Clarkson not standing in Tauranga

59 comments on “Clarkson not standing in Tauranga ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BeShakey 1

   9 May 2008 at 9:45 am

   To be fair it seems pretty clear that Bob and Parliament didn’t get on well. I can’t imagine that the idea of a tough campaign to win a job you hate would have helped, but I doubt his decision is based on a belief he couldn’t win the seat.
2. mawgxxxxvi 2

   9 May 2008 at 10:06 am

   Let’s hope National stand a serious contender: it would be unfortunate if WP managed to get the seat back. NZF needs to go the way of the stocks and transportation.
3. big bruv 3

   9 May 2008 at 10:12 am

   Yep…Clarkson colourful…Benson Pope is also know as panty slut boy, Dyson is a drunk, Clark and Parker have been caught telling lies time after time and Field is facing corruption charges in court.

   Do you REALLY want our media to say it as it really is?
4. Robinsod 4

   9 May 2008 at 10:17 am

   Bruv – I’ve watched you comment here at KBB and Kiwiblog and I know you are a leftie pretending to be a rightie (in fact I suspect you are one of the KBB crew). Frankly I’m in awe of your tenacity and the way you’ve made so many threads at the bog crash and burn by making Davey’s dogwhistle extremism explicit. Kudos!
5. Phil 5

   9 May 2008 at 10:24 am

   It’s almost a blessing in disguise for the Nats.

   I agree with Mawg that this is a good chance for the Nats to install someone a little more… appropriate… for central gov’t politics in the seat.

   BTW; ‘panty slut boy’ is only a phrase I’ve heard/seen used by Whaleoil. Hardly the turf of mainstream media
6. Matthew Pilott 6

   9 May 2008 at 10:24 am

   vto – if you’re around, this is what I was talking about on the other thread!
7. deemac 7

   9 May 2008 at 10:54 am

   isn’t it possible National are giving WP a better chance of winning the seat in order to sweeten him for possible coalition talks? Perhaps they don’t believe they will be able to govern alone despite all their bluster.
8. higherstandard 8

   9 May 2008 at 10:57 am

   Deemac

   Clarkson has just come out to answer that exact question and said he was considering staying on to stop Winston but latest polling on the ground from Tauranga suggests that there is not a show Winsont will win Tauranga so he felt happy to move on.
9. big bruv 9

   9 May 2008 at 10:58 am

   deemac

   Winston has no chance of winning the seat of Tauranga, thankfully NZ first will have no representing in the next Parliament.
10. BeShakey 10

    9 May 2008 at 11:05 am

    Care to put your money where your mouth is BB?
11. big bruv 11

    9 May 2008 at 11:11 am

    Yep….$500 to the charity of your choice should Winnie win Tauranga, $500 to the SPCA if (and when) Winnie gets his backside kicked by the good folk of Tauranga.

    Still keen?
12. Santi 12

    9 May 2008 at 11:33 am

    BeFlakey,

    I match bb’s wager with another grand from me(split exactly the same way). Name your terms and we’ll bet (you FOR Peters, me AGAINST the corrupt NZF politician).
13. mike 13

    9 May 2008 at 11:47 am

    “thankfully NZ first will have no representing in the next Parliament.”
    That would be a shame for Ron Mark, I think he’s a bloody good MP perhaps he could become a Nat?
14. Ari 14

    9 May 2008 at 12:43 pm

    You know, I was waiting to hear how Peters would scrape a seat or two this time. If Clarkson throws Tauranga, then that might just get him in.

    This is very weird tactics for National though, as most of their gains since last election have been at the expense of NZF and UF- (although I certainly won’t deny they’ve stolen centrists away from Labour, too) so taking away Peter’s biggest contender in Tauranga, even if the man is offensive, seems really weird strategy.

    The captcha was contingent surge. Huh. I didn’t think there was any Iraq discussion in this post? 😉
15. Draco TB 15

    9 May 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Do you REALLY want our media to say it as it really is?

    Yes, actually I do. That is their job after all. Unfortunately we’ve seen how journalists get told what to say by corrupt politicians and the media owners.
16. Steve Pierson 16

    9 May 2008 at 1:20 pm

    I always liked the idea of a negative campaign slogan “Bob Clarkson: too stupid for Parliament”
17. higherstandard 17

    9 May 2008 at 1:51 pm

    SP

    If stupidity precluded people from parliament there’d be somewhat less than our current number of MPs.
18. Phil 18

    9 May 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Ron Mark would make an excellent National MP, Mike – and in the hunt for Minister of Defence if he jumped ship now.

    Plus, his Pimp-Stylz hat is worth a good 10,000 extra votes from da’hood
19. mike 19

    9 May 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Yes defense would be the go. Im sure he has a tommy gun under that overcoat.
20. Inventory2 20

    9 May 2008 at 1:59 pm

    The Herald has a very funny picture of Clarkson in their story, so I couldn’t resist – come on over and use your imagination!

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/05/caption-contest.html
21. Lew 21

    9 May 2008 at 2:00 pm

    This is an interesting development on a bunch of levels:

    1. Media buzz, polls, and anecdotal evidence from rellies of mine who live in Tauranga suggest that Peters doesn’t have a credible shot at winning the electorate. This might lead National to stand a young local up-and-comer. But it’s a fool who writes him off, and National have been burnt by it before and won’t lightly underestimate him again.

    2. Clarkson’s success in Tauranga, but Peters staying in government nonetheless, is MMP working as intended. He was under-delivering for his electorate, so they voted him out, but his experience and political nous and diplomatic aptitude were retained in parliament and indeed in government. I don’t like Peters’ politics and I disagreed with his appointment as Foreign Minister, but he is a superb politician, among the best in living memory, and has done a stellar job in that role. NZ is the better for having him in parliament, whether in or out of government.

    3. Peters likely has a plum diplomatic post with his name on it once he retires from parliament (US ambassador or something equally important). I’d suggest that he’ll only contest Tauranga if he believes he stands a good chance of winning, and that his foremost goal is for NZ First to break the 5% threshold. I think he ahs a slight preference for remaining in NZ politics for now, since I believe he wants to hand the reins over to Mark, not Brown.

    And I agree about Mark being another good politician – he’s like a populist Rodney Hide.

    L
22. AncientGeek 22

    9 May 2008 at 2:01 pm

    hs: Yes – but it is a representative democracy. So all kinds of people get elected.

    You have to consider who the good people of Tauranga chose to represent them over the last decades.

    captcha: Genghis body
    A very long standing mystery
23. big bruv 23

    9 May 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Steve

    “Bob Clarkson: too stupid for Parliament’

    Thats a bit harsh, Clarkson is a very successful man, that title would be better applied to any one (or all) of the following.

    Horomia
    Hawkins
    Barnett
    Chadwick
    Fenton
    Hobbs
    Hodgson
    Laban
    Moron…ey
    Pettis
    and of course the useless Judith Tizard.
24. Lew 24

    9 May 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Hm, seems Simon bridges is standing. Useful if I read TFA. Not knowing anything about Bridges, I’m picking he has a strong chance. He’s a prosecutor, which neutralises NZ First’s `tough on crime’ line, and he’s been involved in National’s management and strategy at a high level. And Clarkson has demonstrated that you don’t have to be good, you just have to be there if the cards fall right.

    L
25. zaphod beeblebrox 25

    9 May 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Clarkson is almost as big an idiot as the imbeciles who have been running NZ in the past few years. Its like he’s in government.

    The list of disgraced politicians is outrageous, Klarks Motorcade, Klarks painting, Maharys emlpyement relations, Benson Popes employment relations and and sordid history, Parkers lies and treachery, Fields court charges, Tamihere’s lies, Dalziels mismanagement, man thats just the start.

    NZ must be cleansed of these idiots, who have no semblance of understanding what life is like in NZ.

    Too long in power, they are too corrupt.
26. Steve Pierson 26

    9 May 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Yeah, how about that time the PM was in a car and it drove too fast – that was such a major issue, oha nd that time one her staff draw a picture and the PM signed it and it was sold for charity… wow, call the cops

    … this is stuff that really matters to people, forget the record low unemployment, forget the record high wages, the four weeks annual leave, the higher minimum wage, Working for Families, Kiwisaver, 20Free, interest-free student loans, lower business taxes, record profits, civil unions, the end of secret money in elections, more schools, teachers, doctors, nurses, 140,000 people off benefits… what really matters is that time the car went too fast.
27. Steve Pierson 27

    9 May 2008 at 2:46 pm

    hs. that’s the irony. I mean there are stupid MPs, but Clarkson was too stupid even by the low standards set.

    What polls, incidentally? i haven’t seen any polls about candidate preference in Tauranga.
28. zaphod beeblebrox 28

    9 May 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Steve, your comrade Klarke was shown up to be deceitful and evasive in both of those cases. The example of this kind of leadership has clearly been reflected on the many antics of disgraced and disgraceful cabinet members subsequent to this
29. zaphod beeblebrox 29

    9 May 2008 at 2:51 pm

    And its easy to hide in statistics. employment figures fail to take into account the number of people working part time, on ACC, in prison or in other institutions
30. Steve Pierson 30

    9 May 2008 at 2:54 pm

    zaphod. yes the employment figures do account for those people. The number of people employed has risen to record levels – there are 360,000 more jobs now than there were in 1999, National added only 270,000 in nine years.

    anyway, get yourself into a lather over a fast car and a signature from, what, 6 years ago? real people are interested in substantive issues.
31. big bruv 31

    9 May 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Steve

    One day you might understand that it is not the nature of Clark’s crimes that matter it is the fact that she is prepared to tell bare faced lies to the people of NZ and her somewhat amazing ability to be involved in police investigations where the police end up saying ..”while there is a prima facie case..etc”

    If you show the same level of indifference to the incoming National govt then I will be prepared to agree with you but somehow I get the feeling that you and your ilk will be the screaming the loudest if Key is ever in a similar situation to Clark (although I doubt it as it would be impossible for anybody to be as corrupt as her)
32. zaphod beeblebrox 32

    9 May 2008 at 3:06 pm

    How many of your ‘newly employed’ people are actually working full time (ie more than 20 or 30 hours)? And how many require a top up from the state through accomodation supplements or other benefits?

    There are statistics, and then there are damn lies
33. AncientGeek 33

    9 May 2008 at 3:12 pm

    bb: The police probably view it the way I do.

    A awful lot of hoopla in the media, talkback and blogs about what is not an actionable offense. They have more important things to do, like catching and prosecuting real criminals.

    I realize that character assassination is a way of life for the terminally boring. But the police live too close to reality to really take much notice of it.

    captcha: Curiously women
    ??
34. zaphod beeblebrox 34

    9 May 2008 at 3:12 pm

    oh yes, and how many new ‘jobs’ are in government created roles thanks to the explosion of the nanny state and her bureaucrats?

    The central government sector has expanded beyond reason in recent years, what better way to reduce unemployment by creating jobs for your own spin doctoring and butt covering while in power?

    [The core public service has increased by 16,000 under Labour. Hardly accounts for it. And remember those people are doing valuable work. you’re really pretty uninformed Beeble, I feel like I’m replaying conversations I’ve had with dozens of people who don’t know nothing about nothing. Have a look through the archives, we’ve covered employment, unemployment, benefit numbers, all that stuff dozens of times. Once you’ve got some actual information, not lines from National you’ve picked up in the media, to work with there might be a point debating you. SP]
35. zaphod beeblebrox 35

    9 May 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Actually mate, I’ve been a Labour voter all my life, but I’m fed up now. I will not be voting for the current regime. Nor will it be Key and his mob, they are virtually identical to Helengrad.
36. higherstandard 36

    9 May 2008 at 3:26 pm

    “The core public service has increased by 16,000 under Labour and remember those people are doing valuable work. you’re really pretty uninformed Beeble.”

    Steve that they’re actually doing valuable work is an awfully large assumption I think just as for the private sector we all can point to numerous examples of waste, sloth and lack of accountability in the public sector.

    [and as with the private sector, it would be a purely ideological assumption to assume that what they’re doing is not worthwhile. SP]
37. zaphod beeblebrox 37

    9 May 2008 at 3:26 pm

    And you haven’t answered the question about part time workers
38. zaphod beeblebrox 38

    9 May 2008 at 3:28 pm

    You’d be surprised how many private sector firms are soley working of the government expansion trough on top of those 16,000 you refer too. Many many private consultancies owe their fortunes to living off Helengrads coffers
39. lprent 39

    9 May 2008 at 3:35 pm

    zb: I think Steve did answer you at 3:12. He said catch up to the point where he doesn’t feel like he is repeating himself.

    There are about 940 posts and 22k comments.

    Try this query on google:
    site:www.thestandard.org.nz “part time”

    or any variant. The site: bit says what site to look at. The quotes say you want this exact phrase minus punctuation.
40. higherstandard 40

    9 May 2008 at 3:50 pm

    SP

    How can “just as for the private sector we all can point to numerous examples of waste, sloth and lack of accountability in the public sector.”

    be extrapolated to “it would be a purely ideological assumption to assume that what they’re doing is not worthwhile.

    If there’s any ideological assumptions being made surely it’s your

    “The core public service has increased by 16,000 under Labour and remember those people are doing valuable work.”
41. Lew 41

    9 May 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Technically speaking, both are valuable. Someone is paying for the work to get done; the amount they’re paying is the work’s value to the payer. Any other measure of value in this case (productivity, value of outputs, whatever) requires more information than has been canvassed here and is therefore just speculative futility.

    In the absence of information people tend to cleave to an ideologcal position. But note that SP didn’t; he admitted they were probably about equal. The only one I see making up such bollocks here is ZB.

    L
42. gobsmacked 42

    9 May 2008 at 4:11 pm

    I love this “I’ve always voted Labour but …” line that we keep seeing on the various blogs. Has there been a memo from Wingnut HQ, telling the troops to insert this whopper as often as possible?

    Constant references to “Klark” and all her wicked ways kind of give the game away though. And some of the episodes Zaphod FeebleDross refers to, actually happened several elections ago. So why did he keep re-electing people whose actions he despised? And if he did (which he didn’t) who is responsible for Labour staying in power?

    Of course, I’ve always been National myself, but you know, I think I just might vote for Helen next time …
43. Matthew Pilott 43

    9 May 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Gobsmacked – me too! I voted National since the great plague of eighteen-diggedy-twelve, but I’m thinking of changing this time around.
44. big bruv 44

    9 May 2008 at 4:38 pm

    There are many people I know who are firmly in the “I used to vote Labour” camp chaps, the longer you continue with the arrogant belief that this is National party spin the better it will be for those of us who cannot wait to see the back of dear leader.
45. Billy 45

    9 May 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Just for the record: I have never voted Labour.
46. higherstandard 46

    9 May 2008 at 5:00 pm

    I have voted Labour once to remove Muldoon.

    In terms of previous Labour voters moving to other options I have two of my young house surgeons who have voted Labour who aren’t voting for them this time around although their rationale (time for a change and I’m sick of the current Health Nazi’s) are not exactly well considered.
47. gobsmacked 47

    9 May 2008 at 5:02 pm

    The question is, when did these ex-Labour voters stop?

    Those who voted Labour in 2002 and 2005 generally thought that it was an OK government under a good PM, worth re-electing, but now feel it’s time for a safe change. John Key understands this: hence the promise to keep so much of what Labour have done.

    Those who hate “Klark” and all she has done have not just made the switch recently, and are therefore not “lifelong Labour voters.”
48. Matthew Pilott 48

    9 May 2008 at 5:08 pm

    I was an agnostic, once upon a time, and gave it away for MSP (McGillicuddy Serious).

    And on that bombshell, have a good weekend all.
49. rex brown 49

    9 May 2008 at 5:10 pm

    higherstandard – When you voted Labour, the were more right wing than the National party.
50. higherstandard 50

    9 May 2008 at 5:11 pm

    GS

    In terms of the young Drs I spoke of they are only in their mid to late twenties so would have voted no more than thrice previously.
51. AncientGeek 51

    9 May 2008 at 5:13 pm

    hs: I always hate that attitude of voting against rather than voting for people and policies.

    It tends to be quite prevalent amongst the young. As a generalization (but all too often accurate), I often wonder if they bother to think about their future selves 20 or 30 years down the line.

    Shows up in their voting patterns as well – they don’t vote a lot. Probably account for over half of the non-voters in the country.

    gs: The question is, and asked often here, is how trustworthy is the man or the party.
52. higherstandard 52

    9 May 2008 at 5:23 pm

    AG

    ” I often wonder if they bother to think about their future selves 20 or 30 years down the line.”

    I would agree and suggest that the attitude is becoming more prevalent among the younger generations.

    In terms of voting against rather than for people and policies I think that has been a common thread amongst voters in NZ if not around the World for many years
53. Phil 53

    9 May 2008 at 5:36 pm

    You two are starting to sound like an RSA convention…
54. higherstandard 54

    9 May 2008 at 5:43 pm

    Go easy Phil it’ll happen to you one day as well.

    captcha Clark refueled ….aye Carumba
55. AncientGeek 55

    9 May 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Yeah – well there is something about getting near the sharp edge that tends to sharpen the focus on politics.

    In my case it was seeing the effect of using a M60 on sheep at the range in the army, hauling grunts in with frostbite and exposure, hanging out of choppers, etc. Then of course the conversations with my great-grandparents about life in the depressions in the 19th and 20th. Getting grandparents to open up about serving in WW2.

    I suspect the medical, police, and social work profession’s have similar illuminating experiences. You gradually lose the ability to think in sharp black and white, and think more and more about consequences over time.

    Phil: You should ask yourself exactly why those old soldiers who served in the worst battles of WW2, korea, vietnam, etc think that way? So much so that you can point to it as a way of thinking.
56. r0b 56

    9 May 2008 at 7:44 pm

    In terms of previous Labour voters moving to other options

    While obviously there are individual cases, overall Labour’s vote is holding up just fine. Labour’s vote in the elections (% of list votes):
    1999 38.74%
    2002 41.26%
    2005 41.1%

    Labour’s current polling is in the range of 35 – 39%, including polls which historically underestimate Labour’s vote in elections by about 4%.

    In short, Labour’s vote hasn’t “gone” anywhere. All that has happened is that opposition to Labour has consolidated around one big party instead of being spread over lots of little parties.

    This idea that voters are “abandoning Labour” is just tory spin.
57. gobsmacked 57

    9 May 2008 at 8:09 pm

    National 1993: 35% of the vote … re-elected.

    National 1996: 34% of the vote … re-elected.

    And those are real votes, not opinion polls.
58. randal 58

    9 May 2008 at 8:52 pm

    the logic, cogency, clarity and recondite analysis in this thread is truly outstanding and I will have to consider it all very carefully before I cast my ballot in the general election
59. leftie 59

    9 May 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Me too!!! I have always been a National voter. Those Tories have done their dash this time, warmongers! I will now be voting Labour! Labour-lite sucks!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS