And John Hayes makes ten

Written By: - Date published: 10:15 am, January 20th, 2014 - 219 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Wairarapa MP John Hayes has announced that he will retire from Parliament at the next election.

This is a bit of a surprise really because until now he has shown every sign of hanging in there.

In September 2013 he said that he had no intention of retiring.

But he was facing a well communicated challenge from businessman Alistair Scott and it seems that Hayes may have read the writing on the wall.  At least he will qualify for some parliamentary travel benefits.

Alistair Scott has not been shy about his ambitions and these have been publicly known for a while.  His background, former Managing Director of Credit Suisse First Boston and currently the owner of a winery makes him appear to be a John Key acolyte.

The sense of carnage is palpable.  One in 5 current National’s MPs are not seeking re-election.

I wonder if there will be any more?

219 comments on “And John Hayes makes ten ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BM 1
    20 January 2014 at 10:46 am

    Just had a quick glance over his web site.

    A chap who’s achieved a lot and has a lot of skills, will be a real asset to the country.

    Shame Labour can’t attract anyone of any real skills.

    • vto 1.1
      20 January 2014 at 11:54 am

      A chap whose skills are intensely concentrated in one part of society. A chap who dribbles on and on about “personal responsibility” with nary a mention of “community responsibility” i.e. he is a classic son of the greed is good generation, the selfish decades, the me me me era.

      I see nothing exciting, nothing new, nothing to break the current mould and create a New Zealand like we used to have, and should have in the future.

      I see a money-trader. I see a person hell-bent on high capital values. I see a resource thief (water). I see a supporter of polluters.

      I see boring and damaging.

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 1.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

        Alastair Scott, 48, is owner of Matahiwi Winery, chairman of Henergy Cage Free Eggs, a trustee on the Wairarapa Regional Irrigation Trust and a member of Wairarapa Development Group.

        He sits on the board of directors for Transpower, is a trustee of the Scout Youth Foundation and a Massey University councillor.

        Mr Scott was formerly managing-director for Credit Suisse First Boston as well as being a member of its senior executive and was a foundation senior executive of Meridian Energy when that company was formed in 1999.

        He is a Bachelor of Business Studies and has a Graduate Diploma in Business Studies (Dispute Resolution) from Massey.

        Mr Scott is also an associate member of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute.

        Unfortunately he’s not a unionist, never worked as a Labour press secretary, and does not appear to be gay, so he could never make it as a Labour candidate.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 1:54 pm

          But did he wave $10,000 cheques around the party bosses like John Key did ?

          Sounds like he ticks all the boxes for national

          1)State Funded education before they asked others to pay for it.
          2)Some sort of mid management post in a global financial engineering firm, often they are guilty of massive criminal offences for their dealings, but pay a settlement to walk away, but of course ‘never happened on his watch’
          3)Buys a rural property and plays at dairying, deer or winemaking
          4) A bit bored with it all now and wants a chance to make serious money again….opps serve the local yokels as their representative in Wellington

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1.2
        20 January 2014 at 1:41 pm

        Yes, re Mr Scott’s ‘values’.

        He lists three main principles that he would like to spread in his district.
        •Personal responsibility
        •Encouraging ambition
        •Building opportunity for all

        Why then, has he joined a party that has seriously removed opportunities for many?

        – Stopped people who have been failed by our education system from learning basic skills such as reading – community education shafted
        -Lowered the financial support for over 40 year olds from 5 years student allowance to 3
        -Completely cut financial support for education for 55 year olds and over
        – Consistently act to ensure that wages don’t cover living costs
        -Skited about the amount of supplements people below the medium wage are requiring from WINZ
        -Enabled state surveillance on citizens – under the belief that we need ‘protecting’ from ‘ourselves’ (where is the ‘personal responsibility’ for our own safety in this?)
        This list is off the top of my head and not complete.

        Clearly he does not act from a principle of ‘personal responsibility’ when he decides to join such a party – who are going to ensure that half of this population are increasingly disempowered -are not in the financial position nor have any opportunities left to take any ‘personal responsibility’ in their lives.

        • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 1.1.2.1
          20 January 2014 at 1:48 pm

          He lists three main principles that he would like to spread in his district.

          •Personal responsibility
          •Encouraging ambition
          •Building opportunity for all

          Why then, has he joined a party that has seriously removed opportunities for many?

          So surely he’s exactly the sort of person you most want National to have?

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1.2.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 2:03 pm

            Oh? You mean he is entering National to overturn their consistently successful activities of removing opportunities for many whilst hypocritically telling them it is their lack of taking ‘personal responsibility’ that is causing the problems?

            Well sure, if that is his aim that would be most excellent!

            Do please provide some evidence of this new revolutionary intention of Mr Scott’s.

            Otherwise I shall assume that he is doing what all other National members have consistently shown they are prepared to do – which is to pull the ladder up behind them after they have managed to gather good circumstances for themselves and their circle – and then to spend the rest of their lives punitively blaming those in less fortunate circumstances for not being able to use ‘the ladder’ after having done so.

          • Tracey 1.1.2.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 2:36 pm

            not if his words are just empty slogans like his soon to be colleagues.

            I wonder if some of his best friends are poor people?

            • Tim 1.1.2.1.2.1
              20 January 2014 at 9:15 pm

              🙂
              (as in …. some of my best friends are Murrays)

              Do you know if he’s a ‘self-made man’ by any chance?

    • Morrissey 1.2
      20 January 2014 at 2:54 pm

      Your anti-Labour rhetoric is tiresome.

      • Paul 1.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

        rhetoric

        noun
        the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

        BM does not do rhetoric.
        He writes drivel.

        drivel

        noun
        1.nonsense.
        “don’t talk such drivel!” synonyms: nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo; e

        1.talk nonsense.
        “he was drivelling on about the glory days” synonyms: talk nonsense, talk rubbish, babble, ramble, gibber, burble, blather, blether, prate, prattle, gabble, chatter, twitter, maunder; More

        • bad12 1.2.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 7:46 pm

          I would like to extend a shortlist to BM for approval, babbling and gibbering as discriptives of the sum total of BM’ contribution here would seem appropriate…

          • BM 1.2.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 7:55 pm

            You can talk you waffly old duffer, you make Phillip Ure look cogent with your long winded drivel.

            • bad12 1.2.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 8:13 pm

              i take it you don’t approve of babbling and gibbering then, my apologies for your apparent brain damage that has left you with the attention span obviously lesser than an average 4 year old’s,

              i will be sure to leave the odd one liner out for you from now on and yes i will fill it with words to suit your particular intellectual level which pretty much starts and ends with Derr…

              • alwyn …
                20 January 2014 at 8:31 pm

                Oh look, you are still around.I thought you might have pissed off after you gave up trying to push your drivel on yesterday’s Open Mike regarding the claimed improvement in the vote that you said the Green Party had got in the Auckland electorates.
                I suppose you are just following the practices of your fellow Green Party members who are MPs. Young Gareth is the prime example of course. Make some wild, false, claim and then when you are shown to be wrong issue more rubbish on something else.
                That of course was the practice so ably displayed by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
                Anyway when are you going to produce the “evidence” you claim to have regarding the Green Party doubling their vote in the Auckland National held electorates?
                As I have pointed out, the official election results website says your claims were crap.
                Why aren’t you big enough, and honest enough, to just admit you got it completely wrong?

                • bad12 …
                  21 January 2014 at 7:02 am

                  Alwyn, my personal stalker, the rise in the Green Party vote in the National held Auckland City electorates between elections 2008 and 2011 not a doubling of that party vote for the Green Party you say,

                  ‘Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory’ you claim the rise in the Green Party vote to be only 58%, that is just so gut bustingly funny that my sides continue to hurt from the laughter your comment provoked,

                  Promise, what promise, as a wing-nut i expect you to not only be twisted but to also twist everything around you, something you do with your (mis)interpretation of the English language, go back and read the comment again sloooooowly, what i did say was ‘might’,(no promise there),

                  As your link would have required a weeks reading to ascertain whether it held the facts you claim, you might like to either whistle until such time as i have had the time to study the link, or, as an alternative if your ability to whistle is as stunted as your ability to comprehend seems to be, try holding your breath,

                  Only a 58% rise in the party vote for the Green Party in the National held seats in Auckland City between elections 2008 and 2011, now that is hilarious…

                  • alwyn …
                    21 January 2014 at 11:01 am

                    You are at least getting a little more of a grasp on reality Bad. This is the first time you haven’t claimed that the Green Party vote doubled in the National held Auckland seats between 2008 and 2011.
                    I suppose it is a bit of progress. The new medications you are taking appear to be starting to work.
                    You must be a very slow reader if you cannot get the required numbers out of that website in about 10 minutes. All the details you need are readily, and very clearly, spelled out. The main time you need is to come up with the list of Auckland electorates. You do know where Auckland is I hope? After that it is only necessary to look at a single screen for each electorate for each election. Five seconds each I would say.

            • Tim 1.2.1.1.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

              You’re giving a bit away with that comment BM (careful!)

        • tricledrown 1.2.1.2
          20 January 2014 at 11:54 pm

          Blathering Maunderer

    • Markymark 1.3
      20 January 2014 at 3:00 pm

      Regardless of what your politics are, there is no doubt Mr Scott has real intelligence and competance.

      • Murray Olsen 1.3.1
        21 January 2014 at 12:43 pm

        I’d class his intelligence as somewhat mediocre. He’s followed a career path used by many ex-school prefects and first XV players before him. He’s not associated with any sort of innovation or breakthroughs, and his grasp of economics doesn’t go past thinking of the nation as a household. He has obviously made a bit of money, but only by following conventional practices.

    • Steve James 1.4
      21 January 2014 at 1:23 pm

      BM

      I agree with you totally. I think the difference is the Nats take a pay drop to go into politics whereas its the best income most Labour MP’s will ever earn.

      For labour to succeed (and I am a swinging voter) it is important to show respect to tax payers which currently is not apparent. After all without their money where would we be?

  2. Michael 2
    20 January 2014 at 10:52 am

    Is it too much to hope that the whole bloody lot of them will pack it in and leave government to people who want to serve their fellow citizens rather than just themselves and their richest mates? Actually, I think the Nats’ regeneration campaign is very smart and exposes the limpet-like behavior of many Labour hacks to a harsh light.

  3. Enough is Enough 3
    20 January 2014 at 11:01 am

    My God Get me the pop corn.

    This is a political party in terminal decline. Who will be the last man standing?

    This party is quite evidently rotten on the inside and its own MP’s are recognising that and getting out before they are booted out in the most humiliating fashion in about 8 months.

    Happy days are here again.

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 3.1
      20 January 2014 at 12:41 pm

      It’s called rejuvenation. Look for more long-serving MPs to retire as National positions itself as a future-facing party in election year.

      And on the other side of the political spectrum, we have the party going to the election with David Cunliffe, Phil Goff, Annette King, and Trevor Mallard. All Clark-era Cabinet ministers.

      For bonus dotage: Mallard and King entered Parliament in the election that ousted Rob Muldoon.

      But wait there’s more: Goff has been an MP since the election that ousted BILL ROWLING.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 1:56 pm

        The electorate is older now as well.

        So thats nationals policy for voters, make way for younger people ?

      • Tracey 3.1.2
        20 January 2014 at 2:37 pm

        “Simon James Power QSO (born 5 December 1969) ”

        Yup, just too many old people

        John Hayes served three terms. If that is long serving, Key must be moving on, when ???

      • granted 3.1.3
        20 January 2014 at 4:21 pm

        @ SHG “But wait there’s more: Goff has been an MP since the election that ousted BILL ROWLING.

        Bit of fact checking required there old son. Rowling was ousted by Muldoon in the ’75 election and Goff became MP for Roskill in ’81. Goff was then out of parliament for three years from ’90-’93.

        Having said that, I wish he’d never become an MP for Labour.

        • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 3.1.3.1
          20 January 2014 at 4:47 pm

          Bit of fact checking required there old son. Rowling was ousted by Muldoon in the ’75 election and Goff became MP for Roskill in ’81.

          Silly me, I thought Rowling left Parliament in 81 but no, he remained as leader of the opposition.

          So Goff was actually in Parliament WITH Rowling.

          Priceless.

          • granted 3.1.3.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 5:21 pm

            @SHG “Silly me, I thought Rowling left Parliament in 81 but no, he remained as leader of the opposition.

            So, to recap on your errors of recall: First you thought that either Bill Rowling lost an election in ’81 when Phil Goff entered parliament OR that Phil Goff entered parliament when Rowling lost the election in ’75. Either one is horribly wrong by two full election cycles. I can see why so many of your political opinions are somewhat “off”.

            • alwyn 3.1.3.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 8:46 pm

              But, granted, it is absolutely correct that Rowling lost an election in 1981 when Phil Goff entered Parliament. It was the third in a row that he had managed to lose, following on from 1975 and 1978 which he also lost. Thus SHG is quite correct in that regard.

              They were much kinder to the failures in those days weren’t they. Imagine someone today getting three failures and still keeping the job for a couple more years. Even Helen only had one defeat and managed to keep her post. After her second defeat she quit before she would have been defenestrated.

              • granted …
                20 January 2014 at 9:06 pm

                @alwyn 8.46

                Special pleading much! Yes, Rowling lost AN election in 1981, but the election in which Muldoon OUSTED Rowling can clearly only be 1975. To claim after SHG’s error has been pointed out that he/she REALLY meant when Rowling was beaten for the THIRD time is just unconvincing bluster.

                • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                  21 January 2014 at 3:20 am

                  Fact: Phil Goff was a member of a Labour caucus led by Bill Rowling.

                  #deadwood

                • alwyn …
                  21 January 2014 at 11:29 am

                  You would quite right if you had put the word “OUSTED” in your comment. However you didn’t did you?

                  What you said, and what I have commented on, is the following. This is
                  “First you thought that either Bill Rowling lost an election in ’81 when Goff entered Parliament OR (correct statement)”. Then you say “Either one is horribly wrong by two full election cycles”.

                  The second one is wrong as everyone agrees. However because the word “ousted” is missing it is in fact correct. You should have quoted SHG properly and then you would be right. He did get it wrong because he didn’t say what you quote him as saying.

                  Why is it so hard to say something like “Whoops I left out the word “OUSTED” which SHG used”? Why do you, like most commentators on blogs, find it so hard to say that they have made a mistake?

                  You will note that I’m not saying that SHG got it right. I am pointing out that you misquoted them and your misquote is in fact a true statement.

                  • granted …
                    21 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

                    More special pleading Alwyn? Determined to try and score a feeble little point because I left out the word ousted from a comment in a thread where the entire context made that entirely redundant? Anyone who wasn’t arguing about angels and pin heads would know precisely what I was getting at regardless. Fact is, SHG made the error and I pointed it out. Everything else is pure semantics.

      • Te Reo Putake 3.1.4
        20 January 2014 at 4:40 pm

        Any advice for Peter Dunne, SHG? Been bludging since 1984, so obviously off he should fuck, too. Or is consistency like that problematic for national suck ups?

        • Tim 3.1.4.1
          20 January 2014 at 9:24 pm

          +1
          Thing about Dunne is that he’s actually been a bludger all his life – way back when in the northern burbs stomping grounds were being established. He just thinks a bow tie and a coiffeur gives him some sort of respectability – unfortunately the surrounding electors haven’t all cottoned on to his silly game.

    • Manu 3.2
      21 January 2014 at 1:31 pm

      Seriously ‘Enough is Enough’?
      You think it’s decline? These guys are rejuvenating themselves for a third term; they are clever and intelligent. Time for some people to take their blinkers off.

  4. alwyn 4
    20 January 2014 at 11:02 am

    Are you sure about your statement that “he will qualify for some parliamentary travel benefits”?
    I thought they changed the rules in 2012 and that the only people who would get these were MPs who had been elected before 1999. In this case Hayes wouldn’t qualify as he was elected in 2005. I may be wrong of course. The change was certainly intended but it is hard to imagine that MPs would ever give up a perk.

    Ten out of 59 is more like one in six than one in five of course. It is rather over the top to describe it as “carnage”. It seems a very desirable ratio for all MPs to me. If only one in six MPs went each term it would mean that they served, on average, about 18 years. Unless you are exceptional that would seem quite long enough to me.

    If, after all it was only one in thirty four who went it would mean an average term of one hundred and two years. It seems that Winston Peters, and Phil Goff for that matter, have been there that long but even they would be taxed by such a career.
    I guess if you count the one who is quitting, and add in the two who have resigned already, along with the very sad loss of Horomia, one gets up to one in nine which is a lot healthier for the party. However, in your heart of hearts Micky, wouldn’t you like to see MPs such as Mallard or Fenton on the way out?

    • Lantahnide 4.1
      20 January 2014 at 11:15 am

      “If only one in six MPs went each term it would mean that they served, on average, about 18 years.”

      You’re looking purely at retirement. There is one other large reason why the average MP has a much shorter tenure than 18 years: failing to get re-elected.

      • alwyn 4.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 12:24 pm

        Of course. I couldn’t resist the calculation of 102 years though.

        On the other hand, with MMP, I do wonder whether losing their seat actually happens that much to MPs who get to win an electorate seat, or survive a couple of terms as a List MP. At least in National and Labour I have the impression they rank their sitting MPs ahead of their new candidates, and the longer you have been there the higher your list place tends to be. I haven’t checked it out in detail though so my impression may be wrong.

        Thus, even if you lose your electorate seat you will tend to get back in via the list and it requires a massive defeat for the party as a whole to get rid of sitting MPs. This would have happened in 2002 and 2011 for National and Labour respectively. There are a few who get totally offside with the party, as Damien O’conner did last election, but there aren’t that many.

        It is less applicable to the smaller parties like NZF, UF, the Alliance or the Greens, where there is always the possibility that the wholle party can go.

    • mickysavage 4.2
      20 January 2014 at 11:50 am

      I was relying on the NZ Herald report Alwyn which said “[b]y completing three terms Mr Hayes qualifies for some retirement privileges, including travel allowances.”

      • alwyn 4.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 12:10 pm

        Thank you. I must have another look. As I say, they were talking about getting rid of it last year but they very likely reneged on the idea. Never get between an MP and a perk.

        • alwyn 4.2.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 12:53 pm

          I tracked down the story you quote. It appears to have originated in the Wairarapa Times-Age, also owned by APN.

          If he does get travel perks they must have gone back on rules made in about 2002. The Herald had a story back in 2009, that says that the perks were only available to MPs elected before 1999. The bulk of the story is about pre-1999 MPs perks but does say the Margaret Wilson, elected in 1999, wasn’t eligible for any. I wonder whether Bonallack at the Times-Age may just have got it wrong.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592193

          Looking in more detail I see that the proposal last year was about the travel perks of sitting MPs and they did keep all those.

  5. Disraeli Gladstone 5
    20 January 2014 at 11:11 am

    I still think that this isn’t carnage but smart political turnover by National. They may lose, they may win. Regardless, they need to bring in fresh blood. If they can do that and lose, no sweat. If they do that and win, then their third term isn’t going to look like a graveyard. I don’t think this is a case of MPs panicking about losing. I think this is pressure from above to rejuvenate. Something which Labour hasn’t done in years.

    But if you’re a Labour voter, you’re going to see what you see. If you’re a National voter, you’re going to see what you see.

    And if you’re a poor little social liberal like me, you’re stuck watching both sides.

  6. Ad 6
    20 January 2014 at 11:13 am

    This is no refresh; at this scale it’s an internal bloodletting.

    My view is Joyce is largely behind this, and he is ensuring Key is as locked in as he wants to be, so that when he’s done the field will tilt in Joyce’s favour rather than Collins.

    The degree of instability this appears to be causing internally makes Labour’s lineup stability (though there are a few that should have gone) look the saner approach.

    • TightyRighty 6.1
      20 January 2014 at 1:45 pm

      instability is normally accompanied by voters deserting the party. In fact, it’s always accompanied by a massive slip in the polls. voters don’t like instability. So your theory is just bullshit. there is no proof that it is true. it’s a wish you and MS share, a fantasy if you will.

      I’ll be a slavish national party fanboi for stating the fucking obvious of course. there will be no refuting my evidence based approach, just a lot of name calling and intelligence questioning. no doubt someone will call for me to be culled / banned / forcibly prevented from future breeding.

      • Ad 6.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 2:12 pm

        What relevant New Zealand examples of a “refresh” of this scale correlating to “a massive slip in the polls” do you have? Half of caucus are quitting.

        “Instability” to the Collins faction and anyone else looking in, is “generational handover” to the Key/Joyce side. Your inability to read politics is simply not my problem.

        • Tracey 6.1.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 2:41 pm

          The refreshing label is hard to fathom when Powers is going (not yet 48 years old) and Mr Hayes has served 3 terms. If 3 terms is too long, Key and a bunch of others must need refreshing too?

          • TightyRighty 6.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 2:43 pm

            it’s measured on input and ability while serving as well as longevity. performance pay if you will. no wonder you don’t understand.

            • Tracey 6.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 3:12 pm

              and which of those categories apply to Power????

              • TightyRighty …
                20 January 2014 at 3:17 pm

                Isn’t he off to pursue that hated objective of more money? he’s probably off to lead a fulfilling life in the private sector without so much of the stress and spotlights that a politician has to deal with. it’s probably why the labour old guard don’t leave. the private sector don’t want them and they aren’t in power so can’t secure some cushy board positions to sit on during that “transitional” phase.

                • alwyn …
                  20 January 2014 at 6:58 pm

                  You seem to have the same problem as Tracey. When you say “Isn’t he off to …” you appear to be referring to Power and you are using the future tense. He left in 2011, more than two years ago. Did you not notice?

                  • TightyRighty …
                    21 January 2014 at 8:53 am

                    “isn’t he/she/x off” is a colloquialism that can be used in the past, the present and the future tense.

                    But you’re right, he has already left parliament

                    • alwyn …
                      21 January 2014 at 11:37 am

                      Well, that is news to me. I haven’t ever heard it used that way. It probably just shows my age I guess. I had better ask some youngster, say under 50.

          • alwyn 6.1.1.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 6:55 pm

            Tracey, the words “is going” implies that the event is going to happen at some time in the future. Have you never registered that Power leaving Parliament happend at the last election in 2011. That’s more than two years ago

        • TightyRighty 6.1.1.2
          20 January 2014 at 2:42 pm

          how about when labour couldn’t get their shit together under phil or dave? or labour in the recent austalian election? or labour in australia when the coups were under way?

          Or the tories in the UK?

          Or helen clarks third term? or bill english in his only run at prime minister? or the last days of the the shipley led national government?

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.3
          20 January 2014 at 3:04 pm

          Stability and stagnation are two halves of the same coin. It’s dead easy to slip from the first right into the second.

        • alwyn 6.1.1.4
          20 January 2014 at 7:04 pm

          “Half the caucus are quitting”. There have been 10 so far out of 59. I guess you can count Lockwood and that Bozo Gilmore as well but there aren’t too many others who have gone.
          Can you please tell us all who the other 19 are who are going to quit in order to bring us up to “half the caucus”?

      • Tim 6.1.2
        20 January 2014 at 9:39 pm

        …… message to self
        ….. wonders whether spelling of fanboi indicates someone more concerned with the value of the pink dollar
        ….. alongside the handle TightyRighty (as in Tighty Whitey)
        …… and nearing BOQ status

        Kind of like a Public Address cheerleader regularly seen and heard in all the right (oops … ‘correct’ ) places

        ….. could just be I’m a cynical, bigoted old cnut though who can’t yet understand how ANY of minority status/class could come to like (indeed love and fawn all over/be conned by) a frikken Key!

        …. just that it reminds me of certain other ladder puller-uppers – whether they be from whatever minority – who’ve benefited in the past but now see no reason why others should be able to do likewise.

        …probably makes gorjiss guest appearances at the local focal point where those of the same minority and of aspirational disposition turn up and fawn all over him.

        • TightyRighty 6.1.2.1
          21 January 2014 at 8:51 am

          new to the internet as well? fanbois come from all denominations. Calling me gay because of how i spell a word? acceptable here but not in the UKIP? says a lot about how “progressive” this site really is. guess it’s acceptable to slur gay people with being associated with me at the standard.

          Been taking syntax lessons from the hopeless Phillip Ure? it’s a short path to being considered mentally unbalanced when you write like that, or when you automatically assume that any minority/class or it’s members belong on the left. political leanings skip all sorts of boundaries.

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      20 January 2014 at 8:48 pm

      It may be internal bloodletting. But its also been superbly choreographed and has affected mostly generally useless and ineffectual MPs. Powers departure was something altogether different to what is happening now.

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    20 January 2014 at 11:14 am

    There is an unprecedented purge going on in the ranks of the National party caucus.

    Its like North Korea, without the firing squads.

    All though, since I think its Stephen Joyce who is running the purge, Im not sure that the firing squads are off the agenda.

    Much is made by the usual apologists Farragoblog, calling it rejuvenation. Faceless MPs replaced by yet more contenders for obscurity.

    In the 2008 and 2011 elections Labour lost 14 seats. Thats democracy. Not this purge that National is going through

    • BM 7.1
      20 January 2014 at 11:19 am

      Removing dead wood, most of those that are standing down are just journey men, they’re getting in the road of more talented people.

      Convincing Alistair Scott to stand for National is a real coup.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 11:46 am

        Just another wealthy money market guy- put out to pasture in his chosen career because hes over the hill, thinks he can make it happen in a declining provincial region.

        What will be his solution, make Masterton the next Queenstown.? Hahaha

        • BM 7.1.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

          Out of curiosity I just had a look at the latest 7 additions to the labour pool of talent
          and listed the skills they bring to Labour.

          Kris Faafoi
          – Chief Press Secretary to Phil Goff.

          David Clark
          -Presbyterian Minister/Treasury

          Andrew Little
          -Unionist and angry wee man

          Rino Tirikatene
          -Maori Bureaucrat/public service

          Megan Woods –
          -Fuck knows, working for Jim Anderton?

          Meka Whaitiri
          -Maori Bureaucrat/public service

          Poto Williams
          -Maori Bureaucrat/public service

          Compare that to the caliber of people that National is getting on board, the complete lack of talent in our number 2 party is actually quite concerning.

          Does Labour no longer have connections with any one outside of the public service?

          • Will@Welly 7.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 12:45 pm

            Labour is now ruled by the “great middle-class”. Even some aspiring candidates I have met are, politely, mediocre. The fire and brimstone has long gone out of the belly’s of the Labour Party politicians. Better to die in a comfory armchair, than manning the battlements.
            As for quotas, I don’t give a rats. I simply want the best. Right now, too many in Labour, in Parliament are not the best.
            Give me the intellect, the passion, the brains of the Greens, and the fire and the Staunchness of Hone, and boy, now there’s a real mix. Come on. Can’t wait for Cunliffe’s speech!!

          • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.1.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 2:00 pm

            You have just dished the current MP for Wairarapa…and the Current Finance Minister

            Lets not forget the current MP for Botany.

            Never had a job , since he become a city councillor at 18, and has been elected to various positions since. Has got a pilots license though !!

            • enoch powell 7.1.1.1.2.1
              20 January 2014 at 2:04 pm

              Could make a good Mayor for Auckland city

            • BM 7.1.1.1.2.2
              20 January 2014 at 2:06 pm

              Just read the bio of Jami-Lee-Ross

              Ross was brought up by his grandmother as his mother was “not in the best space to raise a child”, and he has never met his father who descends from the Māori tribe of Ngāti Porou. He attended Dilworth School, a boarding school for pupils from difficult backgrounds, then Pakuranga College, but left without formal qualifications. He holds a commercial pilot’s licence from April 2012,having trained at Ardmore Flying School. He has also studied towards a politics and economics degree at the University of Auckland.

              Sounds like a natural Labourite, wonder what made him go with National?

              • Tracey …
                20 January 2014 at 2:43 pm

                he fell in love with money? You normally despise career bureaucrats BM, accuse them of not liiving in
                the real world?

                I have a friend whose son got a commercial pilots licence which cost him about 50k a year.

          • Tracey 7.1.1.1.3
            20 January 2014 at 2:50 pm

            Poto Williams

            NOT public service with capital P, BM

            IF you looked her up, funny you missed that she last worked for this trust.

            “regional manager of the St John of God Hauroa Trust.”

            “St John of God Hauroa Trust is a leading provider of disability, youth and social services in Christchurch and Welllington.

            In Christchurch, it operates:logo hauora trust

            St John of God Halswell, which provides residential and respite support for adults with physical and/or neurological impairments between the ages of 16 and 65
            St John of God Waipuna, a specialist youth agency in Eastern Christchurch which manages an innovative range of programmes providing young people, their families/whanau and the community with support and opportunities for development.”

            ‘St John of God Hauora Trust is an operating division of the Catholic not-for-profit health care group St John of God Health Care Inc, which operates hospitals, home nursing, pathology, disabilility support services, and Social Outreach and Advocacy services reaching out to people experiencing disadvantage. The group provides services across Australia, and in New Zealand, East Timor and the wider Asia-Pacific region.”

            A bit more real world than you like to portray and probably more real world than Mr Scott would care to know.

            • BM 7.1.1.1.3.1
              20 January 2014 at 3:44 pm

              So, she got picked to keep the Catholics happy, makes sense but is rather typical of Labour.

              Everyone’s picked on who they are not on what skills they have.

              • Tracey …
                20 January 2014 at 4:10 pm

                What??? you said she was a public servant when she actually works for a private trust which caares for the disabled in society. Only you could consider that is something to mock.

          • Manu 7.1.1.1.4
            21 January 2014 at 2:17 pm

            That’s a really good piece BM and really shows the difference between the talent of each party. The haters on this site who criticize you show ignorance at best.
            I will follow your posts with interest.
            Be well

      • Skinny 7.1.2
        20 January 2014 at 1:41 pm

        Oh jolly good new for the election. Alastair Scott another Wall street money trading shyster. Couple this neo-liberal with ACT’s soon to be new Epsom candidate and the vote slippage will increase.

         Normal Kiwi’s are waking up to these look after the rich in society wide eyed boys. In typical snake oil salesman fashion Joyce is lining up his backers. I hope that sour old cow Miss Collins gets the nod when Key flutters off to the golf fairways of Hawaii later this year.   

        • Pat 7.1.2.1
          20 January 2014 at 5:21 pm

          Hi Skinny, or should I say Dave???

          I find it interesting for a cartoonist, you are so rabidly sexist…. “Sour old cow…. ”
          in this posting.

          “Old trout … “in reference to another female who disagrees with you in an earlier posting…

          It’s easy to personally attack people when you hide behind false names… Skinny…. Dave W…
          Would love to see you actually putting your money where your mouth goes and doing some practical work to help some of the people up this way….. but then you only like sniping from the sideline…….

          As you said, normal kiwis are waking up, to lots of things, including embittered old men……..

          • Skinny 7.1.2.1.1
            21 January 2014 at 7:06 am

            Oh dear I feel I am being stalked on social media. Poor Dave W whoever he is? Don’t worry I do my share of work maintaining some sort of semblance of order around the place. You really need to direct your energy into more productive things than chasing me around in cyber space and having cheap shots.

            I doubt many punters on here would be coming to the defence of that sour cow Collins, so instead I will choose to ignore your silly sexist rant.

          • Manu 7.1.2.1.2
            21 January 2014 at 2:19 pm

            Good one Pat, love it 🙂

      • Tracey 7.1.3
        20 January 2014 at 2:42 pm

        The refreshing label is hard to fathom when Powers is going (not yet 48 years old) and Mr Hayes has served 3 terms. If 3 terms is too long, Key and a bunch of others must need refreshing too?

        BM, when did you last have an original political thought?

      • Tracey 7.1.4
        20 January 2014 at 3:15 pm

        is Aliatair a white male? Like Power and Hayes and Heatley and Tremain and Roy, and Hutchison and Chris Auchinvole ?

        How refreshing

      • Tim 7.1.5
        20 January 2014 at 10:03 pm

        Strange as it may seem (for someone such as me that’s never felt any sort of affinity with Natzi principles – even those they [National] used to hold), I suspect some of the ‘retirees’ aren’t that enamoured with what the philistine Key represents – quite apart from what the whole process has become.
        I’m kind of surprised there aren’t more tallying up their earns and net worth, and cashing in their chips.

        The neolib 3rdway Labourites I guess haven’t quite made it yet and are busy hanging on for grim death.
        (Probably the longer they hang on, the grimmer it’ll be)

    • Anne 7.2
      20 January 2014 at 11:40 am

      Agree with gwwnz. It’s a purge alright. And Joyce’s fingerprints, foot prints and every darn print is all over it. He’s the caucus bully no.1 disguised as a laid back genial chappie.

  8. RedBaronCV 8
    20 January 2014 at 11:29 am

    Another refugee from corporate crashes overseas determined to replicate the the same idiocy here. The workplace seems to be full of them, stewing about their downfall and taking it out on the rest of us.

  9. greywarbler 9
    20 January 2014 at 11:32 am

    Looking up John Hayes (New Zealand politician), entry in wikipedia I was impressed. Hayes has done a lot in his life, started out as an economist.

    Also I was impressed by the potted history of the National party at the end of his page. It gives past leaders, dates, and a complete list of current MPs. I looked up Labour and it has only info relevant to the subject. That extra information is useful and should be put on Labour’s entries.

    I did not realise how long National had held power for in one block – from 1940 to 1984.

    • alwyn 9.1
      20 January 2014 at 2:20 pm

      Can you satisfy my curiosity and tell me what the last sentence in your comment means?
      “National had held power for in one block – from 1940 to 1984”
      Labour formed the Government from 1940 – 1949, 1957-1960, and 1972-1975 during that period so it can’t mean were in Government.

      • karol 9.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 2:25 pm

        Full sentence by gw:
        I did not realise how long National had held power for in one block – from 1940 to 1984.

        So Labour were in power 15 out of 44 years.

        National = 29 years.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 3:07 pm

          The electorate has historically preferred National governments. It’s not clear if that pattern will continue in the MMP era of course.

          • Matthew Hooton 9.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 7:21 pm

            No it hasn’t. FPP gave Nats an advantage because Labour tended to win more overwhelmingly in its seats than National. As a result, National won in 1978 and 1981 despite Labour getting more votes. Since MMP it has been more even between the two. I don’t wish to be unkind to you CV, but you would benefit from being more factually based when you comment here.

        • alwyn 9.1.1.2
          20 January 2014 at 4:21 pm

          Oh, now I see what was meant.
          I thought the “one block” must be talking about a single continuous period in power, rather than just a continous number of years. It makes sense the way you put it. My original reading of it didn’t.
          From the left point of view one could talk about the period 1935 – 1960. Then you can say 17 left, 8 right. Sounds better.

        • Anne 9.1.1.3
          20 January 2014 at 5:23 pm

          @ karol
          It needs to be borne in mind that Labour actually won the majority of votes in at least two of those elections but under FPP lost to National. Why? Because National was the government and procured behind the scenes influence on the census-driven boundary change decisions. Nine times out of ten – after each census – the changes to the boundaries favoured National.

          Nothing changes.

          • DS 9.1.1.3.1
            22 January 2014 at 6:16 pm

            At least part of the problem under FPP was that the Maori seats acted as pro-National gerrymanders. That’s why National (despite its rhetoric) will never get rid of the Maori seats, since they take non-National voters out of general electorates.

    • lprent 9.2
      20 January 2014 at 5:14 pm

      I did not realise how long National had held power for in one block – from 1940 to 1984.

      Huh? It reads

      First (1949–57) Second (1960–72) Third (1975–84) Fourth (1990–99) Fifth (2008–)

      What were you reading?

      • greywarbler 9.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 5:37 pm

        I said I was looking at wikipedia on John Hayes (New Zeaand politician). This was in a panel at the end with lists of leaders and those in bold were Prime Ministers and it gives the years they were in power. I presumed it meant the whole period. So should it read that part of the time they were in Parliament they were Prime Minister? It doesn’t make that clear. I thought I was getting forgetful. Which I am. But not that much. Have a look for yourselves.

        National Party (New Zealand)
        Party leaders
        Names in bold served as Prime Minister
        Adam Hamilton (1936–1940) ·
        Sidney Holland (1940–1957) · Keith Holyoake (1957–1972) · Jack Marshall (1972–1974) · Robert Muldoon (1974–1984) ·
        Jim McLay (1984–1986) · Jim Bolger (1986–1997) · Jenny Shipley (1997–2001) · Bill English (2001–2003) · Don Brash (2003–2006) · John Key (2006 – present)

        • alwyn 9.2.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

          Oh well, I guess lprent read your statement in the same way I did. We both thought that you, via Wikipedia, were giving them credit for the whole period.
          Pretend that you meant Karol’s interpretation just above this.
          Still you have performed a miracle. lprent and I both came to the same conclusion on something we read. I am sure we are equally surprised.

        • Jimmie 9.2.1.3
          20 January 2014 at 7:45 pm

          I think you will find that they may have all served as PM but not for the whole of their parliamentary careers. For example Holyoake became PM in 1960-72 as Labour were in power from 57-60. (Think black budget term)

          • alwyn 9.2.1.3.1
            20 January 2014 at 8:07 pm

            Holyoake was actually Prime Minister in 1957, after Holland finally quit. It was only for about three months then (September to December if my memory is correct) but I guess that was longer than the two months that Mike Moore managed. He became PM again in 1960

  10. RedBaronCV 10
    20 January 2014 at 11:35 am

    “former Managing Director of Credit Suisse First Boston”

    LOL they seem to have several hundred of these, bit like grade inflation, job title inflation . Did they have a staff cleanout in 1997 ?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1
      20 January 2014 at 11:51 am

      Yes Managing Director is just a middle management title in that industry.

      He seems to have been a victim of Up or Out. Normally their Range Rovers leave the locals in their dust ( “must get the ratepayers to fix that”) as they hurry back to Wellington to seem important again

      • Markymark 10.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 3:14 pm

        Nope you are wrong. In investment banking, Managing Director is a senior role (the highest outside of the actual CEO and divisional heads).

        The equivalent role in a law firm would be Partner, but not Managing Partner.

    • Colonial Viper 10.2
      20 January 2014 at 3:07 pm

      Oh gawd another bankster in the ranks. I guess they have him as a potential PM pick already.

      • Tracey 10.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 3:16 pm

        they needed to refresh CV. They need to replace white men, with, well, white men

        is Aliatair a white male? Like Power and Hayes and Heatley and Tremain and Roy, and Hutchison and Chris Auchinvole ?

      • Markymark 10.2.2
        21 January 2014 at 1:00 am

        CV, you seem to enjoy making a virtue out of ignorance.

        Mr Scott worked in corporate advisory (mergers and acquisitions), he wasn’t a money trader like John Key. People like him have nothing to do with the GFC, or derivatives or securitised mortgages (the domain of traders).

        The work the likes of Mr Scott do is no different to any other professional services firm – commercial lawyers, or management consultants like David Cunliffe. They all sell their expertise in the form of advisory services to very large businesses and sometimes governments and charge exorbidant fees for the pleasure of doing so.

        It takes considerable intelligence and skill to reach that level in a multi-billion dollar global organisation.

        Make no mistake, National have replaced an ageing dud MP, who no one has ever heard of, with someone of real talent.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.2.2.1
          21 January 2014 at 1:06 am

          Mr Scott worked in corporate advisory (mergers and acquisitions), he wasn’t a money trader like John Key. People like him have nothing to do with the GFC, or derivatives or securitised mortgages (the domain of traders).

          Don’t kid yourself. Mergers and acquisitions still required highly leveraged money available.

        • Colonial Viper 10.2.2.2
          21 January 2014 at 9:51 am

          Mr Scott worked in corporate advisory (mergers and acquisitions), he wasn’t a money trader like John Key. People like him have nothing to do with the GFC, or derivatives or securitised mortgages (the domain of traders).

          LOL what BULLSHIT!

          So tell me Mr Markymark…how do you think Too Big To Fail became Too Big To Fail in the first place if it wasn’t via strategic M&A, IPO’s, etc. amongst other things?

          On a more serious note, the large investment bank M&A divisions helped enable their trading divisions to make major profits by occasionally *foreshadowing* (LOL there are other words for it) to their trading brethren what M&A activity was on the horizon and the state of whatever deals were already in the pipeline.

          Sorry mate you have a lot to learn about that world.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 10.2.2.2.1
            21 January 2014 at 12:32 pm

            He is NOT yet Nationals candidate, let alone the member for Wairarapa.

            They have only just let the current MP be hit by a bus, after ‘wishing to stay on’

  11. enoch powell 11
    20 January 2014 at 2:01 pm

    This is great news for National revitalises the party. Adds new talent . Will make Labour look old and very boring. Trevor Mallard, Annette King, Fenton, Dyson, etc I mean please when will they get rid of some of their driftwood

  12. QoT 12
    20 January 2014 at 2:06 pm

    The sense of carnage is palpable.

    I completely disagree. Every story of a National MP announcing their resignation has been met, in my household at least, with a “huh. Who the fuck were they again?”

    This isn’t a factional purge with big names going. There hasn’t been a single Simon Power-level resignation, much less a sitting Minister.

    I don’t think the left should crow too loudly about National doing the smart thing and kicking out a bunch of no-impact has-beens in order to bring in new blood/new talent/new faces. I think we should steal the idea.

  13. Sanctuary 13
    20 January 2014 at 2:45 pm

    I wish Labour would clean out it’s dead wood. The likes of Mallard, King, Dyson etc etc are stealing taxpayers money to sit on their arses and do nothing. Get rid of them. Bring in Helen Kelly, Susan St. John, people like that.

    • Tracey 13.1
      20 January 2014 at 2:53 pm

      +1,000,000

    • Rhinocrates 13.2
      20 January 2014 at 3:09 pm

      Hell yes! Even some of the new ones like Faafoi are wastes of space while Beltway Grant represents everything wrong with Labour as it is now. As Will@Welly put it above, too many like him think “Better to die in a comfy armchair, than manning the battlements.”

      (Come to think of it, maybe the Spanish Inquisition was right and knew what a comfy chair could do to one’s fighting spirit…)

  14. Plan B 14
    20 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

    I think the National clean out maybe shows just how powerful the people at the top of the party are right now. It is really rather impressive in a naked power sort of way. Also may be sign that power in National is concentrating more and more at the top.

    • Tracey 14.1
      20 January 2014 at 3:18 pm

      yup, and as important WHo and WHAT are the 9 being replaced by.

      • felix 14.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 10:14 pm

        Randians. Objectivists. LeVayans.

        The conservatives are being flushed out.

        The cult of selfishness advances.

        • Richard McGrath 14.1.1.1
          23 January 2014 at 10:50 pm

          “Randians. Objectivists. LeVayans.

          The conservatives are being flushed out.”

          If only!

    • enoch powell 14.2
      20 January 2014 at 3:19 pm

      You mean they aren’t forced to take ex Union officials!. They can get talent from where ever they like

    • BM 14.3
      20 January 2014 at 3:51 pm

      National intends to completely own the political landscape in NZ, National is now running like a highly tuned business.

      And to be a successful business you need top people who can bring new skills to the table.

      You haven’t got what it takes, you’re out the door.

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 14.3.1
        20 January 2014 at 4:38 pm

        As the Dear Leader (peace be upon him) once said, “A players hire A players; B players hire C
        players; C players hire D players.”

        National is clearing out some B and C players before the campaign proper starts.

        Labour is well-stocked with B and C players who had their shot but never stepped up. Now they’re hanging on for grim death, preventing any potential young Labour A players from having their own turn.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 14.3.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 4:56 pm

          I guess that theory is perfectly fine for those who never developed intellectually past the first four letters of the alphabet

          • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 14.3.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 5:10 pm

            Sucks to be a bright articulate young activist who’ll never get a shot because Goff, King, Mallard, Dyson et al like their parliamentary salaries and superannuation just a bit too much.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 14.3.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 5:15 pm

              “Sucks to be a bright articulate young activist”

              Really? How would you know? …. Do you have friends that meet that description do you??

              • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                20 January 2014 at 5:16 pm

                It was a hypothetical question, since the current pile of Labour deadwood means that no-one ever sees such people.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  20 January 2014 at 5:25 pm

                  “No-one ever sees such people”

                  Well you don’t, by the sounds of it [snigger]

            • tricledrown 14.3.1.1.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 5:26 pm

              and no experience of parliamentary matters just great.
              seasoned campaigners.
              while national will have a bunch of good looking narcissistic airheads !

              • BM …
                20 January 2014 at 5:36 pm

                Fuck the parliamentary matters that’s probably the least most important part of being a good politician.

                I want my pollies to have skills that can grow the country not skills on how wank on for hours in the debating chamber.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  20 January 2014 at 5:46 pm

                  @ BM

                  I take it you are not a National Party supporter then 😆

  15. red blooded 15
    20 January 2014 at 3:36 pm

    I have to admit that I think the Nats are being smart. They can rebut the ‘tired’ label as they approach the election. I do want to speak up for the breadth of vision and commitment needed to be a strong union official or public servant, though. Who says the pursuit of profit is more ‘real world’ than the pursuit of human rights and a just, functional, connected society?

    • enoch powell 15.1
      20 January 2014 at 3:49 pm

      Some of the strong union officials in Aussie haven’t been doing to well lately in creating a just society with their court appearances. Totally ripping off everyone!

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1
        20 January 2014 at 4:42 pm

        That’s the Australian banks you are talking about.

        • Richard McGrath 15.1.1.1
          23 January 2014 at 10:55 pm

          Nah I think he was talking about Craig Thomson, the Health Services Union boss who used his union-funded credit card to purchase the service of hookers to the tune of nearly $6k, along with sundry other bits of spending unrelated to the welfare of those he represented.

      • tricledrown 15.1.2
        20 January 2014 at 5:40 pm

        ep i read wikepedia enoch powell voted labour 1945
        then turned on his Tory party in 1970 72 and asked the UK voters to vote labour which they did and tossed out the tossing Tories.
        He was anti american racist etc.
        so i expect you will follow suit.

  16. Pascal's bookie 16
    20 January 2014 at 3:44 pm

    Word from Nats over the hill is they aren’t too happy with having this Scott fellah foisted on them. It’s even showing up in KB comment threads.

    Hayes had already spent a bit of dosh getting ready for the election too.

    • Skinny 16.1
      20 January 2014 at 5:43 pm

      It’s not a good look having a money trading shyster buying his way into a governing party. Like I say normal people are resentful of these parasites. 
      Vineyard owner, without the hard toil will go down like a lead ballon.

       ‘Champagne Charlie’ is a label that suits this character.    

      • Rob 16.1.1
        21 January 2014 at 9:44 am

        If being involved in mergers and aquisitions makes you a money trading shyster, then I think you need to look at the labour party leader, because that is exactly what he did at BCG. Remember all the fuss about the merger to form Fonterra that Cunliffe claimed he had a lead role in when he was at BCG.

        I my experience BCG was just another rebadged Mckinnsey, responsible for the loss of thousands of manufacturing roles in NZ whilst they preached about the god of offshoring to asian supply. Now he is sitting in his villa in Herne Bay after sniggering his way to the way to bank , literally.

  17. Tigger 17
    20 January 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Alistair Scott – MP most likely to be mistaken for Colin Craig.

    Are they cloning them somewhere?

  18. Matthew Hooton 18
    20 January 2014 at 5:18 pm

    You wonder if there will be any more retirements. Hopefully. At least two or three more should go to ensure proper rejuvenation in order to make a decent attempt at a fourth term in 2017. How many retiring from Labour? Mallard? King? Any others?

    • Paul 18.1
      20 January 2014 at 5:43 pm

      Diversion.

    • Skinny 18.2
      20 January 2014 at 5:56 pm

      That’s easily countered Hooton with Labour & the Greens complementing each other. The Labour Party having the experience and the Greens having rising talent. Where National with all these rats abandoning ship look decided ‘lite’ to hold things together. 

      Even a snake oil merchant like you should see that. Speaking of snake oil have you been peddling your wares Mr Dotcoms way?    

      • Skinny 18.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 6:11 pm

        *decidedly

      • Matthew Hooton 18.2.2
        20 January 2014 at 7:00 pm

        Certainly, it is an easy spin line for Labour to run the “rats jumping sinking ship line”. But no one who is senior is leaving – only the people going nowhere who the party has indicated should move on. When senior Cabinet ministers indicate they are retiring – like what happened in 1999 – then the “rats/ships” line would have merit.

        • McFlock 18.2.2.1
          20 January 2014 at 7:10 pm

          no, because the marginal seats and lower list mps are the ones who lose out at election time, and who benefit most by beating the rush.

          Every cabinet minister will have their sinecure assured after the election (they look good on directorships and with pr firms) – it’s the lower mps who suddenly find themselves without a paycheque. So the more timid ones would rather be one of a few announced retirees who appear to go with grace (even if they haven’t found other work), rather than one of the dozen or two dozen who are suddenly looking for work when a transition occurs.

          • Matthew Hooton 18.2.2.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 7:16 pm

            With the greatest respect, that is nonsense. Nobody MPs don’t lose anything from going from govt to opposition – in fact they gain because in opposition there is less hierarchy and it is everyone for themselves. Go back to 1999 and, from memory, people like Bill Birch and Doug Graham announced their retirements. That indicated they thought we would lose and that they didn’t want to risk going from being major historic figures in NZ to opposition MPs. So when important National MPs announce retirement, I will start to consider arguments about rats and ships. The 10 who have gone have done so because National is focussing on a fourth term not because it doesn’t think it will get a third.

            • McFlock 18.2.2.1.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 7:35 pm

              All well and good if they think it’s their last election and they’ve hit their height (e.g. Birch was 65), but at the moment many of the cabinet still think they might a)win andor b)take over the reigns (although I suspect blinglish has gone to the list with exit in mind).

              But if I’m 59 on the list, and it looks like we’ll only get 50 seats…. I need to find another job and fast.

              Let me put it this way – before the last election, polls were putting nats at >50%.
              Now they’ve dropped a good 5%, and could well continue. Someone’s going to lose out even if nats keep govt, and the losers won’t be the ones at the top.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 18.2.2.2
          20 January 2014 at 7:16 pm

          I have a hard-time working out which National MPs are supposedly non-rat-like – they all appear to spout a lot of half-baked crap, so it is a little hard to work out whether the proposition you put forward here has merit or not.

          I can deduce that those with the most seniority in National, are in fact the biggest rats, and therefore, I do believe that “rats jumping a sinking ship line’ still holds, although yes, perhaps it should be adjusted somewhat “rats leaving the rats-nest because they can no longer stand the stench” might be somewhat more accurate.

          • Matthew Hooton 18.2.2.2.1
            20 January 2014 at 7:23 pm

            All MPs are rats. The issue (in National) is who is jumping and why. And the issue in Labour is why the rats don’t jump. (Hint: they would become unemployed and parliament pays more than the dole.)

            • Morrissey 18.2.2.2.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 7:37 pm

              While you’re here, Matthew, perhaps you’d like to tell us why you and the National Party spin-doctors have decided to push this “John Key—man of integrity” line that you tried out on Kathryn Ryan’s programme this morning.

              Surely that’s too absurd a line to push, even for the bewildered souls who believed—or pretended to believe—John Ansell’s racist fantasies about Māori being privileged in 2005.

            • geoff 18.2.2.2.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 7:40 pm

              All MPs are rats? Hey weren’t you going to have a shot as ACT leader?

              • ghostwhowalksnz …
                21 January 2014 at 12:46 pm

                That was just one two many glasses of Champagne.

                It was part of what is called ‘confusion marketing’- no one has any idea what is going on until Boscawen is slipped in the back door as Nationals favourite candidate.

                Its called ‘rejuvenation’ …hahahah.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 18.2.2.2.1.3
              20 January 2014 at 7:47 pm

              “All MPs are rats”….gees Hooton….are you styling yourself on Russell Brand these days?…next you’ll be saying its ‘not worth voting’….

              I do believe it isn’t worth voting – if you are a right-wing voter that is – if you take the damage caused by such attitudes into account – it is altogether better if right whingers stay at home on voting day….and think of all the savings on all the bullshit propaganda political parties would make – twisting logic, misinformation and appealing to the worst base instincts in people being the only way in which right wing parties manage to get in….

              However I digress….. There is no “issue” re those in National jumping out – wouldn’t anyone??? after the dogs-leg they’ve made of running this country??

              It is also pretty clear why Labour don’t get MPs leaving a lot – it is quite a buzz working for the good of all – you really must try it sometime, Hoots, you might actually enjoy it – novelty being the spice of life and all

            • bad12 18.2.2.2.1.4
              20 January 2014 at 8:00 pm

              ”All MP’s are rat”, is that right Matty, is that why you have often been seen to be an aspiring one…

        • Skinny 18.2.2.3
          20 January 2014 at 7:28 pm

          If the Cunliffe runs the line that it’s a good mix of talents between their coalition partner and themselves. It would be smart to divvy up the likes of transport to Genter and push the likes of Tyford, Lee Galloway & Adern forward to Cabernet posts that portray a ‘fresh look.’ Meanwhile drop some MP down the list in a do or die approach. Use the list what it was designed for that is new talent. I do know what you mean though matthew. 

          • Matthew Hooton 18.2.2.3.1
            20 January 2014 at 7:39 pm

            Oh god I hope what you say comes true. Labour says: “Relax, our own list may be a bunch of has-beens and losers, many of whom are from the 1980s and 1990s, but, don’t worry, we’ll get heaps of new ideas from the Greens.” I strongly recommend Labour/Green uses this message every time they can.

            • geoff 18.2.2.3.1.1
              20 January 2014 at 7:44 pm

              “Relax, our own list may be a bunch of has-beens and losers, many of whom are from the 1980s and 1990s, but, don’t worry, we’ll get heaps of new ideas from the Greens.”

              Whereas National’s fresh ideas will come from…? National’s ‘coolest’ minister, Maurice Williamson? Hmm maybe not. The new ACT leader then? Who’s that going to be, someone fresh?

            • Skinny 18.2.2.3.1.2
              20 January 2014 at 9:21 pm

              Come on Hooton you know what I mean, (up the list then) under MMP the list was for putting forward new blood you want to get through to become MP’s, candidates that stand in seats that they can’t win, national strong holds. What you do is say to the likes of Sue Moroney that your standing in what should be a winnable seat, you must win the electorate seat of Hamilton West, and we are going to help you by putting you outside the guarantee of the list. O’Connor done this to a successful end.

              There is one thing that is you can guarantee and that is you can slash the 800,000 non voter turnout in half. A couple of factors will bring them out, getting rid of Key-National and the trendiness factor KDC is bringing out. You know it and I know it, the game is over, Key is sunk no matter what Joyce, Cully and Cros/Tex come up with.

            • Skinny 18.2.2.3.1.3
              21 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

              Even the most avid shrill fans of Parata, Collins, Brownlee, Bennett, Joyce, Smith, Bridges etc will be sick of their self righteous bragging come election day. You polling will notice the stern voter slippage a month out from the election.

              It will be a shipwreck Hooton, some of these power players your boosting about will have wished they jumped ship rather than suffer the hammering HMS Key-National are going to get.

    • Anne 18.3
      20 January 2014 at 6:43 pm

      Heard your pernicious spin about Cunliffe this morning Hooton. As always, dropped in (seemingly) by accident. So, that was your New Year resolution was it? Slip in something nasty about David Cunliffe every Monday morning on RNZ?

      Doubt whether Mike Williams will be so tolerant of you and your suspect spinning this year mate.

      • Matthew Hooton 18.3.1
        20 January 2014 at 7:00 pm

        What on earth did I say re your hero to upset you? I can’t remember even mentioning him.

        • Anne 18.3.1.1
          20 January 2014 at 7:05 pm

          Liar. 😈

          • Matthew Hooton 18.3.1.1.1
            20 January 2014 at 7:06 pm

            No seriously, what did I say about him?

          • Matthew Hooton 18.3.1.1.2
            20 January 2014 at 7:36 pm

            Oh I see. You don’t know what it was I said that upset you but I am a liar anyway.

            • Anne 18.3.1.1.2.1
              20 January 2014 at 7:55 pm

              http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/25827

              17:09 mins in.

              Now watch Matthew Hooton spin like an out of control washing machine. 🙂

              • BM …
                20 January 2014 at 8:08 pm

                Your link doesn’t work.

              • karol …
                20 January 2014 at 8:53 pm

                Hooton said in poorer electorates, turnout in election tends to be lower. But the fall in overall turnout from 2008-2011 wasn’t due to their voters not turning out.

                Hooton said New Lynn’s turnout dropped by 1500 votes from 2008-2011 – close – it dropped from 335,382 – 33,980 – dropped 1402

                He said Manukau East went up – correct – the turnout went up by 2 votes, – incorrect – other way round, it actually dropped by 2 votes.
                from 27,486 – 27,484

                Hooton didn’t mention Mangere – (which includes Otara) – it went 25 353 to 25,525 – rose by 172 votes

                or
                Waitakere 31,572 to 31,422 – drop of 150 votes
                or

                Wellington Central – 41,286 to 39,525 – drop 1761
                or
                te Atatu – from 31,912 to 31,191 – drop of 721 votes

                or
                Christchurch East from 34,629 to 28,977 – drop of 5652 votes
                or
                Mt Roskil from 34,273 to 32,719 – drop of 1554 votes
                or
                Dunedin South from 37,435 to 35,569 – drop of 18 66 votes

                Also substantial drop in Mt Albert – to be expected as Clark stood in 2008 and Shearer in 2011.

                2008: Total number of General roll votes cast: 2233146; total on General roll 2761093; total electoral population 3612868

                2011 – Total General votes cast: 2143255; total on General roll 2837747; total electoral popullation general roll 3612868 (how come that didn’t change?)

                = 89, 891 less votes cast;

                • felix …
                  20 January 2014 at 11:55 pm

                  His thesis makes no sense anyway. He said that the rise in the non-vote was mostly in “centre-right seats”.

                  So what? Even if true, it means nothing. It certainly does nothing to discredit the idea of a large block of potential left-wing non-voters. Does Hooten Hooton think that everyone in a centre-right seat is a centre-right voter? Of course not. Does Hooton think that those in centre-right seats who don’t vote are more likely to be centre-right voters? Of course not.

                  It’s just Hooton desperately distracting and discrediting every time the non-vote is bought up.

                  Make no mistake; the right wing and the elitists that Hooton represents are terrified of what might happen if all of the people took an interest and used their voice.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    21 January 2014 at 1:04 am

                    Make no mistake; the right wing and the elitists that Hooton represents are terrified of what might happen if all of the people took an interest and used their voice.

                    Yep and they always have been. It’s why we got representative democracy rather than participatory and why only the right people were initially allowed to vote. They truly fear that the common people will vote to take their wealth back off the rich.

              • Paul …
                20 January 2014 at 9:29 pm

                “Sorry seems to be the hardest word.”

            • geoff 18.3.1.1.2.2
              20 January 2014 at 7:59 pm

              8 mins 20secs in as well.
              You made a big point about Labour and David Cunliffe making a mistake in thinking the missing voters in previous elections were left voters.
              That’s fairly alarming that you forgot that, I guess that’s why you can do your job, you don’t think you’re lying because you’ve forgotten what you said earlier.
              Time for a doctors appointment?

            • bad12 18.3.1.1.2.3
              20 January 2014 at 8:03 pm

              I will take that as an admission rather than a question, thanks for the confirmation but we all knew so befor you did…

              • geoff …
                20 January 2014 at 8:08 pm

                He knew before too but he’d forgotten…

                We’re like Matthew’s occupational therapists, charitably reminding him of why he’s so disliked. Must be very harrowing for the poor dear, lucky he’s got us.

          • Paul 18.3.1.1.3
            20 January 2014 at 7:51 pm

            A contemptible comment.
            Do you have no shame?
            Please don’t reply…..it’s a rhetorical question.

            • Colonial Viper 18.3.1.1.3.1
              21 January 2014 at 6:18 am

              Would this be a bad time to thank Hooton for coming by and commenting? 😈

  19. RedBaronCV 19
    20 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Might be smart of the greens to put up an organic farmer person. BTW can I assume that the multinational company faction in the Nacts is winning out over the farmer faction who are now toast.
    If they aren’t already totally pissed off by coming second in the latest Fonterra stoush behind the overseas investors. in Sunday star times Perfectly predictable of course

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      20 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

      Time to tell Fonterra H.Q. what you think of them by supplying somone else, me thinks.

  20. tricledrown 20
    20 January 2014 at 5:33 pm

    hollowing hooten
    you should set the example and follow suit.

  21. dv 21
    20 January 2014 at 5:53 pm

    You would have to be concerned about a selection process that put Gilmore on their list though.

    • McFlock 21.1
      20 January 2014 at 5:59 pm

      and tolley, brownlee, parata, etc…

    • Colonial Viper 21.2
      20 January 2014 at 6:11 pm

      Yeah. But let’s not throw too many stones in this glass house, eh.

      • McFlock 21.2.1
        20 January 2014 at 6:47 pm

        You’re the one who is convinced the house is made of glass, yet insists on sitting inside it.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 21.2.2
        20 January 2014 at 6:58 pm

        Nah, CV – if we can’t ‘throw stones’ because we are ‘surviving’ in something as fragile as a glasshouse – it needs to be ‘smashed down’ – and the sooner the better, quite frankly – there is something very wrong with telling others to be careful about how they criticize the Nat party out of some mistaken notion that the left ‘can’t talk’.

        If you, as an active member of Labour can’t speak well of your own party – then how do you expect that will translate into a left-wing government by the end of the year??

        • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.1
          21 January 2014 at 6:03 am

          Firstly, I’m not a huge fan of hypocrisy. Slam the NATs selection procedures for putting embarrassments into Parliament, fine. But name which other party in Parliament hasn’t had similar issues recently. Say in the last 5 years. I do agree with you that its not our job to try and keep stunted broken down systems going. But to finish them off entirely so that space is created for something new and vital to arise.

          Secondly, I recognised some time ago that its not my job to “speak well of my party” nor does it help “my” party to do so. Further, its not game day yet. So as a true fan of the team, in pre-season I reserve my right to sledge the sponsors, the team management, the coaches, the selectors, the fitness and ball handling skills of the players, and the general tactics employedemployed, if necessary.

          Thirdly, Labour is not the Left nor can they be relied upon to stay left without ongoing pressure applied by the likes of us from the outside (which I know you know). Anyhows, there are more than enough cheerleader types around that they don’t need me to join the chorus.

          • Te Reo Putake 21.2.2.1.1
            21 January 2014 at 7:33 am

            Hmmm. Pretty sure you’ll ever actually become an MP with that attitude, electorate or list, so I guess we’ll never know if you would have become a Parliamentary embarrassment yourself, CV.

            • Colonial Viper 21.2.2.1.1.1
              21 January 2014 at 9:20 am

              Oh shit, you’re right mate. I better listen to the establishment apparatchiks and start towing the party line. Thanks for the great advice on having a better “attitude”.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                21 January 2014 at 9:30 am

                No worries, CV, I’m here to help! By way of disclosure, I recognised long ago that my generally snarky attitude meant I’d never be fit for public office either. But at least I’m loyal and discreet in my criticisms of the party of which I’m a member.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  21 January 2014 at 9:43 am

                  Your implication being that I’m neither loyal nor discreet, that you are the better Party apparatchik? Ah well, so be it.

                  You better submit a complaint about me to the Commissar, comrade, the Party will be displeased if you do not carry out your duties. Ahhh shucks, Curran has already beat you to it 😈

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    21 January 2014 at 11:36 am

                    lol!

                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                    21 January 2014 at 11:55 am

                    I had a thought that must be where you are coming from and it is good to hear your clarification on the matter.

                    I agree that a false type of support – simply ‘following a party line’ is not effective because I believe people eventually pick up on the insincerity of it.

                    I would suggest though the timing of when you write criticisms, that when someone is saying something critiquing right-wing behaviour and you jump in and say the type of thing you did – it undermines the right-wing critique and in my humble opinion undermines what you are really trying to achieve.

                    I fully acknowledge you can do what you want (!) and do a very good job at raising awareness, so this is simply a suggestion from my perspective – some food for thought?

                    I really appreciate the response CV – thank you.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 January 2014 at 12:42 pm

                      I would suggest though the timing of when you write criticisms, that when someone is saying something critiquing right-wing behaviour and you jump in and say the type of thing you did – it undermines the right-wing critique

                      Yes I accept that this is a very fair criticism that you level at what I did there.

                      I guess underlying the statement I made is my view that ‘writing off’ National’s series of mass of retirements as simply factional bloodletting, ‘rats leaving a sinking ship’, and symptoms of internal political chaos, is a huge error on the part of the Left.

                      Quite to the contrary. To me it is a sign of clear political dominance by a very focussed faction (or factions) of the National Party with a focus on winning in 2014 through a plan to renew and bring new blood in.

                      There is no ‘uneasy truce’ here. It is a sign of excellent caucus discipline and skilled use of carrots and sticks by whoever is managing the process of exiting all these MPs quietly and gracefully.

                      From a corporate HR standpoint, National is restructuring their caucus for the next 10 years worth of grassroots talent development and leadership identification.

                      So the Left may continue to make “rats leaving a sinking ship” jokes (which are not entirely without credence) but in my view, the electorate is consciously picking up that National are serious about getting rid of non-performing deadwood MPs and renewing a cohesive, disciplined, fresh looking team to present to the electorate in 2014. And it makes me damn nervous.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      21 January 2014 at 2:08 pm

                      Yeah, I kinda relate where you are coming from there!

                      However – I recall your previous confirmation to comments I have made about how there must be a lot of right-wingers who are utterly ashamed of what has been going on in this country at the hands of this current government – perhaps it might calm your nerves if you focus on that aspect of right-wing dynamics? –

                      …Because there has to be people of right-wing persuasion who see the lack of respect being shown toward democratic principles, the real sell-outs to interests other than New Zealanders’ and the complete incompetence that has been going on with regard to many organisations – WINZ & ACC privacy leaks, Novopay, the Canterbury firing of a democratic body & consequent banning of reintroducing democracy, the deaths in the mines and the response to that, the deaths in other industries and the responses to that, the Rena fiasco, the use of retrospective legislation, the Conservation department interference and cut-backs, the education cuts….

                      ….surely not all people of right-wing persuasion support these fiascos nor how this government has dealt with them?

                      …and we know many don’t support the removal of illegality on spying on citizens and the asset sales……

                      So I think it altogether better to realise that some of these people being ‘shoulder-tapped’ must be dead relieved to have an ‘out’ As I mentioned above “rats leaving the rats-nest because they can’t bare the stench” might be a more accurate angle…..:D

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 January 2014 at 2:15 pm

                      Yep.

                      Problem is that parts of Labour sometimes thinks that it can reach out to such people irritated by National Party shennanigans by going even more neoliberal itself – which is a dumb approach, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the issues ‘traditional old fashioned conservatives’ are concerned about and the mindset they have.

                      edit – simply getting 50,000 of these National voters staying at home, via presenting a cogent pro-NZ focused alternative and pointing out how National is failing them, may be enough for Labour to win the election.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      21 January 2014 at 2:24 pm

                      +1
                      I really wish these ‘elements’ of the Labour party would start getting more switched on and with the programme – it is boring waiting for them to do so – and becoming devastating for many that they are not.

                      ‘No reprisals’ shouldn’t mean an ongoing tolerance for undermining the new approach that Labour party members clearly voted for when they voted in Mr Cunliffe 🙁

                  • Rob …
                    21 January 2014 at 12:23 pm

                    Yep TRP is the Labour party fluffer.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 21.3
      21 January 2014 at 12:38 pm

      Now thats a ‘rejuvenation’ they dont talk about

      Funny he too had a well burnished business resume !

      Will be going places quickly ( and how true that was ?) they said

  22. Anne 22
    20 January 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Reply to BM
    Try again:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2582775

    Reply links gone.

  23. captain hook 23
    21 January 2014 at 10:45 am

    See with hooton and co its all about image and not achievement. No matter how many bombiddybom juveniles the nats round up to rejuvenate their party there will be a lot more forced retirements after the election.
    Anyway most nats are just there to make up the numbers.
    I-predict National will go down in a screaming heap.

  24. ghostwhowalksnz 24
    21 January 2014 at 12:35 pm

    How come we werent told at the last election, 24 months ago, that there was so much dead wood in nationals ranks.

    Doing nothing and going nowhere ? But Now they tell us !!

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.