It’s your choice

109 comments on “It’s your choice ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Daveski 1

   20 October 2008 at 1:51 pm

   You expect a rational debate on such an unbalanced analysis?

   Strange you’ve also missed the obvious ones too 🙂

   Labour
   – keep the EFA in its current form which has had a chilling effect on democracy in NZ (as you can personally testament)
   – work with the racist, populist, law breaking Winston Peters

   National
   – repeal the EFA
   – not work with Peters

   As a final point – the so called tax cuts for the rich (the hardworking people rewarded for earning over $60K at present) will go no where near returning marginal tax levels to the rate they were 9 years ago. I realise it’s convenient to overlook this.

   However, it’s hard to argue that the rich pricks are paying their taxes and not getting their fair crack in return when you have a supposedly left wing govt dolling out universal students allowances and gild-plated KS when the threshold is too high for many workers.
2. John Stevens 2

   20 October 2008 at 1:55 pm

   Remember boys – it ain’t Labours spending policies that will be needing costing. You have to add in the bribes the Greens & MP want to form the multi headed government. Also, how much is Cullen’s post election budget going to cost NZ? All this will stimulate is higher inflation as it will be borrowed money (which by the way National were screamed down at for suggesting in August). I can see the scenario now, can’t afford the tax cuts but the universal student allowance will still go ahead.

   The Greens must know the costings already as they want to go with Labour after the election. Or does economics not matter to them? Silly question that.

   In effect the choice is as follows:
   1. National/Act – reasonble economic accountability.
   2. Communist Party (aka The Greens)/Labour/MP – promises, promises and higher taxation for the poor people who still work.

   The Greens are the last thing NZ needs, Labour is bad enough.
3. randal 3

   20 October 2008 at 1:57 pm

   so say the fiscal barbarians who would just throw money out the window on fridays and let the peasants fight for it. get a life you two.
4. Daveski 4

   20 October 2008 at 2:01 pm

   Randal – Try arguing the post for a change

   SP at least tries to argue his point. I disagree with it and try to say why. You seem to specialise in throwaway lines that verge on abuse. If you were from the other side of the fence, your typical posts would be seen as verging on trolling.

   I don’t expect much support for my comments. However, I enjoy the robust nature of the debates here and often come off second best (usually something to do with SP’s graphs). You don’t seem to add anything constructive here.
5. Ianmac 5

   20 October 2008 at 2:06 pm

   Thanks for the List.Daveski: What law has Winston been guilty of breaking? It seems that you and John have clumsy efforts to divert attention from the real choices facing electors.
6. John Stevens 6

   20 October 2008 at 2:08 pm

   Randal – you and your retarded left mates want to fund your pet projects out of my tax money. I am telling you guys to fuck off and stop thieving my salary I work hard for to help with the social eng and other dumb projects such as $1Bn to insulate homes. Pay for the insulation yourself and stop expecting the public to pay for everything.

   The Greens think $1bn is peanuts the way they speak. Well it ain’t peanuts. Where will all the money come from to pay for the ETS, GP fees, windmills?

   Don’t you realise in 1 yrs time there will be a lot less money going around because of the finicial circus happening in the world presently? You don’t have a grasp of economics at all.
7. Daveski 7

   20 October 2008 at 2:18 pm

   lanmac

   Simply pointing out that SP’s list is cleary biased but this is a partisan site and yes, I’ve read the About pages.

   All joking aside, the two issues I’ve raised are relevant and quite fascinating. I understand the issues the left has with the financing of electioneering but for the life of my I can’t understand why they blindly support the current EFA when it’s such an ass.

   Likewise, I can only imagine if a coalition partner of National’s came out with any remotely immigrant bashing policies. Silence. As for the breaches of the law, the SFO noted that he had failed to do a number of things which were covered by various statutes.

   The irony of SP’s lists too is that the reality is that both the major parties are pretty similar in views. My example of the tax cuts shows this – we arguing about a 1 or 2 % difference for the rich pricks – yet Labour increased the top marginal rate by 6%. National is not proposing reducing it to those levels.
8. randal 8

   20 October 2008 at 2:23 pm

   my posts might be pungent and to the point but they contain more information than your meaningless longwinded puffery that if anyone actually takes the troble to read say exactly nothing. and dont come here telling other people how to manage their affairs. this blog belongs to supporters of the New Zealand Labour Party and we have our own rules about who gets a say. NOT YOU.

   [lprent: Randal: Read the About and Policy. Bad enough getting that allegation from the trolls – only reason why I’m not zapping you is that you probably did that in the heat of the moment rather than as a deliberate smear.

   We’re not just from Labour and this is site definitely does NOT belong to the NZLP. I think that you’ve probably been reading Whale on the sly…]
9. Pat 9

   20 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

   Am ticking off your (rather biased) list against John Key’s pledge card. You forgot the voluntary bonding for new doctors, nurses and midwives, and boosting the number of funded medical student places by 200 over 5 years.

   Plus his pledge card states “keeping caps on doctor’s fees”, not “no cap on GP fees”.

   You also fogot his pledge to not sell Kiwibank or any other state-owned company, and the 10% bonus for early repayments on student loans.

   Another point of difference – 40% of the Cullen fund to be invested in NZ assets.
10. DS 10

    20 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

    >>>(the hardworking people rewarded for earning over $60K at present)<<<

    What about the hardworking people earning the Minimum Wage. Oh that’s right, they don’t matter to you Tories.
11. Tim Ellis 11

    20 October 2008 at 2:29 pm

    this blog belongs to supporters of the New Zealand Labour Party and we have our own rules about who gets a say. NOT YOU.

    Dear me randal, you’ll get banned for saying that. Every day you look more and more like a right-winger pretending to be a left-wing troll.
12. lprent 12

    20 October 2008 at 2:31 pm

    JS:

    ant to fund your pet projects out of my tax money. I am telling you guys to fuck off and stop thieving my salary

    You mean in the same way that National wants to fund their pet PPP projects and low-return ‘infrastructure’ projects out of yours (and my) superannuation money – ie by plundering the returns on the superannuation fund.

    Requiring a 40% investment in the teensy NZ market will require that the return rate drops significantly. There simply aren’t the investments in NZ with the ownership restrictions the fund has that can give reasonable rates of return.

    John Key and the Nay’s are only wanting to do this so they can put get it to fund into low-return investments in the pet PPP projects and the stupid infrastructure projects like to the home fibre. There is no way that any commercial organization would do these daft projects without some silly bugger putting up the money. So JK and co are making you do it via your super funds.

    I assume you’re as much against that as the taxation you refer to here? Doesn’t it make your blood boil? Or are you just one-eyed about these issues?

    Read Brian Gaynor’s long article about it in the Herald on Saturday.
13. randal 13

    20 October 2008 at 2:33 pm

    everyone knows who the right wing troll is tim and just for those who dont then its YOU.
    go back to kiwiblag where you came from and just like daveski stop trying to tell other people what to do.
    thats the basis of right wing politics.
    No one person or party is indispensable but the desire to dominate and exploit never goes away.
14. polaris 14

    20 October 2008 at 2:34 pm

    I’m pretty sure National has also promised “low income families buy houses on Crown land”, the “90 days no work rights law” is nothing of the sort, “hundreds of new prison guards” are not back-office bureaucrats which is where the cap applies, “privatise ACC, initally the work fund but others too eventually” is just made up and not based on any announced policy, “no cap on GP fees” is also made up, and the on new fossil fuel power plants is opposed by everybody in the industry (hey it’s the standard you used for national education standards).
15. Daveski 15

    20 October 2008 at 2:38 pm

    DS – there needs to be a humour flag 🙂

    I wasn’t wishing to appear w@nky – simply an acknowledgment that people who earn that type of money normally get paid that because of their skills and effort. It was an antidote to the rich pricks line.

    As I pointed out, Labour seems intent on taxing on the one hand but giving back on the other – and I didn’t even mention universal superannuation.

    Randal – I point out that this is a left wing site, not a Labour site and should I say so I would expect LP to ban my ass. I even thing SP may be a Green if not a Watermelon. LP is a Labour man but this is not a Labour site. Hard to back your views given you misunderstand the very nature of the site.

    As for flowery, I prefer comprehensive and detailed 😉

    [lprent: It is pretty much the trolls and newbies that get banned first time for saying it. I tend to give the “more in sorrow than anger” warnings to people that actually contribute to the site. Of course it is impossible to be 100% reliable on this because I do a roll of the dice each time in one of the two probability curves. That is the anti-lawyer effect – so I don’t get someone trying to press precedence. I’m a BOFH not a judge and believe that a bit of risk (to other people) adds to the spice of life.]
16. randal 16

    20 October 2008 at 2:41 pm

    suit yourself
    just dont try enforcing your will and prejudice like a right wing bully wherever you go.
    it does not work here
17. Bill 17

    20 October 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Daveski and John.

    Apart from pissing your proverbial pants as part and parcel of your petulant frenzy, which doesn’t really interest me…. what substantive matters, policy directions etc are missing from SP’s comparative list?

    Is it perhaps the fact that there are none to speak of that explains why you are both spraying piss? Clean up your act boys.
18. frog 18

    20 October 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Hi Steve, it’s a shame this post presents the election as an either-or choice rather than the multiple options than voters have to choose from. MMP, blah, blah…
19. Akldnut 19

    20 October 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Pat It’s not what he says that concerns me, he keeps the name but what he dosn’t say is that he changes the structure that will be worse for the lower income earners in the long run, it’s another con!!!!

    “You also fogot his pledge to not sell Kiwibank or any other state-owned company, and the 10% bonus for early repayments on student loans.”

    Yep Not in the first term! But its gonna happen.
20. John Stevens 20

    20 October 2008 at 2:53 pm

    At least National have said what their infrastructure projects are, broardband etc. What is Cullen’s? All will be revealed after the election. Seems like a sey up to me.

    Re the super fund, I am not sure if investing 40% (like Australia does I thik I read) is a good idea or not. However, there should be more emphasis on standing on your own 2 feet, not expecting a free handout which this govt has done too much of.
    Labour/Greens – creating more personal dependence.
    National/ACT – encouraging more in-dependence from dependence.

    We won’t have the cash to flash in a years time when the markets tank big time.lockwood barnyard
21. Akldnut 21

    20 October 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Plus how is he going to personally guarentee anything if he’s deposed as leader by a unhappy Nat bench (old boys club) like the one hes got.
22. Daveski 22

    20 October 2008 at 2:55 pm

    OK Bill

    Seeing you haven’t read my post, let’s try 🙂

    EFA is a policy and there is a clear difference
    Choice of coalition partner is a clear choice
    Thresholds for KS is a clear choice

    SP’s list is unbalanced and so it should be. This is the Standard. But it doesn’t mean that criticising it with examples of why it’s unbalanced should be viewed as a petulant frenzy.

    Moreover, the two major parties have substantive agreement on the major policies, as acknowledged by both the Greens and Act. Hence, why choice of coalition partner should be a major issue.

    Now try debating the issues rather the attacking me because you disagree with my views.
23. Akldnut 23

    20 October 2008 at 2:56 pm

    “You also fogot his pledge to not sell Kiwibank or any other state-owned company,

    Yep Not in the first term! But its gonna happen.

    (meant for this part only)
24. Daveski 24

    20 October 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Frog – good point and something I noted indirectly re Winston. It’s also funny cos at times I’ve accused SP of being a Labour stooge when I think he’s as much Green as Red. Mind you, that’s up to him to say, not me.

    I’m leaving this thread for a while – it’s looks like I’m trolling or itching for a fight when contrary to my initial thought, the nature of this post has lead to robust debate.
25. Rex Widerstrom 25

    20 October 2008 at 3:11 pm

    National promising 200 more police? DPF is claiming 600. (Yes, I should probably check with the MSM, I know).

    Either way, pouring more police and more gaolers into a system that patently doesn’t work is short-sighted and foolish. Though I do like their commitment to expand Labour’s persistent offenders program nationwide, and to target accident blackspots rather than ticketing anything that moves faster than grass.

    I hadn’t read about National doing away with R&D credits? Seriously?! I’ve been lambasting governments for several decades (well, okay two) about NZ not having this in place and the party that’s traditionally represented business is going to cut a program aimed at innovating?!

    What a pity that, when faced with choosing between the two policy “menus”, many people will be swayed by the additions Daveski has made to the list above.

    I’d rather have honest government and the freedom to criticise it when it starts to become dishonest. At least that way we have some chance of fixing the other mistakes.
26. lprent 26

    20 October 2008 at 3:27 pm

    JS:

    At least National have said what their infrastructure projects are, broardband etc. What is Cullen’s? All will be revealed after the election. Seems like a sey up to me.

    Wrong – National actually hasn’t said what their projects are. What they said are sound bites with no real costings or even what the projects will entail. Essentially you’re buying a pig in a poke. If you read the business pages or business blogs (and no I’m not talking Hickey here) you get a massive dose of WTF! from every area that national has said they will invest infrastructure.

    The projects that Cullen is talking about are ones that have been long planned, detailed, largely costed (they will have to be recosted if they’re moved up), and at least part the way through the resource consent process. This is because they aren’t new projects, they’re old projects that will be moved earlier to take advantage of the available resource in the construction industry in a downturn. What will be revealed in the december budget is which ones move to the top of the queue.

    Now effectively the Nat’s are planning on pushing all infrastructure projects out at least 4-5 years. Why? Because they’re wanting to change the underlying system to PPP. It takes time on major projects to do that.

    The uncertainty is all on the Nay’s side – in fact I’m pretty sure they won’t bother doing them at all. It’d involve them in doing too much work. Something I’ve never noticed national lead governments to be capable of doing.

    BTW: Aussie is at least 5x our size in population and from memory much larger than that in stock market capitalisation. The NZX is often viewed as being a branch office of aussies exchange.

    In my 30 odd years voting it is always more like:-
    Labour/Greens – workers in government.
    National/ACT – wasters in government.

    Every time we have a national lead government we drop back against our trading partners and in relative wage-rates. Frankly they are just too incompetent to let onto the treasury benches. They don’t know what in the hell they’re working for. The only thing that they seem to be good for is trite little phrases like the ones you’re mindlessly repeating.
27. Leftie 27

    20 October 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Not to mention the thousands of workers who currently receive relevant daily pay for days they have off work. If National have their way, this will be money directly out of worker’s pockets.

    Most of us know what “more flexibility” for employers means. Lower payrises, loss of allowances, and loss of conditions.

    All clawbacks on a tax cut under National.
28. Mike D 28

    20 October 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Choice made and will be implemented on November 8.

    Good bye Labour.
29. Andy 29

    20 October 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Rex – The 600 police seems to include Labour’s increase, I think the 200 is the amount that will be brought in over and above the Labour numbers. I disagree with you on policing numbers (not on prisons though), numbers of police should be increased, there are a number of shortages in high risk areas such as South Auckland and Christchurch. This government has done well in cooperation with New Zealand Fist to boost police numbers but Key has countered by producing statistics saying the vast majority are front-line police which gives him something to hammer at. (has anyone checked this claim by chance?)
    People railing against the $1B insulation fund – read the report, its finding actually show major benefits in health and wellbeing that offset the cost (savings in the health budget)… please read the facts, this is actually the greens best idea for a while.
30. Policy Parrot 30

    20 October 2008 at 3:48 pm

    “I’d rather have honest government and the freedom to criticise it when it starts to become dishonest. At least that way we have some chance of fixing the other mistakes.”

    When it comes to honesty, most Labour and left supporters would be willing to stack up the few alleged indiscretions of this regime compared the many (and far more damaging) of its immediate predecessor.

    Sure, we should strive for transparency and clean government, but when the devil incarnate proclaims a sinner bad, since when was the devil more honest? Notwithstanding the fact that most of the allegations against the sinner were initiated in the Opposition research unit of the devil.
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    20 October 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Pat – Key pretended he likes Kiwisaver and WfF. The attack on Kiwisaver and WfF (through the slashing of the govt contribution and the “independent earners’ benefit” respectively) show that it was all talk. Why keep something if you’re going to undermine it?

    The answer, courtesy of Lockwood Smith, is don’t scare the horses.

    This is National before the election. Imagine what will happen to those pledges after the election (how hard would it be to sabotage an SOE for example, or reverse the pledge to cap GP fees and pay out a bonus on loan payments because they can’t pay for it) when they don’t have to pretend to be moderate, centrist or populist. If you think a pledge from Key is worth the paper it’s printed on, you probably don’t realise it’s printed on paper.
32. r0b 32

    20 October 2008 at 3:57 pm

    National
    – repeal the EFA
    – not work with Peters

    National
    – repeal the EFA and replace it with something much worse
    – not work with Peters unless they need him

    Otherwise that’s it, you agree with SP’s list? Good oh.
33. milo 33

    20 October 2008 at 4:14 pm

    I disagree that Helen Clark is “The steady hand investing in the long term.” In fact, her reaction to the global financial crisis was:

    (1) To engage in a dangerous piece of political adventurism by abandoning bipartinsanship on the deposit scheme.

    (2) To propose a scheme so flawed you drive a massive truck through it, twice. Once on finance companies, and once on interbank lending.

    Doesn’t look like a very steady hand to me. Rather, it looks like desperate flailing about. And that’s when she is being held accountable by an election in a few weeks ! Imagine how unrestrained the mad schemes would be if she got back in.

    [lprent: 😈 Oh man – so many things wrong here.
    It was bilateral – our RB and the aussie RB. Or are you referring to local politics? Get a sense of proportion – this isn’t something that was political except insofar as it was an international matter. Usually the LoO is informed, but in this case the timing was controlled by the aussies not us. Similarly the interbank lending is entirely between aussie banks (TSB and kiwibank are bit players). The finance companies are in it – but not the insolvent ones.
    milo – what have you been reading… This sounds like a crib sheet for Key from C/T – the big lie technique like teh Tampa Bay incident.]
34. Andy 34

    20 October 2008 at 4:14 pm

    whoops that was supposed to say are not front-line police
35. rave 35

    20 October 2008 at 4:25 pm

    The problem with SP’s list above is that it can be made so early, as in now.

    The reason for this is that HC has already said, no more borrowing and spending.

    This is crazy. She is being forced to play Key’s game of “no more spending”.

    But Key actually wants to spend by using existing taxation which means robbing Super, Kiwisaver, ACC, wages, health, education blah blah. No more taxes for his class ha ha.

    This puts HC on the defensive. She will not cut these, so to spend more and the things that need doing now she has to borrow. But she is in JKs trap. She can’t spend.

    She needs to say the crisis has changed the rules of the game. Fuck JK, not only is he a crook but he’s going to rob all of you to keep his mates rich.

    Spending now against taxes in the future will divide the electorate into the needy and greedy. The needy will get jobs, wages, homes they need now. The question of who pays the taxes in the future can be debated later, if there is a later. Preferably the rich will pay.

    The greedies want more tax cuts to encourage their mates to invest here. They will cry foul and appeal to the referee. But who is the referee, Bush? Brown? Sarkosy? The game is being reinvented as we write. Take your pick as ref.

    Labour should be implementing an emergency deficit spending progam now before the election modeled in part on Gordon Browns desperate moves to nationalise the banks and spend on health, education, housing etc to prime the pump.

    It will be a game breaker because it will meet the immediate needs of those most in need and make the greedies shit their undies all the way to November 8.
36. r0b 36

    20 October 2008 at 4:28 pm

    (1) To engage in a dangerous piece of political adventurism by abandoning bipartinsanship on the deposit scheme.

    John’s still pissed that he offered no plan and was made to look like the fool he is eh.

    (2) To propose a scheme so flawed you drive a massive truck through it, twice. Once on finance companies, and once on interbank lending.

    You mean a scheme so flawed it is very similar to the one in Australia and Europe? Can’t be too bad Milo, remaining details can be ironed out.

    And as for “a scheme so flawed” – that would be National – totally missing in “action”. Here’s John Armstrong summing up after the campaign launches (excerpts):

    If actions speak louder than words, Labour was the winner on Day One of the official election campaign – game, set and match.

    Key’s earlier speech at National’s campaign opening in Auckland’s SkyCity Convention Centre said nothing new on economic policy. In fact, it said nothing new about anything.

    If that was not bad enough, Labour was getting ready to lay out something really meaty just a few blocks away in the Auckland Town Hall.

    There, Helen Clark trumped Key by delivering the recovery package he had been demanding, including contingency plans to save jobs and the promise of a mini-budget in December.

    The upshot was that Labour looked like it was governing; National looked complacent and flat-footed.

    Here’s Gordon Campbell:

    If so, it is now up to Key and his team to provide some content to back up last night’s impression that he is of prime ministerial timber. Because to date, the battle on content has been no contest at all. On successive days, the government has announced the bank desposit security scheme, universal student allowances and an economic stimulation package complete with a December mini-Budget – to carry the economy through the deflationary months ahead, as the effects of the global meltdown reach our shoes. By contrast, National’s package of short run, consumption driven benefits tax cuts, reform of the RMA, the reductions to Kiwisaver, science and research and climate change policy and oh, a billion dollar broadband package were all flagged before the financial crisis even began.
37. vto 37

    20 October 2008 at 4:53 pm

    What about the choice of continuing with a govt that has generally ignored long established conventions in order to get its own way and bugger the rules. Think Supreme Court, EFA, retrospective legislation, etc. Result equals weakened governance standards through taking advantage of NZ’s already weak political structure which obscenely concentrates power in the executive’s hands. Clark is aware and takes advantage. Despite my appreciation of some areas of left ideology this pattern of behaviour has rendered her well past her use-by date imo. There is no choice.
38. r0b 38

    20 October 2008 at 5:04 pm

    What about the choice of continuing with a govt that has generally ignored long established conventions in order to get its own way and bugger the rules.

    Even if it were true that Labour were any more guilty of this than any previous administration, I would still prefer them to National. National is a party of Hollow Men who ignored “long established conventions” at the last election to the extent that public outrage at their disgusting behaviour cost their leader (Don Brash) his political career.

    The Right have worked hard to fling plenty of mud at Labour over the last three years, hoping that some of it will stick, but let us not forget what really went on at the last election, and who the public had to call to account.
39. higherstandard 39

    20 October 2008 at 5:06 pm

    There is a choice VTO – she could step down and the Labour party could vote to put Goff or Cunniliffe in charge (my bias as to who the best potential new leaders of Labour could be) – I suspect this will happen whatever the outcome during the next year or two.
40. r0b 40

    20 October 2008 at 5:25 pm

    There is a choice VTO – she could step down

    Why is politics so much about individuals to so many people? Would it really make a difference to you if Clark stood down? That’s daft.

    I’m a leftie, I support Labour and the Greens, though I happen to be a member of Labour. Vote Green! Or Labour! It’s about policies and ideas, who is better for the long term sustainable future of ordinary folk.

    So why focus on the person at the tip of the iceberg? I fear the prospect of a National government not because of Key (I’m sure he’s kind to children and small animals), but because of their failed old front bench, their bad policies, and their total lack of imagination.
41. vto 41

    20 October 2008 at 5:29 pm

    r0b, two wrongs do not make a right, etc, and all those other platitudes re trying to divert. If the hollow thingy is correct then the price was paid for those behaviours. As you say, Brash paid.

    Clark is equally as bad. Power corrupts is another old clanger which seems to always ring true. She has broken the rules and does not deserve to hold the reins of power any longer.
42. higherstandard 42

    20 October 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Bad day r0b ?

    “Why is politics so much about individuals to so many people”

    Because that is what both Labour and National have made of this election more so than nay since the demise of Muldoon.

    Like you I don’t vote for the leader of a party but most do – did you hear what one of the kids in Auckland said to Key when he said there was an election coming up and who would they vote for ……. they pied up and said that Obama looked really good and they thought he’d be good to vote for – Ha nothing like kids to bring you back down to earth with a thud.
43. higherstandard 43

    20 October 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Nay = any
    
    [lprent: good to see you getting into the habit 😈 ]
44. vto 44

    20 October 2008 at 5:32 pm

    r0b, you said “So why focus on the person at the tip of the iceberg? ”

    Very good question. One which I have always wondered when it comes to this site’s strange obssession with Key.
45. jo zinny 45

    20 October 2008 at 5:37 pm

    John Stevens, you been reading the hoot again..? “multi-headed” buddy!!!! Doubtful sources that guy.. watch your step.. before you know it the source will turn out to be a “retarded” leftie—according to you. Yeah, devious, the hoot. Me-firster!

    To All, did anyone pick up the “EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) appointment” mentioned by Nick Smith on natrad this morning? Is it based on the bushie appointment model.? If so, who realises how the bushie bloke was appointed to slow environmental initiatives down.? Even changing the words scientists used in their reports because they didna fit the ‘political’ scenescape. Is this what Smith has in mind.? Who’s asking him.? Or are we stuck with his holier-than-thou attitude and a pathetic take on environmental idealism.?
46. r0b 46

    20 October 2008 at 5:38 pm

    As you say, Brash paid.

    One down, many to go. I’ll forgive National it’s Hollow Men sins when every single one on the 2005 front bench is gone.

    She has broken the rules and does not deserve to hold the reins of power any longer.

    What nonsense. Clark has broken no rules. Nor does she lie to the public like John “TranzRail Eyes” Key. Nor are her principles a mere flag of convenience like Bill “win at all costs” English.

    Bad day r0b ?

