And the Nats want this man in parliament?

72 comments on “And the Nats want this man in parliament? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Peak Oil Conspiracy 1

   17 February 2008 at 1:47 am

   Irish Bill:

   “Now this might not be the Steven Franks of Act fame that we know and love…”

   That’d be Stephen Franks.

   And I’m not sure how you infer this from his comment:

   “A prominent ex-mp and potential National party candidate for Wellington Central is publicly claiming with no evidence whatsoever that the New Zealand police are corrupt and that the government is involved in a bribery scam.”

   Could you walk me through your reasoning process in more detail?

   A careful reading of Franks’ comment might suggest a different conclusion: he’s talking about the fiasco leading up to the Auditor-General’s report on party spending (which, incidentally, NZ First by its actions has placed on the agenda for this election).
2. IrishBill 2

   17 February 2008 at 8:07 am

   I’ve fixed the spelling POC.

   “One problem – Scotland Yard still has credibility as independent of Labour. Sadly the NZ Police in recent electoral matters have been disgraceful.”

   He is saying the police are not independent of Labour. A police force that acts politically is a corrupt police force. It doesn’t matter what “fiasco” Franks is talking about because there has been no “fiasco” involving politicised and corrupt police.

   What you and the rest of the Kiwiblog right need to understand, POC, is that organisations and people are not corrupt simply because you say they are. This kind of behaviour can be ignored when it’s conducted by anonymous KBR nobodies but I’d expect more from a parliamentarian.
3. outofbed 3

   17 February 2008 at 8:16 am

   Rich out, Franks in
   Every Picture eh ?
4. gobsmacked 4

   17 February 2008 at 8:28 am

   Key & English buddy up to the Maori Party. David Farrar predicts a National – Maori Party coalition.

   Stephen Franks calls the Maori Party “open racists”.

   Do they really want this guy?
5. outofbed 5

   17 February 2008 at 9:12 am

   And honestly, who takes their mother with them on protest marches
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/701460.jpg

   [lprent: I have done so in 1981. Took a lot of argument and discussion – you should sharpen up your skills.]
6. outofbed 6

   17 February 2008 at 9:16 am

   Whoops sorry big mistake

   It wasn’t a march it was a protest demonstration
7. Barnsley Bill 7

   17 February 2008 at 10:22 am

   His comments on the NZ police force resonante with many Kiwis. Despite many incidents of Clark and Co breaking the law over the tenure of this govt we have seen the police fumble and excuse every time. prima facie evidence but not in the public interest is the new motto for Police HQ. Len Richards is still waiting to be charged for an assault witnessed by most of the country but hairy dropkicks in Chch get charged for flicking their sons ear. You really have no wriggle room on this. The perception is that this labour govt have moved themselves above the law.
   Other than that I agree with you, stephen franks is a numpty of the highest order, his scotch taped mouth while holding mummys hand was embarassing.
8. outofbed 8

   17 February 2008 at 10:33 am

   If DPF is going to be his campaign manager then there is probably nothing to worry about
9. Ruth 9

   17 February 2008 at 10:40 am

   That was his WIFE! Get it right you men 😉
10. outofbed 10

    17 February 2008 at 10:44 am

    Sincere apologies It was probably a bad camera angle

    [lprent: yeah right….]
11. deemac 11

    17 February 2008 at 11:05 am

    this is a new low in the undermining of politics in NZ. When politicians do this on a regular basis, as the Nats are doing now, it is ultimately destabilising to democracy. In some countries it would be recognised as the prelude to a coup. In NZ it is probably an attempt to turn people off and make them disillusioned with the political process and so less likely to vote.
12. burt 12

    17 February 2008 at 11:11 am

    outofbed

    And honestly, who takes their mother with them on protest marches..

    Attacking the partner of a public figure in such a derogatory way is about as low as it gets. Then to carry on about it being a bad camera angle…. You are a disgrace. lprent should moderate your comments out of here.
    
    IrishBill says: I see you’ve completely lost your sense of humour now Burt. Even Franks had a laugh at that picture on his blog
13. burt 13

    17 February 2008 at 11:18 am

    outofbed

    Rich out, Franks in
    Every Picture eh ?

    That was good – pity you lost it in personal attack mode after that.

    So what we have here is the standard saying it’s a disgrace that National would think of taking a person strong enough to stand up to the Labour party and it’s antics. Imagine, somebody in opposition who’s not going to ‘move on’ when told to by dear leader.

    Must be a scary time eh, big scandals in all directions.
14. lprent 14

    17 February 2008 at 11:25 am

    burt: I don’t like it. But it appears to be the ‘norm’ in some of the blogs at present.

    I have to regard it as being similar in a similar vein to the attacks on Peter Davis. For instance when he sent a letter to the editor at the Herald recently. Should I point out the commentary on that on some of the blogs? KiwiBlog comes to mind.

    I’d prefer that this type of denigration doesn’t come up at all. But if it is raised by one side, then I cannot deny the ability to respond in kind. It is a problem in escalation, it will probably have to get bad enough before it gets shut down.

    I’m not a supporter of unilateral disarmament. If I see some moderation being even started on other blogs, then I will follow suit.
15. lprent 15

    17 February 2008 at 11:49 am

    when told to by dear leader.

    For instance your own habital denigration. I find this type of attack distasteful as well. Perhaps I should moderate your comments.
16. Billy 16

    17 February 2008 at 11:52 am

    I thought partisan politicians could say any old nonsense they wante:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1123#comment-18525
17. AncientGeek 17

    17 February 2008 at 12:00 pm

    So what we have here is the standard saying it’s a disgrace that National would think of taking a person strong enough to stand up to the Labour party and it’s antics.

    What does Franks getting turfed out of the public gallery have to do with Labour? The protest violated the standing rules of the house. There are no protests, silent or otherwise, allowed in the house.

    Whoever was the speaker had absolutely no choice but to turf them out. If the speaker was from Act, they’d have had to do it.

    Franks knows that, he just wanted his photo in the papers.

    cap: MORRISTOWN dope
    stock tip..
18. burt 18

    17 February 2008 at 12:01 pm

    lprent

    Did you miss the subtle difference between my post and outofbed’s. His/hers was denigrating the partner of a public figure. I was referring directly to a public figure. IE: Somebody who’s own actions have earned them such a reference. You were onto it when you talked about Peter Davis and attacks on him.
19. outofbed 19

    17 February 2008 at 12:08 pm

    If i have offended anyone in anyway I apologise unreservedly.
    Burt thankyou for pointing out my mistake, my tonque in cheek sense of humour sometimes get the better of me.

    However that now done perhaps you can lift your gane as well
    You can start with “dear leader”
20. lprent 20

    17 February 2008 at 12:08 pm

    burt: What I was saying is:- that my preferences do not count in the moderation of this blog. I dislike name-calling (rather than debate)only a slightly less than I dislike discrimination by association.

    In my opinion, both are symptoms of people who haven’t yet managed to attain adult behaviour. But this is a political blog, so will maintain itself as being no worse then the average political blog (quite childish).
21. outofbed 21

    17 February 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Lprent ? you can delete the offending post I have seen the error of my ways (hangs head in shame)

    [lprent: too many comments referring to it. Looks like you will have to live with it.]
22. outofbed 22

    17 February 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Oh well sleep will be difficult tonight But hey
23. Whaleoil 23

    17 February 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Ancient Greek: “violated standing rules of the house”

    How about this then? Big difference between tape over the mouth and presenting weapons, singing, dancing and standing up, all of which are against the standing orders….clearly rules for some and not for others.
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/silenced-even-house
24. the sprout 24

    17 February 2008 at 12:49 pm

    she’ll be right oob.
25. outofbed 25

    17 February 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Hm keep it up Whaleoil apart from Act (though rats deserting sinking ship etc) you have only got one potential coalition partner probably not good to play the racist card
26. AncientGeek 26

    17 February 2008 at 12:56 pm

    W: And was Franks invited to perform by the speaker expressing the wish of the house? Because I’d bet that whoever it was, asked leave of the house and had it granted, before doing anything in the gallery. In my experience, Maori are usually quite meticulous about protocol. Franks wasn’t.

