Judy Kirk – “It was a young Nat”

94 comments on “Judy Kirk – “It was a young Nat” ”

• Comments are now closed

1. r0b 1

   6 August 2008 at 1:58 pm

   Interesting. Is there really a small honest minority lurking within National?

   With The Hollow Men leaks it was an inside job, Nats who were disgusted at the direction the party was taking, and wanted the truth to be known.

   And now it seems that the same might be the case with these recordings.

   If it is indeed the case, then to the honest National leakers, I salute you, and wish you well in rescuing your party from the deceptive mode of politics that clearly disgusts you as much as it does me.
2. Chris S 2

   6 August 2008 at 2:00 pm

   Yeah! Blame the youth! That’s the National Party we know and love!
3. killinginthenameof 3

   6 August 2008 at 2:34 pm

   I think it needs to be more widely known that the Hollow Men lecksa are coming from a small unhappy group of Nat’s, hopefully it would encourage some more who feel the same way.
4. Ari 4

   6 August 2008 at 2:37 pm

   It’s heartwarming to see that we have some righties out there who don’t like this two-faced campaign. Good on our more honest friends on the other side of the political divide.
5. Blar 5

   6 August 2008 at 3:06 pm

   [you can’t write things like that about Lynn or any of our writers and expect to remain welcome here. you’re banned for good, as soon as I work out how it’s done. SP]

   [lprent: Welcome to the banning club! First time is always a pain. Settings/Discussion and add the relevant strings]
6. Lew 6

   6 August 2008 at 3:15 pm

   Newstalk ZB are reporting that `National believes the culprit was someone posing as a Young Nat’, which is not the same as them being a Young Nat. They have the person’s conference profile, but not their real identity. I’d say it won’t be long before the person’s identity is established as fact, and then things’ll get interesting.

   L
7. Stephen 7

   6 August 2008 at 3:29 pm

   How the hell do you ‘pose’ as a Young Nat? This morning Key seemed very sure that it was someone from Young Labour, so I guess you be young and…say ‘nanny state’ every now and then?
8. Principessa 8

   6 August 2008 at 3:31 pm

   Who knows. It could be that some studious Young Nat recorded all the sessions and then showing off to some reporter at the after function agreed to email a copy of the day to a journalist. Young Political people have been known to show off to journos before. Didn’t a Young Nat give away election day in Jenny Shipley’s era?
9. Phil 9

   6 August 2008 at 3:31 pm

   “National believes the culprit was someone posing as a Young Nat”

   That sounds quite likely to me. I have no doubt there are quite a few young nats and young labour members that spend time in both camps.
10. Stephen 10

    6 August 2008 at 3:32 pm

    “We know that we’ve ejected a couple of young Labour activists from our conference. There are others as well,” Mr Key said.

    ‘Nats may call in police over secret tapes’. And that would be why he thought that. Clears things up a tad.
    http://stuff.co.nz/4645524a6160.html
11. gobsmacked 11

    6 August 2008 at 3:51 pm

    I don’t really think National are handling this well. The comments were embarrassing, but they’re out there now, they can’t be unsaid, but the media can (and no doubt will) move on. Or move back – to Winston.

    Going on about the police and turning up the outrage just keeps the story alive. Plus, Key does good smooth, he doesn’t do good angry (any more than Clark does good cuddly).

    Catching somebody on camera breaking into National HQ or pinching the petty cash would be a “gotcha”. But – ooh, look, a person having a conversation with a National MP and they don’t even support the National Party! … I can’t see that shocking the “punters”. It’ll just remind them of what was said.
12. Stephen 12

    6 August 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Be hard to claim they don’t remember the conversation, but they remember saying what they said to ‘that guy!’
13. Steve Pierson 13

    6 August 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Stephen. Key is referring to me and some others (which included some Young Labour people) holding a protest outside the conference on the Sunday. On the Sunday, a Young Nat recognised me as The Standard guy and took me briefly into the foyer of the Town Hall where I spoke to some old Nat for a couple of minutes – essentially:

    ‘you’re secret Labour stooges aren’t you?’
    ‘no, we’re just a bunch of people from the leftwing, I don’t even vote Labour’,
    ‘but Whaleoil proved you’re Labour’,
    ‘Whaleoil is a technically illiterate pornographer, I wouldn’t rely on his ‘proof”
    ‘so, you’re going to be heckling during the speech?’
    ‘No, I wouldn’t do that, besides, I have something else on’

    Then I got a phone call to say the others had arrived for the protest and I left the building. There was no ‘eviction’. Actually, they had seemed quite happy to have me there, even watch the speech, but I was otherwise engaged with the protest.

    No-one else from that group entered the Town Hall, apart from one guy who went to grab the journos to watch our skit. And this was all on the Sunday morning anyway. Key knows that, he knows the public doesn’t, so he’s trying to confuse matters.
14. Scribe 14

    6 August 2008 at 4:07 pm

    gobsmacked,

    Let’s say it was a member of Young Labour. Do you think there’s any chance this backfires on “Old” Labour?
15. Rob 15

    6 August 2008 at 4:07 pm

    I’m sure Mike Willams and Helen Clark probably know who it was they will be caught and it may well backfire. Secret agendas are a funny thing aren’t they.Lets look at a few from the past Labour Government

    1) Civil Union Bill [private members’ bill supported by Nats and Lab]

    2) Prostitution Bill [private members’ bill supported and opposed by members from both Nat and Lab]

    3) EFA Bill [in response to information that emerged post-election, specifically in the Hollow Men]

    4) Breakdown the traditional family and values [don’t recall that Act, sorry]

    5) More lenient sentencing for criminals [one of the things I oppose about Labour is that they have increased prison sentences, that’s why we have one of the highest imprisonment rates inthe OECD. SP]
16. r0b 16

    6 August 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Rob (who is not r0b) – ahhh – bollocks.

    Check out one thread over for a discussion:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2676#comment-78523

    Secret agendas are a funny thing aren’t they

    Only thing you got right. National’s is certainly causing me some mirth!
17. Vanilla Eis 17

    6 August 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Damn, Rob is right. B’reak down the traditional family and values’ WAS a bill Labour totally snuck through without a mandate!
18. Steve Pierson 18

    6 August 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Vanilla – I know ” B’reak down ” is a typo but I love it, like the ultimate redneck accent – huntin’ n’ fishin’ , b’reak down
19. Darren Rickard 19

    6 August 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Steve, why didn’t you publish my last post?

    [what last post? This post went into moderation for some reason, could be your IP address. I don’t have access to change the moderation system but I can release this comment. SP]

    [lprent: Oops I forgot to release his moderation from last weeks ban. Doing it now.]
20. lyndon 20

    6 August 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Whoever the National-MP woman talking in parliament just then (I should know but I don’t) was saying it was the boys from The Standard sneaking around and taping in the National conference.

    Good old general debate.
21. Tane 21

    6 August 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Hilarious.
22. Ben R 22

    6 August 2008 at 4:41 pm

    “Breakdown the traditional family and values”

    Rob I don’t think any government has this kind of power? Hasn’t Labour supported things like paid parental leave anyway? I’m not sure what you mean by this.
23. Lew 23

    6 August 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Ben R: I think he means the Communist Lesbian Assault On The Family, per Wishart.

    L
24. Scribe 24

    6 August 2008 at 4:47 pm

    The numbers:

    1) Civil Union Bill [private members’ bill supported by Nats and Lab]

    Labour, 45 for, 6 against.

    Nats, 3 in favour.

    2) Prostitution Bill [private members’ bill supported and opposed by members from both Nat and Lab]

    Labour, 40 for, 10 against, one abstention.

    Nats, 6 in favour.

    [Scribe, so? they’re conscience votes, your allegation of a secret agenda is false. Moreover, you can’t have it both ways, you can’t say ‘oh, English and Smith aren’t saying anything important, its no sign of a secret agenda’ then turn around and say ‘so, what? everyone has secret agendas’ – it’s not logically consistant and it doesn’t help when your arguments are bollocks. SP]
25. Ben R 25

    6 August 2008 at 4:48 pm

    “5) More lenient sentencing for criminals [one of the things I oppose about Labour is that they have increased prison sentences, that’s why we have one of the highest imprisonment rates inthe OECD. SP]”

    Rob, Labour introduced the Sentencing Act 2002. This increased sentences.

    I’ve posted this before, but according to Levitt increased sentences are one of the reasons for crime rates dropped in the US in the 90’s (Journal of Economic Perspectives 18: 163190)

    http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
26. Ben R 26

    6 August 2008 at 4:50 pm

    “Ben R: I think he means the Communist Lesbian Assault On The Family, per Wishart.”

    Yes, I suspected he might.
27. Scribe 27

    6 August 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Ben R,

    I was at a discussion recently and people there were talking about how “anti-family” Labour has been.

    I found myself having to defend Labour for the positive steps it has made, eg paid parental leave extension (though I think there have been some anti-family moves as well).

    captcha: Helen Men (not her constituency, apparently)
28. r0b 28

    6 August 2008 at 4:59 pm

    I found myself having to defend Labour for the positive steps

    Well thanks for doing that. I’ve been in a similar position of trying to present (to a group) both National and Labour policies in a neutral value free way. Interesting experience.
29. randal 29

    6 August 2008 at 5:04 pm

    I hope it was a young nat. the present lot have no idea and are yesterdays men already without ever having been todays men at all. ya get that.
30. Darren Rickard 30

    6 August 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Steve, Here is a link to it on my blog instead:

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/08/sub-standard-political-attack-backfires.html

    An an additional related one:

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/08/those-behind-labours-blogsite-behind.html

    I would love to see your feedback.

    Regards, Darren Rickard, Political Animal Blog
31. the sprout 31

    6 August 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Didn’t Winston make an allusion last week to how this week would be National’s turn for a bucket of crap to be poured over their heads?
32. Quoth the Raven 32

    6 August 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Darren Rickard – You must be pretty sad that the Nats are going to keep WfF after crowing about it for so long:
    Working for Families, which is clearly welfare, gives us record welfare numbers. blah blah communist blah

    Rob – You were moaning about all the money Labour spent on prisons not long ago. Rob you can’t have it both ways.
33. toms 33

    6 August 2008 at 6:16 pm

    I think that it is hilarious that DPF (20+ Winton posts) and his right wing sewer over on kiwiblog, who but last week were accusing the left of all sorts of crimes of omission, have studiously avoided all but the most glancing reference to the PR disaster engulfing National at the moment…
34. the sprout 34

    6 August 2008 at 6:19 pm

    yes the Nats really aren’t very good at digging themselves out of a PR hole.
    i mean, how stupid is it to now say they’ll take it to the police?
    someone really should tell them to stop digging themselves in deeper.
35. Felix 35

    6 August 2008 at 6:26 pm

    sprout:

    Yep I think Winnie said he would “deal with” the nats this week.
36. toms 36

    6 August 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Oh and by the way – Bill Ralston is proving very sensitive to being smeared, whilst repeating his own smear against this site…

    http://www.businessday.co.nz/blogs/mediascrum/2008/08/06/national-labour-those-secret-recordings/
37. the sprout 37

    6 August 2008 at 6:37 pm

    thanks Felix, I thought i’d heard something to that effect.
    my money is on Hide for the next bucket of crap hair-do.

    Ralston really has become a sad has-been/never-was, he’s beginning to remind me of Garth George.
38. gobsmacked 38

    6 August 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Scribe (sorry, been busy)

    Even if it is a Young Labour person I doubt that would backfire as much as the story is hurting National, and will continue to if they keep acting ‘heavy’. I do think that Key’s amiable, calm demeanour has been an electoral asset, and he’s not showing that now.

    It’s the “retaliation” test: for example, if a politician is out speaking somehere and gets a rotten tomato chucked at him/her, the person chucking it is going to look bad on the TV news. But if the politician throws it back, however “fair” that might be, it looks like the Very Important Person is getting down to the level of the Troublemaker. The politician might win the tomato fight, but should they even be in the fight at all? Is this what Key/National want to be doing? Try and get a nobody arrested? That would be a Pyrrhic victory. (obvious media questions: why so agitated? what are you afraid of?)

    The Nick Smith clip tonight wasn’t worth much. The story should fade. But National are on their high horse, whereas I think shrugging it off would have been smarter.

    If a senior Labour politician authorised this, that would be different. But I don’t believe for moment they’re that stupid.
39. the sprout 39

    6 August 2008 at 6:43 pm

    well said gs
40. Steve 40

    6 August 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Rob: 1 and 2 of your ‘secret agenda’ from the Labour Party were both in the 2002 manifesto as areas where legislation would be introduced but ultimately decided in conscience votes.
41. Lew 41

    6 August 2008 at 7:03 pm

    The shortage of commentary on TaperGate at KB and elsewhere is a reflection of the shortage of commentary on WinstonGate here. Poster on both sites have their pretexts for avoiding the inconvenient.

    L
42. the sprout 42

    6 August 2008 at 7:07 pm

    the best thing about the Winston affair is that you won’t be hearing much from Humpty and Slaterwhale about the EFA anymore, unless they think there’s still a public taste for allowing more secret donations and dubious trusts.
43. gobsmacked 43

    6 August 2008 at 7:32 pm

    John Key was on Close-Up tonight, to talk about this whole incident, but not about anything positive he said at the conference. That’s why National’s approach to this is wrong.

    The viewers would have heard “Kiwibank” far more than “tax cuts”. Never mind the reassurances – National don’t want to be talking about Kiwibank at all. It was supposed to be “innoculated”.
44. Steve Pierson 44

    6 August 2008 at 7:37 pm

    I reckon Young Labour has a defamation action from Key’s comments. No Young Labour person tried to “break into the conference”, nor were any evicted. they simply were part of a peaceful, legal protest in the public thoroughfare outside the Town Hall.
45. CMR 45

    6 August 2008 at 7:55 pm

    What a load of nonsense this all is! For once English speaks sense…sell Kiwibank! If I were him I’d be proud to be associated with this policy. My thoughts on Kiwibank is that its mere conception was an insult to well managed NZ owned institutions, ie TSB, Southland Building Society. It is a testament to the vainglorious impulses of clapped-out leftie loser Anderton!

    Sadly, the Nats are a spineless pack who hunger electoral victory at any cost. If they were to even nudge the boundaries of their constitution they would openly, proudly and promptly sell kiwibank. As for the railways, if there’s only one bidder, does that make it a sale or a gift?

    There a two hideous prospects for NZ…the Evil Bitch and her incompetent friends or the ultra lightweight Key-Boy and his cubs!
46. the sprout 46

    6 August 2008 at 7:55 pm

    it’s not the first time Key has tried to blame Young Labour for stuff they’ve had nothing to do with.
    you’d think a man with Key’s resources would pick a worthier opponent.
47. vto 47

    6 August 2008 at 7:57 pm

    I wanted to hear that Close Up key interview but fell asleep within 10 seconds of Hosking’s appearance and woke up precisely when the first lot of ads came on. So missed the whole thing. Its like I always wake up in the very last scene of every movie I fall asleep in. grumble grumble.

    Anyways, re the topic – do you actually believe the nats have a secret agenda? Seriously? I mean – if what you standard bearers claim is true then after the nats get in they will renege on most of their promises and bring in others they haven’t even mentioned. It would be 1991 all over again. And the national party would collapse into a black hole. forever this time, as people still remember the going back on promises back then.

    They are surely not that silly.

    Which would mean there is no ‘secret agenda’ and it is all a spin and beat up.

    It’s either one or the other. ‘secret agenda’ or spin and beat up.

    (mind you, its been a real fizz of a day or two on this site. The over excited drool is leaking thru my screen!)
48. vto 48

    6 August 2008 at 8:03 pm

    A bit more…

    I don;t know why politicians be a bit more open and up front. Great example I wondered on the Winston the Clown Show… Rather than Clark ducking and diving and making excuses why didn;t she just say something like “Well if Winston was in the Labour Party he would certainly be required to explain etc, but you know Winston actually holds a bit of power and he is using that to refuse to answer the questions. And I and this govt will not be brought down by Winston power games, so it is really up to him how he behaves and the NZ public to judge.”

    if you get my drift
49. lprent 49

    6 August 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Sprought: Well I always say that JK is a political ligtweight.

    Perhaps he thinks that Young Labour are more in his fighting weight bracket…

    Just a thought.
50. forgetaboutthelastone 50

    6 August 2008 at 8:15 pm

    “do you actually believe the nats have a secret agenda?”

    National are not telling us much about their policies – so essentially national party policy is a “secret agenda”. One or the other – tell us what we need to know about policy or stick with a “secret agenda”.
51. Scribe 51

    6 August 2008 at 8:50 pm

    gobsmacked,

    Fair points. I agree that this is damaging to National from an image perspective. I personally don’t think it’s all that scandalous when analysing the quotes etc, but most voters don’t delve too deeply.

    If a senior Labour politician authorised this, that would be different. But I don’t believe for moment they’re that stupid.

    Right again. I may disagree with some of their policy, but I wouldn’t accuse many Labour politicians of being stupid. And no, I won’t elaborate on who I might accuse of that 😉

    Lew,

    The shortage of commentary on TaperGate at KB and elsewhere is a reflection of the shortage of commentary on WinstonGate here. Poster on both sites have their pretexts for avoiding the inconvenient.

    Add to that “Hongigate” and “Debtgate” being ignored here in the past few days.

    BTW, how many generations will continue to “gate” any scandal?
52. Lew 52

    6 August 2008 at 9:03 pm

    Scribe: Hah, Hongigate is nothing, but then, it was nothing in the first place, so turnabout is fair play. Debtgate should indeed be getting a good examination.

    For the record I should have referred to WinnieGate as WinnieGateOhEight, since the dude has a way of finding the limelight.

    gobsmacked: I think you’re spot on about the inoculation.

    L
53. Draco TB 53

    6 August 2008 at 9:06 pm

    you’d think a man with Key’s resources would pick a worthier opponent.

    No I wouldn’t – if JK chose to pick on a worthier opponent they’d bite back and he’d be seen running with his tail between his legs.
54. vto 54

    6 August 2008 at 9:13 pm

    All the ‘gates’ open but never get sorted before the next ‘gate’ opens so the previous ones get lost and forgotten (sort of). Consequently, individual politicians get let off the hook to a certain extent, but the entire system groans under public disenchantment due to an overweight of unclosed ‘gates’.

    How long until tapergate gets forgotten or replaced, if it isnt already?
55. Lew 55

    6 August 2008 at 9:18 pm

    vto: Good question. How about PainterGate? SpeederGate? I think these things should be remembered, but not relied upon.

    L
56. Ari 56

    6 August 2008 at 9:34 pm

    The thing about “DonationGate” (:P) is that both Labour and National want Winston gone, but nobody really wants to front up and actually put their name on a call for him to be ousted, in case they need him at the next election.

    Why have Left blogs not called foul about Winston’s finance? I would say because:

    a) Perhaps some of them are a little biased.
    b) It’s quite possible he didn’t break any laws or even any rules.
    c) Both Labour and National have probably done much worse, so it seems a bit of a beat-up to those of us familiar with the way the last election went.
57. RedLogix 57

    6 August 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Or Ari, if you think for a moment about the potential ‘terms of reference’ that a Privileges Committee might set for itself; then perhaps we could be seeing only the front of a much deeper game of poker.

    Oh and I have to wonder if travelleve may not be onto something re JK and his putuative timeline at Bankers Trust.
58. Scribe 58

    7 August 2008 at 8:12 am

    Ari,

    The thing about “DonationGate’ (:P) is that both Labour and National want Winston gone, but nobody really wants to front up and actually put their name on a call for him to be ousted, in case they need him at the next election.

    You’re right, but I find that disappointing, especially from John Key. I see no reason why he couldn’t say “If my foreign affairs minister acted in such a way, I would fire him”. Then that minister gets put into time out for a while and, if he behaves, or more importantly is needed after the election, he’s allowed to come out and play again.

    Ya know, redemption and all that.
59. randal 59

    7 August 2008 at 9:05 am

    lprent, if key cant even get the ups on ‘young labour’ then he is all washed up already
60. Darren Rickard 60

    7 August 2008 at 9:47 am

    Come-on guys, be honest for a change, come out and admit your connection with the tape bugging at the National Party conference, before someone else does.

    It would look better coming from the source, an apology made and then we can move on.

    Those that fed your leak will easily turn on you if you dont.

    Darren Rickard, Political Animal Blog
61. lprent 61

    7 August 2008 at 9:55 am

    D: Are we talking Whale type ‘evidence’ here?

    A few minor technical tricks bloated up into a theory that requires that you have faith in the same world view as him. I don’t even have to look to know that is what he is doing on his site. He is predicable in how he does his masturbation.

    Besides whoever did that recording did the NZ public a service. It just shows the same kind of mentality exists inside the National party as it had in 1990.

    BTW: Have people caught up with Stephen Prices posts on the taping?

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=138
    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=139
    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=140

    I particularly liked the last one. Pretty typical of the news media.
62. coge 62

    7 August 2008 at 9:58 am

    I do wonder how many participants on this blog know who the individual concerned is. Ultimately it’s a matter of knowing right from wrong. Most people have an innate understanding of this.

    I can’t imagine anything like this going on back in 1999.
63. Higherstandard 63

    7 August 2008 at 10:01 am

    Darren

    In my opinion the taping of party conferences has been a bit of a nothing really all I can recall is the following.

    -Four people who shouldn’t be let anywhere near a karaoke bar.
    -Mike Williams making a throw away comment that I would have made in his position and was turned into a beat up over nothing.
    -Bill English making a throw away comment while gorging on sausage rolls and a glass of wine.
    -Lockwood Smith doing the same.

    The thing I find humorous and disappointing is everyone getting so excited about a few comments that amount to nothing and will as usual consume the main stream media and parliament for a week or so.

    What’s next secret recordings from leaders bedrooms and bugging of cabinet offices ?

    Perhaps the thing that is most odd is that for all the digging no mole seems to have unearthed anything of substance on either side, perhaps we do have the most dull, bland politicians in the world none of whom will be willing to make anything more than robotic statements without a Maxwell Smart type cone of silence descending.
64. Ari 64

    7 August 2008 at 10:05 am

    Coge: I think the person involved should definitely disclose who they are. They’ve got nothing to hide as far as I’m concerned- National should be saying what they believe in private to the public in the first place, and if not, they deserve to be caught out. Same for Labour.

    Whether that person supports a party opposed to National or not is a distraction, though. They’ve made it clear they weren’t a party member and aren’t part of a conspiracy.
65. Quoth the Raven 65

    7 August 2008 at 10:12 am

    The guy who did it denies he is a member of Labour. Here’s the story. Cullen’s asking Key to apologise for accusing Labour now and Key has come out and accused people of looking through his rubbish. He’s just embarrassing himself now.
66. Bill 66

    7 August 2008 at 10:21 am

    Apologies for repeating this, but….

    I’ve had it with all this crap from the mainstream and others about who was behind the taping of Nat MPs.

    Two points.

    1. A wee while age I suggested in a comment that someone should bail up to one of these guys with a tape recorder and pin them on a few issues. Now, if I can think it’s a good idea so can countless other individuals. So well done that man for having the wherewithal to follow through on his idea.

    2. JK appears to have transferred the nastier aspects of individual corporate success strategies to our electoral process. While it might be okay for individuals to employ subterfuge for their personal gain within a party, is it okay for an entire party to practice it within the context of an election bid? Of course it is (sadly), but not if you are caught out.

    So excuse me as I dream a while on the long odds of the two shibboleths of NZ politics burying each other in enough slung mud to hand us a “Green November’. Yeah, yeah, it’s a very long shot, but we deserve to be completely rid of neo-liberal economic policies and parties. (Labour with their occasional lifebelt tossed over to prevent a few drownings and Nat with their ‘no lifebelts’ policy).

    Back to the point. ‘The punters’ applaud you, whoever you are.
67. Higherstandard 67

    7 August 2008 at 10:36 am

    Bill and Coge

    I find I must disagree with both of you completely.

    This kind of behaviour by whomever taping Labour, National or others and the subsequent media frenzy is likely to lead to far less transparency and openness by politicians in the future – how is that a good thing ?

    I would be more sympathetic for the taper if there was something really useful that was found out but the sound bites that I noted as listed in my earlier comments are a nothing and their taping and the subsequent media reaction will only lead to more automatons as MPs……. hmmmmmm automatons as MPs not a bad idea cheap and we can turn them off when we’ve had enough of them.
68. Quoth the Raven 68

    7 August 2008 at 10:41 am

    Higherstandard – Maybe, but it does show us that there wasn’t musch transparency or openness when the National party was communicating to the public. If National was open and honest with the public then there would have been nothing on these tapes worth reporting. So I think it comes back to what Hide said “the best solution is to say in private what you say in public.’
69. Draco TB 69

    7 August 2008 at 10:51 am

    Ultimately it’s a matter of knowing right from wrong. Most people have an innate understanding of this.

    Yep, which is why most people don’t seem to be overly concerned about the person doing the recording but are concerned with Nationals less than open electioneering. Most people understand that lying to get into public office is wrong and that the person who did the recording has done us all a favour.

    Captcha: rough principles: yep, always hard to maintain them.
70. Bill 70

    7 August 2008 at 11:08 am

    In concert with others HS.

    If the media had done their job instead of allowing the Nats to be evasive, then no pertinent taping would have occurred.

    Question. If the Maori Party or the Greens were taped in a similar fashion, would it be revelationary? Probably not.

    You can’t play ‘gentlemans rules’ with cynical manipulators.
71. Tim Ellis 71

    7 August 2008 at 11:11 am

    This is such a beat up. I had a private conversation with a labour minister recently where he said Helen has lost touch and is certainly going to lose the election, and Phil Goff is in the wings waiting to take over. That minister also said that Judith Tizard is lazy and has fallen out with the prime minister and that several senior labour ministers are panicking about what they will do after the election, because they won’t be in parliament any more.

    I wouldn’t dream of recording that conversation. People won’t speak with you frankly if they think you are going to repeat it to everybody. Do people really think that politicians just stand around all day reading press releases to each other? No. It shows how desperate Labour has got that they are using these tactics. They have nothing left to lose. I thought for a while that National was going to cake walk its way to victory this year. It shows that Labour are going to throw as much muck and use as many dirty tactics as they can to make National have to fight for it. In one way I’m happy that National has to prove itself. In another way I’m saddened that Labour are so cynical to use such filthy behaviour. Helen Clark used to have a good ethical compass. It is now pointing south.

    [lprent: Personally I’d say you were lying about the conversation. I’ve found that labour politicians generally follow Rodney Hides dictum. What you describe is just a righties wet dream. Of course if you could prove it, say with a tape, then I might start to take it seriously. ]
72. higherstandard 72

    7 August 2008 at 11:13 am

    QTR

    Neither of the major parties has much transparency or openness when communicating with the public they’re both to busy trying to get enough of a proportion of the vote to form the next government.

    This kind of taping will just further that lack of transparency or openess ……. how is that a good thing.

    If everyone could step back from the trying to support who they’d like to win the next election for a breather perhaps they’d realise that the state of our parliament and the parliamentarians within it is a disgrace and the behaviour of the larger parties and Winston in particular borders on blatant contempt for the public.
73. Tim Ellis 73

    7 August 2008 at 11:23 am

    No LP, I am not lying. I won’t name who the minister was because it was a private conversation a few months ago and the minister repeated those things along with a lot more interesting gossip to a third party.
74. higherstandard 74

    7 August 2008 at 11:27 am

    Tim

    I’m quite willing to take your word I’ve had similar experiences with Ministers of Health at college conferences and the like and no-one there would dream of repeating what was said over dinner and a glass of wine by the Minister to the media or a similar organisation
75. Tim Ellis 75

    7 August 2008 at 11:33 am

    hs there’s nothing wrong with saying those things in private conversations. The public doesn’t believe that politicians just stand around reading out press releases when somebody asks them a question. They give free and frank views if they don’t think they are being recorded. Nobody expects everybody in John Key’s caucus to be a robot. They’re not all robots in Helen Clark’s cabinet either. Many of them have different opinions about policy and each other. The issue isn’t what they think of each other, but whether they can work together cooperatively and constructively. The issue isn’t whether they privately believe in a particular policy, but whether they are genuinely working towards the policy programme of the party. Any secretly taped conversation can cause opponents to scream hidden agenda, but that isn’t credible.

    I don’t doubt that despite what some Labour MPs and ministers feel personally about Helen Clark and are prepared to say in private conversation, they still believe she is the best person to lead Labour into the next election. That doesn’t stop them expressing concerns though, and who wouldn’t be concerned when you’re twenty points behind in the polls. LP it just stretches credibility that Labour MPs go around parroting the party line that everybody is happy with everybody’s performance and they say it to everybody privately when Labour is twenty percent behind as they have been for the last year. Either you say everybody is in a bunker mentality or some people express genuine concerns, which is what happened when I was speaking to a minister.
76. exbrethren 76

    7 August 2008 at 11:37 am

    I had a conversation with a high ranking National spokesperson who said that McCully would stage a coup against Key after the election and bring in child slavery. I won’t name the person concerned as it was a private conversation a few months ago and he repeated it to another unspecified third party.

    Amazing what rubbish you can write if you don’t have to prove it, eh Tim.
77. Scribe 77

    7 August 2008 at 11:38 am

    lprent,

    Personally I’d say you were lying about the conversation…. Of course if you could prove it, say with a tape, then I might start to take it seriously.

    Funny how there weren’t requests for tapes etc earlier this year when the same sort of hearsay was posted on here, by The Standard’s own authors, saying “a National MP told me X and Y”.
78. lprent 78

    7 August 2008 at 11:43 am

    Scribe: You are welcome to disagree with it and did so as I remember.

    Exactly as I just did while in comment check mode. But that description of a conversation by Tim was so obviously bullshit that I left a note on the comment to say what I thought of it.
79. yl 79

    7 August 2008 at 11:43 am

    i also heard the the conversation about Mccully, coup, and child slavery, i was also told purple monkey dishwasher.

    wow this is easy

    [lprent: yeah but don’t do too much of it. Bullshitting in blogs is best left to Whale – it is his sort of thing.]
80. r0b 80

    7 August 2008 at 11:45 am

    Funny how there weren’t requests for tapes etc earlier this year

    Funny how when Labour was covertly taped at their conference recently they didn’t start running round like rabid dogs attacking young Nats and calling for the police and video surveillance footage. They just, you know, fixed the mistake and got on with it. Which is what Key should have done. This wild accusation spinning is just highlighting how badly the Nats have been wounded by this – caught out telling the truth…
81. gobsmacked 81

    7 August 2008 at 11:45 am

    Tim

    I don’t believe you are lying about the conversation. But if you then say things like:

    “It shows how desperate Labour has got that they are using these tactics.”

    you are repeating National Party spin, without any evidence at all.

    Earlier this year one person (or at most, a handful of people) decided to “campaign” against the Electoral Finance Act by throwing bricks through windows. One target was Helen Clark’s electorate office.

    According to your logic:

    1) The perpetrator(s) was against Labour (a fact)
    2) Therefore, the person was for National (no evidence)
    3) Therefore, it was a National Party tactic (no evidence)

    That isn’t logic. It’s just making things up. You can do better than that (and John Key certainly should).
82. Tim Ellis 82

    7 August 2008 at 11:52 am

    gs that’s a good point, I don’t have evidence that it was a labour party person who broke in. I also don’t have evidence that the person who broke in to the conference is associated with the Standard even though Clinton was present at the conference. While other people have made that connection I’d probably get booted off if I made it here.

    I do believe though that in due course the person will be revealed and their labour party connection discovered. I am happy to retract that if proven wrong though.

    [lprent: I think Clinton is present at almost every major political event in wellington. I am usually conspicuous by my absence to those in Auckland. Its is probably suspicious. Have you heard any other good conspiracy theories lately? ]
83. r0b 83

    7 August 2008 at 11:57 am

    I do believe though that in due course the person will be revealed and their labour party connection discovered. I am happy to retract that if proven wrong though.

    Well you could get started on retracting right now, see this TV3 news piece.
84. gobsmacked 84

    7 August 2008 at 11:59 am

    One thing we do know, Tim, is that the conversations were recorded at a cocktail party before the protests.

    If the person recording went to the cocktail party posing as a Nat, and then turned up later at a protest outside the conference, where the same people he’d been talking to could see him … then he is incredibly stupid.
85. Tim Ellis 85

    7 August 2008 at 12:07 pm

    gs I don’t think it was Clinton. Clinton was wearing a John Key mask outside the National Party conference which addresses your second point, but Clinton has a beard, which is pretty distinguishable. I would have thought if the spy had a beard then Nick Smith, Lockwood Smith, and Bill English would have remembered it.
86. Steve Pierson 86

    7 August 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Hell, as soon as I arrived outside the Town Hall on Sunday morning, a Young Nat recognised me. The beard is a give away – the beard and the chiselled good looks
87. gobsmacked 87

    7 August 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Break-in news … (get it?)

    Police are investigating a break-in at the electorate office of a senior Labour MP, David Cunliffe, in Auckland.

    Nothing was taken in the burglary but Mr Cunliffe’s computer was apparently tampered with.

    Mr Cunliffe’s office has confirmed a complaint has been made to the police about the incident.

    (Radio NZ)

    There can be no doubt whatsoever (based on, um, no evidence whatsoever, but don’t let that bother you) that this is the work of the National Party’s dirty tricks campaign …
88. Lew 88

    7 August 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Tim Ellis: You’re presenting a lot of normative statements as if they’re descriptive. Time for a wee fisk.

    “hs there’s nothing wrong with saying those things in private conversations.”

    That’s ultimately a matter for the electorate to decide.

    “The public doesn’t believe that politicians just stand around reading out press releases when somebody asks them a question. They give free and frank views if they don’t think they are being recorded.”

    By deduction, you assert that they don’t air the same views if they think they are being recorded. Why not? This is the issue at hand.

    “Nobody expects everybody in John Key’s caucus to be a robot. They’re not all robots in Helen Clark’s cabinet either.”

    I see no indication that anyone expects anything of the sort. Do you mean nobody expects MPs to go around `parroting the party line’ when they believe otherwise? I think people expect MPs to be mostly honest; while they may be a little more direct and specific in private, the general drift of their comments and the philosophies they reveal should accord with the public version. As Muldoon said: `if you always tell the truth, you never have to remember a thing’.

    “Many of them have different opinions about policy and each other. The issue isn’t what they think of each other, but whether they can work together cooperatively and constructively.”

    I agree. But: 1. we’re not talking about what they think about each other; 2. when a politician’s private opinions become public, their import isn’t for you, or them, or anyone else to decide – it’s for the electorate.

    “The issue isn’t whether they privately believe in a particular policy, but whether they are genuinely working towards the policy programme of the party.”

    You beg the question, which is: `what is the policy programme of the party?’ On this matter there is conflicting information. If people want us to believe what the party and its leaders say in public over what they say in private, then they need to present some reasons why we should.

    “Any secretly taped conversation can cause opponents to scream hidden agenda, but that isn’t credible.”

    You’ve singularly failed to provide any arguments as to why it isn’t. See my point above about who gets to decide what is and isn’t credible.

    “I don’t doubt that despite what some Labour MPs and ministers feel personally about Helen Clark and are prepared to say in private conversation, they still believe she is the best person to lead Labour into the next election. That doesn’t stop them expressing concerns though, and who wouldn’t be concerned when you’re twenty points behind in the polls. LP it just stretches credibility that Labour MPs go around parroting the party line that everybody is happy with everybody’s performance and they say it to everybody privately when Labour is twenty percent behind as they have been for the last year.”

    False equivocation. You’re alleging (without evidence beyond your conversation with an anonymous minister) that Labour MPs are duplicitous, and that that excuses National’s being caught in what are, at best, compromising philosophical and rhetorical positions. One of these things is not like the other one.

    “Either you say everybody is in a bunker mentality or some people express genuine concerns, which is what happened when I was speaking to a minister.”

    False dichotomy. You imply that a party which doesn’t `express concerns’ is in a `bunker mentality’. It’s also false equivocation, again, because you’re implying without evidence that what Labour allegedly did is the same as what National demonstrably did. In addition, while I’m prepared to accept you’re not making up the bit about the unidentified Labour Minister, that whole line of argument is a strawman.

    If you’re going to argue, at least do it properly.

    L
89. roger nome 89

    7 August 2008 at 3:13 pm

    “The issue isn’t whether they privately believe in a particular policy”

    Um – kind of does when that person’s the prospective finance minister, and when he’s saying “we are going to sell kiwibank” – he’s speaking on behalf of the party (in his position he has the insider knowledge to do this authoritatively), not himself. It’s an issue that involves the National Party’s intentions, not just the would-be Finance Minister’s.

    So, now we know that National wants to sell off kiwibank (god knows their foreign banker backers profited massively from them in the 1990s). It’s up to the public now to decide whether they want this party to lead the next government.
90. Darren Rickard 90

    7 August 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Darren

    In my opinion the taping of party conferences has been a bit of a nothing really all I can recall is the following.

    -Four people who shouldn’t be let anywhere near a karaoke bar.
    -Mike Williams making a throw away comment that I would have made in his position and was turned into a beat up over nothing.
    -Bill English making a throw away comment while gorging on sausage rolls and a glass of wine.
    -Lockwood Smith doing the same.

    The thing I find humorous and disappointing is everyone getting so excited about a few comments that amount to nothing and will as usual consume the main stream media and parliament for a week or so.

    What’s next secret recordings from leaders bedrooms and bugging of cabinet offices ?

    Perhaps the thing that is most odd is that for all the digging no mole seems to have unearthed anything of substance on either side, perhaps we do have the most dull, bland politicians in the world none of whom will be willing to make anything more than robotic statements without a Maxwell Smart type cone of silence descending.

    I mostly agree with your statement above HS. Nothing of consequence is said by most politicians, most of the time. However, the method of a setup and secretly taping someone,is not only rude but says more about the spy, than it does the spied upon.

    Cheers, Darren
91. gobsmacked 91

    7 August 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Barry Soper on Newstalk ZB (and again on TV One this morning) said that he knows who it is, and that the person is not from Labour.

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/default.asp

    But as we all know, you can’t prove a negative. So Key will not apologise, just say “murky” a lot, and try and implicate Labour, with no evidence. For some in the media (e.g. Bill Ralston) he’s already done enough.
92. Darren Rickard 92

    7 August 2008 at 7:04 pm

    Of course Barry didn’t say it wasn’t someone connected to Labour, like individuals from this Blog.

    Own up boys and girls
93. lprent 93

    7 August 2008 at 7:12 pm

    In view of your incisive questioning – I’ll tell all. It was the gingerbread man – the big one – that is drury lane….

    Ummm or was it the three blind mice or….

    I tell you the Nat’s obsession with finding out who it was (or at the very least to misdirect) is starting to look quite hilarious

Links to post

1. Cui bono « The Dim-Post: posted on 7 August 2008 at 8:45 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS