Hollow Man v Shallow Man

Written By: - Date published: 3:00 pm, October 14th, 2007 - 61 comments
Categories: national - Tags:

Nicky Hager’s book, The Hollow Men in many respects contains no great revelation to those who have witnessed National Party politicians’ behaviour over the years.

The major differentiator between Labour and National has always been that Labour is an inclusive party with fundamental values based on supporting a greater number of people. National on the other hand champions the ideal of the individual, sometimes at the expense of the community, which is why they’re always happy to sell off the assets belonging to all New Zealanders, to a few wealthy New Zealanders.

Of course the problem for National is that, in order to get elected, they need to pretend to support the interests of the majority, which is entirely the point of The Hollow Men. Don Brash deeply-held beliefs were incongruent with what he was saying to the electorate and he ended up looking silly – the ultimate Hollow Man.

So what’s the difference with John Key? Well the answer is probably not much, and quite a lot. He’s very like Brash because there is plenty of evidence to show, in his past statements that he would be very much in favour of selling many public assets – as just one example. But I believe that the difference is in how he delivers the message. Key has no difficulty in holding one view and presenting an entirely different line. The Standard is full of examples and I believe, as the campaign unfolds towards 2008, many more will become apparent.

It could be argued that at least Brash held some principles and values, which in the end tripped him up. Key on the other hand appears to have no such difficulty.

It would seem that THE HOLLOW MAN
has been replaced by THE SHALLOW MAN.

Don Brash HOLLOW MANJohn Key Shallow Man

61 comments on “Hollow Man v Shallow Man ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lee C 1
    14 October 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Ok you win. The Standard is obviously not for me. This is my final post.

    Fare ye well.

  2. Z K Muggletonspofin 2
    14 October 2007 at 4:46 pm

    I hate sad goodbyes. How will we know when you come back under a new name?

  3. Inventory2 3
    14 October 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Tane and Sam reckon they’re pretty good at working out IP addresses!

    Hey Lee C – they do seem to be one-trick ponies here eh – all they ever talk about is John Key and the EB!

  4. sproutynz 4
    14 October 2007 at 5:19 pm

    it’s always such a sweet sorrow

  5. Robinsod 5
    14 October 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Tane and Sam reckon they’re pretty good at working out IP addresses!

    What on earth are you talking about?

  6. Z K Muggletonspofin 6
    14 October 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Please, the anonymity of the internet is an individual’s choice and is liberating for many. People have, up-until-now, had limited means of expressing themselves and we should welcome and support the opportunity the web gives us all to do that. No amount of bluff about IP addresses should scare people into believing it will be otherwise.

    Keep the debates going I say and let’s make it safe for everyone to have their say without fear.

  7. Sam Dixon 7
    14 October 2007 at 7:19 pm

    What the hell is Inv2 talking about?

    I’ve never talked about anyone’s IP addresses. I believe its Farrar who’s threatening to release people’s IPs, a predictiably depsearte reaction to having his back to the wall since The Standard ahs come along..

  8. Sam Dixon 8
    14 October 2007 at 7:52 pm

    I was just looking at the Colmar Brunton poll report on One News. As anyone who follows the polls knows, CB always leans right, about 5% compared to other polls but what I found odd was One News saying “The trend shows National is maintaining a clear and consistent lead”. The previous CB poll was in May.
    Comparision

    Party Oct May
    National 49% 56%
    Labour 37% 31%
    Green 6% 6%
    The Maori Party 3% 3%
    NZ First 2% 3%
    United Future NZ 1% 1%

    Seems like a 6% shift to Labour since the last poll, hardly a consistant lead.

  9. amk 9
    14 October 2007 at 8:13 pm

    Please, the anonymity of the internet is an individual’s choice and is liberating for many.

    Fair enough. However that observation would carry more weight if the standard :-

    (a) Published a privacy statement and;

    (b) Disclosed how the standard is funded (ie how much money come from the labour party, and/or originates from the labour party and anonymised via third parties, and;

    (c) Published a names, posting aliases & email of people who have access to IP addresses of posters here.

    That should clarify things nicely 🙂

  10. Inventory2 10
    14 October 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Nice try Sam – the last Colmar Brunton poll from TVNZ was actually in September (16th to be exact) and these were the results; National 49%; Labour 39%; Greens 5%; NZ First/Maori Party 3%. Tonight’s result National 49% (no change, after a supposedly “shit” month; Labour 37% (down 2, after supposedly having battered Key and National from here to Kingdom come); Greens 6% (up 1); Maori Party 3% (no change); NZ First 2% (down 1, and in danger of vanishing!)

    Oh, you didn’t mention preferred PM: Clark 33% (no change); Key 33% (up 2 – again, after a supposedly “shit” month!)

    Sam, if you’re going to quote statistics, please make sure you are using the right ones – we wouldn’t want anyone to think you were trying to distort opinion now, would we. Thought not (with apologies to sonic)!

  11. amk 11
    14 October 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Sam, if you’re looking for consistency might be wiser to go back over the last few poll results.

    Aug-06 45% 43%
    Sep-06 49% 38%
    Oct-06 49% 36%
    Feb-07 46% 39%
    Mar-07 49% 39%
    May-07 56% 31%

    I think most readers here would be of the opinion that National has held a comfortable lead.

  12. Sam Dixon 12
    14 October 2007 at 8:23 pm

    amk – what funding does a blog need? retarded.

    not everyone has the option to use their real identities on politically activ online fora… there are a lot of jobs where expressing views contrary to the organisations’ line, or any at all can have negative consequences.

    I find the righties’ pathetic interest with The Standard posters’ identities facsinating. You guys must really have them worried. The comments have certianly taken off in the alst few days, and I’ve seen some media coverage too. Would be interesting to know how your traffic compares to Farrar’s.

  13. Ross Miller 13
    14 October 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Well Done Sam … playing the stats to suit yourself. Fact – National 12% over Labour at a time when you and others were predicting a a seismic shift to Labour and John Key level with ‘Helen the Cold’ with all her advantages. Guess she as a ‘Leaguee’ was in the stands today to give the Kiwis her support muich as she did with the ABs and the Black Boat. Bit like Typhoid Mary eh.

    And all this coupled with Labours drubbing at the local bofy elections. If Labours ‘best’ the ex MP for Hamilton East and current List MP ‘thicky’ Yates, can’t win a seat in her old constituency then you guys are really in deep doggie do.

  14. amk 14
    14 October 2007 at 8:27 pm

    sam, i’m just asking for a fully disclosure statement. it’s quite a normal thing. what are you getting so worked up about? i’m sure there’s nothing to hide.

  15. Inventory2 15
    14 October 2007 at 8:40 pm

    Sam Dixon said “there are a lot of jobs where expressing views contrary to the organisations’ line, or any at all can have negative consequences.”

    Can’t argue with you on that one Sam – I mean, just look at Madeleine Setchell – shafted by Benson-Pope for having a partner who worked for the Nats. I’m sure you were really uncomforatble about the former Minister’s role in that debacle, weren’t you Sam!

  16. Robinsod 16
    14 October 2007 at 8:42 pm

    Yo IV2 – seeing as we’re now playing the cross posting game (and what’s that about? you pop over here yell “boo” an then rush back to Mr Farrar to tell him what a good boy you’ve been? Does he give you like a pat on the head or a bikkie or something) I noticed you posted this: Lee C – I know how you feel – after your “farewell” post, I have accused them of being one-trick ponies, being obsessed with Key and the EB. They also didn’t take too kindly to my suggestion that Tane etc had bragged about being able to work out IP addresses but yet you failed to mention it’s just shit you made up and now you’re carefully avoiding answering my question which was What on earth are you talking about?

    Now be a good little boy and tell us where Tane and/or Sam have talked about IP addresses (if it makes you feel any bigger I’m pretty sure DPF is reading this – he might even give you an extra rub on your belly). Chump.

  17. gobsmacked 17
    14 October 2007 at 8:47 pm

    To stay on thread topic, a more interesting comparison is with the Colmar Brunton poll almost a year ago, the last one before Don Brash stepped down. Back then the parties were:

    National 49%
    Labour 36%

    So Key has spent the year dumping – or hiding – National’s policies under Brash, and has gained no votes.

  18. Robinsod 18
    14 October 2007 at 8:48 pm

    Oh and ak – I heard the funding for the standard comes from the Greens’ leaders slush fund and everyone at standard HQ posts while drinking 18 year old single malt whiskey and smoking (organic) Cuban cigars. To think your hard-earned taxes go toward that! I’d write an angry letter to my MP about this travesty if I was you. No even better start a protest website! I hear Whale’s keen if you need a hand with it (just don’t expect any media coverage…)

  19. Sam Dixon 19
    14 October 2007 at 8:52 pm

    amk – i’m worked up about the bullshit from Farrar and his groupies over the last few weeks – as the nat’s policies have been made to look stupid and only in the intersts of the weathy few they’ve started to call me a ‘Labour professional blogger’ (which I guess is testament to the quality of my comments but laughable all the same), who the Standard posters are, made up all these conspiracy theories… its just dumb. a dumb, pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that National still has the same dumb, elitist policies it always did by attacking those who show them for what they are.

    as for the polls – all the polls have shown a rise for National in the first half of the year, if we shift CB 5% to the left it tracks with the other polls, its always about 5% to the right (its polls just before the election were well out to the right too) – so we have CB showing the same rise for National in the first half of the year, then a big gap and now we have a poll showing a 6% shift back to the left.

    Personally, I wish we would have a decent polling organisation put out a poll soon covering the period since Nat’s policies came out (the Roy Morgan poll didn’t cover that period). CB ought to be ashamed to constantly be so out of whack with the others, they’re a joke among professionals I’ve worked with who monitor polls. I think polls will show National in the lead over Labour but at 44 vs 40%, add the Greens, you’ve got advantage left just like before Brash’s resignation.

  20. burt 20
    14 October 2007 at 8:57 pm

    amk

    I think if the EFB is passed the operators of this blog will either need to fall silent or have a full public disclosure including their real names and residential addresses.

    I wonder how they will feel about that?

  21. Robinsod 21
    14 October 2007 at 9:01 pm

    Burt! Take! your! Ritalin! (Jesus – it’s like explaining stuff to a turnip)

  22. the bean 22
    14 October 2007 at 9:09 pm

    dearest inventory 2 and amk.

    here is my disclosure statement just for you. but the irony being…my week old blog is only at about 240 hits so far so you rightie orcs don’t have your knickers in a twist about it like you do with the standard and therefore won’t give a fuck.

    my blog is funded by the small collection of veges i sell at the local farmers market. generally i think they’re just crazy hippies that buy them so the commercial act of selling doesn’t feel as dirty. my internet connection is provided by the vast left wing conspiracy and i also collect the dole to buy my computer and of course feed my p-habit.

    my final comment in the way of disclosure statement goes something like this…ahahahaha you are so fucking freaked by the standard all you can do is harass them to release their identity. why on gods green earth would they do that? so you can send d4j round there to freak them out a bit? so you can find out their female and call them lesbians? so you can hire lynton crosby to make up some bollocks about refugees throwing babies off a boat to win a federal election?

    some people on kiwiblogblog have been feeling bad for fighting a bit dirty. i’ll start caring about that when the righties stop being dirty. when you give a fork about gaining power to help people and strengthen the fortunes of all new zealanders then i will worry about telling you who i am and not being mean about the ingrown horns on your forehead. until then run back home to your lame little glee dance about banksie and just watch as key hubris’s his way to defeat (ooo hubris as a verb noooooice)

  23. amk 23
    14 October 2007 at 9:20 pm

    beanie, quite funny. well done. all i asked about was a privacy/disclosure/posting policy. quite normal stuff really. wouldn’t you have expected the standard folks to provide one?

  24. burt 24
    14 October 2007 at 9:28 pm

    The Standard, lowering the standard, while lowering the standard of lower the standard.

  25. burt 25
    14 October 2007 at 9:31 pm

    chomp chomp Ritalin, I’ll be nice now, just for you Robinsod.

    Ummm, Robbing-Sod is that you Dr. Cullen?

  26. the bean 26
    14 October 2007 at 9:34 pm

    it is bean or perhaps beany if, and only if, you are the sprouty. i don’t think we are that close.

    as for your question hmmm let me think…i have no expectations of a blog on the internet to do anything in particular. it is their choice cos…oddly enough…it is their blog. i think it is normal to not enter someone else’s blog and just harass them but that is not something you obviously consider as normal..so that is cool. i also think it is normal for people to not make misogynist comments about women but over on kiwiblog they don’t agree. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/recovering-2.html#comment-352511 and you know what? it is their blog so that is cool.
    does that clarify things nicely? it is cool if it doesn’t

  27. roger nome 27
    14 October 2007 at 9:37 pm

    “Ummm, Robbing-Sod is that you Dr. Cullen?”

    Obviously that ritalin’s taking a while to kick in. BTW – D4J are you know posting under the alias “burt” now?

  28. Robinsod 28
    14 October 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Hello? IV2 Hello? Um, I don’t want to be pushy but can you like answer my question about the IP addresses soon?

  29. burt 29
    14 October 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Hello roger.

    I didn’t say femmnazi once, come on be fair.

    Did like your post

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/kiwis_lead_the_world.html#comment-352146

    It’s unusual that I agree with you and I’m also picking I won’t very often over here. One of the things I guess I liked about that post was it didn’t have one mention of Labour or National or the words Good or Bad.

  30. illuminatedtiger 30
    14 October 2007 at 9:53 pm

    John Key the flip flopper, the flim flamming matchstick man. Real politicians have a spine unlike Key.

  31. amk 31
    14 October 2007 at 9:55 pm

    bean – sorry if you feel harassed, that’s not my intention at all. if the standard wants to keep it’s policy stuff private then who am i to complain.

    as for clairty, no – not much of that here and i suspect none will be forthcomong. so it will have to be cool 🙂

  32. burt 32
    14 October 2007 at 9:56 pm

    rOb

    Could any links to Labour be stronger than Kiwiblog’s links to National?

    Who knows, are they less disclosed – yes. I think the point that their links may not be as strong (or may be stronger) has zero relevance to the fact one has a reasonable disclosure and the other hasn’t.

    I actually don’t care, the EFB will sort it all out. But please don’t confuse degree of funding or alignment with disclosure or non disclosure.

  33. Robinsod 33
    14 October 2007 at 10:07 pm

    Burt – you’re a hell of a one to be talking about confusing one thing with another and for someone who “actually” doesn’t care (as opposed to pretending to not care?) you seem to bang on about it about it a lot but I guess that’s the line Farrar’s programmed you with. I’m glad you agree with me about the fact it’s the debate that counts now I’m just waiting for you to “actually” debate.

    Oh and IV2 – you’re happy to double post shit here and on the Nat’s blog but when oh when are you going to answer my IP question? (it is the web after all – that does mean an auditable trail) Perhaps I’ll go ask on your blog, I get the feeling it could do with the hit.

  34. burt 34
    14 October 2007 at 10:20 pm

    Robinsod

    Burt – you’re a hell of a one to be talking about confusing one thing with another and for someone who “actually” doesn’t care

    Have you got a link to explain what you are accusing me off ?

  35. Robinsod 35
    14 October 2007 at 10:30 pm

    Yes Burt – I’m accusing you of being thick. For example you claim in this comment ( http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=467#comment-1026 ) that I agree teachers would be paid more by private schools immediately after I clearly explained exactly the opposite to you in this comment: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=467#comment-1019

    That’s just one example. I could give you more but honestly I can’t be arsed. Now take your Ritalin and fuck off back to Kiwiblog like a good boy and have a whine about how mean I’ve been to you.

  36. r0b 36
    14 October 2007 at 9:43 pm

    Ho Bean – nice posts! I’m one of your 240 hits, and I’ll visit again. “Toys and candy” – very good.

    So, The Standard attracting some attention. Good. We have long needed something to balance the National Party blog.

    I don’t care who runs The Standard, as long as it is run well. It doesn’t exaclty hide its agenda. What do the individuals matter? Could any links to Labour be stronger than Kiwiblog’s links to National?

  37. amk 37
    14 October 2007 at 10:48 pm

    Real politicians have a spine

    I’d say that several hundred million years from now descendents of Helen will only just be evolving spines. No wait… that can’t happen.

  38. Robinsod 38
    14 October 2007 at 10:56 pm

    amk – That’s all you’ve got? I thought you right wing weirdos didn’t even believe in evolution. And your grade is… D- must try harder.

  39. burt 39
    14 October 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Robinsod

    One where I misread your comment “and that means teachers will not be paid any better” as incorrect, yes I was wrong in saying you said they would be – sorry.

    However, they are. Teachers are paid better in private schools. Good teachers will always be in demand and surely incentive to keep good teachers should be available. So once again, why wouldn’t state subsidies of private schools work? Just a little bit like the ‘integrated’ schools are today under Labour.

  40. the bean 40
    14 October 2007 at 11:05 pm

    weeeell it depends what grading technique you are using. i favour the marking ‘sandwich’ one nice, one ‘could improve’, and one nice to end. so here goes….

    amk- Your comment represents a clear understanding of the current Prime Minister’s lack of offspring, biological or otherwise. It does however demonstrate that you are slightly infantile in your critique as you feel a humans lack of offspring is a valid attack, perhaps if you tried gathering some close friends around you and discussing the triumph of The Standard over right-wing dumb-arses you may discover a better critique to level; lesbian? ugly? There does seem to be a genuine attempt to engage with others though and this must be commended.

    there…how was that?

  41. Robinsod 41
    14 October 2007 at 11:05 pm

    Burt just read the argument I made on that thread. Maybe now the Ritalin’s kicked in you’ll get it.

  42. Robinsod 42
    14 October 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Bean – you truely are lovely.

  43. r0b 43
    14 October 2007 at 10:13 pm

    Burt – “reasonable disclosure” is an interesing term. Both sites tell us exactly as much as they want to tell us. Why not judge each on its merits?

  44. Nih 44
    15 October 2007 at 12:07 am

    Could any links to Labour be stronger than Kiwiblog’s links to National?

    I predict if farrar has any understanding of social interactions beyond his obsession with politics he’ll sense impending doom for any hopes he had of linking with National as anything other than an unsolicited supporter. His blog is a fucking embarrassment.

  45. Inventory2 45
    15 October 2007 at 8:16 am

    Tane & Robinson/sod (never sure which) – I’m still here – have tried to find my source, can’t, so as an Honourable Member would do in the House, I withdraw and apologise. Trust honour is satisfied.

  46. Inventory2 46
    15 October 2007 at 8:28 am

    Whoops, add Sam D to that )-:

  47. Robinsod 47
    15 October 2007 at 8:38 am

    IV2 – No worries (Robinsod has no honour – you may have guess that already). Just outta interest where do you stand on Farrar’s threats about outing commenters?

  48. Inventory2 48
    15 October 2007 at 8:52 am

    Not especially comfortable – that could be construed be a violation of free speech! The beauty of the internet is the opportunity to comment freely and fully without one’s identity being compromised. DPF’s “threat” should only be invoked in the most extreme circumstance.

  49. amk 49
    15 October 2007 at 9:19 am

    there.how was that? Bean – ‘how was that’ … well the term over-reaction springs to mind. my post was intended to be humourous. you responded with heavy artillery. odd.

    D- must try harder Robinson – will do.

  50. Ross Miller 50
    15 October 2007 at 9:20 am

    Didn’t the original ‘Standard’ go belly up through lack of reader support? Seems this Blog is headed the same way with the small number of regular (Labour syncophant) posters talking to themselves in ever decreasing circles.

    No humour; no vision and no future. Just like the poodles that characterise Labour’s support parties in parliament. Dog tucker all.

  51. Robinsod 51
    15 October 2007 at 9:38 am

    Yo – Ross. You’re probably right, perhaps if the standard brought a demerit point system in it’d grow a bit faster. Oh and if it’s so lame what are you doing posting here – perhaps you should fuck off back to the nat’s blog. You do seem to be in need of a tory support group (circlejerk?) at the moment…

    Tane and/or Base – any chance you can give us an idea of how many hits/what kind of growth the Standard is running at?

  52. Z K Muggletonspofin 52
    15 October 2007 at 10:36 am

    Since I started this debate, it may be time to attempt to bring the thread back to my original point the about ‘SHALLOW MAN.’

    There’s no denying it, National has been doing well in the polls, but as some commentors have observed, be very careful about the meaning of the polls this far out from an election – a week in politics is a long time!

    My SHALLOW MAN post observes that in our current society there are many winners who have nothing to contribute. Paris Hilton comes to mind. This dumbing-down and ‘style-over-substance’ thing is the result of a world flooded with choice in all spheres. It’s wonderful in technology, communications, home appliances and popular culture. But an empty head, telegenic smile and policy-wrapped-in-sugar will not do when it comes to our political leaders.

  53. r0b 53
    15 October 2007 at 9:43 am

    No humour; no vision and no future

    Gee – I guess you’re right. I guess I should head on over to the National Party blog for a much higher level of intellectual stimulation and rational debate. Plus there’s the added bonus of their exciting new demerit point system to enjoy!.

    No but seriously, The Standard is what it is, a welcome addition to the Kiwi blogging world. If you choose to stay here, I hope you’ll contribute to sensible debate – lead by example!

  54. Ross Miller 54
    15 October 2007 at 11:20 am

    r0b Happy to contribute to sensible debate and in that vein perhaps you might enlighten us with the rational behind the “smart’ sanction that saw the soccer game beteeen Fiji and the AWs canned with the ONLY looser being Soccer NZ and the NZ Soccer public. Fiji won big time with the game now to be played at a neutral venue (assuming of course that FIFA doesn’t just award ther game to Fiji outright).

    And while you’re scrambling over that you might just comment on why the Fiji 7s Rugby team wasn’t banned from the Wellington leg of the IRB 7s earlier this year with at least two members of that team serving in the military (as opposed to the Soccer goalkeeper being engaged to a daughter of someone serving in the military)

    THe H word comes to mind along with a certain propensity to bully …. but then again Labour and Winston are well versed in those two attributes.

  55. Tane 55
    15 October 2007 at 11:22 am

    Ross, you’re off-message! You guys are backing Winston, remember?
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/im_backing_winston.html

  56. Inventory2 56
    15 October 2007 at 11:27 am

    Tane – if you read the comments, I think you’ll find that more disagree with Farrar than agree.

  57. Tane 57
    15 October 2007 at 11:36 am

    Yeah, I was taking the piss bro. I tend to think that if you’re going to enforce sanctions then you should enforce them properly. If that means a few guys can’t kick a ball around a field then that’s the price you pay for a principled foreign policy.

  58. r0b 58
    15 October 2007 at 11:00 am

    This dumbing-down and ‘style-over-substance’ thing is the result of a world flooded with choice in all spheres.

    I agree that excess choice is part of the effect that creates false celebrity. The financial imperitives driving the media are also part of the problem – the media creates false celebrities because that’s what sells. Why are we the public so interested in false celebrities? There I think we sail into very complex issues. Oh well, false celebrities do no real harm – as long as we don’t elect them to public office.

  59. r0b 59
    15 October 2007 at 11:34 am

    Hi Ross. “Happy to contribute to sensible debate” – me too, but I reserve the right to pick my debates. About sport I know nothing and care less. Re the Fiji soccer matter, I guess I would agree with DBF (for a change) on his front page: “On the issue of the ban on the Fijian soccer player, I’m with Winston and the Government. For sanctions to work, they have to be effective and wide ranging.”

    As to the Rugby team, I know nothing about it. I guess somewhere between then and now, the government decided to get stricter about sanctions. Pretty dull explanation really.

  60. Ross Miller 60
    15 October 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Tane …. fascinating your comment about me being off message when you are happy to accept drival from Sam D trying to skewer the CB poll result. Perhaps it is worth repeating for Sam that the poll saw Labour’s share decrease by 2% while National remaind the same.

    And really I thought my posting was completely ‘on topic’.
    Hollow/Shallow Man = Labour’s Hollow/Shallow sanctions policy with NZ the big (and only looser).

    Luv too your comment about a ‘principled foreign policy’.
    China; nuclear power and a Chinese warship currently visting NZ. Putting aside the question of human right abuses in that country do you really think they would tell us if they had nuclear weapons on board. Pigs fly.

  61. Tane 61
    15 October 2007 at 1:24 pm

    Ross, I didn’t mean you’re off-topic. We’re not too strict about that here. I said you were off-message. That is, you’re not following the party-line properly. It was a joke, but as I say, it’s never as funny when you have to explain it.

    As for Chinese war ships I agree – we shouldn’t be playing war toys with a regime that supports genocide. I don’t see how I’m being unprincipled.