    And what does Ron Marks gesture have to do with anything. We’re talking here about the rules governing the public gallery. That photo was taken on the floor (and gets covered by other rules).
27. AncientGeek 27

    17 February 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Furthermore, I’ll bet that Ron Marks got done for his gesture, and didn’t complain.

    Franks violated the rules and then whined about it. All to get a publicity shot.

    cap: the drama
    damn machine…
28. AncientGeek 28

    17 February 2008 at 1:23 pm

    I’m less concerned about Franks pathetic publicity stunt, than I am about this report “http://www.stuff.co.nz/4403110a6160.html“.

    We have our troops deployed wider than any time during my adult life. This is at a time when unemployment is the lowest it has been in my adult-life. The effective spending on the military has been improved, especially after getting rid of those white-elephant fighter bombers from the 1950’s. The equipment has improved out all sight over the last 10 years

    However I think that we’re going to have to increase the wage rates in the military to allow them to attract and retain the skills required for a professional force.
29. outofbed 29

    17 February 2008 at 1:54 pm

    No problems change the “boot camps” into forced enlistment camps
30. AncientGeek 30

    17 February 2008 at 2:19 pm

    The military wants volunteers who are want to be professional soldiers. They really aren’t interested in conscripts. But it sounds like they are having problems recruiting people with the levels of skills that they require. Sounds like a place for a wage rise.
31. Peak Oil Conspiracy 31

    17 February 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Irish Bill:

    What you and the rest of the Kiwiblog right need to understand, POC, is that organisations and people are not corrupt simply because you say they are.

    I realise this probably isn’t your intended meaning, but just in case it is, I challenge you to show me where I’ve ever alleged that any organisation, in NZ or overseas, is corrupt. Hint: I haven’t.

    This kind of behaviour can be ignored when it’s conducted by anonymous KBR nobodies but I’d expect more from a parliamentarian.

    I’d dare say Winston Peters has carved out a special niche for himself in NZ politics (at least in living memory), in two ways: (1) most number of defamatory allegations under parliamentary privilege; and (2) most number of allegations as to corruption. Am I wrong?
32. IrishBill 32

    17 February 2008 at 4:26 pm

    parliamentary privilege
33. burt 33

    17 February 2008 at 6:43 pm

    AncientGeek

    The military wants volunteers….

    But it sounds like they are having problems recruiting people with the levels of skills that they require. Sounds like a place for a wage rise.

    Schools are having trouble get teachers, Police are having trouble recruiting, there aren’t enough Dr’s to clear the waiting lists…

    Sounds like NZ is a place that needs a wage rise. So the common employer between the military, police, health service, education sector?
34. reid 34

    17 February 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Has Labour selected it’s Wellington Central candidate yet? Is it Chauvel?
35. IrishBill 35

    17 February 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Seems like a fair call to me Burt. I’d love to see the government raise wages. I’m sure a few in the business sector might not be so happy about it though.
36. AncientGeek 36

    17 February 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Now where is the government going to get a couple of billion from?
37. Gooner 37

    17 February 2008 at 8:28 pm

    “I’d be very interested if he stands by his allegations or if he is simply engaging in defamatory politicking,…”

    Who did Franks defame?
38. burt 38

    17 February 2008 at 8:44 pm

    AncientGeek

    Now where is the government going to get a couple of billion from?

    I’d start with the surpluses that we have had for the last few years, you know the ones – they show prudent management, money collected in excess of requirements, requirements like paying decent salaries.

    Other than that, perhaps the govt could offer Owen Glenn the PM’s job for $2b and sort it all out once and for all.
39. Robinsod 39

    17 February 2008 at 8:45 pm

    I’m pretty certain you can defame an organisation. I know I’ve been threated with liable by a corporation before.
40. the bean 40

    17 February 2008 at 8:53 pm

    lprent i appreciate the need to moderate but the comment thread interruptions are becoming increasingly school marmish. Tane and co did quite a good job without having to pick on everything. The more you pick at posts by people like ‘out of bed’ the more decent commentators are going to drift off else where and it will be left to the trolls.
    [lprent: Think about the purpose of this blog. It is here to advance the labour movement and help make the left more effective. How do you think a comment like that looks to the lurkers (at least 10x the commenters). Does it help or hinder? And thanks for the compliment.]
41. AncientGeek 41

    17 February 2008 at 8:55 pm

    I’d start with the surpluses that we have had for the last few years, you know the ones – they show prudent management,….

    Sorry to underquote, but…

    Yes, it has been nice to have a fiscally prudent government for a change. Means that one of these inevitable crunches comes through and the government doesn’t have to borrow to finance a deficit.

    They still need to index adjust the tax brackets, but anything is better than the Muldoon solution to a changing world economy.

    Robinsod: it is libel, not liable. Hey – I can be as picky as Irish

    cap: this waged
42. The Prophet 42

    17 February 2008 at 8:57 pm

    I know I’ve been threated with liable by a corporation before.

    Well thats a surprise Sod.

    Franks will be good for National, he’s got a bit of mongrel with some lawyer bits in the meld. Obviously pretty smart at free PR too.

    Given Franks is a lawyer I would have thought he’d know something about evidence and liable but apparently not

    Are you a lawyer Bill?

    catchpa – of liberation

    Ah, it knows me well.
43. Robinsod 43

    17 February 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Yeah, prophet. Funny thing was when I told them to go fuck themselves nothing more came of it. Typical righties…
44. the sprout 44

    17 February 2008 at 9:39 pm

    sounds like the SlaterWhale
45. Tane 45

    17 February 2008 at 10:07 pm

    reid, Grant Robertson has been selected as Labour’s Wgtn Central candidate. He’s a good guy and he runs a blog at: http://www.grantrobertson.co.nz/
46. Chemist Peter 46

    17 February 2008 at 10:24 pm

    What is Grant qualified to be a canidate for Labour? Teacher, unionist or poofter.
47. the sprout 47

    17 February 2008 at 10:32 pm

    CP you have all the humour of a chemistry major
48. Chemist Peter 48

    17 February 2008 at 10:37 pm

    very witty subject chemistry but it is very straight, opposites attract. BTW, I did do a chemistry major, a MSC in fact.

    LF, what has the drought got to do with GW. We are talking weather in this instance. Apparently it is being caused by the La Nina, which is also making it piss down in Australia.
49. milo 49

    17 February 2008 at 10:49 pm

    You know, every time I feel like hassling Labour, I see a comment like that from Chemist Peter, and I reconsider.

    Anyway, as for the Stephen Franks comments, that exactly why I comment anonymously, when my real name is … Jim Kirk! No, Norman Bolger! Err, I mean Tony Blair! Um, actually it’s … Bill Birch!

    Hmmn. Criticisms of an individual who puts his name to his comments would have a little more credibility if the critic wasn’t so …. anonymous
50. James Kearney 50

    17 February 2008 at 10:55 pm

    Stephen Franks is standing for public office and is using Kiwiblog to build supporters and electioneer – the author of this post isn’t.

    It’s obvious Franks sees the Kiwiblog Right as his core constituency.
51. Chemist Peter 51

    17 February 2008 at 11:05 pm

    Thats the beauty of the www Milo, I can stay anoymous. How about all the Standard left who flock here? Right = wrong, left = right. It’s a running joke with Labour selections, you are either a teacher, unionist or a homosexual. Perception is reality in this instance.
52. the sprout 52

    17 February 2008 at 11:10 pm

    “with Labour selections, you are either a teacher, unionist or a homosexual”

    or, unlike NAtional, an experienced politician
53. The Prophet 53

    18 February 2008 at 8:50 am

    Stephen Franks is standing for public office and is using Kiwiblog to build supporters and electioneer – the author of this post isn’t.

    Quite true James.

    We have no idea who the author of this post is.

    That was Milos point.

    The Beans comment a 8.53pm is absolutely fucken hilarious.

    lprent – how dare you hassle the crew. Just ban those nasty trolls.
    OOB is one of the ‘good’ guys, didn’t you know?

    [lprent: I don’t really care. I just look at behaviour. Generally it pays not to attract my attention.]
54. the bean 54

    18 February 2008 at 9:12 am

    [lprent: Think about the purpose of this blog. It is here to advance the labour movement and help make the left more effective. How do you think a comment like that looks to the lurkers (at least 10x the commenters). Does it help or hinder? And thanks for the compliment.]

    currently this kind of excessive moderator commentary is hindering anyone enjoying this blog or feeling like they can be bothered commenting. And as for telling me that by daring to comment on this I am some how jeopardising the advance of the labour movement? yep…right
55. Ex Labour Voter 55

    18 February 2008 at 9:21 am

    Apparently, the Standard now defends Dail Jones in Parliament. Tane has a go at DPF, saying DPF pointing out views that Jones has, which most Labour voters would find repugnant, shows that National doesn’t understand MMP.

    lprent, isn’t robinsod ready for another final final final warning yet? And for the record, who is currently banned from making comments?
56. Tane 56

    18 February 2008 at 9:25 am

    ELV – it’s silly to try and smear people online when they can refer back to the original quote with a simple link:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/02/dails_back.html#comment-409856
57. Ex Labour Voter 57

    18 February 2008 at 9:44 am

    lprent: one of your problems as a moderator is that you use terms that you do not understand in order to confuse people, yet the people you are talking to are smarter than you and see through your bullshit. With all due respect, you are not smarter than the commentators on this blog. You have taken on the role of self-appointed moderator, yet you aren’t smart enough to understand the arguments. Consequently, you invariably side with your own political prejudices, and hammer people who put up views opposing your own, yet give very light sentences to people who share your views.

    Robinsod is still hurling abuse on this blog, despite being given final final final warnings multiple times.

    When the Standard was established, it claimed not to moderate comments, because it believed in free speech. Now the Standard effectively has several full-time moderators, and you ping everybody who raises a slightly contrary view.

    Lprent, you have gone beyond the role of moderator to editorialise. Your problem when you editorialise is that your views are banal and flimsy. Here’s a constructive idea for you, if you have to moderate. Ping everybody who is abusive, and withhold your own views until you’re smart enough to mount and sustain a proper argument.
58. the bean 58

    18 February 2008 at 9:55 am

    jeeze…I wouldn’t claim Lprent wasn’t “smart” enough. even I am not dumb enough to think that. but I am sure that will give him a laugh
59. milo 59

    18 February 2008 at 10:19 am

    Iprent said: “Think about the purpose of this blog. It is here to advance the labour movement and help make the left more effective.”

    This shows the gulf in values between me and some of the crew here. I value argument and debate, the contest of ideas, with the hope that truth will emerge from critical discussion. Iprent seems to value propaganda! Sheesh. It must be nice to have such certainty that you never need to change your views.
60. The Prophet 60

    18 February 2008 at 10:21 am

    [lprent: I don’t really care. I just look at behaviour. Generally it pays not to attract my attention.]

    Yup, this site just keeps on giving and giving.
61. r0b 61

    18 February 2008 at 11:12 am

    This shows the gulf in values between me and some of the crew here.

    There is no gulf between wanting to advance the labour movement, and a contest of ideas. In any contest of ideas the labour movement wins handily!

    Where there is a gulf is between people. There are the kind of people who volunteer their time and effort and work hard to admin a blog, who put up with a world of abuse, and who front up with their names. There is a gulf between them and the kind of people who drop in, occasionally and anonymously, to snipe.

    To be fair Milo, you’re not a troll (like The Prophet). You do seem to want to engage constructively. Though you also have a tendency to sometimes pop up all excited and run a line of arrant nonsense that you don’t believe in just to try and score some points:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1030#comment-16599
62. Michele Cabiling 62

    18 February 2008 at 12:39 pm

    IrishBill says: just in case you forgot you’ve been banned until May.
63. The Prophet 63

    18 February 2008 at 5:41 pm

    To be fair Milo, you’re not a troll (like The Prophet)

    Yay, r0b doesn’t think I’m a troll.

    I’m so relieved.

    Hey r0b, you know how you’re just a commentor here and not part of the blog blah blah blah.

    How come your comments have the nice little shaded box around them that all the blog authors have?
64. IrishBill 64

    18 February 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Yeah, I’d been waiting for someone to ask that. We’ve been wondering the same thing. It could be some random html that rOb’s browser is inserting or it could be that something in his username/email is confusing wordpress. We’re pretty sure it doesn’t extend to actual admin privileges though.
65. Gooner 65

    18 February 2008 at 10:04 pm

    “I’m pretty certain you can defame an organisation. I know I’ve been threated with liable by a corporation before.”

    Robinsod – I’ll forget you called me a fuckwit on a prior post and answer this for you. I don’t hold grudges, usually 🙂

    It’s very hard to defame an organisation. Usually only individuals can be defamed.

    In your case you might have said something that sufficiently identified an individual within that organisation. That’s a different story.
66. r0b 66

    18 February 2008 at 10:42 pm

    We’ve been wondering the same thing. It could be some random html that rOb’s browser is inserting or it could be that something in his username/email is confusing wordpress.

    Huh. I thought everyone saw their own posts (and of course the admin posts) highlighted (in a grey box). Never realised it was only me!

    My browser is various versions of Safari on various Macs. My user name and email address aren’t at all unusal – they contain a “0” (zero, which many people read as a capital “o”).

    We’re pretty sure it doesn’t extend to actual admin privileges though.

    Well, I see a tab at the top right of the banner saying site admin, but it doesn’t seem to let me do anything much. I won’t explore further, I’ve no right to admin The Standard even if it’s technically possible.

    If Lynn wants to email me, perhaps we can sort out what is going on with the grey box.
67. test 67

    18 February 2008 at 10:45 pm

    This is r0b testing.
68. r0b 68

    18 February 2008 at 10:47 pm

    So it’s not my browser, does seem to be user name based.
69. Robinsod 69

    19 February 2008 at 7:29 am

    Robinsod – I’ll forget you called me a fuckwit on a prior post and answer this for you. I don’t hold grudges, usually

    Yeah, sorry about that Gooner. I get a bit hot under the collar about folk (especially vulnerable folk) getting treated badly at work (it’s a hang over from watching some pretty bad shit happen to friends and family during the 90’s). I’m pretty sure you’re right about defamation and organisations – I think when I was threated with it it was a legal bluff. I’m not sure if we have the same laws as the UK where the infamous McLibel case took place, though.
70. randal 70

    20 February 2008 at 9:24 pm

    franks aint gonna do nuthin…he can only say whats wrong with the world and never whats right…voters want positive people
71. r0b 71

    31 March 2008 at 5:33 pm

    ‘Sod: “If the Greens had the opportunity to implement one core policy without compromise what would it be?’

    Ohh – like it – gets my vote!

    Steve: r0b. I have a technical point of my own. You may have noticed that when Standard writers comment our comments are in grey boxes. So are yours, and only yours, and we can’t stop it happening.

    It’s a puzzle! I discussed this once with IrishBill, see here:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1130#comment-18917
    and the test that followed.

    Hope it makes you feel special anyway.

    Fer sure!

Links to post

1. cancer malpractice lawyers new york city: posted on 1 May 2008 at 8:00 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS