Disconnect

47 comments on “Disconnect ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jared 1

   10 May 2009 at 11:32 pm

   Understanding Law and Order is not the same as understanding sentiment in the electorate that indicates law and order in their community is a problem. She does have a point, someone who is far disconnected from New Zealand and more to the point, Mt Albert, expects to understand the real issues in the electorate? Saying the Supercity is a done and dusted decision is pure scaremongering, and considering the 1,300,000 citizens in its isthmus, for National to introduce an “unpopular” solution to clear inefficiencies in local government would be the primary architect in their own downfall. John Key has said that we will get to have our say about the way how we are represented in the Select Committee process.

   Ill wait until the select committee stage to see/hear the submissions before I say that the public don’t want a supercity, at the moment it seems clear that the only detractors are those with the most to lose (i.e council employees) or those looking to score points against the government.
   • Danny 1.1

     10 May 2009 at 11:46 pm

     “at the moment it seems clear that the only detractors are those with the most to lose (i.e council employees) or those looking to score points against the government.”

     and the majority of Aucklanders according to several polls.

     inconvenient that.
     • Jared 1.1.1

       11 May 2009 at 12:13 am

       Oh thats right, Polls.

       “A Reid Research survey released last week showed a reasonably even split in opinions on the Maori seats – 46 per cent favoured including them and 54 per cent were against.”
       Proof Aucklanders are against the inclusion of Maori Seats, wait, public opinion?

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10570153

       “Though the poll’s sample of just 483 is small, it is the first real indicator of support for the supercity concept, with 45 percent of Aucklanders in favour, and 43 percent against.”

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2354169/Voters-back-Auckland-supercity

       I thought id have a look at the polls that suggest Aucklanders disagree with the proposal. I could only find one, and it was commissioned on behalf of the Waitakere City Council and canvassed only 400 citizens in the Waitakere area. Very indicative I know. Could it be a campaign of misinformation that is leading those astray and that they don’t understand the differences between the royal commission and the PROPOSED Supercity model? Maybe thats why the government has set up http://www.auckland.govt.nz that highlights their concerns, hell, it even asks for their feedback, shocking I know.
       • r0b 1.1.1.1

         11 May 2009 at 8:54 am

         Rather selective quoting there Jared. Ass you well know, polls are generally opposed, and on a wide range of issues:

         Support for a supercity in greater Auckland is weak in Prime Minister John Key’s Helensville electorate. A Phoenix poll conducted in Waitakere found only 34 percent of respondents support the government’s plans – which call for an Auckland Council covering an area from Franklin in the south, through Papakura and as far north as Rodney. … Nearly half of those polled 47 percent opposed the government’s plan. In Mr Key’s Helensville electorate, which takes in large chunks of Rodney, it was slightly higher at 48 percent.

         Only 16 percent of those poll respondents supported the plan to create 20 to 30 local boards under the proposed Auckland Council, as opposed to 66 percent support for the commission’s model of a super council with six councils under it.
         …
         Respondents were asked “Has the amount the government has consulted Aucklanders about the supercity been too much, about right or too little?” An overwhelming 63 percent said too little, 31 percent about right and 5 percent too much.
         …
         The second question was “Do you support having a mayor with the same powers as now, or should he or she have greater executive powers as proposed by the government?” Only 39 percent agreed the new mayor should have more power something essential to the operation of a supercity council as proposed while 61 percent believed the mayor’s powers should not be expanded.
         …
         The fourth and perhaps crucial question was “If the amalgamation does go ahead, should it be funded by Auckland ratepayers or the government?” Only 29 percent of respondents answered ratepayers should foot the bill and a massive 71 percent said the government should pay.

         See also eg here:

         A poll out yesterday shows only 12% of people in Key’s own electorate support his government’s proposed structure. 72% prefer the Royal Commission’s structure. 34% supported the supercity and 47% opposed it altogether.
         • Tim Ellis 1.1.1.1.1

           11 May 2009 at 9:03 am

           You’re quoting the same poll in both quotes r0b. The poll was conducted by phoenix research, only in waitakere. It isn’t an indication of wider support for the supercity across auckland.

           Also, if you actually linked through to the source article, rather than the standard’s summary of it as a reference, you might get your numbers right. Using self-referencing Standard posts to back up your claims and for sources for quotes is very dodgy r0b.
         • r0b 1.1.1.1.2

           11 May 2009 at 9:48 am

           You’re quoting the same poll in both quotes r0b.

           Quite right, in the second link I meant to refer to this Standard post on a Reid poll:

           Supercity poll results could spell trouble for the government.

           A Reid Research poll conducted in Auckland has found residents think consultation has been inadequate, that the mayor of a supercity should not have expanded powers, that the government should foot the bill for the reorganisation and that opposition to Maori representation is not as clearcut as the government believes.

           An overwhelming 63 percent of people polled say there is too little consultation, despite government claims of wide consultation. Only 39 percent agree a new mayor should have more power, while 61 percent say no. Expanded powers are essential to the government’s model.

           A massive 71 percent say the government should pay for the reorganisation. But the government is adamant ratepayers should pay which could add more than $550 to every rates bill in year one. It has also ruled out Maori representation although the survey shows a fairly even split in support, with 46 percent for reserved seats and 54 percent against.

           The results are similar to a Phoenix Research poll in Waitakere that found only 34 percent support for the government’s plans with 47 percent opposed. Opposition in Prime Minister John Key’s own electorate is 48 percent. Only 16 percent of respondents supported the plan to create 20 to 30 local boards, as opposed to 66 percent support for the royal commission’s model of a super council with six councils under it.

           Using self-referencing Standard posts to back up your claims and for sources for quotes is very dodgy r0b.

           Pardon me while I lol Tim! Just last week you claimed that Labour was in a “panic”, and cited as “evidence” comments from a couple of people on a Herald comments section! You claimed that these people were “Labour Party activists”, and of course could not provide any evidence to back such nonsense. Got any evidence to back that claim now Tim?
2. SPC 2

   10 May 2009 at 11:45 pm

   Any attempt by National to pay lip service to law and order should be met with

   1. the facts about the crime rates in the 90’s and police staffing levels compared to the decade since

   2. attempts to “rationalise” police services to cut costs to survive within the current administrations plans for budget limits (as in the 90’s).

   National have a habit of talking up areas where they are not providing any action (such as initially opposing WFF 2005-2007 while pretending to be pro family).

   PS During the previous 9 year government only people with a vested interest or political opponents made any criticism of governing party policy. Presumably this was why National ran as Labour lite, they could not improve on it. Which is why if Labour oppose the current party in government on policy they should listen.
3. Tim Ellis 3

   11 May 2009 at 8:38 am

   Eddie, Lee wiped the floor with Shearer yesterday. Shearer is struggling to get on top of the issues after being away for so long. Saying that crime isn’t a big issue is pretty out of touch, in my view.

   Eddie, on what do you base your assumption that there is major opposition to the super city? I know that it is a major campaign issue as far as Labour is concerned, and Labour want it to be a big campaign issue, because it detracts from all the law and order stuff that Labour might have to take some responsibility for. On what basis do you claim that it is a pressing concern for Mount Albert residents? Do you have some information about what Mount Albert residents are thinking that we don’t have that might support your claim? If so don’t hesitate to share it, because your argument at the moment that it’s a major issue just looks weak and spin.

   I would bet that since it appears to be only Young Labour making so much noise about waterview and the supercity in mount albert, that labour is worried that they might be judged on the real issues of concern in mount albert.
   • Ephemera 3.1

     11 May 2009 at 9:01 am

     “Lee wiped the floor with Shearer yesterday.”

     How? By failing to steer the debate to law and order issues, or refusing to commit to a position on “road or tunnel”?

     I thought she came across as a tad aggressive. I also find it hard to recall if she actually said anything which a Mt Albert voter could use to make a decision.

     Shearer, on the other hand, was quite measured in tone, and seemed in command of his position on local issues.

     Lee held her own, but ‘wiping the floor’? Naaaah.
     • Tigger 3.1.1

       11 May 2009 at 9:26 am

       Lee showed herself up by trying to play the ‘I’m more of a victim than you’ card with the guy who’s been working among war zones for the past billion years.

       I know Melissa well. She’s intelligent but as this exchange shows she’s not canny.
   • Akldnut 3.2

     11 May 2009 at 10:08 am

     Tim – I work in St Lukes and canvass a broad range of customers every day and of the ones that speak/understand English when asked about the supercity 7 from 10 are against it and likewise with the motorway as opposed to the tunnel.

     Lee said the residents have known for decades where the new road was going to go. As far as I know it was originally going to go down Rosebank Rd but due to cost was recently decided that it would go through Waterveiw not the decades that she claims.
   • lprent 3.3

     11 May 2009 at 11:43 am

     It is one of the big three issues in canvassing. And no – crime isn’t one of them.
4. felix 4

   11 May 2009 at 9:04 am

   Tim, maybe Eddie saw a comment on a blog. That’s your standard of evidence isn’t it?

   On a more serious note, one thing I think Labour is missing (and Shearer missed it quite overtly) is the issue of a National win swinging the balance of power in the house.

   National and the Greens have gone to some effort to paint this by-election as having no significant consequence on national politics but the following needs to be understood and highlighted:

   A National win means that National can pass legislation with the support of just Peter Dunne, no need even for the support of ACT.

   This is not a minor technicality, but a major shift in power which will take us very close to a majority National govt and which seems to be slipping under the radar so far. National know it but they’re not going to point it out. Russel Norman knows it but he’s pretending not to. Wake up, Labour.
   • jarbury 4.1

     11 May 2009 at 10:37 am

     Felix, is that a bad thing though? The less influence Act has the better I reckon.
5. Ari 5

   11 May 2009 at 9:28 am

   Crime is always a big issue, but it’s not always a big issue in which candidate to support. National, and Lee in particular, have no great plans with which to prevent crime and re-offending, and are actively looking to make things worse by pursuing a more punitive regime and cutting police resources.

   You got anything else up your sleeve? 😉
6. Ari 6

   11 May 2009 at 9:32 am

   Felix, can you even float something for me for a moment that Dunne would support that ACT or the Maori Party wouldn’t that would be actively harmful? Now, if it were the other way around and we could be in for more national-act co-operation, I’d agree with you, but I honestly can’t think of anything worse Dunne could come up with than what we’ve already got, especially seeing Act has 3 authoritarians and 2 civil libertarians in parliament.
   • felix 6.1

     11 May 2009 at 10:27 am

     You make it sound like Dunne is working from the basis of some sort of uncompromisable principle. He’s a populist and an opportunist, as fickle as they come.

     All he would have to do is abstain and the Nats have an absolute majority. Can you really not imagine him abstaining in return for support on some profile-raising populist measure of his own?

     This is not an inconsequential power shift, as National and the Greens are trying to paint it.
     • Ari 6.1.1

       11 May 2009 at 11:17 am

       Oh, I agree with you that Dunne is a complete populist and a blight on New Zealand politics.

       I just don’t see how he can make the government any more extreme than it already is with ACT in the wings. National on its own is almost better than National with ACT to egg it on.
7. Maynard J 7

   11 May 2009 at 10:00 am

   Tim, I asked you the other day for the source of your absolute claims and you never fronted, obviously because they don’t exist.

   Why are you still doing it? It makes you look mad (and not the angry kind of mad, the removed-from-rational-thought kind).

   Here’s the sum of your evidence so far, that Law and order is the issue of the day for the Mt Albert byelection:

   Tim Ellis: “labour is worried that they might be judged on the real issues of concern in mount albert”

   Tim Ellis: “Saying that crime isn’t a big issue is pretty out of touch, in my view.”

   Tim Ellis: “because it detracts from all the law and order stuff that Labour might have to take some responsibility for.”

   Tim Ellis: “…if the candidates started talking about the issues that matter to the people of Mt Albert, rather than trying to invent the issues and frame the issues for the campaign”

   See something in common there? No prizes… Yes, that’s right! Tim Ellis seems to be your only source, and yet you’re Just. So. Damn. Sure. that crime is THE issue.

   And the topic is ‘disconnect’. Curiously illustrative behabiour there, Tim. You’re proving a point very well, but I don’t think it’s the point you intended.

   Also, not surprisingly, I thought Shearer did very well. He’s used to dealing with slightly rabid people so Lee wasn’t too much for him to get excited about.
   • r0b 7.1

     11 May 2009 at 10:15 am

     It makes you look mad (and not the angry kind of mad, the removed-from-rational-thought kind).

     Tim isn’t mad, he knows exactly what he’s doing. His job is to show up here, and push National Party propaganda lines over and over and over. He’s actually kinda useful, because you know that if Tim is saying it, it’s the current Nats “talking point”, and then you can look our for it elsewhere.

     It has been claimed by those with more knowledge of these matters than I that Tim works for the National Party research unit, a claim which Tim has not denied as far as I know.
     • Tim Ellis 7.1.1

       11 May 2009 at 10:37 am

       r0b, I don’t work for the National Party research unit. I don’t know anybody who is. I’m not a national party member, and never have been. I mentioned on here before, and as LP knows, I’m just a lowly auditor working in a bank. There, satisfied?
       • r0b 7.1.1.1

         11 May 2009 at 10:48 am

         Perfectly satisfied Tim, if you deny it I take you at your word.

         Sill unexplained is your remarkable tendency to push National party lines, often in complete denial of the facts – e.g. your “Mt Albert law and order” fixation that Maynard J takes you to task for above.
         • gobsmacked 7.1.1.1.1

           11 May 2009 at 11:05 am

           Out of interest, Tim (or anybody else), what would be your reaction if an opposition MP used the tragedy in Napier to try and score a political point off National?

           Not classy, Melissa Lee. Not classy at all.
         • Tim Ellis 7.1.1.1.2

           11 May 2009 at 11:27 am

           r0b I live in Grey Lynn. I don’t know a lot about mount albert, although it is a neighbouring electorate and my daughter lives in Pt Chev so I do drive through it quite often.

           There does seem to be a big disconnect between the lines that the labour party is pushing and what is going on locally. Waterview isn’t an issue except for some people who live on or near the route and that’s obvious to anybody who looks at a map of the mount albert electorate. The northwestern motorway already dissects mount albert.

           Same goes for the supercity. Labour are trying to make this a big issue (it would be nice to know just where they stand on it) but I haven’t seen anything to say that it is a dominant issue for voters.

           Labour wants to make those the big issues of the campaign. I don’t blame them but let’s call a spade a spade and admit that there’s a lot of spin going on and manufacturing of issues. Labour’s strategy is to use a couple of issues to try and turn the byelection into a referendum on the government. They will have a big problem with that in my opinion especially since russell norman seems to be taking the moral high ground and is saying what he thinks on waterview and the supercity and is coming up with an alternative. If Labour succeeds in making the supercity and waterview the big issues of the campaign all they will manage to do is give norman the upper hand because he’s the only one coming up with an alternative.

           R0b, I stand by my view that I don’t think waterview and the supercity are big issues because from the people I talk to locally here in auckland central, they aren’t big issues here. Apart from a very small part of waterview (maybe 300 houses in the mount albert electorate) who are directly affected there is no reason why those issues should be felt any more in mount albert than in grey lynn.
         • Zaphod Beeblebrox 7.1.1.1.3

           11 May 2009 at 11:36 am

           Tim, don’t argue with you about labour being overly hopeful that local government and Waterview will win votes. After all they were the ones who started both processes. The focus on law and order by Melissa Lee, is however, hugely disappointing. The economy,jobs and local services (can we get a better rail service) are what the candidates should be caring about.
8. Zaphod Beeblebrox 8

   11 May 2009 at 10:34 am

   Its going to be a very long five weeks if all she can talk about is crime.The “lock them all up”, “more police on the beat”, “look out for those young people” mantra has been used by conservatives for the past twenty years. ACT only got 2.3% of the vote last election, hope she can come up with more.
   • gobsmacked 8.1

     11 May 2009 at 10:56 am

     It’s not even a smart strategy for Lee.

     ACT’s Boscawen will simply ask her: “So, do you support our Three Strikes policy?”. She will then have to explain why it won’t work, or maybe just waffle and dodge, thus appearing “soft on crime”. Unless she plans to break with her own party.

     There is no way the National Ministers responsible (Power and Finlayson are not fools) are going to support unworkable legislation in the long term, just to win votes in Mt Albert.
9. Jasper 9

   11 May 2009 at 11:09 am

   felix

   National would still need three seats to have a majority.

   Currently: 121 seats in the house (1 up for by election) = 122 seats total
   National: 58 seats

   Wins Mt Albert +1 = 59 seats
   + Dunne = 60 seats.

   Still need 1 more vote.
10. Zaphod Beeblebrox 10

    11 May 2009 at 11:16 am

    Its a bit sad, rising unemployment and recession and we are discussing gang patches, three strikes and fear of others.The economy and job creation should be the issue.
    • Pat 10.1

      11 May 2009 at 11:50 am

      ZB Why should that be the issue for Mt Albert residents? Sure, they are nationwide issues, but this is a byelection.

      For ethnic minorities in Auckland, in particular, law and order was a big issue in Auckland at the last election. There was a big swing of Indian and Asian voters from Labour to National. I think Lee is trying to tap back into that, to remind those voters why they ditched Labour and to give herself a point of difference. If Shearer and Norman are banging on about the Supercity and the tunnell, they risk not connecting with voters who don’t give a toss about either of those issues.

      .
      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 10.1.1

        11 May 2009 at 12:08 pm

        I think both sides are off the radar at the moment. For National, crime is the least worst thing to talk about at the moment. For Labour, its easy to oppose things, a lot harder to discuss how they would do things differently.
      • Irascible 10.1.2

        11 May 2009 at 2:43 pm

        As I argued in another post Lee will be using the WONG-WANG campaign strategies used in Botany in 2008.
        She will play the Asian Victim Card at every opportunity in an effort to make crime the issue and will attempt to divert the debate from real social issues like the removal of the local councils with social policy focii in the NACT supercity concept and the ramming of a motorway through a community. The attempts to ram through a similar motorway in Manukau under the Banks-Curtis mayoralties spelt the end of the two mayors.
        Local issues matter in a by election Shearer needs to hammer them against the arrogant mantra of Lee & Hide.
11. DeepRed 11

    11 May 2009 at 11:37 am

    “Its a bit sad, rising unemployment and recession and we are discussing gang patches, three strikes and fear of others.The economy and job creation should be the issue.”
    President Bush Sr was riding high in the polls in 1991 for his deft handling of the Gulf War and making peace with the soon-to-dissolve Soviet Union. The following year, his presidency turned to mud. And the reasons? Bill Clinton and “It’s the economy, stupid!” Expect to see Goff and Cunliffe picking that up towards the end of the electoral term.
    • Pat 11.1

      11 May 2009 at 11:52 am

      To be fair, Clinton also had a magnetic personality. Sort of like the second coming of JFK.

      In that respect, you cannot compare Goff and Cunliffe to him.
12. ak 12

    11 May 2009 at 1:13 pm

    So you’re not this Tim Ellis that recently wrote an article for the granny then Tim? (heh – seemed to fit so well, must say you show remarkable resilience in your relentless pro-tory beat-ups)
    http://www.resiliencei.com/About-Us.aspx

    [lprent: Don’t try ‘outing’ people. The whole point about this site is for people to be able to give opinions without having to look over their shoulders. We’ll leave that for the likes of whaledreck. Personally I’d prefer if people didn’t use their names – but that also is left to personal choice. The only ones who need to be concerned are banned trolls. Because I’ll sometimes get them regardless of pseudonym to keep the site ‘clean’. ]
    • Tim Ellis 12.1

      11 May 2009 at 1:22 pm

      No, ak, although we’ve often been confused with each other, especially since I spent most of my career in a competing consulting firm.
      • QoT 12.1.1

        11 May 2009 at 9:07 pm

        You wouldn’t bloody think it in a country this size, would you, Tim?
    • Pat 12.2

      11 May 2009 at 1:25 pm

      ak – it’s a bit creepy that you think it is OK that you are trying to dredge up some dirt on a poster, simply because he posts under his name when you do not.

      If it is so important to confirm what every Standard poster’s real name is and what they actually do for a living, then let’s see a Thread dedicated to precisely that. Methinks a few Standardistas would run a mile.
      • ak 12.2.1

        11 May 2009 at 2:00 pm

        Excuse me? “Dredge up some dirt”? By trying to ensure that I don’t confuse a poster with someone of the same name, obvious ability and profile?

        Relax, “Pat”. From your comments, I’ll never confuse you with anyone. Unless Pat is your surname and you were christened Cow.
        • Pat 12.2.1.1

          11 May 2009 at 2:17 pm

          ak In this one thread, Tim has twice had to respond to accusations, firstly from Maynard that he works in the Nat party research unit, and secondly from you that he is not who he claims to be i.e. a “lowly bank auditor”.

          The rest of us aren’t getting this treatment because we haven’t posted under our names. Clearly you have proven that if one posts under their real name they can expect to be google searched on the off chance they can be discredited.

          In my case, getting google searched would probably be a good thing since it would drive more traffic to my company website. But I suspect other posters here who work in the public sector wouldn’t enjoy it so much.
          • r0b 12.2.1.1.1

            11 May 2009 at 2:39 pm

            firstly from Maynard that he works in the Nat party research unit,

            Maynard J is innocent, it was me that linked back to that old claim.

            If Tim had worked for Nat Research as claimed that would have been relevant to understanding his positions on this blog (as witness the continual witch hunts from the right trying to link the authors of this blog to the Labour Party) .

            As this is not in fact the case then no further speculation on Tim in the real world seems relevant. I don’t confirm or deny anything about myself (other than that I’m an ordinary Labour Party member in a quiet corner of NZ) and I don’t expect others to.

            So apologies to Tim and to all for starting this.
          • Tim Ellis 12.2.1.1.2

            11 May 2009 at 2:59 pm

            For the record, I wasn’t offended by this. I pity the other poor sod who shares my name who’s had all sorts of bafflingly technical phone calls on corporate audit and risk, before having to explain that they have the wrong person.

            About ten years ago, I had a phone call from a client who continued to barrel the way through a conversation that was intended for my namesake, quite ignoring my protests that he really wanted to be talking to the other guy at PWC.

            Another time I went to visit a client and signed into the visitor’s book, only to see that the other Tim Ellis had been to visit immediately before me.
      • The Voice of Reason 12.2.2

        11 May 2009 at 2:27 pm

        Actually, Pat, there is a clear difference between posting under your real name and using a pen name.

        Using your own name adds a certain authority and ownership to the comment. In affect, “you” say what “you” mean. I assume the “Trevor Mallard” that posts here is the same one that sits on the Labour front bench. If that’s not the case, I think we should be told. Ak assumed, apparently wrongly, that “Tim Ellis” was the author of the article he referenced. The “real” Tim corrected him without rancour. No harm, no foul.

        Using a pen name allows some distance and means a comment loses some personal context and the poster’s “new” identity establishes itself as a “personality” in it’s own right.

        So, The Voice of Reason, as I style myself here, becomes a recognisable entity, but it is not exactly the same entity as “me”.

        There are probably students out there doing study on the metaphysical nature of avatars in the Post Modern World and how the multiple faceted personalities we all have are finding expression and a kind of life on the net.

        But rest assured, the Standard does not appear to be the kind of site that would waste time trying to out its posters. There are some blogs that would, I’m sure, but I don’t need to know if you are really “Pat”. I’m more interested in the quality of your comments, than the person behind them.

        [lprent: Trevor Mallard is the MP. I also tend to take attempts at identity theft (including pseudonyms) very seriously, which is why we have gravatars and some missing ex-commentators who exited the NZ blogosphere abruptly and ungracefully. ]
13. mickysavage 13

    11 May 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Frustrating debate. Lee followed the tried and true technique of trying to overtalk Shearer continuously.

    The panel of “experts” is also rather slanted. A peed off ex Labour MP (presumably representing us), Michelle Boag who did nothing but run National attack lines, and Therese Arseneau whose performance can be patchy.

    And Paul Holmes who … enough said.

    They should use someone like Brian Edwards to try and provide some sort of balance.
    • felix 13.1

      11 May 2009 at 6:18 pm

      Lee followed the tried and true technique of trying to overtalk Shearer continuously

      And did you feel that Shearer was following the Don Brash “tried once and abandoned” technique of appearing the bigger person by letting her run her mouth?
14. gobsmacked 14

    11 May 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Meanwhile, not a good 24 hours for Melissa Lee, who is quickly digging herself a hole big enough for a tunnel.

    Yesterday she couldn’t / wouldn’t answer the “Tunnel” question.

    Today she admitted she didn’t support the tunnel (BFM radio interview).

    A couple of hours later: her view is labelled a “personal” preference by the PM, quietly dumping on his candidate.

    The announcement is due tomorrow. You’d think she could have been given a heads-up by her loyal leader.
15. gobsmacked 15

    12 May 2009 at 8:37 pm

    And 24 hours on … it gets worse for Melissa Lee.

    Campbell Live report raises ‘conflict of interest’ questions:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/News/PoliticsNews/National-MP-and-candidate-Melissa-Lees-ethics-called-into-question/tabid/419/articleID/103840/cat/68/Default.aspx

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS