Dog eat dog on the extreme Right

Written By: - Date published: 12:57 pm, May 8th, 2011 - 46 comments
Categories: act, don brash, rodney hide - Tags: ,

There’s a strange story in the Sunday Star-Times today. The premise is rumours that Don Brash has a love child but that seems to be baseless. The real point of the story is the Brash-ists trying to kill off Rodney Hide now, rather than wait until the election. I wouldn’t be surprised they’re behind the love-child story.

When you look at the story, it’s one long litany of Brash’s people (apart from flat-footed David Farrar, who is brought in for ‘balance’) all attacking Hide for supposedly slipping to a “new low in New Zealand politics” by spreading stories that Brash has a love-child. Except there’s no proof these rumours come from Hide or that they’re even really real.

The first time I heard of the love-child story was from one of the Brash-ists, Matthew Hooton. He dropped it into a Kiwiblog thread back before Brash rolled Hide, which was then reported by one of our commentators:

Matthew Hooton (14) Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
You are so right that Key and Goff would want to stay away from this. Otherwise they might be involved in something where anything could happen on live TV, something as appalling as one of those mentioned above, say, accusing another of, say, having a love child, which might mean that that person could then be forced to accuse the other of something as equally untrue, like – god knows? – something like sending texts to his girlfriend when his wife was in labour. False and disgusting accusations like these are the last thing NZ politics needs.

Ipredict, which Hooton does the PR for, launched a stock yesterday on Hide losing his ministerial portfolios by June 1. Cameron Slater, who was very much in the camp of the Nats who launched the takeover of ACT, was pumping this stock and the story last night before it went up on SST with the angle that Hide must go for spreading these terrible rumours.

It looks very much like this is an attempt to create ‘facts on the ground’ that make Hide’s position as a minister for ACT untenable.

But it doesn’t answer one question: what does Hide really have over Brash that allowed him to keep his portfolios? It clearly isn’t this love-child story.

46 comments on “Dog eat dog on the extreme Right ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Hilary 1
    8 May 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Hide could threaten to resign as Epsom MP and that risks a by-election in which ACT loses the seat and its parliamentary representation. That’s one reason why he kept his portfolios, I guess.

    • felix 1.1
      8 May 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Or more precisely: That’s why he’ll keep them until six months prior to the election.

    • Treetop 1.2
      8 May 2011 at 1:35 pm

      Hide is still there because of Key. It will not be known until after 26 May if Key has kept Hide on to avoid a by – election in Epsom. If Key stabs Hide in the back after 26 May then this will be known.

      I suspect that Hide knows a thing or two about the Wongs business dealings and this is what he has over Key. Key took the position over Garrett that it was an Act caucus matter and Hide may have taken the stance that Pansy Wong was a National Party caucus matter.

      I do know that Key flip flops on the criteria he uses to appoint ministers.

      1. Has an agreement with Act.
      2. Has the final say on who is a minister.
      3. Accepts a ministers resignation without disclosing what the reason is.

      • Deadly_NZ 1.2.1
        8 May 2011 at 1:46 pm

        Any time after May 26 Hide would be best served to wear his ACT Yellow Armoured Undies, with triple ‘between the shoulder blades’ protection.

    • Eddie 1.3
      8 May 2011 at 1:41 pm

      Pretty sure that ACT doesn’t lose its list MPs if it loses Epsom in a by-election. Number of list MPs is set in stone after the election.

  2. Anne 2
    8 May 2011 at 1:19 pm

    I love this bit from Matthew Hooton:

    False and disgusting accusations like these are the last thing NZ politics needs.

    Can’t recall the same disgust when his NACT mates spread “disgusting” rumours and accusations about Helen Clark.

  3. BLiP 3
    8 May 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I nearly bought the Sunday paper today but then saw that “politics hits new low” headline” – I guess the subterranean malice, talk-back taliban, frothing-at-the-mouth commentators spreading lies about the hairy-legged lesbian cabal wasn’t quite as “low” as some horny Jack-the-lad love child rumour. If that’s the level of MSM analysis in regard to politics, I’d rather buy Women’s Weekly The Listener.

    I don’t think Hide has anything over Brash, he’s just keeping the seat warm. While the punters are all distracted with salacious nonsense, no one’s playing much attention to the sorts of policy being formulated in the back room.

  4. ianmac 4
    8 May 2011 at 1:49 pm

    The Captain didn’t like his First Mate. So he would enter in the log “1st Mate appeared to be sober today when he reported for duty.” Which of course was true. But by seeding the comments in various forms, eventually when the Board considered promotion for the 1st Mate he was passed over because he clearly had a drinking problem.
    Hence Hoots Hooton :”something as appalling as one of those mentioned above, say, accusing another of, say, having a love child…….” By innuendo plant an untrue story in your minds and doubt/suspicion creeps in.
    Maybe it wasn’t Brash he was hinting at? Ahaaa?

  5. ianmac 5
    8 May 2011 at 1:51 pm

    I reckon Hide would have much more likely/lethal stories at his fingertips than the quaint “love child” story.

  6. Craig Young 6
    8 May 2011 at 1:57 pm

    I’m somewhat perplexed at what exactly the Rodneyites think they’re doing. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, one must conclude that this rumour isn’t true, so they’ll probably be impaled on the sharp end of a defamation charge.

    It also goes to show the sheer nincompoopery and archaism of the hardcore ACT neocon agenda. No-one cares a fig about ‘the sanctity of marriage’ or ‘illegitimacy’ outside the miniscule number of such ideologues under the hard right banner. We’re ages away from penal legislation against the ‘illegitimate’ or the social stigma depicted in the Supremes hit “Love Child” (1968), Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter (1850), Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (1877) and Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles (1891).

    I suspect that any Rodneyite sympathisers are attacking neoconservatism, that bizarre fusion of fiscal and social conservatism at the heart of Brash’s worldview. If it can raise enough doubts in their minds, religious social conservatives will balk at voting for someone who is already (gasp) a “serial adulterer” (!!!). Mind you, Machiavellean hypocrisy also plays a role in the neocon mindset, so the self-annointed elite get to play around while us proles don’t.

    • Pascal's bookie 6.1
      8 May 2011 at 2:13 pm

      Things is, there’s no evidence been produced that it’s Rodney peeps at all.

      The only people going public are Hooten and Whale tutt tutting. Rodney has nothing to gain from spreading it, Brash has a lot to gain from people thinking Hide is spreading it, and lo and behold, Brash’s two biggest surrogates are there blab blab blabbity blabbing away.

      It’s not so much suspicious as it is brutal.

      • mickysavage 6.1.1
        8 May 2011 at 2:20 pm

        Aye, it could be two factions within the National Party, the Brash/Joyce win at all costs faction and the Blinglish/Ryall/Smith let’s do things a bit more conservatively.  These are the two factions that brought us the spectacle of the Hollow Men.

        Hollow Men 2: the undermining of Key coming soon to a theatre near you!

  7. mickysavage 7
    8 May 2011 at 2:08 pm

    It is interesting to watch two factions within the right turn on each other and it is not the let’s have a disagreement then enter into mediation and shake hands and get on with things type of fight.  It is a dog eat dog and whoever is left standing will be the victor type of fight.

    Google “Simon Lusk” and read Trevor Mallard’s blog posts if you want to have an inkling of what is happening.

  8. Craig Young 8
    8 May 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Incidentally, given that ACT voted against stronger dog control legislation while Prebbo was in charge, does anyone appreciate the irony involved in the headline?

  9. Nick K 9
    8 May 2011 at 2:59 pm

    This is a very good analytical post on the topic. And I’m no leftie.

  10. Matthew Hooton 10
    8 May 2011 at 3:11 pm

    There are two “love child” smears and you are confusing them.

    The first, involving woman A and child A, was threatened to be “revealed” by the RodneyBunker during the coup process. That was the one I was referring to in the post on kiwiblog you refer to. It is also the one the HoS (I think) referred to in its gossip column last weekend (I think).

    The second “love child” smear involves woman B and child B (now an adult) and the first I heard about this one was last night when the SST rang me. This also came from the RodneyBunker, I understand (from calls made today). Hide told the SST yesterday that not only had he not passed on the smear involving woman B and child B that he had never even heard of this second smear. That last bit is certainly a lie by Hide and I suspect he’s also lying when he said he never passed it on. So Brash has some big decisions to make over the next few hours – because I think there is clear evidence of Hide lying to him and the media at least about him knowing about the smears and probably over whether he passed them on.

    You are certainly right that it’s nasty and I think the “Hide to go” iPredict stock (which I suggested to iPredict last night after the SST called me) is probably a buy.

    • Eddie 10.1
      8 May 2011 at 3:22 pm

      it’s hard to keep up with the dirty, smutty stories you’re spreading around, Hoots.

      I’m not in ipredict but my advice to anyone who is simple: if a market participant is trying to boost the price of a stock, they’re probably doing a pump and dump making money off chumps who listen to them both on the way up and the way down.

      looking at the ipredict stock’s history, that’s what’s happened it seems.

      Given that Hide has said he isn’t behind the story, Brash says he believes him, and the story is dead in the water anyone who thinks that this is going to get Hide knocked out is nuts – I include Slater and Hoots in that category.

      • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1
        8 May 2011 at 3:27 pm

        Your response got me interested and I see from the Herald that Brash is saying he has no reason to disbelieve Hide’s denials. Each to their own I guess!

        • IrishBill 10.1.1.1
          8 May 2011 at 3:33 pm

          So are you working for Brash, Matthew?

          • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2011 at 3:37 pm

            No. I explained my connection to all these events on N2N last week. I have an idea of what is going on (I know and have spoken to most of the participants) but I’m certainly not working for anyone involved.

            • IrishBill 10.1.1.1.1.1
              8 May 2011 at 4:49 pm

              I’m pleased to hear that – I know you were uncomfortable with the IWI/Kiwi stuff last time around. I’ll correct a previous post mentioning that rumour. What’s your reading of what’s going on?

    • Penny Bright 10.2
      9 May 2011 at 6:57 pm

      errr…. in my considered opinon Mathew – it makes NO sense at all for Rodney Hide to spread such rumours about Don Brash.

      Rodney Hide wants to continue his career in politics.

      I believe a lot of decent Kiwis would have been horrified at how ‘money-bag$’ big business interests effectively bought control of ACT by using the corporate ‘Golden Rule’ of ‘Democracy’ – “those who have the gold – make the rules.”

      However, Don Bra$h ‘I’ve got the ca$h – so it’s my way or the highway’ – is now in a rather pivotal leadership position of the ACT party – (which he became ‘leader’ of some two hours after joining?).

      So – how on earth would it be in Rodney Hide’s best interests to p*ss off Don Bra$h – particularly by stirring up personal stuff – which may or may not be true?

      Rodney Hide, in my considered opinion is definitely not stupid.

      I have learned from experience – that sometimes people in the same group as yourself – may take actions that you neither know about, nor agree with.

      Also – Don Bra$h and Rodney Hide have supposedly been ‘friends’ for over 15 years?

      (Heaven help us all if they were deadly and sworn enemies! 🙂

      Of course – it may well be in the best interests of others to help discredit and get rid of Rodney Hide?

      SURELY this wouldn’t include yourself Mathew?

      Penny Bright
      http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  11. Craig Young 11
    8 May 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Matthew, I tend to think that this may be confused and muddle-headed ACT populist faction payback for what happened to Hide, seen as their standard-bearer, against Brash. I wondered where they’d gone to after the coup, and now it seems that they may be trying to white-ant Brash and destabilise ACT. Some of the wilder sock con blogs I’ve read certainly don’t seem impressed with Brash’s unfortunate marital history and this could be designed to exacerbate residual tensions within their party. Accordingly, they’ve seized on this hypothesis about the mythical progeny of Dr B.

    • Matthew Hooton 11.1
      8 May 2011 at 3:38 pm

      Yep, that’s basically what I think

      • Nick K 11.1.1
        8 May 2011 at 5:05 pm

        Think? I thought you “knew”? Just a few comments earlier you said you “had an idea of what was going on”, after speaking to the participants.

        Who are the participants you have spoken to? To clear this up, why don’t you name them. You’re not breaching any privilege or ethic just saying who you spoke to.

        Because the people I know in the party have not spoken to you and never will.

        Which only leaves a certain crowd, and if you’re talking to them then it’s patently clear where this is coming from.

  12. felix 12
    8 May 2011 at 3:35 pm

    iPredict is a joke, and not a particularly good one.

    It could have been something but it was doomed from the day they decided to let the National party run it via David Farrar.

    • higherstandard 12.1
      8 May 2011 at 4:57 pm

      iPredict that all the candidates in this years elections will be asshats.

    • mickysavage 12.2
      8 May 2011 at 9:04 pm

      It is not so bad with some issues.  There is an inherent right wing bias so, for instance, early on Len Brown for Mayor was paying 7c in the dollar.  Paid for a good meal that did!

      • felix 12.2.1
        8 May 2011 at 9:51 pm

        I’m sure it tasted all the better for it too! But what I mean is it seems to have largely become a tool for creating, spreading, and reinforcing political propaganda rather than a barometer of opinion.

        And with guys like Farrar and Hoots working there it was inevitable.

  13. Jenny 13
    8 May 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Yes it’s true, Rodney Hide is Brash’s love child.

  14. georgecom 14
    8 May 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Another possibility. Someone, prehaps in the Brash camp, is getting some stuff our early for maybe 1 of 2 reasons:

    1. leak an edited version of a story yourself and then deny it rather than have your opponent leak a dirtier version

    or

    2. leak something small and tame now and deny it so that if bigger stuff is leaked by your opponents you can cry ‘smear’ and a certain % of people will discount the bigger issue.

    Rob

  15. Craig Young 15
    9 May 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Nah, that’s not genetic linkage, it’s merely the Transnational Baldist Conspiracy to Obliterate Western Civilisation Plc at work. Have you noticed you seem to have to be a follicularly challenged bloke to get anywhere in the ACT Party these days? And that the Iraqi War was all (baldie) Vice Prez Dick Cheney’s fault? And that two consecutive leaders of the UK Tories (William Hague and Iain Duncan-Smith) were bald?!

    Coincidence?! Hah!!!

  16. Penny Bright 16
    9 May 2011 at 3:35 pm

    But it doesn’t answer one question: what does Hide really have over Brash that allowed him to keep his portfolios? It clearly isn’t this love-child story.”

    hmmmm…………. I wonder if the decision to allow Rodney Hide to keep his position as Minister of Local Government could have anything to do with a postcard campaign that I have initiated – addressed to Prime Minister John Key – where the undersigned:

    “.. pledge to consider not paying this proposed Auckland Council 4.9% rate increase.”

    I have widely distributed hundreds and hundreds of these postcards throughout the Remuera, New Market and Parnell shopping centres – in the heart of the Epsom electorate where Mr $upercity supporter from Day One – John Banks – hopes to stand as the ACT candidate.

    Unsurprisingly – most people know nothing about this pending 4.9% rate increase (which covers ALL ratepayers, residential and commercial) – and are somewhat less than delighted – to say the least when this fact is pointed out to them.

    (The wealthier the property – the more rates will have to be paid.)

    It is my considered opinion, that Rodney Hide was kept on as Minister of Local Government in order to keep ‘copping the flak for the $upercity’ (which was 100% supported by National MPs or – quite simply – it wouldn’t have happened).

    Remember – National LIED about the Auckland $upercity:

    They promised to ‘consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the Royal Commission were known’.

    http://www.national.org.nz/files/2008/local_government_policy.pdf

    National didn’t.
    They railroaded through the underpinning framework legislation – the Local Government (Tamaki Makarau Reorganisation) Act 2009 – in another Rogernomic$ blitzkrieg – to enable the corporate takeover of the Auckland region.

    So – as the Auckland anger builds over the ‘$upercity = Super rip off!’ – wouldn’t it make sense to keep Rodney there?

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  17. Craig 17
    9 May 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Yes, but Penny, that would remind irate Auckland voters that it was *ACT* that shepherded local body amalgamation and its associated headaches through Parliament, not Hide per se. In which case, the fallout might spread to whoever is selected to succeed Hide in Epsom…

    • Penny Bright 17.1
      9 May 2011 at 7:31 pm

      Craig 17
      9 May 2011 at 4:44 pm

      Yes, but Penny, that would remind irate Auckland voters that it was *ACT* that shepherded local body amalgamation and its associated headaches through Parliament, not Hide per se. In which case, the fallout might spread to whoever is selected to succeed Hide in Epsom…”
      _____________________________________________________________________________

      errr…. the reality is that it was National and ACT that shepherded / RAILROADED through the underpinning ‘$UPERCITY’ framework legislation.

      It’s just that it was made to look like a Rodney Hide ACT – but it simply would not have happened without the full support of National Party Cabinet Ministers and MPs.

      It’s time for people to see past the spin?

      Penny Bright
      http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  18. Craig 18
    10 May 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Penny:
    Yes, I do agree with you, but National wouldn’t have been able to do so without ACT acting as their willing handmaidens and facilitating the advancement of shared policy interests.

Links to post