Auckland electoral fraud case

89 comments on “Auckland electoral fraud case ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gobsmacked 1

   6 October 2010 at 3:52 pm

   The “outrage” about the name suppression from National Party supporters is hugely ironic, and predictably hypocritical.

   The problem, of course, is that we can’t say why it’s so ironic and hypocritical … because of name suppression!

   Let’s just hope the winning candidate is a good fellow.
   • Swampy 1.1

     7 October 2010 at 1:32 am

     Which outrage is that? The defence of name suppression on Kiwiblog? Do you believe the name suppression should be honoured because that’s what Farrar is saying.
2. The Baron 2

   6 October 2010 at 3:58 pm

   Remind me how national tried to rig an election?
   • AndyB 2.1

     6 October 2010 at 4:08 pm

     or when Labour rigged an election with the pledge card.
     • mickysavage 2.1.1

       6 October 2010 at 4:25 pm

       Oh gawd

       Labour used budget allocated for communication with the electors and told everyone what it would do if re-elected. And shock horror it kept its promises.

       Rigging an election by keeping your promises! If only more parties would do this.
       • Big Bruv 2.1.1.1

         6 October 2010 at 4:37 pm

         So it’s always fine to break the law, steal, vote rig or be corrupt just as long as you are a member of the NZ Labour party?

         Is that what you are saying Micky?
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1

           6 October 2010 at 5:17 pm

           Another RWNJ twisting someone else’s words to say something different from what they actually said.
         • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.2

           6 October 2010 at 6:10 pm

           Draco don’t be too harsh, Big Bruv will be more subtle once he’s finished his Crosby Textor induction programme.
       • Swampy 2.1.1.2

         7 October 2010 at 1:32 am

         So why did Labour have to pay it back then
         • Roger 2.1.1.2.1

           7 October 2010 at 11:14 am

           National had to pay theirs back too. They just needed less because they had funding from a secretive group willing to impose their ideals onto the rest of us.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     6 October 2010 at 4:22 pm

     Their deals with the Exclusive Brethren.
     • The Baron 2.2.1

       6 October 2010 at 5:19 pm

       See, I thought this was what you were referring to. I hate to detract from the topic in question (but for the record, R0B, even though you said you weren’t throwing stones, you pretty much did…)…

       Yes, there were fair and legitimate questions about the nature of their parallel campaigning – but to paint that as an attempt to “rig an election” equivalent to the fraudulent enrolment of voters seems a very long bow.

       While I am at it, I find it ironic, sad and frankly disgusting just how much hatred many on the left have for the exclusive brethren. I struggle to see how what they did is any different to the role unions play in Labour’s campaigns. But it seems that because they dared to enter into a political process and run a parallel campaign for “the wrong side” they deserve to be continually abused, criticised and mocked by “noble socialists” like yourself, Draco.

       Simply put, it seems to me that on the issue of the brethren, many of you are just as bigoted as Henry, really.
       • r0b 2.2.1.1

         6 October 2010 at 5:29 pm

         Yes, there were fair and legitimate questions about the nature of their parallel campaigning – but to paint that as an attempt to “rig an election” … seems a very long bow.

         The electorate didn’t think so Baron. That’s why Don Brash resigned in disgrace – remember?

         I find it ironic, sad and frankly disgusting just how much hatred many on the left have for the exclusive brethren.

         Who said anything negative about the EB? Doesn’t matter who the Nats were colluding with, it’s the Nats I blame, not the other party.
         • The Baron 2.2.1.1.1

           6 October 2010 at 5:46 pm

           Public opinion is a fickle thing, R0b and hardly a measure of what is moral or acceptable. Resigning is also a completely different issue from your allegation of election rigging; particularly when your listing of the reasons for that resignation is incomplete and partially speculative.

           Again, your use of this example is a bit disingenous and hypocritical – a long bow, designed to create an impression of “they are as guilty as we are” despite your claims to the contrary.

           Maybe you do indeed blame that incident on the nats and the nats alone – but I don’t believe your opinion is representative of all of your fellow lefties. Regardless, what still makes me sick about that instance is how the left, led by Labour, exploited the Brethren as an attackable minority. And as I said, I find it sick, bigoted and unacceptable that many on the left continue this prejudice today.
           • r0b 2.2.1.1.1.1

             6 October 2010 at 5:55 pm

             Public opinion is a fickle thing, R0b and hardly a measure of what is moral or acceptable.

             Especially when it turns agains you eh?

             Resigning is also a completely different issue from your allegation of election rigging;

             So what’s your take on why Brash resigned with the publication of The Hollow Men then Baron? Pure coincidence?

             And as I said, I find it sick, bigoted and unacceptable that many on the left continue this prejudice today

             Oh bollocks – you’re trying to saddle the left with your own preconceptions. There’s no evidence that “many on the left” have now, or ever had, a sick and bigoted attitude to the EB. I might just as well argue that all those pilling on to the alleged electoral roll fraud have a sick and bigoted attitude to Sikhs. Nonsense in both cases.
             • The Baron …

               6 October 2010 at 6:04 pm

               Lets try what I hope you’ll consider a neutral source – wikipedia will do (i’m not good at hyperlinking sorry – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_brash#Resignation)

               “Brash also claimed that the publication of the book did not contribute to his decision to resign as National Party leader, although most observers[citation needed] see it as the straw that broke the camel’s back. ”

               I stand beside my call of “long bow”, and of the way you hypocritically point scored with it, while criticising others for the same.

               As for the rest – fine, you think the left are as white as driven snow on their use of the Brethren. I claim very different. The sheer fact that you associate the Brethren’s involvement in campaigning as equivalent to vote rigging is evidence enough of your continued prejudice, as far as I am concerned.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 October 2010 at 6:11 pm

                 The sheer fact that you associate the Brethren’s involvement in campaigning as equivalent to vote rigging is evidence enough of your continued prejudice, as far as I am concerned.

                 Playing dirty is pretty obvious to all concerned, why leap out in front of a truck to defend it Baron?
               • r0b …

                 6 October 2010 at 6:14 pm

                 Lets try what I hope you’ll consider a neutral source – wikipedia

                 Wikipedia quoting Don Brash as a neutral source on the resignation of Don Brash? You crack me up!

                 The Nats have to own their history Baron. They lost a leader for electoral shenanigans.
           • George.com 2.2.1.1.1.2

             7 October 2010 at 9:02 pm

             It was not so much the Brethren being involved with Nationals election campaign that got the left upset. No, it was the lies and deceit of Don Brash. Brash concocted a secret camapign and then tried to claim that he knew nothing about it and had nothing to do with it. Brash should have been honest and open, “yes, the exclusive brethren are working with us to run a paralell campaign and here it is”. The issue would not have been half as serious as it turned out to be, would not have cuased so much political fall out for Brash or disgusted as many people as it did. To reiterate, it wasn’t actually about the Brethren, it was about the deceit and duplicity from Don Brash et al.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.2

           6 October 2010 at 8:40 pm

           When I see two parties acting corruptly I blame both parties.
       • Olwyn 2.2.1.2

         6 October 2010 at 5:59 pm

         For one thing, the Brethren do not vote, but were willing to weigh in so as to influence the votes of others. For another, they put out pamphlets which vilified the parties of the left without adequately indicating that they were the source of the pamphlets. Then Don Brash gave various conflicting answers as to the extent of his knowledge of these pamphlets. Generally the National Party seemed keen to use the input of the Brethren while at the same time trying to disassociate themselves from them. The problem wasn’t so much that they played a role in the campaign, as that neither they nor the National Party were above board about it.
         • The Baron 2.2.1.2.1

           6 October 2010 at 6:10 pm

           And that’s election rigging?

           And the fact that the Brethren don’t vote mean they can’t have any say at all? Do Unions vote? So why are they allowed a say then?

           And that they attacked the left, in a country where I think we believe in free speech, is wrong?

           As I said above – the method of the campaigning, and its anonymous nature, was not acceptable. But that does not justify the continual vilification of an entire community of New Zealanders on the basis of their religous choices. Hell, its a bit like blaming all Sikhs on the basis of the alleged behaviour in this instance.

           I cannot believe I have to explain this.
           • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.2.1.1

             6 October 2010 at 6:16 pm

             that does not justify the continual vilification of an entire community of New Zealanders on the basis of their religous choices.

             Sorry mate you’re all mixed up, we’re actually referring to the underhanded political leadership within the Exclusive Brethren when we villify ‘the Brethren’ as a *political entity*.

             We’re not attacking the poor saps within their group who aren’t even allowed to get a full high school education with the other kids in the community.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.2.1.2

             6 October 2010 at 8:52 pm

             …continual vilification of an entire community of New Zealanders on the basis of their religous choices.

             Good job no one actually does that then eh? Vilification of their corrupt political practices and abuse of those too weak to defend themselves inside their sect is fine though. When we see such practices we need to stomp on them without mercy.
       • Vicky32 2.2.1.3

         6 October 2010 at 6:11 pm

         I do not hate the Exclusive Brethren (having spent years in the Open Brethren) but I certainly do not trust them! It’s not bigotry, it’s experience – the EBs have wrecked lives, and I have seen it happen.. They’re essentially a ‘cult’ within the meaning of the act!
         Their ‘parallel campaigning’ took place by arrangement with National at the time, and it was all very different indeed from Labour’s association with the Unions, because the EBs tried to hide their involvement with National, whereas the association of unions with Labour has always been known by everyone!
       • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.4

         6 October 2010 at 8:39 pm

         But it seems that because they dared to enter into a political process and run a parallel campaign for “the wrong side”

         Go read the rules – the political parties and third parties aren’t allowed to collude to run a campaign which is what NACT and the EB did as was shown in by the emails in Nicky Hagers Hollow Men. They also hid (of course they hid it because they weren’t allowed to collude) that collusion which is downright suspicious and brings up the question of donations for favours.

         Unions run their own campaigns and Labour run theirs. There’s no collusion.

         It wasn’t because they were a minority or because they were on the “wrong side” but because they tried to subvert the electoral process and probably buy favours from National.
       • Roger 2.2.1.5

         7 October 2010 at 11:17 am

         “I struggle to see how what they did is any different to the role unions play in Labour’s campaigns.”

         Other than than Labour are open about the role of unions and it is common knowledge what this relationship is as opposed to the secretive nature of the relationship between the exclusive brethren and National?
3. Julie 3

   6 October 2010 at 3:58 pm

   The TV3 coverage last night was disgraceful, taking Banks’ line basically without critique and desperately trying to pin it to Brown. Some of their political reporting lately seems like it’s come straight from Whale Oil.
   • grumpy 3.1

     6 October 2010 at 4:11 pm

     Well, you have to admit – they do have a point.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     6 October 2010 at 4:27 pm

     Some of their political “reporting” does come from Whaleoil.
     • gobsmacked 3.2.1

       6 October 2010 at 4:39 pm

       Scott Campbell was TV3’s political reporter until recently.

       He then joined John Banks’ campaign team.

       I expect he’s sending out his CV about now …
       • Vicky32 3.2.1.1

         6 October 2010 at 6:17 pm

         That’s interesting information, gobsmacked!
         Deb
   • Swampy 3.3

     7 October 2010 at 4:01 am

     Let’s take another angle. Andrew Little said he thought one of the accused was linked to Labour. The accused got name suppression. The name suppression is very convenient because it keeps the party’s name out of the media. The name suppression could affect the electoral outcome.

     When this name suppression comes up to court it will be the Herald along with other media orgs arguing against the name suppression – because it is most obviously in the public interest to know which political party the accused is linked with.
     • Julie 3.3.1

       7 October 2010 at 8:37 am

       Actually, given that people know one of the accused is a candidate and Lanour have been upfront about him being on a Labour ticket the suppression is a negative for all Labour-affiliated candidates, and it means the party can’t throw him out yet because that would have theeffe t of breaching suppression. I imagine Andrew Little would like the suppression lifted so he can (rightly) disown this idiot. Electoral fraud is unacceptable.
4. Big Bruv 4

   6 October 2010 at 4:25 pm

   Typical Labour party behaviour.
   • BLiP 4.1

     6 October 2010 at 4:31 pm

     Ahhh – there you are. I’ve been thinking, if you are having trouble raising the money to pay your debt, get hold of National Ltd™ – it seems they are more than happy to bail out their mates.
     • Big Bruv 4.1.1

       6 October 2010 at 4:33 pm

       What debt is that BLiP?

       Or are you just trying to deflect the spotlight from another example of corruption inside the Labour party?
       • BLiP 4.1.1.1

         6 October 2010 at 5:40 pm

         C’mon now, BB. I know you’re ashamed about not paying your debts but, really, better to just face up to it.

         Corruption? Inside Labour? Glasshouse Syndrome me thinks. Take a look at what a Judge said about a Citizens and Ratepayers local body candidate.
         • Big Bruv 4.1.1.1.1

           6 October 2010 at 6:25 pm

           She does indeed look like a nasty piece of work BLiP, but try as I might I cannot see any evidence of her trying to rig an election.

           I guess that is the domain of the left in NZ, if it is not stealing tax payer money then legislating to legalise that theft it is defending a convicted criminal (remember, he was only guilty of trying to help people)

           As for my debt, I am still not sure what you are on about.
           • BLiP 4.1.1.1.1.1

             6 October 2010 at 6:42 pm

             Hmmm . . . yes, denial is strong in this one.

             I take it you missed the first link showing the lengths the right will go to in attempting to corrupt the election process?
           • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1.1.1.2

             6 October 2010 at 7:45 pm

             Pay up or piss off, Big Boof. And lay off the drugs, maaan, apparently they’ve fucked your short term memory.
             • Big Bruv …

               6 October 2010 at 7:56 pm

               Pay money to an organisation whose creator is an alleged rapist?

               I think not, but hey, well all know that as long as they are lefties you guys will excuse them of anything.

               Oh….Voice, you might want to give Flick Goff the advice re Drugs, it seems that his memory is rapidly fading, what he once championed and defended he now claims to be evil.
               NZ Labour, the gift that just keeps on giving…….or stealing as is more likely.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 6 October 2010 at 8:01 pm

                 Not your right to choose the recipient, Big Bludge. You agreed to pay up if you lost. You lost. Pay up or piss off.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1.3

             6 October 2010 at 8:59 pm

             defending a convicted criminal

             Except that the reality is that he was found guilty some time after Labour kicked him out…
           • George.com 4.1.1.1.1.4

             7 October 2010 at 9:09 pm

             “I guess that is the domain of the left in NZ”. Point of order here, Don Brash is not a left winger. In fact, he has been linked to ACT as a possible leader. So in all fact, Brash could actually become a part of the national government. Once again trying to rig an election becomes the forte of National? Lightening striking twice and all that.
   • indiana 4.2

     6 October 2010 at 4:35 pm

     Its all about trust
5. Graeme Edgeler 5

   6 October 2010 at 4:28 pm

   Unrelated issue for an unrelated post in another ward, and Banks wants to make some kind of legal lifeboat out of it if he loses? Spare me do.

   Given that no voting papers were issued to any suspected fraudulent enrolees, Banks does seem to be clutching at straws (unless he knows more than we do about the scope of the allegations) … however, I do not see that this is unrelated: had this worked, the fraudulent voters would have been given voting papers that would have enabled them to vote in a range of elections, including the Auckland Mayoral race.
6. JayDee 6

   6 October 2010 at 4:30 pm

   whaleoil looks like it’s turning in to whaleblubber.
7. Rex Widerstrom 7

   6 October 2010 at 4:34 pm

   Unrelated issue for an unrelated post in another ward

   The phantom electors whom Mr ____ (for his supper) enrolled to vote for him (allegedly), also get to vote for the “supercity’s” mayor, no?

   Thus hardly unrelated.

   edit: I see Graeme says above there were no papers issued to Mr ____ (for his supper’s) imaginary friends. But given that he and his mates have a reputation for coercion (see link below) there remains a could over votes cast by members of the Sikh community. Thus Banks still has a point.

   I agree though that trying to tar an entire politial party with a brush comprised of one man’s actions is stretching credulity, specially when said man seems to have been a bit of a standover merchant and would no doubt have therefore procured for himself a number of glowing references which would have fooled the party.
   • r0b 7.1

     6 October 2010 at 4:46 pm

     But given that he and his mates have a reputation for coercion (see link below) there remains a could over votes cast by members of the Sikh community. Thus Banks still has a point.

     I think you’re on very dodgy ground there Rex. Are you suggesting disenfranchising Indians?
     • grumpy 7.1.1

       6 October 2010 at 4:49 pm

       Well, if we can ban a Pakistani cricket team for rigging games – why not? 🙂
     • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.2

       6 October 2010 at 4:55 pm

       Goodness no… I’d’ve hoped you know me better than that r0b.

       If this individual has, as members of the Sikh community now tell us, been using coercion as well as fraud to achieve his ends then we need to perhaps have a mechanism whereby any voter from that community can confidentially rescind their vote and re-cast a new one, probably at a polling place (given the need for security and the time frame).

       I’m suggesting the exact opposite – than any Indian who’s been disenfranchised by this scumbag needs to be given a means to exercise their franchise freely and as they intended, not simply be told “well sorry you were made to vote for someone you didn’t support, but at least we’ve caught the bugger”.
       • r0b 7.1.2.1

         6 October 2010 at 4:59 pm

         Goodness no… I’d’ve hoped you know me better than that r0b.

         Well I certainly thought so! Relieved to hear it. But still…

         there remains a could over votes cast by members of the Sikh community

         …that’s going too far. You are saying that the votes of some people, identified by race / religion, are potentially less valid than other votes. That’s a terribly dangerous road to start down.
         • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.2.1.1

           6 October 2010 at 5:09 pm

           I’m saying it based on what they’re telling us. If I were saying it based on some sort of Paul Henry-like assumption on my part then I agree it would be wrong.

           Leaders of the Sikh community have come out and said:

           It will be an understatement that the community has been increasingly fearful of this group under investigation as they have not only been entrenching themselves in government departments but also criminalising members of our community through duping them into making false declarations in immigration applications

           If they did that, it’s possible they also used coercion to obtain votes. So I’m saying that the votes of their victims must be as valid as everyone else’s and the only way to ensure that no one was forced to vote in a way they did not honestly desire is to allow those people to re-cast their votes if they so wish.

           There’s been no such claim from any other racial or religious grouping, so I’m assuming that Mr ____ (for his supper’s) victims are confined to members of the Sikh community. But of course any opportunity to re-cast a vote shouldn’t be confined to Sikhs, as that assumption could be wrong.

           If no one came forward then it’s fair to assume that all votes cast are valid. But if someone has been forced to vote a certain way against their will, I’m not about to let the fear of being seen as politically incorrect in some way prevent me from advocating that they have their franchise properly restored.
           • r0b 7.1.2.1.1.1

             6 October 2010 at 5:24 pm

             If they did that, it’s possible they also used coercion to obtain votes.

             Anything’s “possible” Rex.

             No, sorry, not going to agree on this one. Start down the road of arguing that some votes are less valid like this, and how long before some right wing politician abolishes the votes of all union members because of alleged coercion? Or some left winger abolishes the votes of all multinational corporation employees or something equally daft? No.

             If there are problems of that kind in the Sikh community then it is up to the Sikh community to sort them out. We can’t make it an electoral issue.
             • Rex Widerstrom …

               6 October 2010 at 5:35 pm

               No we’re obviously not going to agree on the principle, and that’s fine.

               Just please don’t think I’m suggesting some votes may have been invalidated because they were cast by Sikhs.

               If it had turned out that a local gang chapter had been going round terrifying the residents of, say, Hunter’s Corner (not sure that’s even in the ward, but using that as an example) then I’d say the appropriate response was to set up a polling booth at the local shopping centre, with substantial physical security, into which people could slip and ask to have their postal vote disallowed and substituted with one they filled out there.

               As for your examples, if it emerged that Rupert Murdoch had demanded all his employees hand over their ballot papers to him so he could fill them in then yes, I’d expect the electoral authorities to offer them a similar opportunity.

               Because the alternative is counting votes which have been made under coercion, and the right to vote freely is too precious to sell so cheaply.
             • The Baron …

               6 October 2010 at 5:38 pm

               You both have a point as far as I am concerned – it seems like there has indeed been an impact beyond the alleged wrongful registration itself, in terms of questionable coercive behaviour; but the latter is impossible to track, prove, or quantify. On that basis, the reasonable response is probably indeed to leave the votes as they were cast.

               But all of this illustrates just how damaging this type of alleged electoral fraud can be, not only in terms of distorting our democratic process, but also in causing ground for wider questions about impacts and people’s decisions.

               And it compells us to all remain vigilant against this type of behaviour, regardless of our own political bent. I’m sure we all agree that fighting tooth and nail over policy and ideas is fine – but bending the systems is completely and utterly wrong.

               Final thought – I’m quite sad that this may have happened here.
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 7 October 2010 at 5:24 am

                 Agreed
   • grumpy 7.2

     6 October 2010 at 4:47 pm

     And we are surmising that the illegality caught was the only instance of this rort. I think more will come out.

     Claiming that Labour were not involved in attempted vote rigging is llike claiming to be “only slightly pregnant”.
     • Carol 7.2.1

       6 October 2010 at 5:17 pm

       And your evidence, grumpy? Looks like more people got closer to missing out on voting due to the lazy postie – looking like 800 now didn’t have their vote packs delivered. Meanwhile, thePapatoetoe fraud was detected well in advance, and looks very localised – the police have put a lot of time, energy and bodies onto investigating this..

       Generally it’s all not a good look for the supercity elections. But I’m way more worried about the whole way Rodney & NACT have gerrymandered the whole supercity set-up, so as to deliver it to Banks and the right, while also totally udnermining local consultative democracy. That has far wider structural implications and for far longer.
   • Swampy 7.3

     7 October 2010 at 4:05 am

     But is it not obvious that his actions would reflect badly on his party?
8. Juan Manuel Santos 8

   6 October 2010 at 11:31 pm

   Scanning our back catalogue I can’t find a post on the alleged electoral roll fraud in the Auckland local government elections.

   Irish wrote something here:
   http://thestandard.org.nz/vote-fraud/
9. burt 9

   7 October 2010 at 12:39 am

   rOb

   Let’s start by stating the bleeding obvious. Electoral fraud of any kind is not OK. If the accusations are true then it is good that the perpetrators were caught, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

   But what if others were doing it too, what if they did the same thing in the last election(s) and didn’t get caught? What if the laws were confusing? Surely we would need to just validate it and move on?

   It’s probably not too late to cancel the court case and just say that their actions didn’t have any effect on the outcome of the election….
   • BLiP 9.1

     7 October 2010 at 12:51 am

     But what if this particular candidate was not the only one, what if the Right have been doing it as well and just haven’t been caught, but what if the Martians land on Monday morning, will the election still be valid?
     • r0b 9.1.1

       7 October 2010 at 1:03 am

       I feel a bit sorry for poor old Burt. He swallowed a family pack of DPF’s lies back in 2005, and he hasn’t been able to fit a single new idea in his overheated noggin ever since.
       • luva 9.1.1.1

         7 October 2010 at 1:49 am

         What lies are you talking about r0b?

         I am genuinely interested because I think I swallowed them as well, if indeed they are lies.

         So please enlighten us.
         • r0b 9.1.1.1.1

           7 October 2010 at 2:03 am

           I’m not going to re-litigate the whole thing tonight luva. As your average lazy socialist bludger I’ve only just finished work and I’d kinda like to get some sleep. But if you have the patience of a saint (or a maniac) you can read all about it in a very long discussion that picks up in this thread here. Bon nuit.
         • burt 9.1.1.1.2

           7 October 2010 at 8:34 am

           Ah yes the thread where rOb defends Labour stealing $800,000 to spend on pledge cards after being warned before the election (in writing) by the Chief Electoral Officer ( David Henry ) that it would be deemed electioneering.

           They went ahead anyway and the apologists came up with all sorts of excuses defending the indefensible. The law was confusing, it’s the way we have always done it, the ref made a bad call, it’s not fair to only punish Labour when others did it too and of course the icing on the cake was rOb got to defend the urgent retrospective validations that killed off the Darnton Vs Clark case.

           Oh and don’t forget that they then claimed the undeclared spending by the EB was an assault on democracy while the $800,000 illegally spent by Labour made no difference to the outcome. It’s OK when Labour do it eh rOb.

           Keep trying to forget how you defended corruption because it was in Labours best interests.
           • r0b 9.1.1.1.2.1

             7 October 2010 at 9:20 am

             Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
             • TightyRighty …

               7 October 2010 at 9:32 am

               as if your pious mouthing of sceptical sayings that imply it’s all spin make the retrospective validation of labours cheating and lying in the 2005 election ok. you at the standard like to think that voters memories are short. I think all the lies around 2005, plus all the corruption since 2000 were sitting tight in the voters minds come 2008.
               • lprent …

                 7 October 2010 at 10:49 am

                 You mean lies like Key saying he wouldn’t raise GST?
                 • Armchair Critic …

                   7 October 2010 at 11:17 am

                   And Don Brash saying he forgot about the GST.
                   • Roger …

                     7 October 2010 at 11:29 am

                     And initially that he was not in collusion with the exclusive brethren?

                     Do you have proof of corruption since 2000?
               • r0b …

                 7 October 2010 at 11:06 am

                 History rendered its verdict on the behaviour of the two parties in the 2005 election TR. Labour went on for another successful 3 years of government. National lost their leader in disgrace for its dodgy electoral tactics. Game over.

                 I know you righties have an endless appetite for re-litigating that rather shameful time for the Nats, but the rest of us got bored with it about 3000 repetitions ago.
               • TightyRighty …

                 7 October 2010 at 11:54 am

                 or cullens lies about giving us a tax cut? or winnies lies about accepting donations from the velas? or taito phillip fields lies, and the lies of senior members of the labour party to try and deflect attention away from him.

                 Roger, the proof is everywhere, open your eyes.

                 RoB, successfully governed for another three years seems a bit of a stretch. they governed, yes, but the voters remember the shameful treatment of them in 2005. that’s why labour got archered in 2008. accept it, your lies and spin won’t change that fact.
                 • r0b …

                   7 October 2010 at 11:58 am

                   RoB, successfully governed for another three years seems a bit of a stretch.

                   Umm – yeah – check the history books TR. And Helen Clark went on to be voted Greatest Living New Zealander, and to a top international position at the UN. Cool eh? Michael Cullen, he was given a top job by the Key government. Face it TR, you’re in a tiny, hysterical minority trying to push a vicious revision of history.
                   • burt …

                     7 October 2010 at 12:47 pm

                     None of which would have happened if we applied the principle;

                     Electoral fraud of any kind is not OK. If the accusations are true then it is good that the perpetrators were caught, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

                     Remember the courts are there to decide if the accusations are true, not the party leaders in their own best interest defended by apologists. Yes the motivation to turn a blind eye and ‘move on’ was immense but that’s no justification for validating what you now say we should prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

                     Rinse, Lather, Repeat – but the stench of corruption still lingers in the Labour party…
                   • r0b …

                     7 October 2010 at 1:25 pm

                     Hey Burt – you and Tighty Righty should get a room together. You’d have so much to talk about. You could lock yourselves away from the verdict of history and whip yourselves into a frenzy of mutual excitement as to the evils of the dreaded Labour Party.

                     On second thoughts – maybe not such a good idea.
                   • TightyRighty …

                     7 October 2010 at 4:59 pm

                     voted greatest living New Zealander? given the labour parties penchant for electoral fraud I think an investigation might be in order.

                     a tiny, hysterical minority? here comes the strident rhetoric. throwing out labels in the hope they stick. being part of the same tiny minority that said sayonara to the “greatest living New Zealander” makes me feel pretty spesh right now
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   7 October 2010 at 12:03 pm

                   One of Labour’s last term mistakes IMHO was a lot of time focussed on governance and managerialism (more of that should have been left to the civil servants) – and not enough in leading bold societal change which would have benefitted, be seen and felt throughout middle NZ.
                   • r0b …

                     7 October 2010 at 12:15 pm

                     I’ll drink to that CV.
10. Swampy 10

    7 October 2010 at 3:51 am

    Oh yeah, “breathless accusations”? There’s no shortage of that round here normally. The name suppression is very convenient for whichever political faction this candidate might be affiliated with, coming as it does at a crucial point in the election campaign, because the candidate might be affiliated to a political organisation that is standing candidates all across Auckland, and which would therefore be tarred by association. So there’s actually a lot more to this than prosecuting the people involved. The name of their political faction remains secret due to the name suppression and this secrecy could materially affect the election outcome. Banks has it about right, and his comment is such an obvious and correct one that something smells fishy here.
    • Pascal's bookie 10.1

      7 October 2010 at 6:32 am

      “…something smells fishy here.”

      That’d be the swamp gas.
11. Joe Bloggs 11

    7 October 2010 at 11:15 am

    Ya gotta laugh. Two days ago Lynn Prentice was foaming at the mouth after I posted on this subject. His words:

    FFS: Roger Douglas has had previous ‘links’ with the Labour Party. So does Clint Heine.

    Links is a hell of broad term. You’re drawing a hell of long bow. Has anyone ever told you that you frequently look like a total munter with these rather idiotic and largely meaningless associations that your ‘evidence’ doesn’t support?

    The irony is that it was Andrew Little who made the connection.

    I guess the shoe’s on the other foot now eh, Lynn?
    • lprent 11.1

      7 October 2010 at 1:31 pm

      If you look at my comment, I wasn’t ‘foaming’. I was quite specific about why I think that you are more than a little bit of a fool.

      I said that you were an munter for claiming that Andrew Little’s statement of a “link to the Labour party” meant that the Labour party was responsible for an individuals actions. I gave some examples of other people who have “links” to the Labour party.

      In the case of the local body elections, the Labour party doesn’t run people standing for the Labour party. Local body election tickets are run by other organisations. For instance Citizens and Ratepayers, City Vision, etc. Members of those organisation usually have links back to other political organisations (like C&R is pretty much linked to National, ACT, and the aged). However it doesn’t mean that National directly runs C&R…
      • Joe Bloggs 11.1.1

        8 October 2010 at 8:28 am

        More lies and calumny – you misquote me Munt me old mate. My post in entirety:

        Hmmmm I see Andrew Little has acknowledged that the enrolment irregularities in Papatoetoe can be linked back to the Labour party. Par for the course…

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10678309

        Nowhere do I state in this post that the Labour Party was responsible for an individual’s actions.

        Heaven forbid the Labour Party should take responsibility for any of its members. That’s asking too much!

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 6 October 2010 at 2:34 am
2. Expert Lectures: posted on 6 October 2010 at 7:40 am
3. Sunday Morons: an omnibus of silly people « The Standard: posted on 10 October 2010 at 1:02 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS