their job description and recognised role is “political blogger” then it’s irrelevant where and for whom they work.

    —

    Good job with the name there ‘Labour Sucks’. Did you think that up all by yourself or did your dog help you?
30. barnsleybill 30

    8 July 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Steve, you wrote; “we want to provide a forum for intelligent debate from all angles and views. we don’t have to provide a forum for insults, mindless slogans etc if we don’t want to, and we don’t.”

    Good for you, we agree on that point at least. I tired of the vitriol quite some time ago (unless it is aimed at roger nome).
    However, you guys are constantly having a crack at DPF for his self confessed links to national but remain hidden in the shadows. Today’s revelations about the employment status of some of your posters is relevant to this post and deserves a response.
    Surely you can see you lay yourselves open to accusations of hypocrisy if indeed you have parliamentary services staffers posting anonymously and constantly attacking John key?
31. Dilip 31

    8 July 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Mr Pierson is it not coincidence that many of “individuals” who write for Standard also work in ministers office and for union office? If you say that then you say that exclusive brethren people were just “individuals” businessmen and just coincidence they are exclusive brethrens.

    [lprent: Have you read the About page?]
32. T-rex 32

    8 July 2008 at 4:54 pm

    higherstandard – we probably don’t have these moments all that often, but nevertheless…

    high five
33. Pascal's bookie 33

    8 July 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Yeah HS, I’ve given you a fair amount of stick, but well said.
    ( Apart the bit about c/t. That matters dammit 😉 )

    You are better sort of rightie than most in the blogosphere. Do you hang about at many RW blogs?
34. Steve Pierson 34

    8 July 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Dilip etc http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?page_id=2#who_are_you
35. higherstandard 35

    8 July 2008 at 5:07 pm

    TR and PB

    Funeral earlier today – tends to put things in perspective.

    As Lynn says on occasion rightie and leftie is all a bit misleading I think most people fall into each camp dependent on the specific areas under discussion (I do anyway).
36. barnsleybill 36

    8 July 2008 at 5:12 pm

    T-Rex.. You wrote;
    “That is such a weak attack barnsley. Why should parliamentary services employees using publicly owned equipment drawing a taxpayer funded salary be any more culpable than someone doing the same thing for a privately owned company?

    Yes, it’s ok. So long as they’re still doing their jobs to a reasonable standard I couldn’t give a damn. You might claim they’re not doing them as well as they could if they gave them their undivided attention, but the same is true of every person who checks out some auctions on trademe while at work. The secratary at Price Waterhouse playing solitaire is increasing the cost of your accounting services just as much as a public services employee writing on a weblog is increasing your tax spend.”

    But they are not bidding on dildo’s on trademe or playing solitaire are they?
    If they are parliamentary services staffers then they should say so. They are posting on an extreme left wing attack site in the course of their daily activities. Bit of a difference between trade me and the standard. I am sure they are doing their jobs to a very reasonable standard, however posting anonymously at the behest of their titular employer is an inference that is hard to avoid.
37. Dilip 37

    8 July 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Pardon me Mr Pierson I do not read where it say Standard has writings from people who work in prime minister office or union office on your website, this seems very important if you do write from prime minister office and people have right to know. I also ask earlier how many commenter people banned so far from standard Mr Pierson.
38. T-rex 38

    8 July 2008 at 5:26 pm

    But they are not bidding on dildo’s on trademe or playing solitaire are they?

    They might be – it’s a free country!

    Get your hand off it, this is not “an extreme attack site”.

    The conflict of interest that would exist for a public services staff member posting on a political blog is no greater than that of a private enterprise staffer doing the same.

    Like HS says, it’s a freaking blog. As long as they’re not getting paid to do it, and I don’t mean “vague association of interests” paid, I mean “boss asking how the blog posting is coming along and whether there’s been any progress, taken into consideration come salary review” paid, then they’ve got no obligation to disclose anything to you, and are commiting no offence under the EFA.

    It’s. A. Blog.

    If you don’t like how what gets said here makes you feel it might be a sign you should reconsider your own views. Protesting that it’s being said is just pathetic. Especially for someone who claims to value free speech so highly.
39. Steve Pierson 39

    8 July 2008 at 5:28 pm

    funny. I get emails every other day accusing us of not being leftwing enough.

    “however posting anonymously at the behest of their titular employer is an inference that is hard to avoid”

    and since that inference is entirely incorrect, you can see another reason why we don’t divulge names and occupations. No writer of The Standard writes on behalf of their employer or as a member of any organisation..
40. Dilip 40

    8 July 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Mr Pierson you do not let people make up own minds about inference because you hide it just like exclusive brethren said they are just six businessmen independent of church.
41. r0b 41

    8 July 2008 at 5:35 pm

    You have to hand it to some of these right wing nut jobs. They can’t debate the points, they can’t debate the policies, they can’t debate the data. But they sure are persistent in their personal attacks on the creators of The Standard.

    Bill – go water your flowers. Dilip – Steve is not obliged to answer your questions. You both are guests here. Get a life. And while you’re at it, read the about page:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?page_id=2

    I thank you. Goodnight.
42. lprent 42

    8 July 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Ah Dilip – exactly WHY do you have a RIGHT to know anything about this blog? Show me the legislation? Show me the common law? Show me the InternetNZ requirements? Hell show me any reason I should listen to you on this subject.

    Whale’s ‘evidence’ is just pathetic. You could have equally shown that people here were employees of the “Daily Show” on exactly the same basis.

    It seems to me that the writers are on the right line targeting the C/T links – The Nat’s lack of policy and Key. They must be worrying someone.
43. Dilip 43

    8 July 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Mr Prent please don’t be angry I just say the electral finance law say a blog is exempt if written by individual on non-commercial bases. Standard is not exempt from law. This is law Standard defend. Your argument say nobody has right to know who give money to political party or who campaign, but that was what elecral finance law fix. If there is blog from right winger group not individual who campaign from National Party office that is not exempt either and should register. I think maybe easier if Standard just honest about work in prime minister office and union office.
44. lprent 44

    8 July 2008 at 5:46 pm

    But they sure are persistent in their personal attacks on the creators of The Standard.

    Yeah, how many attempts have we had now? I’ve kind of lost count.
45. r0b 45

    8 July 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Yeah, how many attempts have we had now? I’ve kind of lost count.
    

    This is at least the third major wave of it that I remember. I’m not involved at all and I’m still heartily sick of it.

    Must be a sign that The Standard is doing good work I say. Onwards!
46. Pascal's bookie 46

    8 July 2008 at 5:53 pm

    ” however posting anonymously at the behest of their titular employer is an inference that is hard to avoid.”

    Hard to arrive at more like.

    And if you think this site is ‘extreme left’ you don’t know what either word means.

    And if this is an ‘attack site’ I guess Whaleoil’s little shothole must be a fully operational blog fncking death star.
47. barnsleybill 47

    8 July 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Sigh… How you decant “personal attacks” from politely worded questioning is beyond me. Have a look at the title of this post and then google “irony” guys.
    And as far as IPRENT’s asking “what right do any of us have to ask”..
    I completely agree. Your blog, your rules.
    I look forward to the conclusion of play at the end of November. Irrespective of the score at full time I hope that we can all get together, have a beer and shoot the 5hit about stuff other than politics.
48. lprent 48

    8 July 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Dilip: This blog has posts written by individuals on a non-commercial basis. Who their employer is, is just not relevant, as they write on their own behalf and on their own time.

    There is some question about multi-author blogs under the EFA. That is still being looked at by the electoral commission after a number of complaints against this and other sites.

    It will affect a number of sites if the EC’s decision is different from what I expect. If it is then I’ll adjust the site to conform with the ruling – probably more on the lines of Hardtalk. Depends on the decision.

    But all of that is moot since the cost of the site is just the cost of the server – now sitting at $160/month + the domain costs. This is paid by me. This also falls well below the $12k/year in the EFA. So it doesn’t have to even be declared under the EFA.

    So what are you talking about??
49. lprent 49

    8 July 2008 at 6:08 pm

    bb:

    I look forward to the conclusion of play at the end of November. Irrespective of the score at full time I hope that we can all get together, have a beer and shoot the 5hit about stuff other than politics.

    Maybe. But I’d still expect that most of the posters will still be anonymous as the site carries on. I’m old enough and skilled enough that it doesn’t really affect me what I wrote on a blog 20 years ago. But for the younger bods (which I infer from their writing) who do write here it is more of a consideration.

    I suspect the politics will carry on post election, but probably with more room for other things.

    Besides – politely worded? I had a look at DPF’s comment section. It looks like a list of every defective dickhead I’ve ever booted from here.
50. barnsleybill 50

    8 July 2008 at 6:20 pm

    With regard to the “politely worded” comment, I was referring to myself rather than the lot who have all bought rope and booked lamp posts for the ninth floor staffers IP.
51. Dilip 51

    8 July 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Mr Prent that is interesting and I hope electoral commission make decision soon because good to know what decision is. But there are other cost of blog as well not just host cost also cost of author time if they write from prime minister office for a lot of hours or union office for a lot of hours, could be more than twelve thousand dollar.
52. BoomTownPrat 52

    8 July 2008 at 6:28 pm

    lprent said

    “This blog has posts written by individuals on a non-commercial basis. Who their employer is, is just not relevant, as they write on their own behalf and on their own time.”

    substitute pamphlet for blog………..and religion for employer and waddaya got………..tada ” chinless scarf wearers.”

    Hollow, Hollow, Hypocrites
53. Dilip 53

    8 July 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Mr Prent if I am not wrong this post is about spin from National spend money on secret tool to make John Key look better, how is discussion of spin from labour spend money on secret tool to make John Key look bad from Standard? You want to know who is behind John Key and National because you think important to have accountability then why not make Standard accountable also and tell who secret spin machine writing Standard for labour party?
54. Steve Pierson 54

    8 July 2008 at 6:36 pm

    BoomTownBrat.

    The problem with the Excluive Brethern was that they and National had coordinated their campaigns to cirumvent National’s spending cap and tried to keep that relationship secret. There is no such arrangment between The Standard and any political party or other organisation.
55. Steve Pierson 55

    8 July 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Dilip. Writers write in their own time. Myself, I write in the morning or evening, and at lunchtime if something comes up. I do a few comments through the day but that’s nothing unusual, it’s just the same as you and most commentators are doing at work.
56. T-rex 56

    8 July 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Hey Prat,

    Substitue blog for pamphlet… yup. Then substitute employer for religion… umm… if you say so.

    Then we should probably substitute ‘independent initiative’ for ‘direct and repeated collusion’.

    Would probably be fair to also substitute “essentially nothing” for “several hundreds of thousands of dollars”.

    Oh yeah, and while we’re at it we should substitute “bunch of guys” for “avowed politically independent cult”.

    Fair bit of substitution really…

    Maybe you should go back to posting your pathetically desperate smear on your own godawful site like usual.
57. Tane 57

    8 July 2008 at 6:42 pm

    why not make Standard accountable also and tell who secret spin machine writing Standard for labour party?

    Becaues we don’t write spin, or anything, for the Labour Party. Many of us, including myself, don’t even vote for them. In fact, I find it quite insulting to be accused of writing spin for Labour given they’re so bloody dreadful at it.

    I know it’s hard for many on the right to understand, but we express our own individual opinions here and we do it because we believe in social democratic principles, not in pursuit of a pay cheque or on someone’s orders.

    Sure we have the odd contact here and there in politics and the media, but we certainly don’t have a line to Helen Clark or anyone even remotely close – I’d be surprised if she even knows who we are.

    All I can chalk this up to is another attempt from the right to shut down a blog they can’t match themselves.
58. Steve Pierson 58

    8 July 2008 at 6:46 pm

    I think people, including most journalists, do misunderstand what the problem with the EB was (just as they misunderstand what the problem with C/T is).

    The National-EB alliance was a secret alliance to circumvent National’s spending imits with a massive secret campaign. It doesn’t matter that it was the EB, it could have been the Rotary Club or the Herald – it was the secret conspiracy to circumvent the law and democratic process, not the actors that mattered.

    We have no secret alliance with anyone, we’re not out to circumvent electoral law (in fact, I strongly support it) and we believe in democratising the democratic process.
59. T-rex 59

    8 July 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Tane – your last sentence is it I think.

    It must drive them nuts that they can hire C/T and spend millions on focus groups and rebranding and they still get ripped to sh*t by people messing around in their spare time.

    I can just imagine the boardroom scene in Sydney…

    They’re using humour against us! Those BASTARDS! Drag a bunch of people in off the street and run some focus groups to find out what’s funny these days, we’ll show those damn hippies!

    Actually that’s probably where Liarbore came from.
60. BoomTownPrat 60

    8 July 2008 at 6:55 pm

    T-Rex,

    “independent initiative”, well that’s the issue isn’t it?

    Why not in the interests of transparency and openness confirm that independence. Because rather than your reactionary diatribe, David Farrars analysis seems to point to a more co ordinated collusion between the ninth floor and the EPMU comms staff.

    This blog supported a flawed and anti democratic bill under the pretence that covert and dishonest forces were manipulating opinion in New Zealand.

    This Key attack blog (and that really all this so called initiative amounts to), has been less than honest about it’s authors and how much it costs to runs and when these people run it.

    I say again, in the interests of transparency, practice what you preach.

    Also…name one person I have smeared on Clint Heine and Friends?

    [lprent: You posted that you were moderated here because of your opinions. In reality it was because of your language matching some parameters in the anti-spam file. Your response to my pointing that out was interesting. I wouldn’t call it a smear – more of an idiot expressing themselves.

    We have been quite clear on exactly how much this blog costs. Currently $160 per month after the last upgrade.]
61. Dilip 61

    8 July 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Mr Pierson thank you for reply. How come evidence say photos on standard website were made by engineers union office for standard author who is not from engineers union office? How come other photo like cosmopolitician is made by antony rhodes in judith tizard’ office if that is not collusion. Maybe if Standard is honest about collusions maybe people accept it as labour party spin but if you are not honest about it then people will know it as labour party spins and think you are not honest also.
62. Robinsod 62

    8 July 2008 at 7:07 pm

    Ah – I see the illiterates have descended…
63. lprent 63

    8 July 2008 at 7:10 pm

    dilip: This post is about National spending public money to finance public relations consultants. How exactly why the public purse should be paying for it is an interesting question.

    But it doesn’t relate to this site – I pay for that. Labour doesn’t pay me for anything, but I have been known to give them donations. I’ve been a labour party member for a long time.

    Tane: Helen does know about the site. I’ve told her what I’ve been doing in my spare time. She was concerned that it didn’t take too much of my volunteer time away from the election campaign. I think she’d be concerned if she knew how much time I actually spend on it!

    I’ve told or shown the site to quite a lot of people as I’m always interested in increasing our readership.

    CH aka BTP: exactly how many friends write on your blog? I see you are still as much of a prat as always. Are you interested in the EC decision as well?
64. T-rex 64

    8 July 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Prat – Well I just went and read through your site to find something that was actually written by you.

    The first post I ran into had you smearing Sue Bradford.

    The second you were smearing anyone who supported Labour.

    The third you were smearing Winston Peters.

    If it’s any consolation, you don’t seem to be as bad as your mate Heine. Honestly, your blog is god-awful. I’d rather read kiwiblog, and I never read kiwiblog. I can’t imagine it’s much better than Whaleoil. Seriously, you posted a link to porn-for-the-blind? Jesus wept, Rodney must be proud to have you on side!

    —

    As to your complaint – They are practising what they preach. They supported the EFA, and now they’re abiding by it. If you think they’re not, quite being a whiny little toryboy and go lay a formal complaint.

    If I was one of the authors I probably wouldn’t tell you my real name either.
65. lprent 65

    8 July 2008 at 7:33 pm

    Dilip: What Whale actually said was that some photos were done using the same instance of software as had also been done to produce pictures for the engineers site.

    Now if he’d bothered to look at our About, he’d have found that we are proud of our union links. I’m pretty sure we have people writing here who are involved with unions.

    Now Whale is a technical moron as I’ve discussed previously. But surely even he has heard of laptops. You know like the one I’m typing this on now. The one that goes with me from home to work every day. The one that I code stuff on for both paid work and voluntary work.

    This is Whale’s proof? That the same software was used to produce things for different sites and therefore they were both used in working hours? He is even more of technical illiterate than I’d realized. That appears to be about as much proof as a fuckwit requires.

    Hell I should write another post on exactly how an technical illiterate thinks…..

    Oops – forgot to mention that this laptop is owned by me… The work one is at work collecting data.
66. BoomTownPrat 66

    8 July 2008 at 7:52 pm

    Really T-Rex, what was the smear there?

    and……unlike you, many of our readers don’t have Mary Whitehouse prudish sensibilities.

    Bottom line is this.

    Labour (and its sister Key attack blog) argued for transparency and accountability in New Zealand politics.

    This blog does neither.

    It pretends to be independent, were it is clear that its genesis and its maintenance are on the books of the NZ Labour Party and the EPMU.
67. lprent 67

    8 July 2008 at 8:25 pm

    BoomTownPrat:
    You really are a prat aren’t you. Read our About. Hell – we boast about having involvement in the unions and the ‘left’.

    However the only money spent on this site comes from my credit card each month. I’d presume you do the same?

    We’re as transparent as you are. Probably more so because we actually give our general affiliations. Besides this is a blog which is (gasp) specifically excluded from the EFA.

    Not that matters anyway because we’re not affiliated with a party and don’t advise people on how to vote. The writers do spend time pointing out problems with party policy and tactics including my favorite party (damn them). The cost is massively less than would be required for me to have to register under the EFA because the net is so cheap!

    So in my opinion, you are just being a pompous dickhead.

    BTW: Just added you to my moderation queue so I can personally attend to your points. I feel generous with my time today.
68. T-rex 68

    8 July 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Charade she is 😉
69. T-rex 69

    8 July 2008 at 8:33 pm

    Anyway:

    1) You implied Sue was responsible for child abuse (hall of shame)
    2) You implied, through the “mushy” anecdote, that liberal arts majors were generally small minded pushovers who were sheltered from the real world and just wanted to be free to wring their hands while collecting art and drinking wine.
    3) You called peters a worthless asswipe (or something along those lines, i’m not going back to read it again).

    It doesn’t REMOTELY pretend to be impartial, it just refuses to make any unnecessary disclosures to nagging weirdos.

    Sorry it took me a while to respond, I was busy learning how to do 3-d modeling so I can contribute more effectively to the anonymous crusade for all that is right and good in the world.

    Haha 🙂
70. Draco TB 70

    8 July 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Helen does know about the site.

    I was going to say that I would be highly surprised if she didn’t know about it. JK will as well and for the same reason – it’s another link into the publics thinking. I’d be highly surprised if they aren’t getting a summary of the more active threads at least.

    You know Lynn, you’re really going to have to start looking at a defamation case or similar. Sad I know but these righties just don’t seem to listen unless you slap them around with a lawsuit or 3.

    This thread is a good example of the attacks from the right derailing a thread – another misdirection?

Links to post

1. The Standard Week: July 4 - July 11 at The Standard 2.01: posted on 11 July 2008 at 1:55 pm
2. Get Hager: A National priority? « Ethical Martini: posted on 12 July 2008 at 3:40 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS