Goff’s leadership safe for now

Written By: - Date published: 1:21 pm, March 29th, 2011 - 171 comments
Categories: labour, leadership, phil goff - Tags: ,

According to The Standard’s spies in Dunedin, the Labour Party front bench meeting has just concluded. Goff’s leadership has been confirmed, with unanimous support.

Goff attributed the leadership rumours to the work of “political opponents”, and said that the controversy had only strengthened commitment to his leadership.

Update: must have been a glitch with the original title. Fixed now.

171 comments on “Goff’s leadership safe for now ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    29 March 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Right so that is step one.

    Step 2 – talk about real issues affecting ordinary kiwis and propose an alternative
    Step 3 – repeat step 2
    Step 4 – repeat step 2
    Step 5 – repeat step 2

    …

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      29 March 2011 at 1:35 pm

      Is this the same plan they’ve been running on an had no traction, or a new plan?

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        29 March 2011 at 1:40 pm

        Same plan but performed better.

        • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 1.1.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 3:14 pm

          Performed better by the same actors? Seriously?

          • The Baron 1.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2011 at 3:44 pm

            I suspect step 3 will remain the same as it has done all year – i.e. distract from step 2 by doing something completely idiotic, like:

            1. Dying your hair
            2. Saying you think she is hot too
            3. Buying a motorbike
            4. Change your mind about everything, everytime.

            God I love it. Its like a real version of the Office.

  2. big bruv 2
    29 March 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Morons…the Nat’s can put the champagne on ice right now.

    Labour have handed the election to Key on a plate, the media will not let this go.

    Labour could have killed the story stone dead today, yes there would have been a fuss about Goff being rolled for one or two days but it would have blown over quickly.

    Labour have conceded the election.

    • Bored 2.1
      29 March 2011 at 1:39 pm

      Fekk I hate agreeing with you. Watch for the Green and Winston vote to swell with dissaffected Labour supporters

      • the pink postman 2.1.1
        29 March 2011 at 2:47 pm

        Just watch the ex-public service workers go straight to Labour , just watch the unemployed vote go straight to Labour or the Greens. Anybody who thinks the next election is a certain National win may well be in for a shock .There is a huge number of angy and worried people out there ,if Labour gets them out to vote Goodbye wave and smile .

        • Mark M 2.1.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 3:12 pm

          Just watch the voters who expect their political leaders to be honest desert from Labour.
          Goff has had to many differing stories on his handling of the Hughes affair not to mention rank hypocracy to appeal to any one other than a moron who supports red because it isnt blue.

          Goff is only safe because Labour have no credible leaders and have probably relaised the union and or rainbow faction dont actually have a lot of supporters

          • dave brown 2.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2011 at 4:29 pm

            Ive got no love for Goff or Labour going way back. But the right wing shit stirring over Darren Hughes which set the frame for lots of trending leftie angst about the need to put politics before justice is just playing the same dirty game. Goff will come out ahead on this because he was seen to actually stand up for some basic right to natural justice and due process ahead of rank party ratings or should we say blog rankings. If Goff could actually take hold of his principles and stand up for the working class like he stood up for Darren Hughes that would blow all the right and left opportunists out the door faster than wiki leak. But I’m thinking it might be a one day wonder.

            • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2011 at 4:46 pm

              Cool story dave, but how did he stand up for DH? He was talking about natural justice right up until he was talking about something else. Today’s story is that he would have sacked Hughes, no matter what the police decide to do about the complaint, because Hughes showed poor political judgement.

    • mickysavage 2.2
      29 March 2011 at 1:39 pm

      Big bruv

      How about all of the RWNJs that said that Goff was finished and there would be a coup now admit they were wrong?

      • big bruv 2.2.1
        29 March 2011 at 1:50 pm

        Micky

        Only when you agree that the only reason Goff was not rolled was because nobody wants the job given the total mess the Labour party is in.

        And seriously, are you calling our media (which is overwhelmingly pinko) part of the VRWC?

        • freedom 2.2.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 1:53 pm

          “….are you calling our media (which is overwhelmingly pinko)….”

          funniest line i’ve read in weeks

          • big bruv 2.2.1.1.1
            29 March 2011 at 2:04 pm

            That does not surprise me.

            I often read you guys pissing and moaning about our media, for nine years they refused to do their job when dear leader was in power, for nine years they did nothing as she led the most corrupt government in our nations history and yet you guys still insist that our media is part of the VRWC.

            The media is almost all from the left.

            • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2011 at 2:20 pm

              “The media is almost all from the left.”
              Yip, all those international media conglomerates workers co-operatives furthering their capitalist communist agendas!

            • Irascible 2.2.1.1.1.2
              29 March 2011 at 4:49 pm

              Perhaps corruption should be held against the list of Key’s lackeys who have demonstrated their readiness to rort the taxpayers of NZ….. English of the double dip, Heatley of the credit card, Lee of the TV expenses, Worth of the Indian connection, Wong of the Chinese connection, Hide of the Hawaiian holiday honeymoon, and Key of the highly visible blind trust….. and the list continues.
              Wait until the asset stripping programme beds in and watch the corruption spread into the hands of the NACToid money-speculator mates.

            • Deadly_NZ 2.2.1.1.1.3
              29 March 2011 at 10:26 pm

              VRWC?? Very Right Wing CRAP

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.1.4
              29 March 2011 at 10:29 pm

              The media is almost all from the left.

              Yeah media developed by those who believed in public broadcasting etc then got sold off to rich corporates for a song.

              So technically you are correct, the media did almost all come from the Left.

        • the pink postman 2.2.1.2
          29 March 2011 at 2:25 pm

          Well if you believe the media is “overwhelmingly pinko” you must be living in cuckoo land .Either that or you forgot to take your pills today .

    • r0b 2.3
      29 March 2011 at 1:41 pm

      Golly gee bruv, that’s some quality advice right there. I sure do hope that you get paid what it’s worth.

      I suspect this whole thing was 90% right wing blog and media beatup. Now we can put it to bed, and get back to the issues that matter. Like the moribund economy, and rebuilding Christchurch. Those are the issues that will win or lose the next election….

    • Tangled up in blue 2.4
      29 March 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Yep. It’s sad but true. Labour is dead in the water.

      2014 maybe?

    • Monty 2.5
      29 March 2011 at 6:29 pm

      Thank God Goff is staying – I almost felt sorry for Labour then I remembered that are nought but a bunch of theiving socialists – We on the right can sleep easy.
      There is a saying be careful what you wish for as you may just get it. Whew – I thought us right wingers had pushed too far and Goff was a goner – now safe – until the election Goff remains and the election for Labour remains un-winable.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    29 March 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Here’s a post by Vernon Small on it: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4821805/Phil-Goff-must-act-as-Helen-Clark-did

    “Phil Goff’s leadership may not be on the line today at the shadow cabinet meeting in Dunedin, but no change is no longer an option.

    Looking again at the wider leadership team including Annette King and David Cunliffe and making a change there may be the answer.

    Helen Clark did it in 1996 to shore up her leadership.

    At the time her rivals did not have the numbers to roll her, but she recognised the concern in the party at its poor poll rating and knew she needed to act.

    The result was her deputy and finance spokesman David Caygill hit the cutting room floor in favour of Michael Cullen, creating the leadership team that was so effective for Labour during nine years in office.”

    So he could replace King or Cunliffe. Labour have a policy of opposite-gendered leader and deputy, so King would have to be replaced with a woman. There doesn’t seem to be anything to gain in replacing Cunliffe as he’s regarded as being excellent at the finance portfolio.

    captcha: street

    • Bored 3.1
      29 March 2011 at 1:44 pm

      EEEEEEKKKKK!!!!!!!!!! Vernon has a good handle on it, he may be a little too close to the action living as he does in Parliament. Out here in the real world it looks different. More self inflicted wounds. F minus Labour, fail.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      29 March 2011 at 1:51 pm

      I beg to disagree Bored.

      Small suggests that Cunliffe should be rolled as Finance spokesperson.

      He has no idea of the respect that Cunliffe has within the party.

      • Mark M 3.2.1
        29 March 2011 at 3:16 pm

        Maybe Cunliffe has respect within the party but a few thousand votes wont get you back in the trough.

        Cunliffe wont bring votes , hes to smug and arrogant besides he hasnt been effective as a finance spokesman.
        Up against Key , who actually understands finance hell look silly in a debate

        • mickysavage 3.2.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 3:29 pm

          Key understands finance? You mean the guy who said that the tax cuts were fiscially neutral and would stimulate the economy but resulted in $500m deficit and absolutely no sign of growth?

          You guys are such a crack up. Surely you are taking the piss?

          • the pink postman 3.2.1.1.1
            29 March 2011 at 3:50 pm

            No they are not M/S they really believe it ,the arrogant bastards ,just as they believe the unemployed do not want to work and just as they believe they are born to rule.

        • lprent 3.2.1.2
          29 March 2011 at 3:43 pm

          John Key has shown no signs of understanding finance to date. Bill English does appear to have considerably more understanding than Key does. And at least he uses real numbers rather then the jibberish that Key seems to pull out of his arse. Cycleway employing thousands of people and costing bugger all anyone?

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.3
          29 March 2011 at 3:44 pm

          Key may understand finance but he doesn’t understand the economy. In fact, IMO, that’s the biggest problem with NACT and the neo-liberal economists – they just have NFI as to WTF the economy actually is.

        • RobertM 3.2.1.4
          29 March 2011 at 7:36 pm

          Rudd had the same characteristics and won when it mattered. In a way Blair was arrogant and it would have been an illusion to call Hawke humble. He was a beer bed boy-with the ladies, wanted or unwanted.
          I’d like to see Cunliffe and shane leading Labour. give the Harvard boys a chance. The best and brightest. Goff is nothing a neutered, MFAT house trained poodle. When he accepted the out of the country foreign affairs post under Clark he showed he had no balls, no ambition and fight. NZ is a beautiful country, it could be an unlimited 24 hour hetrosexual country if we can get beyond the hoplessly limited ambitions of Grosser and MFAT that his country can be no more than a dairy farm. Act Kerr and Scott and Prebble who believed that this country should settle for being an Iowa or Kansas are worse. Goff was one of them, throw him out.

        • Deadly_NZ 3.2.1.5
          29 March 2011 at 10:42 pm

          Are you a comedian??? Key Understand finance?? like fuck he does. He’s an accountant and currency trader for gods sake. All Key understands is buying NZ dollars and then selling them to make a killing, and oh yes fuck NZ.
          https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Key

          And this idiot with Bklinglish who actually does not even have a degree in anything to do with finance. A degree in Commerce does not set you up to run a country’s finances.
          https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bill_English..

    • bbfloyd 3.3
      29 March 2011 at 2:55 pm

      just a small point lanth… are you quoting vernon when you state that “labour have a policy of opposite gendered leader and deputy”, or is that your own assertion.?

      • The Voice of Reason 3.3.1
        29 March 2011 at 3:10 pm

        I’m not sue if its a formal requirement, bb, but I understand the Labour caucus has used for some time now a combination of both gender and geography (ie an Aucklander and someone from the provinces as well as woman/man). The Nats require an urban/rural split and NZF rules specify a Winston/Glove Puppet duo.

        Ok, I made the last one up, but pretty sure about the first two.

        • lprent 3.3.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 4:13 pm

          Not formal on the parliamentary leadership. Just politically useful.

          I think that the Greens have some formal requirements

        • felix 3.3.1.2
          29 March 2011 at 5:10 pm

          The Nats require an urban/rural split?

          Key and English are both rural though; Helensville and Dipton, right?

  4. vto 4
    29 March 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Oh well, there go our power stations and solid energy again…

  5. randal 5
    29 March 2011 at 1:58 pm

    great fun watching the lamos strut their policy analystic atavism stuff.
    Labour will win this election because they have policies and not some pr job running around in a straw boater pretending to be an upper class english geek.

  6. freedom 6
    29 March 2011 at 2:01 pm

    there is another possibility

    Mr Goff, with full visible support from the Labour caucus, makes the unsurprising announcement of their unanimous commitment to his leadership. The media are duely satisfied by the display then as the room processes the ‘news’, Mr Goff quietly announces that due to the unmitigated bs the media seem unwilling to abate he offers his resignation so as to no longer distract Labour and the Greens from the important task of rescuing New Zealand from the mind-buggerringly fucked up situation that National have created

  7. lprent 7
    29 March 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Pretty much what I thought would happen. I must write a post unkindly dwelling on the hysterics by various opinions since Friday.

  8. PeteG 8
    29 March 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Time to move on from this, everything is ok, if not better.

    Labour MPs emerge, Goff ‘strengthened’ by Hughes affair

    Just as well we know what that headline is really trying to say.

  9. tsmithfield 9
    29 March 2011 at 2:13 pm

    “Goff’s leadership has been confirmed, with unanimous support.”

    Best news I’ve had this year.

    Probably be a party at National HQ tonight as well.

    • the pink postman 9.1
      29 March 2011 at 2:38 pm

      Well if that’s the case perhaps you can explain why the Nat’s and their mates have been attacking Goff ever since he became the Labour Party leader ? I’m inclined think that they realise that he is very good .
      You do not attack your opponent non stop unless he is a danger to you.
      What Goff is going through is very much the same as Helen Clark was subjected to.
      The fact that Goff has been confirmed unanimously will not shut down the attacks. I can see the Herald headlines now. Goff safe ,”for now”
      The fact is there are a lot of people out there who believe Goff handled the “affair quite well !

      • tsmithfield 9.1.1
        29 March 2011 at 2:42 pm

        “Well if that’s the case perhaps you can explain why the Nat’s and their mates have been attacking Goff ever since he became the Labour Party leader ?”

        Previously Goff was perceived as a threat to National. Now National perceive him as a liability to Labour. But since it now appears that Labour wants concrete around their legs up until the election, expect a massive onslaught against Goff from National.

        “The fact is there are a lot of people out there who believe Goff handled the “affair quite well”

        Name one.

        • the pink postman 9.1.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 3:37 pm

          Well as a matter of fact I have been talking to a number people in my area . For the record a very strong National seat. I have been surprised at the number of people who have said Goff either did the right thing or handled the situation the best he could .
          Perhaps you tsmith could tell us how you would have handled the situation . As for your first two paragraphs what a load of google de goop.

          • tsmithfield 9.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2011 at 3:51 pm

            Front-footing it from the start was the way. He didn’t have to go into the specifics. But he should have stood Hughes down pending an investigation.

        • lprent 9.1.1.2
          29 March 2011 at 3:46 pm

          Name one.

          Me. It was always going to be a no-win position. He did pretty well at keeping the noise down on it to less than a week. It wasn’t perfect and parts could have been done a lot better. But bearing in mind the bloody stupid actions by Darren Hughes, it was probably as good as could have been expected – in my opinion.

          • tsmithfield 9.1.1.2.1
            29 March 2011 at 3:52 pm

            So you don’t think he handled it even a tinsy winsy bit badly when he kept the issue under raps even though he had been all over Key for doing the same?

            • lprent 9.1.1.2.1.1
              29 March 2011 at 3:54 pm

              I thought I said that it wasn’t perfect. But it really was a no-win situation whatever happened. If he’d have exposed it immediately, you’d have been here crying about that.

              • tsmithfield …
                29 March 2011 at 4:02 pm

                No I wouldn’t. As I said above, he could have front-footed, immediately stood Hughes down without going publicly into the specifics.

                • lprent …
                  29 March 2011 at 11:47 pm

                  Umm. Your prescription sounds like the penultimate firing / resignation of Richard Worth. Dump with no details. That worked out well right? There is a least one reference to that cover up every single day by commentators here. You can virtually guarantee that that it will be the subject of the final words screamed out by disrupters of John Keys public meetings as they are dragged out of the halls by his minions…..

                  Etc… In other words I still think that your naivety is charming, but unrealistic… If that kind of tactic is used then many people will just fill the grassy knoll.

          • Bunji 9.1.1.2.2
            29 March 2011 at 3:54 pm

            Me.

            If he had gone early the meme merely would have been “destroying proper judicial process, no loyalty to friends/colleagues, terrible employer.” And you’d have still got the crap.

            So pretty much what Lynn said.

            (I’ve spoken to quite a few “normal” (ie non-political, non-blog) people in the last few days and the overwhelming verdict was: poor Darren Hughes, he seemed nice. And that it was good it was kept from the media for as long as possible. I’ve been really surprised at how many people who aren’t interested in politics have an opinion – I think his having been a regular on breakfast telly must have made quite an impression)

            • tsmithfield 9.1.1.2.2.1
              29 March 2011 at 4:07 pm

              And neither you or Iprent think Goff was just a little bit remiss in not informing Little about the issue?

            • lprent 9.1.1.2.2.2
              29 March 2011 at 4:10 pm

              Yeah, I was surprised about the sympathy levels for Darren as well.

            • felix 9.1.1.2.2.3
              29 March 2011 at 5:25 pm

              Bunji that’s pretty much the reaction I’ve had from normals too.

              I was surprised not only by them having opinions on it, but by the strength of those opinions too.

              General sentiment along the lines of they don’t even know if he’s done anything

              • felix …
                29 March 2011 at 5:59 pm

                p.s. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with them.

              • Deadly_NZ …
                29 March 2011 at 10:52 pm

                it now does not matter if he did, or did not do anything. his name is now MUDD and will be forever more thanks to the MSM in this country who seem to think that they are judge jury and Executioner. And until there is some way of reigning them in then this is going to be business as usual.

          • Godder 9.1.1.2.3
            29 March 2011 at 10:40 pm

            Really? My opinion of your opinion was just called into question. Goff was a shambles.

        • felix 9.1.1.3
          29 March 2011 at 5:16 pm

          tsmithfield, in one comment (this one) you claim that National were attacking Goff because he was perceived as a threat, but now they’re going to be attacking him because he isn’t.

          • tsmithfield 9.1.1.3.1
            30 March 2011 at 4:23 am

            Yeah. Now it seems they are going to hold onto Goff no matter how much he fucks things up, why not attack him? After all, there doesn’t seem to be any risk that Goff is going to be sacked or anything.

            • felix 9.1.1.3.1.1
              30 March 2011 at 5:01 am

              You’re hilarious.

              There’s no scenario where you and the rest of the NACTs aren’t going to attack Goff and there’s no reason for that other than him being the leader of the opposition.

              Thanks for showing us what you really think though.

              • PeteG …
                30 March 2011 at 5:07 am

                Is there any scenario where you and the rest of the LEENS aren’t going to attack Key? For any reason other than him being the leader of the Government?

                • felix …
                  30 March 2011 at 5:17 am

                  Well duh, that was the point. It was luttle Timmeh who made out that he had all kinds of rationale for what he’s up to. You need to read my comment in context.

                  I thought you were supposed to be smarter than him, Pete.

                  ps what’s a LEEN and how do I qualify as one?

                • mickysavage …
                  30 March 2011 at 7:17 am

                  Sure PeteG

                  I promise not to attack Key unless I have good cause to, that is he is making a decision that is bad for New Zealand.

                  I anticipate no change in my behaviour …

        • ianmac 9.1.1.4
          29 March 2011 at 5:16 pm

          I think Goff handled it OK. I suspect that there must be people posting Kiwiblog snarls here using the names of writers who are usually fair and positive usual. Ordinary folk don’t seem to be bothered too much and some believed that he put Justice and Fair Play ahead of Political Expediency.

          • Lanthanide 9.1.1.4.1
            29 March 2011 at 5:48 pm

            “I suspect that there must be people posting Kiwiblog snarls here using the names of writers who are usually fair and positive usual.”
            Very unlikely.

            I know that there is some tracking going on with commentators, matching usual names with email addresses and that there is a record of IP addresses. The gravatar or default picture you get depends on your email address, so someone using a particular name that has the same picture as they always did, must be using the same email address, and because email addresses of commenters aren’t published, they are unlikely to know the other person’s email so as to spoof them.

            An imposter could sign up to gravatar with another email address and steal the person’s original avatar, but this would constitute using a known name with an unknown email address, and would be put into the spam trap straight away. From there, checking back with the IP address to historical ones could confirm whether the new post is fake or not.

            • lprent 9.1.1.4.1.1
              29 March 2011 at 5:53 pm

              Yep. Generally the whole thing is pretty good at identifying identity theft. It sometimes gets to be a bit of a pain when people have the same handles. But we’ll usually ask the most recent one to shift handles to get rid of the basic confusions.

              The moderators and particularly me tend to have a very severe opinion about identity theft. If we detect it happening deliberately then we start getting nasty.

        • Mac1 9.1.1.5
          29 March 2011 at 7:00 pm

          Me. Goff acted honourably, circumscribed as he was by the needs of the police, the complainant, Hughes, and the whole ‘need to know’ thing.

          As for the massive onslaught against Goff from National…. when did that not happen for a Labour leader?

          The more the dirt from the opponents, the more we know the fight is worth having.

      • Anthony C 9.1.2
        29 March 2011 at 2:43 pm

        Probably because it is easy and effective to target Goff.

    • Mac1 9.2
      29 March 2011 at 5:15 pm

      TS, at comment #9, it’s called a wake. November 26 we will know for sure……..

  10. randal 10
    29 March 2011 at 2:25 pm

    yeah a piss party.

  11. JonL 11
    29 March 2011 at 2:25 pm

    “they did nothing as she led the most corrupt government in our nations history” – you must have a very strange idea as to what constitutes a “corrupt” government. For REAL pointers, just look at the USA = Helens mob were nowhere near that level.
    Never mind bruv, now the left can say “they did nothing as he led the most corrupt government in our nations history”

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    “Morons…the Nat’s can put the champagne on ice right now” – unfortunately, I tend to agree with you, unless most voters get a brain transplant sometime soon…….

  12. appleboy 12
    29 March 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Just remember how the left parties have been collectively tracking up and the right collectively tracking down.

    The gap ain’t that big and smile and wave is slowly but surely revealed for what he is – stands for nothing , has no plan and is a smile fronting a bunch or morons. Brownleee, English , Bennett, ACT…it’s sheer stupidity NZ ever voted them in .

    Actually come to think of this, they were not wanted at all, voters just wanted Labour out after 9 years of dirtying the water by the Nats.

  13. Barnsley Bill 13
    29 March 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Strengthened! Blimey.
    Is there not one person in the rabble that calls itself the Labour front bench with enough about them to call a halt to this shambles and put their hand up.
    The cosy lifestyle is far too precious to undertake some much needed pruning.
    Pathetic.
    Labour. The party workers party.

  14. nadis 14
    29 March 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Eddie, are you sure you got the quote right?

    said that the controversy had only strengthened commitment to his leadership.

    What goff said in the news story I read:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10715689

    was a little different:

    Asked if his leadership had been damaged, he said: “No, I think it’s strengthened it.

    The first statement is a sensible reflection by Goff, the second emphasises how poor his judgement is.

    Which one is it? Or is it both?

    • Eddie 14.1
      29 March 2011 at 3:43 pm

      all I got was a quick txt. Don’t read anything in to my particular phrasing. must say that I don’t see a huge difference between the two versions that you’re comparing.

  15. Tigger 15
    29 March 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Is it my imagination or are there are bunch of commenters here with nicknames I don’t recall seeing before who are slamming Labour for pulling in behind Goff…? Is it that slow on the 9th floor at the moment?

    • mickysavage 15.1
      29 March 2011 at 3:32 pm

      Yep and they all have common male first names as handles.

    • lprent 15.2
      29 March 2011 at 3:39 pm

      Just the astroturfers. Boring aren’t they. I just wrote a post on them to draw them to the medias attention.

      • The Baron 15.2.1
        29 March 2011 at 3:42 pm

        But as per usual, Lynn, its too bloody long to gain anyone’s attention…

        • lprent 15.2.1.1
          29 March 2011 at 3:53 pm

          Most people have better reading skills than your average RWNJ (you know the ones – they write comments about the first paragraph and title only).

          The length of the post seems to make very little difference in readership numbers until you get over a thousand words. But making them longer than 600 words markedly drops the number of traditional trolls.

          Unfortunately the astro-turfers they’re hiring these days are too literate. It is going to be a long election campaign

  16. Chris 16
    29 March 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Sorry keeping Goff was a bad move. The media and the right will now continuously snipe away at Goff and keep him and Labour sidetracked – some of the ammunition they will continue to use is: /1 Goffs ‘handling’ of the Hughes scenario and who knew what / when / how etc. 2/ the fact that there has been open criticism of Goff by the likes of Chris Trotter, Matt McCarten and the less then happy Andrew Little. 3/ the The ‘negative’ attitude of people like Judith Tizard, Chris Carter, John Tamahere and others. 4/ Goff’s ongoing low personal ratings plus 5/ the public is not stupid they know there has been decent and fractions with the party and by MP’s who feel Goff is a liability. This will now sidetrack Labours build up in this election. It was either now or never and I feel Labours chances at the next election are receding rapidly. Sorry had to say it.

  17. Robert Winter 17
    29 March 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Safe is a relative term – a good shell hole on the Somme was, in one view, safe……

  18. The Baron 18
    29 March 2011 at 3:41 pm

    What a phyrric (sp?) victory this is. Labour’s top 11 have just signed the Labour Party up for 2002 redux.

    And you applaud them Eddie?

  19. tsmithfield 19
    29 March 2011 at 3:48 pm

    “and said that the controversy had only strengthened commitment to his leadership.”

    ROFL

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      29 March 2011 at 4:30 pm

      This has been a good practice run for LAB and it’s MPs. National will be slinging shit around all year so getting a few more rounds training is always handy.

      • PeteG 19.1.1
        29 March 2011 at 5:04 pm

        That’s a bit like saying Kenya have had a good practice run in the cricket world cup, except they didn’t spread their own wickets a metre apart.

        I guess it could be used in a “what not to do” training guide.

  20. Blue 20
    29 March 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Safe, ahahahahaha, my sides are splitting. Labours election death sentence has been written. They have no guts at all.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      29 March 2011 at 4:31 pm

      Key Brownlee and English on rebuilding Christchurch is what’s gutless mate.

      • RobertM 20.1.1
        29 March 2011 at 6:46 pm

        Yes but its a political landmine. Parker won courtesy of the September earthquake and both Parker and Brownlee are aware that decisive action in Christchurch would step on too many toes of the predominant Christchurch interests, powerful left wing sects, a generally left wing and irrational population and small business interests who’s business’s and interest have ceased to be viable, although it will be sometime before they and the country accept it.

    • Rowena 20.2
      29 March 2011 at 5:10 pm

      The thing is Goff did the right thing. It isn’t as if Goff was hiding it, because he knew it would get out eventually. Goff knew it would get out. I think Goff actually did everything right.
      First of all Goff heard about the situation, had to process the information (of which ‘info’ he had received, at this stage) and knew it was going to be complicated. Simultaneously the police had just started a new investigation into the matter. To prevent the media interfering, judging and dissecting the situation for themselves, Goff left the Police to get on with their investigation. Which is correct.
      Goff knew it was going to get out anyway (he wasn’t hiding it)- but had a member of his party, a friend also (and is innocent until proven guilty), and a police investigation happening, so sitting on it for two weeks is hardly detrimental to Goff and his leadership ability.
      When it was made public, Hughes was suspended, then lost his position in education (or whatever it was) and then lost his job in a quick succession. Goff was correct here also; you can see by the way it played in this sequence Goff was thinking about it and deciding to do what was best for his party. When it was made public a lot of rumours would have been flying around (young man naked running around etc..) and as a professional Goff kicked Hughes out. It was the right thing to do.

      The only thing Goff did wrong was- in that 2 weeks he let Hughes do public debates- which Goff should have halted all Hughes’s duties/debates/public interactions.

      Goff would be a better PM than Key. Key is hardly a New-Zealand-type-of-PM.
      Key should move to Las Vegas.

    • Rowena 20.3
      29 March 2011 at 5:22 pm

      Blue Sucks- Red Rules!

      Go Goff squash that loser party- greedy selfish grubby bastards!

    • Rowena 20.4
      29 March 2011 at 5:23 pm

      Your fucked up site doesn’t go to the right place.

      Blue you P-I-G!

  21. Chris 21
    29 March 2011 at 4:40 pm

    ‘iprent’ – no ones opinion is meaningless. I have a right to an opinion just as you do even if it does not mirror yours. This is a democracy still.

    Chris

    • Tigger 21.1
      29 March 2011 at 4:49 pm

      Chrisyes, you have a right to your opinion and others have the right to disagree or slam you if your post smells like spin. And it does.

    • lprent 21.2
      29 March 2011 at 4:49 pm

      The question is if you’re saying anything meaningful. So far you aren’t IMHO. I’m just expressing that opinion.

      I’m used to people having different opinions to me. It happens all of the time including with the other authors on this site that we share. I do get bored with people expressing opinions about things that they obviously have little knowledge of. That is what your comments look like to me. They don’t look like they meant to engage in the dialogue here. They look more like waffle designed for journo’s.

  22. Chris 22
    29 March 2011 at 5:32 pm

    No I’am not an ‘astrosurfer or a journey man’. Yes I recently joined up to this site. I ‘blog’ on no other site except the TV3 site occasioanally. I am not left or right but do come from a left background.
    I am 55 and have been a PSA member for 35 odd years in the health sector. I do know a thing or two about life and politics. I am am sorry if my opion is meaningless or sounds like ‘spin’. I will contiunue to have an opion if that OK with you all and I don’t think Goffs the man but again that’s my opinion. I dont critise others but thats my choice. Thanks.

    Chris

    • lprent 22.1
      29 March 2011 at 5:49 pm

      There isn’t anything I have seen you do that worries me as a moderator. The rules used in my role as a moderator are about behavior and are in those nice bold bracketed additions to peoples comments.

      But you’ll see me writing comments and even the occasional post as well when I have time (like today I’m stuck on a ordinate space problem). If I’m writing a comment you can assume that it is not in a moderator role except occasionally when I’m explaining a decision or my interpretation of a rule.

      As you’ve no doubt observed by now – there is a considerable range of political opinion here and the debate gets rather robust. But you can expect to have comment speculating on what your actual agenda is because talk is cheap, speculation on who people are in real life is forbidden, and people will judge you on how you argue and what knowledge and wisdom you expose.

    • Rowena 22.2
      29 March 2011 at 5:50 pm

      Basically what is happening is ‘some people’ are trying to get rid of Goff obviously. And the National party will be spinning as much shit as ever because they are only in politics to basically fuck around, support war (so intelligent) and to sell our country to foreigners. So unhinging the Labour party before election would be ideal. Maybe people inside of the Labour party don’t want Goff to be PM, but Goff should hang in there. I think Goff does have ‘it’ – so what if he doesn’t clown around like Key going on talk shows. Goff has been around long enough and he can do the job. He has been around long enough and deserves a chance to take on the role. I think Goff has silent resilience, durability and integrity and that would worry the puppet masters.

      • PeteG 22.2.1
        29 March 2011 at 6:56 pm

        And the National party will be spinning as much shit as ever because they are only in politics to basically fuck around, support war (so intelligent) and to sell our country to foreigners.

        They don’t even do the war support thing very well, pretty naff, eh.

        Next thing they’ll make it compulsory to load up our credits cards.

      • Bored 22.2.2
        29 March 2011 at 8:23 pm

        National are spinning shit because they have been handed the excuse on a plate by Darren Hughes, Chris Carter, Shane Jones etc etc handing them a free ride of lamentable fuck ups. Each time Goff has sort of “managed” (lamentably).

        • Rowena 22.2.2.1
          29 March 2011 at 9:27 pm

          I think Chris Carter had some people influencing him. Because he kind of placed himself in this ridiculously stupid situation, and it was ‘made out’ that he acted alone, I doubt it, Carter was set up somehow. Carter was probably promised something to do what he did, totally blinded, and then in the end – had to take the fall with his lips sealed.
          You can’t really control what others do, except try to have some faith that the people in your party act responsible- but we all know out of every profession on earth, it will be the politicians that get busted for dirty deeds because in reality they are all liars and cheats. It’s so easy to be a liar and a cheat but much harder to be honest and good. So of course nearly all are liars and cheats. How on earth can these people be proud of themselves- politicians are all basically criminals. Lowlifes in suits- boring sweaty mongrels lying and cheating.

          • PeteG 22.2.2.1.1
            29 March 2011 at 9:43 pm

            Carter was actually saying out loud what others were also thinking, he wasn’t too far off the mark, he just went about it in a hamfisted way and his timing and level of support were misguided or misjudged.

        • Deadly_NZ 22.2.2.2
          29 March 2011 at 11:15 pm

          And the Fuckups that have come out of the national party and hangers on like lets see….

          Oh yes Patsy Wong ripping of NZ and Lying to her leader and others about it.
          And then there’s good Ol’ Rodney Hide busted perk buster.
          and Oh yes David Garrett Identity theft of the lowest kind.

          And Key tried to cover it up BUT the right wing loving media in NZ, finally had to report after it got to hard to hide .

          And I am sure others here can name and shame more…

          • Bored 22.2.2.2.1
            30 March 2011 at 6:52 am

            I think that pretty much sums up Goff. He got no traction on those Nact fuck ups because his crew were too busy fucking up on his watch. When you are up against a deliberately blind “owned” media you dont give them excuses to hang you out to dry.

  23. big bruv 23
    29 March 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Wow Iprent!!

    You do seem to be in full panic mode today, anybody who does not agree that Goff has strengthed his leadership is automatically labelled an astroturfer.

    Meanhwile..more rational left wing commentators (yes, there are one or two) have had the guts to speak out and say that Labour are wrong to keep flip flop Goff.

    It is safe to speak out against them Iprent, the Nat’s changed the EFA laws, you will not be arrested for daring to speak out against the party.

    • felix 23.1
      29 March 2011 at 6:59 pm

      Really? He hasn’t labelled you an astroturfer has he?

      Nah thought not. Bullshit as usual.

      • big bruv 23.1.1
        29 March 2011 at 7:12 pm

        Ohh..poor old Felix.

        Been a tough couple of days has it mate?

        • felix 23.1.1.1
          30 March 2011 at 4:54 am

          Nah I’m having a great week so far, thanks for asking.

          Seeing as you didn’t dispute what I wrote (that you haven’t been labelled an astroturfer), and seeing as Lynn has stated that you aren’t considered an astroturfer, and seeing as how you haven’t protested that statement, there’s only one possible conclusions to draw from your comment above.

          You do in fact believe that Goff has strengthed(sic) his leadership.

          Please tell me how there can be any other reading.

      • lprent 23.1.2
        29 March 2011 at 10:24 pm

        He is more of a nuisance, but a long known one.

        • Deadly_NZ 23.1.2.1
          29 March 2011 at 11:17 pm

          More like one of those little yappy dogs that are hard to ignore as they are always pissing on your shoes and yapping at their own shadows.

    • lprent 23.2
      29 March 2011 at 10:28 pm

      Tell me, did you read the post? I was pointing out the differences between left wing and Labour supporters? In particular read the two links that I highlighted on astro turfers

  24. TightyRighty 24
    29 March 2011 at 7:29 pm

    So when Phil Goff says that he senses the hand of his political opponents behind this, is he saying that national forced a young man naked into Darren Hughes bed and hen pushed the button for him to run off? The man is fucking deranged. If he has been voted to lead the labour party into 2011, national dominance then labour is just as deranged.

    • Bored 24.1
      29 March 2011 at 8:18 pm

      Fekk you guys are like carrion crows: it sticks in my craw that Labour are feeding you a free meal. Ouch, just sliced an artery…more self inflicted wounds. I am no longer Bored, just amazingly angry at the stupidity of the Labour party parliamentarians for their endless list of fuck ups.

    • lprent 24.2
      29 March 2011 at 10:18 pm

      There is this interesting question about how the details of the police investigation got leaked. At present it would appear most likely that it was leaked from the beehive from what Goff has said about what reporters have told him.

      If that isn’t a political event then what would you call it?

      • chris73 24.2.1
        29 March 2011 at 11:58 pm

        I’m more interested in whether an MP [deleted] then where the leak came from but each to their own I guess

        [lprent: too specific. ]

        • lprent 24.2.1.1
          30 March 2011 at 12:16 am

          I deleted the speculation on the specific nature of the complaint as per site policy. But I’d have to say that it is rather pointless worrying about something that the police are investigating. There are some very severe limits on what we will allow people to put up here or that the papers can either.

          These restrictions do not apply apart from defamation restrictions on the subject of the leak. I find it easier to talk about something that can talk about.

          • chris73 24.2.1.1.1
            30 March 2011 at 6:46 am

            I apoligise for being too specific but my point is that in this case theres something slightly more worrying then who leaked what

            • Pascal's bookie 24.2.1.1.1.1
              30 March 2011 at 7:18 am

              It is hard to think about more than 1 thing at exactly the same time. But you don’t actually have to do that. You can think about them at different times.

            • lprent 24.2.1.1.1.2
              30 March 2011 at 8:41 am

              It is in the hands of the police. If it is serious then presumably charges will be laid and then it will be in the hands of the court.

              In either case you will have the same problem I have had since late 2007 on ‘terrorism’ raids – an inability to discuss the details. Like me in that case you will have to learn patience and to deal with what is in the public domain outside of the legal system.

              • chris73 …
                30 March 2011 at 5:14 pm

                Patience is a virtue but its also damn annoying in the blogosphere

                • lprent …
                  30 March 2011 at 10:29 pm

                  Yep. But heart attacks aside, I intend to still be blogging when these things are resolved. If you think it is bad for the bloggers, then imagine what the journos are feeling?

      • Bored 24.2.2
        30 March 2011 at 6:18 am

        I would call it a political event that needed to be avoided. The moment Darren went on drinking too long and late with a group of youngsters he placed himself and ipso facto the Labour party in the firing line. Whether an incident occured or not is not the point, he and his associates / minders should have known to be wary. Which is what I mean by self inflicted wounds.

        Goff when he heard should have called the party president, announced Hughes immediate suspension, stated that natural justice was his primary concern. As far as a leak goes the obvious course of action is to have the proof prior to the accusation, otherwise it falls on deaf ears. Bad handling, more self inflicted wounds.

        • lprent 24.2.2.1
          30 March 2011 at 9:01 am

          Sure, I don’t think this this has been particularly well handled. One of the real issues is that Darren Hughes as whip was meant to be the one of the main ‘minders’. But I suspect that you have a viewpoint on minders that is more americian style than kiwi.

          But stand back a bit. I am really concerned that the details of a police investigation have been leaked to the media without anything apparently being done about it. The most likely source from all accounts is from someone inside the beehive.

          A police investigation is started by nothing more than a complaint. It is the polices role to investigate and detirmine if there is sufficient evidence to lay a charge. At a guess there are probably far more than 20 complaints (wonder where I would get the stats from) to every charge being laid. Of those probably half result in a conviction at court for one reason or another.

          So it would appear that right now that all that is required to start a political shitstorm is to proceed to your nearest police station to lay a complaint, then get your favorite ministers staff to leak it to the press? No real proof of an actual crime is required…

          fuck… I thought that type of crap went out with Muldoon..

          • PeteG 24.2.2.1.1
            30 March 2011 at 9:22 am

            There have been plenty of reports of the incident being widely known at Vic up to a week before the story broke in the media. Sure, if it was nudged out by someone “in the Beehive” that’s not a good look, but it seems inevitable it would have come out anyway.

            If leaking was a crime all parliament buildings would need bars.

            How would Goff have looked if it remained covered up for another week or two? And how would Andrew Little have felt when he eventually found out?

            • Pascal's bookie 24.2.2.1.1.1
              30 March 2011 at 9:34 am

              ‘Not a good look’, or ‘a bad thing?’

              ‘Seems inevitable’, earthquakes are inevitable; leaks are choices people make.

            • lprent 24.2.2.1.1.2
              30 March 2011 at 9:36 am

              That is the thing. What reports?

              As far as i can see, there have been none of those people coming forward to say that in public except as repeating rumor on the blogs. It appears to be a whale rumor level – ie the absolute bullshit beloved by astroturfers and trolls. So perhaps you can link to a credible report supporting your claim – ie news media. Otherwise I’d say that you are lying either deliberately or inadvertently.

              Meanwhile friends of the complainant have said that he’d only talked to the police. Goff says that three journo’s have told him that it was leaked to them from the beehive. Those have all been reported in the news where the media obeys the rules. You can look all of this up (I am heading out of the door right now)

              Now who would you believe?

              • PeteG …
                30 March 2011 at 9:44 am

                Now who would you believe?

                Jon Johanssen on Q+A on Sunday. It’s been linked to here more than once.

                JON I was just going to say that it reached my end of the grapevine about the 12th of March, right.

                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1103/S00257/qas-panel-discussion-re-phil-goff-and-darren-hughes.htm

                That corroborates blog claims.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 March 2011 at 9:45 am

                  Nah that imaginary link says nothing like what you said.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  30 March 2011 at 9:48 am

                  There have been plenty of reports of the incident being widely known

                • lprent …
                  30 March 2011 at 11:02 am

                  Several things.

                  Who is Jon Johanssen? Is he a journalist who makes TVNZ liable or just someone like a commentator here?

                  Where does he say where he heard it from?

                  What connection does he have with Vic uni? (Your specific claim). I always love how when you question these crap claims that everything starts twisting around as the liar squirms.

                  Is this guy simply bullshitting (like you)? Why was there no questioning of that statement by anyone – including the journalists who probably heard it?

                  I’m still saying your claim is pure bullshit. It a lie being spread by the real perpetrators of a leak, who are likely to be government ministers or their staffs.

                  • PeteG …
                    30 March 2011 at 11:36 am

                    Dr Jon Johansson
                    Lecturer, School of History Philosophy Political Science and International Relations

                    http://www.victoria.ac.nz/hppi/staff/jon-johansson.aspx

                    He’s a regular on Q+A.

                  • PeteG …
                    30 March 2011 at 12:11 pm

                    BTW, I presume you were referring to Johanssen as a squirmimg liar, I had already shown via the Q+A transcript that I was not lying (also can be viewed on the TVNZ Q+A website).

                    Interestingly Johanssen knew Hughes from when he was at Vic (at least he claims he did):

                    Prudent judgement. When Darren Hughes went through my politics programme at Vic, that is what we try and instil in our young. He does not seem to have picked up that lesson as well as some of our other graduates. You know, we’re quite disappointed with him.

                    • lprent …
                      30 March 2011 at 12:40 pm

                      Ok, so the short answer is that he doesn’t particularly make TVNZ liable for what he says. When I say credible, I mean that someone will have checked their facts. With journo’s this is editors and lawyers.

                      But on the face of it this guy is moderately credible (but I’d be quite interested in knowing his political leanings). However a single witness isn’t exactly credible especially when they have a good reason to inflate their professional political reputation.

                      Now where are your other reporting witnesses? You said widely known at Vic?

                      I presume you were referring to Johanssen as a squirmimg liar

                      No actually. That was directed at you. It seems to be an instinctive reaction when I get partial answers to questions. After watching Actoids squirm around in the past I’ve found it a effective inducement to stop pissing me off.

                    • PeteG …
                      30 March 2011 at 1:52 pm

                      Ah, so you called me a squirming liar with nothing to back it up. I suspect I couldn’t get away with calling you anything similar without some sort of evidence being insisted on. I guess you let can let yourself break your own rules.

                      Why don’t you think Johanssen is “exactly credible”? I’d have thought he wouldn’t want to risk his reputation with blatant politically biased lies. I’d take his credibility over those here who are trying to claim it was leaked from the likes of Collins’ office, or Brownlee’s office – with absolutely no evidence.

                    • lprent []
                      30 March 2011 at 2:54 pm

                      I suspect I couldn’t get away with calling you anything similar without some sort of evidence being insisted on

                      Actually you usually can (and people do). It just depends on the context.

                      The actual rule that is applied for everyone about personal attacks is that you are not allowed to make pointless personal attacks in comments. In other words if you didn’t give in your comment sufficient reason about why you’re calling someone something, then you’d find me or another moderator having a go at you.

                      The same applies to attacking us with some minor caveats.

                      1) One is obviously that is if you manage to really annoy one of use then anything could happen. But we’ve all developed thick skins over time. And you’ll often find in those cases that another moderator will remove the ban or whatever. We sometimes overrule other moderators if they look like they’re getting too involved. That is usually Irish but me as well.

                      2) But we also don’t allow personal attacks on authors and moderators when they are in those roles.

                      a) In other words attacking a author at a personal level for the contents of their post will usually give you a ban. Attacking the contents of what they write will not. The reason for this has to do with keeping authors. It is hard work writing posts. It is a order of magnitude harder to write a good post as it is to write a good comment (and there is a hell of a difference between a good and bad post). There is nothing as debilitating to an author as having put up a post and then having the first comments being in the order of you’re a fuckwit rather than dealing with what was argued in the post. So we’ll give long bans for anyone ignorant enough to try it on the general basis that authors are more important to us than commentators.

                      b) Arguing with moderators when they are moderating is self-evident stupidity. We try to bring the martyrdom that anyone silly enough to do it is evidently seeking..

                      But if we’re simply commenting, then treat us like any other commentator that needs a wee incentive to cough up with what they really think (ie the robust debate clauses). If it needs moderating because it is going too far, then you’ll usually find it gets left for another moderator to make a judgement on.

                      Hell I’ve had the other moderators cut stuff out of my comments and to apologize for me when I wouldn’t do it myself (the interfering arseholes !). I’ve never been banned, but I suspect that has more to do with the mechanics of it than anything else.

                      Now back on topic… I’m still waiting for those other links. Preferably from someone a bit more (ummm) disinterested than a polsci lecturer

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      30 March 2011 at 2:36 pm

                      There have been plenty of reports of the incident being widely known

                      I’m just waiting for you to back that up. So far you’ve got one report of someone in the polsci dept saying they heard of it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 March 2011 at 2:45 pm

                      PeteG is an astroturfer, we can’t expect him to actually have the multiple reports that he says he has.

    • Puddleglum 24.3
      29 March 2011 at 10:37 pm

      “is he saying that national forced a young man naked into Darren Hughes bed and hen pushed the button for him to run off? ”

      Probably not. More like “when National found out about the incident they decided that political advantage trumped matters of principle in relation to police investigations and so decided to leak the information to the public”.

      Something like that (happy to clarify for you – it must be hard being so unable to work out what people mean. You have my sympathy.).

    • Deadly_NZ 24.4
      29 March 2011 at 11:19 pm

      Oh so you have the inside story, that has not been released to anyone except you???

      Fuck Off TROLL

      Sorry 1prent it’s getting too much

  25. Rodel 25
    29 March 2011 at 8:30 pm

    The crosby textor slow character assassination programme combined with unintelligent right wing comments is unfortunately having an effect.
    They did it with their “ditch the bitch” campaign in the last election and it tends to work with the dumb portion of New Zealanders, who alas are the ones who swing and decide on our future leaders like the clown we’ve got in charge at the moment.

    I’ve seen Goff in action, in person, and in terms of intellect and strength, Key is an ineffectual and less than honest drip in comparison.
    Ethically our media is even more pathetic.Fabrication 101 is all they know.

  26. Penny Bright 26
    29 March 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Isn’t the real purpose of this Darren Hughes corporate media ‘beat up’ to try and completely undermine the Labour Party, as the main political party whose stated policy is opposition to the corporate asset sale agenda?

    Isn’t this the real reason behind the attack on Phil Goff’s leadership?

    Look at the recent Botany by-election result – the only ‘poll’ result that really counts – a binding vote of electors.

    Asset sales were a key election issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zht3kVIwaX0 (3 minute clip – “Botany Candidates on Asset Sales” – debate 15/2/2011)

    National’s Jami-Lee Ross supported the ‘partial privatisation’ (renamed) ‘mixed ownership’ model – Labour’s Michael Wood (supported by Phil Goff), opposed it.

    While Labour’s vote proportionately increased – National’s plummeted.
    Pansy Wong’s electorate vote of over 17,000 dropped over 9,000.
    Young Jami-Lee Ross got just over 8,000 votes.

    The turnout was exceptionally low. 76% turnout in 2008 – dropped to 36% in 2011.
    It’s not usually National Party voters who stay home – especially after John Key and Jami-Lee Ross effectively begged them to get out and vote. They didn’t.
    More (former?) National Party voters stayed home than voted.

    As an Independent Botany by-election candidate, my own vote was not large, (124 votes), but in my opinion, the issues I raised, had an impact with a number of voters.
    Quarter page, page 3 advertisements which went into both the Howick and Botany Times and Howick and Pakuranga Times (which more than covered EVERY household in the Botany electorate), in the week before the by-election on 5 March 2011, included the following points:

    “Why has there never been any ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of the ‘commercialise, corporatise – PRIVATISE ‘Rogernomics’ model – that this National/Act Government wants to extend?

    Who has, and will benefit from future privatisation and asset sales? The public?

    How will the ‘Mums and Dads’ who can’t afford to pay their power bills, going to afford to invest in the power companies? ”

    Labour publicly campaigned opposing asset sales. Did the raising of questions about asset sales help encourage over 9,000 (former?) National Party voters to stay home?

    What does that mean for the 2011 general election, and the all-important ‘party vote’ for National?

    What will those (former?) 9000 National party voters do in the November 2011 General Election?
    Who WILL they vote for?

    Will proposed asset sales (particularly of electricity assets) be a potentially HUGE vote loser for this John Key-led National Party?

    There are arguably thousands of (former?) National Party voters, who still remember the ‘bad old days’ of the ‘inefficient’ Department of Electricity and Local Power Boards – when you could afford to turn your heater on.

    There are arguably thousands of (former?) National Party voters, who still remember National’s electricity reforms under former Minister of Energy Max Bradford, http://www.linkedin.com/pub/hon-max-bradford/a/14/48a which removed the ‘economies of scale’ under the Department of Electricity and Local Power Board ‘monopoly’ – and replaced it with the current, duplicated, ‘competitive’ model.

    “Energy Minister Max Bradford claimed that promoting competition in the electricity sector would bring price reductions, with gains flowing through to household and small business consumers. He identified long-term efficiency gains as the objective of the reforms (Bradford, 1998).”

    “Supposedly, the first wave of reform to New Zealand’s electricity sector – deregulation and the promotion of competition – “was about efficiency, competition and accountability to customers” (Douglas, 1995). The creation as an SOE of the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) resulted in a monopoly in electricity generation and transmission which, presumably, could not be sold off in one piece. This implied the need for “unbundling” and Transpower Ltd was created to separate electricity generation and transmission, leaving generation with ECNZ. Contact Energy was split out from the ECNZ in November 1995, the intention being to create competition and, eventually, privatisation of electricity generation. ”

    http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/08/06.htm

    Have (former?) National Party voters, like other members of the public, experienced electricity ‘price reductions’, under the Rogernomic$ ‘commercialise, corporatise – PRIVATISE model? Of course not. Power bills continue to sky rocket upwards.

    Does this John Key-led National Party Prime Minister think that New Zealanders have experienced some form of collective frontal lobotomy, and forgotten their experience of the above-mentioned Rogernomic$ electrivity reforms – (of which we are all reminded, every month, when we get our next crippling power bill?)

    Don’t get sucked in by the spin turbo-drive folks.
    ‘Partial privatisation’ of electricity assets is HUGELY unpopular – arguably proven by the Botany by-election.

    So – as proven in 2008 with the corporate media campaign against Winston Peters and NZ First (because a number of big business CEOs were totally opposed to his being part of either a National or Labour coalition government) – the tactic is obviously to politically undermine the main political party which has a stated position of opposition to asset sales.

    (To read the full Press Release on this topic, which I sent out today to over 1200 – including ALL MPS, ALL media, ALL Councils in NZ, all elected reps on the Auckland Council, Grey Power reps, human rights contacts, plus my own email lists of concerned citizens – check out my blog: http://waterpressure.wordpress.com )

    Penny Bright

    • Rob 26.1
      29 March 2011 at 10:36 pm

      I feel like this should be a guest post.

      • Jim Nald 26.1.1
        30 March 2011 at 9:52 am

        Mums and Dads are not double dipton duplicators.
        Mums and Dads are finding it very hard trying to cover rising costs of power, food, fuel, GST, etc, let alone looking at investing in power companies.

        Competition brings price reductions, flowing to household and small businesses, with long-term efficiency (re Bradford quote of 1998) ! Oh hurrah!

        In Blinglish’s colleague, Bradford, we trusted. We believed. And we were saved.
        Mad Max then.
        Mad Max returns.
        And we’re mad to believe again.

    • Deadly_NZ 26.2
      29 March 2011 at 11:21 pm

      Did you ever get an answer to the question about Shonkey profiting of ordinary kiwi’s back in the days when he was a financial vampire???

    • ianmac 26.3
      29 March 2011 at 11:24 pm

      I do remember Penny taking the wind out of Key’s sales with questions about America Bank at Botony Bay. She certainly did not look mad to me. She was persistent and succinct. Well done Penny. And an excellent post thanks.

  27. Rich Prick 27
    29 March 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Perhaps Rob, if you like reading the rantings of a slightly mad woman that no one would read. I wonder somtimes if she throws cats at passing trucks in her spare time.

    [lprent: Hello RP. I have just been reading the warnings you had in 2008 on this connection under several names. I am inclined to just ban you as a contraceptive measure. ]

    • SPC 27.1
      30 March 2011 at 12:04 am

      I am sure your advice about what people would or would not read is highly valued.

    • M 27.2
      30 March 2011 at 12:29 am

      Rich Prick

      Penny has argued her case well – can you refute any of her points or are you just at a loose end?

      I’m wai-ting….

      • Jim Nald 27.2.1
        30 March 2011 at 9:55 am

        The former sentence is wrong.
        The latter sentence would be right if the cats are Rich Prick, BB, and PeteG.

  28. randal 28
    30 March 2011 at 11:13 am

    even when the dim[post had someone tailing Phil Goff in dunedin the best they could come up with was a more or less gutter press captiion for tuesdays editorial.
    it was a lot of crap and if they are prepared to go that far then they must be really scared that a groundswell is getting in behind Phil goff and the Labout party and the national party and their gang of manques will be swept away.

  29. Penny Bright 29
    30 March 2011 at 12:46 pm

    “Deadly_NZ 26.2
    29 March 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Did you ever get an answer to the question about Shonkey profiting of ordinary kiwi’s back in the days when he was a financial vampire???”

    The OIA reply to my question – to whom exactly is NZ indebted – was flicked by ‘Teflon John’ to Bill English.

    The Bill English OIA reply is included with the following You Tube clip, of my asking ‘shonky’ John Key to his face at the Grey Power Papatoetoe public meeting on 3 February 2011, if he was personally profiting from NZ’s growing indebtedness – given that he is a shareholder in the Bank of America.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwNoaOpDMw

    Suggest people have a look at this ‘black and white’ from the ‘horse’s mouth’ for themselves.

    Re: THE DEBT!

    It appears that NZ’s level of ‘public debt’ is comparatively low – it is NZ’s ‘private debt’ that is high.

    Since when did ‘private debt’ become a public problem’?

    Why would we sell our public assets to pay for ‘private debt’?

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    • The Baron 29.1
      30 March 2011 at 1:12 pm

      you know you can reply directly to their original posting, rather than doing it this confusing way, right?

    • Gina 29.2
      30 March 2011 at 11:27 pm

      Penny I have that video on my phone. Amazing. No trial necessary. The guilt written all over Key’s face. Just wondering who did the video. People are really worried about copyrite violation and I’d like to be able to give out a few copies of that clip on CD without folk feeling nervous.

      • Colonial Viper 29.2.1
        30 March 2011 at 11:40 pm

        I guess the obvious questions are
        – Is the video even validly copyrighted?
        – If so who owns the copyright? Who owns the video?
        – Re: principle of fair use – copying the work and distributing it on a non-commercial basis, ensuring that the original video has no commercial value or claims against it, but that it has educational value and that is the purpose for its distribution, should more than suffice.

  30. Penny Bright 30
    30 March 2011 at 1:05 pm

    “Rich Prick 27
    29 March 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Perhaps Rob, if you like reading the rantings of a slightly mad woman that no one would read. I wonder somtimes if she throws cats at passing trucks in her spare time.”

    “Rich Prick’ isn’t Cameron Slater is it?

    Sounds VERY much like you, Cameron! 🙂

    Or – perhaps you have a clone?\
    Eeek! (Scary thought! 🙂

    I prefer ‘reasoned and considered opinion’ to “rantings”, and ‘persistent and determined’ to “slightly mad” – but I guess we’re all entitled to our opinions.

    I, for one, intend to pay far more attention to well-informed and considered opinion, based on FACTS and EVIDENCE – but maybe that’s just me.

    Would prefer to post my comments directly on your ‘Whaleoil’ blog Cameron – but since you banned me because I called you a ‘National Party hack’ – I haven’t had an opportunity to do so.

    Seems slightly inconsistent for someone who advocates ‘freedom of expression’ to ban someone from their own blog for forwarding point of view with which they disagree – but there you go!

    BY OUR ACTIONS WE SHALL BE KNOWN?

    For a giggle – some of you folk might enjoy this little exchange between myself and Cameron Slater during the Botany by-election.

    “National Party ‘hack’ Cameron Slater supports ‘freedom of expression’ – but not on HIS blog:”

    12 February 2011
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    Cheers! 🙂

    Penny Bright

  31. Penny Bright 31
    31 March 2011 at 12:03 am

    “The OIA reply to my question – to whom exactly is NZ indebted – was flicked by ‘Teflon John’ to Bill English.

    The Bill English OIA reply is included with the following You Tube clip, of my asking ‘shonky’ John Key to his face at the Grey Power Papatoetoe public meeting on 3 February 2011, if he was personally profiting from NZ’s growing indebtedness – given that he is a shareholder in the Bank of America.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwNoaOpDMw”

    There is NO copyright on this Mr News ‘You tube’ clip.

    Feel free to spread it FAR and WIDE!

    Cheers

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com