    Busy HS, just busy, in every possible way right now.
47. lprent 47

    20 October 2008 at 5:40 pm

    vto:

    Think Supreme Court, EFA, retrospective legislation, etc.

    Where have you been – the 1960’s? Putting in a local supreme court was a current topic of conversation when I was doing business law in the early 80’s and when my partner at the time did her law degree in the mid-1980’s. It was an old topic then. It has been discussed in legal circles forever. You notice that almost all of the opposition to it came from the lay public, not the legal profession.

    The EA 1993 had obvious flaws from the day it was formed, and they kept coming up. That was because it operated as if every election was an FPP election when it was running under MMP. The main problem the right has is that they wanted to be able to use the provisions that they’d built in there for themselves in 1993 – like those anonymous trusts and the strange idea that election campaigns only last for 3 months. In a fit of pique about having their toys taken away, the right avoided getting involved unless they could keep their toys and has been sulking ever since.

    Guess what, retrospective legislation happens all of the time. Usually around budgetary matters (there are rules about debt and government departments). Perhaps you should read the order papers some time, and not depend on rumour and innuendo for your decision making.

    When and if the Nay’s ever get the treasury benches, I’ll be sure to help the people of the right of there stance on the retrospective legislation whenever it comes up.
48. r0b 48

    20 October 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Very good question. One which I have always wondered when it comes to this site’s strange obssession with Key.

    This blog focuses on Key as an indicator of the kind of government he would lead, not as an individual. Compare and contrast with right wing blogs and their very nasty obsessions with Clark and her family.
49. vto 49

    20 October 2008 at 5:53 pm

    Iprent, matters going to the heart of our system cannot be changed on the basis of a bare majority. It must be by general agreement across the spectrum. Hence the Privy Council abolition / Supreme Court, EFA. Or you disagree? Maybe the nats could simply make a law to guarantee themselves 65 seats each election. Or some such similar shite..

    I am aware that retrospective legislation gets passed all the time. Does not make it right. Especially when it is to get political parties out of the poo.

    r0b, you guys are very good at avoiding applying the same scrutiny to labour and adjusting the questions to fit. Except it doesn’t work. And as for “Compare and contrast with right wing blogs and their very nasty obsessions with Clark and her family.” I don’t deny that. But its silly to pretend it doesn’t happen on here in reverse. Witness randal’s constant abuse of myself earlier today.

    Clark has broken the conventions (rules). Many times. She is no longer fit to govern imo, for these reasons. Similarly Peters the perjurer. She is happy to have a proven perjurer in cabinet, for political expediency (and as admitted on here by SP) – says it all really.
50. Ianmac 50

    20 October 2008 at 5:58 pm

    “Very good question. One which I have always wondered when it comes to this site’s strange obsession with Key.”
    John Key is almost the total spokesman as part of the Election Policy. Since he is so, then so must he answer.
    But it does raise the question as to why Geriatric Brownlie and Lockfish Smith and Shower-lover Smith and other long time old hands, are not willing or able or trusted (take your pick) speaking. I heard Annette King, Michael Cullen, and Helen in the last hour.

    Just read Colin Espiner’s blog about how he spent the day with John Key. It seems that he would agree with Helen’s observation that John steers clear from meeting the people, (in case anyone spots the warts?)
51. randal 51

    20 October 2008 at 6:00 pm

    just as well your opinion doesn’t count vto because imo you haven’t got a clue. Besides Helen Clark is about to get a fourth term and the tories are going to be choking on her dust again.
52. r0b 52

    20 October 2008 at 6:18 pm

    Iprent, matters going to the heart of our system cannot be changed on the basis of a bare majority. It must be by general agreement across the spectrum.

    It happens all the time vto. Parliamentary majority – a blunt instrument in a complicated world, but it’s all we’ve got. National are promising to abolish the Maori seats – if they do so it will be on the basis of a bare majority. Got a problem with that? I hope so! I’d like a better system too…

    I am aware that retrospective legislation gets passed all the time. Does not make it right. Especially when it is to get political parties out of the poo.

    It didn’t get Labour out of the poo. Legally they were never in the poo, so the legislation did nothing for them. In terms of public perception they were certainly in the poo, and they have arguably never recovered, so again the legislation did nothing for them. The legislation was basically a book keeping mechanic for government accounts – happens all the time – e.g. National’s retrospective validation of ofer $50 million of “illegal spending” last time it was in office.

    Except it doesn’t work. And as for “Compare and contrast with right wing blogs and their very nasty obsessions with Clark and her family.’ I don’t deny that. But its silly to pretend it doesn’t happen on here in reverse. Witness randal’s constant abuse of myself earlier today.

    Unless you are John Key we’re talking about 2 different things.

    Clark has broken the conventions (rules). Many times.

    Oh bollocks. Once again, only National has lost a leader due to broken rules.

    She is happy to have a proven perjurer in cabinet, for political expediency (and as admitted on here by SP) – says it all really.

    And you are happen to support a proven liar as possible PM. Says it all really.
53. Draco T Bastard 53

    20 October 2008 at 6:22 pm

    polaris
    October 20, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    “hundreds of new prison guards’ are not back-office bureaucrats which is where the cap applies,

    Front line staff need support staff. If you increase the front line staff then you also need to increase the back line staff else the support that the front line staff needs collapses.

    John Stevens
    October 20, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Labour/Greens – creating more personal dependence.
    National/ACT – encouraging more in-dependence from dependence.

    Backwards – very, very backwards. Labour tries for full employment so that people can actually support themselves. National says that anything less than 6% unemployment is a fraud. The people who want dependence of the majority and do everything they can to get it are National/ACT. They want that majority to be dependent upon the capitalists so that the capitalists can make more profit and that means higher unemployment and lower wages.

    vto
    October 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    What about the choice of continuing with a govt that has generally ignored long established conventions in order to get its own way and bugger the rules.

    Conventions aren’t rules and, considering that they came into being over the last few centuries in Westminster, England, I suspect that they could do with a bit of a shakeout. I mean – WTF were we still going to England for judicial judgments? Do people really think our judges and courts are that bad?
54. G 54

    20 October 2008 at 7:10 pm

    “Clark has broken no rules. Nor does she lie to the public…”

    That’s right, Rob, she’s broken the law and lied to the public:

    In Motorcadegate she broke every law in the road code to get to a rugby match on time, and then, like the spineless spiv she is, told the public is was the driver’s fault, that she had no idea she was traveling 180kph.

    In Paintergate she signed art she didn’t paint and told everyone they were hers, and according to the police committed multiple prima facie cases of art forgery.

    In Pledgecardgate she broke the law that stipulates parliamentary funds shall not be used for electioneering purposes, which won her the election — ranking us alongside the world’s banana republics.

    This one’s about trust alright.
55. G 55

    20 October 2008 at 7:20 pm

    … But back to the comparison: what about the bureaucracy National plans to cut? Don’t you people think it’s a little excessive that Labour has employed more health bureaucrats than the number of hospital beds? And when it comes to infrastructure don’t you think it’s better our government invests in 21st century technology rather than 19th century modes of transport?
56. randal 56

    20 October 2008 at 7:21 pm

    if thats all you have to exercise your mind then it(your mind) must be very small
57. lprent 57

    20 October 2008 at 7:27 pm

    vto:

    matters going to the heart of our system cannot be changed on the basis of a bare majority. It must be by general agreement across the spectrum

    Well that is the interesting thing, general agreement of what? In the case of the supreme court, I’d say that most lay people and even most politicians had absolutely no idea of the issues. For that matter they had no interest in the issues, at least not that I saw. Personally I’d have left it up to the lawyers and they were clearly and almost entirely in favor.

    Politicians do not change the electoral law without a shunt. In this case a pile of cases with judges asking for clarification and an auditor-general taking a very narrow legalistic focus. It was pretty clear from early on in my opinion, that the Nat’s had absolutely no interest in changing the electoral law. The existing system benefited them far too much – after all they wrote it for their own benefit. Read the transcripts of the select committee if you need some clarity on this.

    I’d expect that every change to electoral law will pass with a bare majority for the same reason. If the Nat’s get in, they will pass their law back to the old system with a bare majority. Care to bet? But in practice, they’ll keep some bits of the current system, pull in some old bits, and write a few more choice bits for themselves. The bits I’m not expecting significant change in are going to be the length of the campaign and the anonymity of donations and 3rd parties. All of those have been pretty thoughly discredited.

    The parliamentary system has been adversarial in a party sense since at least the short parliament. I don’t expect it will change any time soon. In a lot of ways this forum replicates a lot of the reasons why. They can be summed up as “human nature likes chewing things to death with discussion in groups”. You notice that all I ever expect from here is an agreement to disagree.

    The only times that a parliamentary system yields general agreement is when there is either a disaster or a dictator. I hope that I never see any.

    BTW: randal is pretty good at mixing up insults with points that sometimes make sense. I don’t boot for insults (I’m a chronic offender myself), I boot for behavior. That being said, I did notice that randal was getting a bit over-wrought for the last few days and there has been a lot of insults flying. I figured it was just election madness settling in.

    captcha: virtual Avenue
    But where are my virtual shops – nope – no advertising
58. randal 58

    20 October 2008 at 7:32 pm

    L prent…I am not getting overwrought and my points always make sense. It is just that at times I am the only one defending the left point of view while the right use team tactics, slurs and demeaning language. so please dont stoop to their level and take sides against your friends.

    [lprent: Remember that I use two hats on this site.

    One is the BOFH sysop – police, judge, jury, and executioner on behavior, usually (but not always) expressed in notes like these. That guy doesn’t really have friends, just the guilty parties that they’re used to (ie classified as “mostly harmless”), and the newer lusers that are wasting their time and haven’t proven to be “mostly harmless”.

    The other is my personal beliefs political and otherwise which are usually (but not always) expressed as comments. Now look where I expressed that comment.]
59. Rex Widerstrom 59

    20 October 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Andy:

    I disagree with you on policing numbers (not on prisons though), numbers of police should be increased, there are a number of shortages in high risk areas such as South Auckland and Christchurch.

    Let’s try taking them off blatant cash register traffic duties first, then see how many we still need. My worry is that if Labour’s plan to target persistent offenders (picked up by national, so sure to happen) works – and I think it will – no party will be brave enough to say they’re reduce numbers. So they’ll need something to do, and at a 1/500 ratio that’ll involve being a pain in the ass to generally law-abiding people.

    Policy Parrot:

    …when the devil incarnate proclaims a sinner bad, since when was the devil more honest? Notwithstanding the fact that most of the allegations against the sinner were initiated in the Opposition research unit of the devil.

    Heh heh… the Nat Research Unit could have been said to be in league with the devil when I was brought in to train it in the mid 80s… but that’s only because Michael Laws used to ostentatiously parade through the session wearing lycra 😉

    Initiating allegations (aka ‘opposition research’) is one of the primary purposes of research units nowadays.

    The difference between Labour and National on this, for me, isn’t levels of trustworthiness because they’re both hovering at around minus a number I can’t even count to. It’s the fact that, as Daveski pointed out at the beginning of this debate, national will repeal the EFA and spurn Winston. Labour won’t.

    That gets rid of two toxic influences on our political climate, whereas Labour initiated one and tolerates the other.
60. vto 60

    20 October 2008 at 7:57 pm

    I hear what various of you are saying but disagree. Re the abolition of the Privy Council Iprent, I am a solicitor myself (tho no practice for years now), and my opinion and many others I am aware of wondered what on earth the benefit was. It was of course very clear what the cost was. But that misses my point of conventions in relation to the cornerstones of our system, be it judiciary or electoral finance.

    Clark has abused the concentration of power in the govt’s hands to achieve her own political ends. The EFA was the prime example.

    But you know if the nats do something similar then they will receive my disdain as well (for what tiny smidgeon thats worth). eg abolition of the maori seats, electoral law in their favour.

    r0b, re Key’s supposed lie over tranzrail shares – to be honest I have not followed the detail, but if it is established as correct then you have a fair point.

    Also, r0b Key does in fact come in for some hefty personal abuse on this site. Not quite as bad as some on kiwiblog true..

    So my choice (getting back to thread) is in fact driven at least as much by this govt’s behaviour as much as by policy. Which is exactly the manner that many on here suggest voters should vote e.g. get a feel for the type of govt the nats would make based on their behaviour. And Clark, imo, has overstepped the mark a few too many times. One part of the choice made – who I will not be voting for.

    gotta fly
61. Chris G 61

    20 October 2008 at 7:57 pm

    Rex, unsure if anyone had answered you but, National will scrap R&D credits to partly fund their tax cut policy.

    The ‘masters of economics’ have decided businesses dont want incentives to innovate…. Ive done 100 level economics (Most right wing subject imaginable) and innovation and incentive are littered throughout those courses. Oh well, apparently the tories know best…..cough.
62. randal 62

    20 October 2008 at 8:04 pm

    vto if you are talking behaviour then Keys actions in the money markets over the last two decades are bordering on the criminal and yet you support him. why is that?
63. Felix 63

    20 October 2008 at 8:24 pm

    G,

    When you suffix a word with “gate” to denote a scandal, it makes you look as though you understand neither English nor history.

    Clue: “Watergate” was the name of the hotel.

    It was not a scandal involving water.
64. G 64

    20 October 2008 at 8:37 pm

    When you climb out under that rock, Felix, you’ll see that the suffix gate is what’s known as a ‘convention’, used in this context to mean a scandal. Indeed, Helen Clark’s behaviour in the last 9 years is nothing short of scandalous. Perhaps you’d like to comment on that.
65. G 65

    20 October 2008 at 8:39 pm

    FYI, Felix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix
66. Policy Parrot 66

    20 October 2008 at 8:42 pm

    When you climb out under that rock, Felix, you’ll see that the suffix gate is what’s known as a ‘convention’, used in this context to mean a scandal. Indeed, Helen Clark’s behaviour in the last 9 years is nothing short of scandalous. Perhaps you’d like to comment on that.

    You mean, for e,g. “faux-outrage”-gate?
67. Policy Parrot 67

    20 October 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Seriously, if the left do go into Opposition post this election, the one consolation will be that we will do a far better job as an Opposition than those muppets have managed over the last nine years.

    Nine years and the highlight reel contains “Paintergate” “Speedgate” and “Wishartgate” – they should be ashamed. I guess its made easier for the left in one respect because we can actually articulate our beliefs and promote alternative policy rather than shadow boxing and me-tooisms.
68. randal 68

    20 October 2008 at 8:47 pm

    yes and whats with the slur first g. cant you say anything without prefixing it with a slur.
69. r0b 69

    20 October 2008 at 9:43 pm

    In Motorcadegate she broke every law in the road code

    Ahh – passengers can’t break the road code G. Compare and contrast with Key and Hayes using a vehicle to assault a protester.

    In Paintergate she signed art she didn’t paint and told everyone they were hers, and according to the police committed multiple prima facie cases of art forgery.

    That is (a) wrong, and (b) pathetic!

    In Pledgecardgate she broke the law that stipulates parliamentary funds shall not be used for electioneering purposes

    That one’s just (a) wrong. Meanwhile National broke the law that says you have to pay GST.

    which won her the election — ranking us alongside the world’s banana republics.

    Ahh no. National employing a deceitful advertising campaign, getting caught, lying about it, and getting caught in the lie, is what cost National that election. Thanks Don!

    This one’s about trust alright.

    Careful G, there might be more to come.
70. G 70

    20 October 2008 at 10:25 pm

    randal little-letters says, “yes and whats with the slur first g. cant you say anything without prefixing it with a slur.”

    But not before his seven preceding posts started with:

    1) “so say the fiscal barbarians…”

    2) “my posts might be pungent and to the point but they contain more information than your meaningless longwinded puffery…”

    3) “everyone knows who the right wing troll is tim and just for those who dont then its YOU… go back to kiwiblag where you came from…”

    4) “suit yourself… just dont try enforcing your will and prejudice like a right wing bully wherever you go.”

    5) “just as well your opinion doesn’t count vto because imo you haven’t got a clue.”

    6) “if thats all you have to exercise your mind then it(your mind) must be very small”

    7) “vto if you are talking behaviour then Keys actions in the money markets over the last two decades are bordering on the criminal and yet you support him. why is that?”

    I’ve got five words for you, randal: kettle, pot, calling, black & projection.
71. milo 71

    20 October 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Actually, the Australian bailout doesn’t have the holes of the New Zealand bailout. If the Prime Minister had just followed Australia, it would have been a better proposal.

    But again, her first act was to say “stuff bipartisanship”. Oh and that worked so well for the EFA, didn’t it?
72. G 72

    20 October 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Rob, time to take off the rose-coloured spectacles:

    In Motorcadegate the driver was following orders from the powers that be, and unless you honestly think she didn’t know she was going 80 over the speed limit then you have to admit she lied.

    In Paintergate, the Police investigation concluded that was her signature on the bottom of half a dozen pieces of art that she most certainly did not paint. A signature on a piece of art is a claim to its creation — not to mention that there was also a certificate of authentication on the back of it. She lied, lied, lied, lied, lied, and lied. AND she’s still Minister of the Arts, which, given that she’s fired ministers from their respective portfolios when caught in a lie, is also exceedingly hypocritical.

    In Pledgecardgate (which I note is conspicuously missing from the Parrot’s post) the A.G. stated in black and white that Labour illegally used PF to electioneer. Now, they weren’t the only ones who did so but let’s look at the numbers and how they effected the outcome of the election: $830,000 to put the pledge card in every letterbox in a direct marketing campaign will statistically garner a 1% response… and by how much did Labour win, Rob? This is not about what Don did to lose the campaign — it’s about what Helen did to win. Stop with the strawmen, boyo, and admit where there’s fault or else you’re nothing more than a sycophant.
73. r0b 73

    20 October 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Actually, the Australian bailout doesn’t have the holes of the New Zealand bailout. If the Prime Minister had just followed Australia, it would have been a better proposal.

    Interesting Milo, I’ll do some reading on that if you have any links.

    But again, her first act was to say “stuff bipartisanship’. Oh and that worked so well for the EFA, didn’t it?

    National was never going to contribute constructively. They have a major cash advantage, and they want to buy their way into power. They tried in the last election – they lost Don Brash for that – and they will try again as soon as they are able. It’s the only way they know.
74. r0b 74

    20 October 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Rob, time to take off the rose-coloured spectacles:

    Say G – speaking of blinkers – do you still hold to your global cooling climate theory?

    In Motorcadegate the driver was following orders from the powers that be

    That’s as may be, but only a driver can break the road code

    unless you honestly think she didn’t know she was going 80 over the speed limit then you have to admit she lied.

    That’s what she said, and I believe her. To see caught in a lie, see Key on his Tranz Rail shares – live on TV.

    In Paintergate,

    Blah blah blah, you claimed multiple prima facie cases and you are wrong.

    In Pledgecardgate (which I note is conspicuously missing from the Parrot’s post) the A.G. stated in black and white that Labour illegally used PF to electioneer.

    As did National. And ACT. And the Greens, NZF, UF, and the Maori Party.

    Now, they weren’t the only ones who did so but let’s look at the numbers and how they effected the outcome of the election: $830,000 to put the pledge card in every letterbox

    Fine, now factor in National’s covert 1.3 Million dollar advertising campaign. You do the math.

    This is not about what Don did to lose the campaign

    History sez you’re wrong!

    Stop with the strawmen, boyo, and admit where there’s fault or else you’re nothing more than a sycophant.

    Uh huh.
75. Spectator 75

    21 October 2008 at 12:05 am

    Well, G, I just so happen to have a piece of artwork which your good mate Don Brash signed but didn’t paint. You may recognise it if you see it: its title is “This Note is Legal Tender for Twenty Dollars”.
76. G 76

    21 October 2008 at 12:07 am

    Rob: “Say G – speaking of blinkers – do you still hold to your global cooling climate theory?”

    “But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” — Dr David Evans, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, who devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office, who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

    “In Motorcadegate the driver was following orders from the powers that be… That’s as may be, but only a driver can break the road code”

    So you’re happy to let the driver take the fall for following orders from the Executive? Et tu scumbag.

    “In Paintergate, Blah blah blah, you claimed multiple prima facie cases and you are wrong.”

    No matey, you’re wrong: “The Labour Party has escaped prosecution for breaching electoral law with its pocket-sized pledge cards, despite police finding there was a prima facie case against it.

    It is the third time the police have found a prima facie case against the Labour Party or a Labour MP and not pressed charges.

    Last November police found a prima facie case that Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope had assaulted students while he was a teacher, and in 2002 a prima facie case was found that Prime Minister Helen Clark committed forgery when she signed a painting someone else had created.”

    Sycophant.
77. r0b 77

    21 October 2008 at 1:30 am

    Rob: “Say G – speaking of blinkers – do you still hold to your global cooling climate theory?’
    “But since 1999 new evidence…

    I’ll take that as a yes. This gives us a baseline for assessing your reasoning ability. It is a very low baseline. Ouch.

    So you’re happy to let the driver take the fall for following orders from the Executive? Et tu scumbag.

    Nope, I don’t think the drivers should take any fall at all, and I was happy when the convictions were dropped. But it’s a simple point G, you claimed that Clark “broke every law in the road code” and that is nonsense.

    “In Paintergate, Blah blah blah, you claimed multiple prima facie cases and you are wrong.’ No matey, you’re wrong:

    G little buddy, this is what you said: “and according to the police committed multiple prima facie cases of art forgery.” Other cases are not “art forgery”. The police did not find “multiple prima facie cases of art forgery” – you are incorrect, though I don’t expect you to be strong enough to admit it.

    Sycophant.

    Coming from you G that means so much.
78. Killinginthenameof 78

    21 October 2008 at 2:12 am

    Q1:
    (2 Marks)

    New Zealand is going to hell in a handbasket because:

    (A) Helen Clark signed a painting she didn’t do, and her driver sped one time?

    or

    (B) Because of people like G, David Farrar, Cameron Slater, Burt, redbaiter, Matthew Hooten and Peter Burns’ personal political beliefs, misconceptions, denial of reality, greed and selfishness?
79. G 79

    21 October 2008 at 2:22 am

    A sycophant and a pedant: okay then, a prima facie case of art forgery — which she committed on multiple occasions. But I’m satisfied you’re not denying the police found at least one prima facie case that the Minister of the Arts committed art forgery… (and then failed to have the integrity to dismiss herself from her pet portfolio.)

    And another officer in the convoy, which reached up to 172km/h, said he was “brassed off” to discover later that the hasty trip had been arranged to get Helen Clark to a rugby test in Wellington – a journey she had told him was “heroic”.

    Heroic? What’s so heroic about doing the speed limit?

    That you believe Clark when she says she didn’t know they were speeding just proves how much of her bullshit you’re prepared swallow.
80. Rex Widerstrom 80

    21 October 2008 at 2:28 am

    Chris G thanks for clarifying that for me.

    National will scrap R&D credits to partly fund their tax cut policy. The ‘masters of economics’ have decided businesses dont want incentives to innovate

    Dumbasses. That’s really all that comes to mind at this late hour, but I think it’s sufficient.
81. G 81

    21 October 2008 at 2:28 am

    … or

    (C) Because, among his acts of financial wizardry, Michael Cullen bought a train set worth $250M for a sum in excess of $1B — at a time when NZ’s growth was almost at a standstill and there were ominous signs that the world economy was going tits up.
82. r0b 82

    21 October 2008 at 2:47 am

    A sycophant and a pedant:

    You mean I like to get the facts right? Why, yes I do. In your post of 7:10pm none of your claims / criticisms of Clark was correct. This is typical of many of the troll attacks on Clark, they are based on lies. I understand that you don’t care at all about facts G, but some of us do think they matter.

    But I’m satisfied you’re not denying the police found at least one prima facie case that the Minister of the Arts committed art forgery

    Not “at least one” G, exactly one. She signed a painting to help raise money for charity. The fact that you right wing trolls are still going on about this minor incident so many years later shows just how little genuine basis you have for criticising Clark – who has been in the country’s top job for 9 years.

    (and then failed to have the integrity to dismiss herself from her pet portfolio.)

    When will Key have the integrity to step down as leader of the National Party for lying to the public over his Tranzrail shares G? He should at least try and have as much integrity as Don Brash, who stepped down for his lies to the NZ public. Or in other words, when ranting about the mote in Labour’s eye, do please consider the beam in National’s.

    That you believe Clark when she says she didn’t know they were speeding just proves how much of her bullshit you’re prepared swallow.

    Does it? Hmmmm. So G, do you think John Key should step down for lying to the public over his Tranzrail shares? If not, why not?
83. Felix 83

    21 October 2008 at 2:51 am

    Don’t argue with G, he knows wikipedia.
84. r0b 84

    21 October 2008 at 3:03 am

    Don’t argue with G, he knows wikipedia.

    Ho! Truly his wiki fu is – unique.

    G again: Michael Cullen bought a train set worth $250M for a sum in excess of $1B

    There he goes again – just plain wrong on the basic facts. What kind of world does poor G live in?
85. Killinginthenameof 85

    21 October 2008 at 3:40 am

    r0b:

    G again: Michael Cullen bought a train set worth $250M for a sum in excess of $1B

    There he goes again – just plain wrong on the basic facts. What kind of world does poor G live in?

    Insert: “The Standard Line: Tranzrail”

    humm, I see how useful those things are now…
86. G 86

    21 October 2008 at 7:25 am

    Jesus, I’m sick of repeating myself on this blog. For the last freaking time: I don’t give a shit about Key, so stop with your stupid moral equivalence. The point is, Rob, you said and I quote, “Clark has broken no rules. Nor does she lie to the public…”

    This is the first false fact on this thread, mate. The Attorney General, who had no vested interest in the Pledgecardgate affair, disagrees with you. Categorically.

    The so-called minor incident of Paintergate underlies the lies to which she’s prepared to stoop to get a vote. “She signed a painting to help raise money for charity.” Oh yeah, she wasn’t thinking about the net effect her goodwill might have in convincing people to she’s worthy of their vote. What are you, Rob, naive or just plain sycophantic?

    And with that despicable Motorcadegate incident, in which she left her men to swing in the wind, I ask again: what’s so ‘heroic’ about driving the speed limit?
87. vto 87

    21 October 2008 at 7:52 am

    Without wanting to come between the two of you G and r0b, but what in fact was the final accepted outcome of paintergate? As I recall the person who bought the painting bought it because he thought it had been painted by Clark. And why would she sign the painting as if she had painted it? Curious as much as anything. Feel free to ignore.
88. Vanilla Eis 88

    21 October 2008 at 8:14 am

    vto: I was always under the impression (but could be mistaken) that the value of the painting went up considerably and was on-sold as a tidy profit. Win-win eh?
89. r0b 89

    21 October 2008 at 8:23 am

    The Attorney General, who had no vested interest in the Pledgecardgate affair,

    Wrong.

    disagrees with you. Categorically.

    Wrong again. It’s clear that you don’t know what rules applied, who they applied to, how they were broken, or who the AG held responsible. Your understanding of these matters is probably just as accurate as all the other things you have got wrong on this thread. Here – I’ve invented a new word – wronG – geddit?

    The so-called minor incident of Paintergate underlies the lies to which she’s prepared to stoop to get a vote.

    Tee hee!

    I ask again: what’s so ‘heroic’ about driving the speed limit?

    Well since you ask again, nothing as far as I know, if that’s what she actually said (I can’t be bothered checking all your claims G, in a bit of a hurry today).

    So now I’ll ask a question again G, and perhaps you’ll answer it. Whether or not you care about Key you can have an opinion on this. Do you think John Key should step down for lying to the public over his Tranzrail shares? If not, why not?
90. r0b 90

    21 October 2008 at 8:25 am

    but what in fact was the final accepted outcome of paintergate?

    I don’t recall vto, as far as I know it just sort of fizzled out…
91. randal 91

    21 October 2008 at 9:03 am

    yes well national is going to fizzle out too. they have used all their energy making mountains out of molehills. so byeeeee national.
92. vto 92

    21 October 2008 at 9:14 am

    randal, if we can swap a more normal posting, you may be right. I hold grave fears for change of govt possibility, such is the nature of MMP and the current tendencies of smaller parties.
93. Phil 93

    21 October 2008 at 9:18 am

    Hey, speaking of choices – Winston came up with a good one this morning; selling Kiwibank!

    Personally, I like the intention, if not the specific’s. Id rather see it put on the exchange in something more akin to the Air NZ “A” and “B” share deal, where each of the two shares had equal voting rights, but the A could only be held by NZers while the B was open to anyone, NZ or non-resident.
94. G 94

    21 October 2008 at 9:21 am

    Even Clark admits she was guilty of signing something she didn’t paint (on 6 or 7 occasions), and yet you maintain she’s never lied? What the hell is a forgery if it’s not a lie, Rob?

    Re Motorcadegate: you’re calling the PM’s security guy a liar, Rob? Sheesh, even your 9th Floor crush didn’t stoop that low.

    I know the election rules better than you, mate, since I’ve read the Constitution Act 1986 section 22(c), and the Public Finance Act 1989 sections 4, 5 and 9 — all of which were broken by your beloved party, led by your beloved leader Helen Clark, who was quoted as saying the ‘spending is allocated to parties to promote their policies.’ That is a lie. The legislation stated, and before the ’05 election the AG reiterated, that PF were specifically not to be used in this manner.

    A while back I quoted the Sunday Star Times: “Election ad spending was illegal, Auditor-General’s report finds.’

    To which you replied:

    “Yes…”

    Now you’re in effect saying, “No,” and insinuating the AG had an agenda.

    Talk about desperate flip-flops.

    Labour stole public funds to steal the last election — we were rObBED — geddit?
95. lprent 95

    21 October 2008 at 9:43 am

    vto: It was a fund-raiser auction. The signatures were added to the paintings as an add-on. The end result was that the police said there could be a case, but since they’d lose it they declined to prosecute. The reason that they’d lose is that they’d have to show that the person purchasing would have a reasonable expectation that Helen had painted the picture, and that was never claimed (apart from the complainant).

    I’m pretty sure I was at that auction – if I wasn’t then it was one of the others just like it. The person who said that they thought Helen had done the painting was either lying or too damn stupid to understand the phrase “signed by” rather than “painted by”. No-one claimed that Helen had painted them, they were just donated material that Helen had signed to show that people supported her. In most of the paintings that I’ve seen at the auctions, the scrawl of the artist has also been there.

    My guess is that the complainant was lying through their teeth. They wanted to do a beatup on Helen because she was too popular at the time. There were usually books that that she’d signed, framed signed campaign posters, and signed pictures. It was rather obvious that she hadn’t done those.

    The reason that the police declined to bring a case was because they talked to other people at that auction and realised that there was no case. As far as I was concerned, the complainant should have been charged with wasting the polices time.
96. vto 96

    21 October 2008 at 9:48 am

    Iprent, ta.

    I would not like to be a politician – so much rubbish spun it would just do my head in (further).
97. r0b 97

    21 October 2008 at 10:01 am

    Even Clark admits she was guilty of signing something she didn’t paint (on 6 or 7 occasions), and yet you maintain she’s never lied? What the hell is a forgery if it’s not a lie, Rob?

    Lprent has just dealt with that rather nicely above G. Had it been a lie, to aid with fundraising for charity makes it a “white lie” in my books, and as above, if this is the only example you can find after 9 years in office, it just goes to illustrate what high standards the PM holds herself to.

    Now compare and contrast with TranzRail – where Key lies blatantly to the public to conceal his earlier lies and possible dodgy financial dealings. Does that bother you at all G? Does it work you up as much as you get worked up over signing paintings for charity fund raising?

    Re Motorcadegate: you’re calling the PM’s security guy a liar, Rob?

    Not as far as I know G, just saying that I don’t necessarily trust your recall or interpretation of the “facts”.

    I know the election rules better than you, mate, since I’ve read …

    Reading and understanding are not exactly the same thing G. The way you read is to decide your position, and then selectively find people who agree with you to “confirm” it. As per your position that the climate is cooling.

    Helen Clark, who was quoted as saying the ‘spending is allocated to parties to promote their policies.’ That is a lie.

    Oh G don’t be silly. Here is how the AGs report (Summary) begins:

    Advertising and publicity play an important role in the dialogue between members of Parliament (MPs), parliamentary parties, and the public that is central to representative democracy. Because of this, taxpayers meet the costs of MPs’ and parliamentary parties’ advertising.

    This funding is not to be used for “electioneering”, but it can be used for “advertising and publicity”. That’s a difficult border to call, as witness the fact that at the last election all parties got it wrong (except the Progressives). The AG judged that even the Greens (Rod Donald wrote those rules!) got the rules wrong.

    A while back I quoted the Sunday Star Times: “Election ad spending was illegal, Auditor-General’s report finds.’ To which you replied: “Yes ‘ Now you’re in effect saying, “No,’

    Not at all. It was illegal according to the AG. But it wasn’t the parties that broke the law, it was Parliamentary Services. The AG found them to be at fault, but didn’t criticise them for it, noting that the systems to support their decision making were broken. He recommended a review, which then occurred. The parties did not break the law in this respect, unlike National which broke the law with its GST overspend, and rorted the law with its 1.3 million dollar covert advertising campaign. You may recall that the public outcry at these dirty tactics cost Don Brash his political life. I’m sure you recall G, it was in all the papers.

    we were rObBED — geddit?

    Heh – not bad! No, fortunately, Don stuffed up and didn’t get away with it.

    Now G I find it interesting that you keep avoiding the question, so I’m going to ask it again. Do you think John Key should step down for lying to the public over his Tranzrail shares? If not, why not?
98. randal 98

    21 October 2008 at 10:01 am

    all the renaisance greats put their signatures to paintings they never painted and furthermore the complainers in the speeding case are only pissed off because she didnt throw any money at them. geta life. go Helen Clark.
99. G 99

    21 October 2008 at 10:27 am

    “White lie”… yes, well I guess sycophancy will always have a home here.
100. Felix 100

     21 October 2008 at 11:04 am

     G:

     “Jesus, I’m sick of repeating myself on this blog”

     Good. Accepting that you have a problem is the first step.
101. Matthew Pilott 101

     21 October 2008 at 11:26 am

     “ yes, well I guess sycophancy will always have a home here.”

     Do you think Clark should have resigned because she signed a painting for charity? Really? To be honest, i don’t reckon I’d be able to take you seriously if you say yes to that. I know you’ll ramble on about ‘prima facie’ but Lynn’s pretty much made you look out of your depth there, so perhaps not.

     I bought a bottle of wine from an MP – should I sue the bastard because they did not grow the grapes, nor produce the wine? Should I demand their resignation? Or should I behave like a normal adult and realise that said MP was merely trying to help a charity raise funds?

     “Jesus, I’m sick of repeating myself on this blog.‘

     Why would Jesus care that you’re repeating the same worthless kiwiblog lines?
102. G 102

     21 October 2008 at 1:40 pm

     Yes, after she admitted to the art forgery of course she should have resigned as Minister of the Arts.

     Lynn’s spin didn’t wash with me — or the cops.
103. lprent 103

     21 October 2008 at 2:05 pm

     G: She didn’t admit to ‘art forgery’.

     Tell me, do you have any books with your name marked inside. I do that all of the time. Am I trying to make a forgery of a book? Nope. Why – because there is no intent to create a forgery.

     Now if you’d ever bothered to look at any law rather than looking at your entails for guidance, you’d know the difference in law between mens rea and actus reus. One is the act that could be an offence. The other is the intent. Both have to be fufilled to be able to convict of an offense.

     Now I’d say that you’re lying about the police statement. That is apparent.

     However I think that you’re just too dumb and stupid to understand that you are doing it because you haven’t bothered to move beyond chanting someone else slogan. You fufill actus reus, but not mens rea in my opinion because you look like a idiot in law.

     captcha: prejudice lawyers
104. G 104

     21 October 2008 at 6:37 pm

     What a load of spin, Lynn. A book has the author’s name printed on the cover, on the spine and multiple places inside it. Of course my signature would not be an attempt at forgery — that’s just silly.

     Here’s one of the artworks in question. The same pen has been used to draw it, label it, date it and sign it. Unlike your book signing there is only one name that appears on it. I think any reasonable person would assume it was by the same hand. But that would require reason as opposed to a bucketful of post-rationalisation.

     As far as intent goes, I bet you your bottom dollar that Miss Clark would’ve have known ‘her’ sketch would have gotten more money for the charity — and more goodwill from the eligible voters present at the auction — than her signature on a poorly drawn doodle by some nobody in her staff. Indeed the buyer said as much.

     Hence, the police found there was a prima facie case of fraud.

     Now you accuse me of lying about the police statement?! Well, here are some excerpts from the Police press release date 21 June 2002 concerning three cases including the painting which she signed, but not actually completed, and left everyone to believe she had, which was sold for the not inconsiderable sum of $1000:

     “After a good deal of pre-event publicity and a ten-day exhibition the items were auctioned at the Sky City Casino on 5 March 1999. The pre-event publicity by SAFE specifically referred to the fact that Miss Clark had completed the work herself… There does not appear to have been any rebuttal of this information by Miss Clark or anyone from her office.

     Mr van Dijk framed the canvas and hung it in his house. It was his belief, based on what he had been told at the auction that this was an original work executed and signed by Miss Clark. Mr van Dijk is clear he would not have paid more than $60 for the item without that belief.”

     Then there’s the Ponsonby Primary “two-minute doodle” which fetched $1300.

     “The item was subsequently featured in media coverage of the auction as a work completed by Miss Clark. Again there appears to have been no rebuttal from Miss Clark’s office.”

     And this is what the Police determined:

     “6.1.1 SAFE Painting

     It seems compelling, on an objective view of the evidence, that there was an intention for the completed painting to be acted upon as if it were genuine… Prior to the painting being completed Mrs Fouhy states she was instructed to make it look amateurish… The act of signing the painting is further evidence that it would be passed off as a work completed by Miss Clark and joins Miss Clark to the offence… On the face of it, despite their assertions that they were trying to help a charity, there is evidence that Miss Clark and her staff member, Mrs Bush are liable for the offence of forgery.

     Miss Clark states that she has no recollection of these events. It is, however, difficult to see how Miss Clark could not have possessed the relevant knowledge about how the painting was to be used. It is considered that where that knowledge exists there must be an agreement.

     It is therefore considered that Miss Clark has agreed, with others, to have the painting portrayed as. her own work despite her lack of independent recollection of these events.

     It is submitted that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to consider charges of forgery pursuant to section 264 of the Crimes Act 1961 against Miss Clark and Mrs Bush.”

     This one’s about trust alright.
105. lprent 105

     21 October 2008 at 8:07 pm

     As I said you’re an idiot at law. You have just proved it again.

     Do you know what prima facie case means? I’m sure that you don’t from your comment and selective quoting.

     Quite simply the police said that there may be a case at a superficial level (prima facie). So they bumped it up to the crown solicitors to decide if they wanted to proceed. The reason that they did that was because it was in the Crimes Act, not the Summary Offenses Act. The police do not decide to lay charges at that level. What the police do is act as a filter on the evidence against the law, to decide if there is sufficient evidence technically to fulfill the minimum requirements of the section of the act – ie the prima facie case.

     The police are required not to (indeed are forbidden) from making a judgment about if the case should be placed in front of a court. Essentially what they said was that a case could be made on what they had in evidence. They did not say that a case should proceed, or that it could be won, or even if there were illegalities (the latter is the prerogative of the court). That is decided by lawyers because they have to determine if the case has merit, and is winnable. It takes a bit more than a few weeks in police training to do that.

     So what did the crown solicitors say? I notice you haven’t brought that up at all. I’d have imagined that they’d have looked at the legal factors for bringing the case forward, and dumped it immediately.

     For instance on the actus reus – did Helen instruct Mrs Fouhy or was it someone else – like the SAFE organiser? You note that the police say that it ‘joins’. That means that Helen wasn’t considered to be the perpetrator, but was a party because of association – ie that she signed it. It does not say that she was aware of how the paintings were to be sold.
     In other words it is likely that the first part of the police case was likely to fail against Helen before looking at the mens rea.

     For the rest of the organizers of the charity auction, I’d guess that mens rea would have applied. There would have been a hell of a legal issue trying to prove that they’d intended to defraud.

     Now on your selective quoting. I think I could make case about that. I notice that you’ve been very selective about the quotes from the police statement. I assume the missing bits are the ones you don’t want others to look at. Why didn’t you provide a link to the full statement? Because you don’t want others to make up their own minds? Why haven’t you quoted from the solicitors statement? Because it makes your assertions look like a pile of drivel? Or possibly because you didn’t understand them?

     Is that an malicious act? Perhaps you’d care to explain those act of deliberate omission and linking? What were you thinking when you performed it?

     BTW: From the circumstances described, it isn’t a occasion I attended. I do support SAFE, but not enough to attend a function.

     BTW: The purchaser looks to have been somewhat of a fool. The key word there is ‘completed’, I’m afraid that translating that in his head to executed is an interesting leap. Technically that is exactly what Helen did, she completed the painting or sketch.

     As for the other side – the money. It is a charity auction, not a session at Sotherby’s. I’ve seen weird things auctioned off. Purchasers don’t come along to bargains – they come along to donate. Perhaps this guy should have been aware of that – it is hard to not be.

     Hell I buy them – some of the most expensive bottles of wine I’ve ever had have been cheap plonk sold at a charity auction. I have campaign posters signed by a number of politicians that I’ve purchased at outrageous cost (who knows they might be collectible some day). I’ve brought soap, books, etc etc…. It is a way of donating money to causes.
106. G 106

     21 October 2008 at 9:53 pm

     The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

     Hamlet — Act III, scene II 🙂
107. Chris G 107

     21 October 2008 at 10:14 pm

     Im pretty sure you just got owned G
108. Robinsod 108

     21 October 2008 at 10:20 pm

     G – tacking a smiley face onto an arsehole statement doesn’t stop it from being an arsehole statement. Neither does it stop an arsehole statement from denoting the author as an arsehole.

     Sadly for you the smiley face oft proclaims the arsehole.

Links to post

1. The Standard Week: 17-24 October at The Standard 2.02: posted on 24 October 2008 at 2:01 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS