Key voters waking up, pity about the hangover they’ve given us

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 9:32 am, August 18th, 2010 - 81 comments
Categories: blogs, election 2008, same old national - Tags: dimpost, no right turn, smile and wave

I don’t usually read the Dimpost but Not Right Turn put me on to a remarkable post by Danyl the other day.

Now, as you know, it’s reasonably straightforward to get a reading on people’s politics from what they say and I had Danyl down as a leftie. Sure, a bit of a contradicted arty liberal yet conservative elitist leftie who uses satire because it’s an easy way to attack without having to put his own ideas up for criticism, but a reasonably intelligent leftie nonetheless. So, this surprised me:

Actually my mood has swung recently, from my four year long pessimistically pro-National sentiment to an â€˜I still hold them in contempt and can’t believe I’m thinking of voting for them but whaddya gonna do?’ pro-Labour sentiment. You let me down, National. Really, what kind of unbelievable assholes stand around doing nothing while unemployment surges and wages stagnate and then decide that what the country needs is tax cuts for the rich and â€˜radical welfare reform’? Fuck you.

That’s right. Danyl voted National and switched to them about the same time as John Key became leader. And now he’s all surprised and upset that National is governing like a centre-right party, and has come to the conclusion that he isn’t going to get the leftwing policies he wants by voting rightwing.

I mean, it’s not like there was a shortage of clues this would happen.

There was a website that pretty much devoted its first year to warning that what has come to pass would happen if National was elected (what was that website’s name again? Oh yeah The Standard).

There were tapes of senior National MPs admitting their rightwing agenda and that they were keeping it under wraps so that people would vote for them.

And then there was the fundamental fact that National is National. It always has been, is, and always will be the party that represents the interests of the business and farming elite in this country. Parties don’t change the essence of what they stand for (even in the 80s, Labour still advanced leftward on social issues).

National is governing like National governs. And any political watcher with a clear head foresaw this.

So, welcome back to the land of the clear headed, Danyl, but I’m curious as to what caused the brief flirtation with National in the first place. If there are any others who went over to Key’s National but have since become disenchanted, I’d be interested in your responses too.

I have a few theories:
– A msm-style post-ideological view of politics that views political parties as akin to sports teams ultimately devoid of meaning and capable of taking any side on any issue.
– A genuine belief that Key would do the â€˜what works’ and, because one obviously believes that the things one believes in are â€˜what works’, that would mean Key would do good things, leftwing things.
– A demented need to punish Labour for various, poorly defined, crimes, just like the msm had been telling you to. As if cutting off your nose to spite your face is a sensible approach to politics.
– That winning grin â€˜with a smile and a wave like that, you know Key’s going to govern in the interests of Kiwi families, not just the elite, of whom he is a part, who founded and fund the party he leads.’

I’m being harsh but I am genuinely wondering: if someone is smart enough to see that Key’s government is a failure now, how were they dumb enough to ever believe things would be different and get suckered into voting for him in the first place?

81 comments on “Key voters waking up, pity about the hangover they’ve given us ”

Comments are now closed

felix 1

18 August 2010 at 10:14 am

Pretty much confirms what I’ve always felt about Danyl – that he’s quite clever but not very smart.
- A Post With Me In It 1.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 12:42 pm
  
  Or just vindictive and misguided?
  
  “- A demented need to punish Labour for various, poorly defined, crimes, just like the msm had been telling you to. As if cutting off your nose to spite your face is a sensible approach to politics.”
  
  He admits to this in the comments. Basically he was angry at labour and sees the greens as anti science.
  
  The first part is vindictive, the second is just ignorant.
BLiP 2

18 August 2010 at 10:26 am

Just goes to show that even clever people were sucked in by the Crosby/Textor marketing of Brand Key. Rather than a “neener-neener” approach, I’m more tempted to welcome these people back into the fold with open arms and an encouraging “there-there”.
michael 3

18 August 2010 at 10:31 am

How about straight up male chauvinism? ‘Time for a change’ was simply dog whistle for time to get rid of a woman leader and go back to normalcy with a proper male prime minister. Most of the vitriol directed at Labour was a thinly disguised bitch about the fact that a ‘bossy’ woman was in charge. And why did women switch? My theory is that many had grown tired of the anti woman tirades they heard at home each night about the news, and they like this slime-ball now because he has brought peace to their homes at last. Their grizzly chauvinist has gone back to the purring pussy again. A quick look at many of the worlds problems today and in the past shows chauvinism is at the root.
- KJT 3.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 11:28 am
  
  I know it is subjective, but most of the males I know liked HC. It was the women who seemed to have a problem with her.
gobsmacked 4

18 August 2010 at 10:33 am

Here’s one more theory: the attitudes displayed in Marty’s post.

Suggestion: “Get it right next time, you fools” is probably not a winning slogan.
- Juan Manuel Santos 4.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 12:02 pm
  
  Fair call, but I think in this case Marty is justified. Danyl spent about a year ridiculing the standard as conspiracy theorists for challenging the moderate nice guy image and calling National a right-wing party that would enact nasty right-wing policies if it gained power. Now it’s happened, and the standard’s writers were right all along. I think a bit of ‘I told you so’ is in order just this once.
Danyl Mclauchlan 5

18 August 2010 at 10:38 am

How about straight up male chauvinism? â€˜Time for a change’ was simply dog whistle for time to get rid of a woman leader and go back to normalcy with a proper male prime minister.

Wow, it’s like you’re looking right into my soul.

Here’s one more theory: the attitudes displayed in Marty’s post.

Yeah. Winston Peters also helped a lot.
- felix 5.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 10:49 am
  
  Actually michael describes a dynamic I observed many times during Helen’s terms. I suspect you’ve made the mistake of thinking this thread is all about you.
- Green Tea 5.2
  
  18 August 2010 at 10:51 am
  
  Marty is obviously having a hard time understanding how anyone could NOT vote Labour.
  - Blighty 5.2.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 11:04 am
    
    A hard time understanding why someone with leftwing values would vote rightwing and then be upset about the results, I think.
    
    It appears it’s the ‘nose to spite the face’ theory, Marty. Voting rightwing to punish Labour over Winston Peters (surely, he’s a reason not to vote NZF?), and getting a government he hates as a result.
    - The Baron 5.2.1.1
      
      18 August 2010 at 1:22 pm
      
      Where I come from, people who do that would be called traitors to the revolution. The commersariat would then determine their fates – probably horrible ones.
      
      Its as if he thought that the ability to vote meant that he had the right to think about his individual desires, opinions and personal political objectives, and evaluate those rationally against the party policies on offer.
      
      Whereas what he SHOULD be doing is picking his favourite political brand and slavishly voting for it like a fucking idiot sheep. Like the vast majority of commentators here, it appears.
      - felix 5.2.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 1:28 pm
        
        No, what he should be doing is trying to avoid voting for parties whose policies he disagrees with and then whinging about getting a govt he doesn’t like.
        
        It’s not rocket surgery.
        
        What you should be doing btw is learning to fucking read, as you’ve completely misinterpreted not only the post itself but also the comment you replied to.
      - Green Tea 5.2.1.1.2
        
        18 August 2010 at 1:35 pm
        
        So true, Baron. Danyl committed the ultimate betrayal and questioned the Labour Party.
  - Juan Manuel Santos 5.2.2
    
    18 August 2010 at 12:12 pm
    
    That’s not what the post is saying. It’s not like this fool went and voted Green or threw it away on some joke party like the Progressives. He voted chose to vote National because he presumably thought they’d build a fairer society.
Thomas Beagle 6

18 August 2010 at 10:43 am

The question is not whether National is failing in government, the question is whether they’re doing worse or better than Labour would have done.

Economically they both seem devoid of both useful analysis and ideas.

When it comes to civil liberties and related issues, I reckon National still has the edge. They win on electoral law, copyright, search and surveillance, foreshore and seabed… and they weren’t responsible for the extensions of government power we saw through the various anti-terror acts and related laws passed in the last ten years
- jimmy 6.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 11:07 am
  
  WTF?
  
  The new search and surveillace laws are an improvement in civil liberties and not an extention of government power?
  
  Just wait until the pork board starts spying on you for buying free range.
  - Thomas Beagle 6.1.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 11:20 am
    
    The Search and Surveillance Bill is a serious concern (I’ve been involved in campaigning against it) but it was originally introduced by Labour. There’s been quite a few changes since but at least the recent Select Committee report seems to improve some aspects of it.
- Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.2
  
  18 August 2010 at 11:12 am
  
  When you say civil liberties- do you feel National are giving us more or less? Gang Patch Bans, Three strikes and you’re locked in for ever, Boy racer legislation, now they are going to ban 18-20 yo’s from buying at grog shops- they are all reductions of civil rights.
  - Thomas Beagle 6.2.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 11:23 am
    
    I feel that National are doing slightly better, but yes, they also have some serious problems when it comes to respecting civil liberties.
    
    Of course, civil liberties supporters really only have one viable option when it comes to voting in NZ.
    - The Voice of Reason 6.2.1.1
      
      18 August 2010 at 12:32 pm
      
      Er, Labour?
    - Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.2.1.2
      
      18 August 2010 at 1:07 pm
      
      Assume you mean the Greens. they have been the only party that consistently opposed measures such as the ones mentioned.
      
      The Maori party give it lip service then vote with Key anyway.
- Lanthanide 6.3
  
  18 August 2010 at 12:24 pm
  
  Not everyone agrees with National’s new foreshore proposals:
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4034126/Beach-campaign-disgraceful-scaremongering
RedLogix 7

18 August 2010 at 10:51 am

Hell none of us are perfect Marty. I voted for ACT once. (And only once mind you.)

Before the internet there really were not many forums open for people to talk politics. In most workplaces there was an unspoken ban on talking about politics and religion, because both could be so inflamatory. And for the most part my family wasn’t that engaged.

A lot of middle class families, unless some specific event or circumstances compelled their engagment with the process, tended to think they could get through life ignoring politics, aside from their three-yearly trot down to the polling booth.

And for most people it takes time and life-experience to solidify their understandings and principles. Along the way many of us try out all sorts of things for size … to see how they work. Indeed the folk who most peeve me are the zealots and fundies who are completely fixed and certain; they close the door to learning and change… which in my eyes is the biggest offense against the human spirit.

So if Danyl decided to try out the Nats for size, and now has the integrity to see that the fit’s not so great, and the seams a bit crappy, then good on him for having the guts to say so.
- A Post With Me In It 7.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 3:44 pm
  
  Shame on you.
  
  That is like admitting you screwed a sheep or something….
- rainman 7.2
  
  18 August 2010 at 11:38 pm
  
  A fine perspective, Red.
Olwyn 8

18 August 2010 at 11:01 am

You are right about the framing by the msm: look at the Aussie election now, where just about every article says, “it will be right down to the wire,” as if it were a cross-country run. In our election they framed things in the manner of asking a child which parent they want to live with after a divorce: dad, who gets fish and chips on Friday night and lets you stay up watching videos, or mum who will make you eat your broccoli and wear unfashionable shoes to school.

That said, I think two chinks in Labour’s armour made this approach possible. One was the anti-smacking bill, which, while green party policy, was largely attributed to Labour by the msm. A big part of the problem lay with the debate that followed, which drove a wedge between urban liberal and blue-collar Labour supporters, who ended up throwing “nanny state” and “wooden spoon brigade” insults at each other. This will have inspired the so-called “wooden spoon brigade” to take their voted elsewhere.

The other was the housing boom driving house prices so far out of sinc. with wages. Those who could no longer afford a house felt let down by Labour. Those who had squeezed into the housing market with outsized mortgages, or taken on property portfolios, feared what they would lose if the problem was addressed, so turned to the party that favoured asset owners. Key’s nice guy, middle-of-the-road sales pitch made both feel OK about voting turning to the right – the first in retribution, the second in panicked self-interest.
Zaphod Beeblebrox 9

18 August 2010 at 11:07 am

Nice summary.

Why though, do you think Labour feels so beholden to white, working class, gun owning Commodore drivers?
- Olwyn 9.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 12:41 pm
  
  I am not sure how big the category of white working class gun owning Commodore drivers actually is. But I think that the unions and the working class are if anything more crucial to Labour’s staying a proper left wing party than the Liberal wing, which is not to say the Liberal wing is unimportant, or that there is not a wide area of common interest. Liberals, after all, work for their living too.
  
  With Liberalism alone, it is too easy to score petty victories while wages, etc, stagnate.
  
  Further, I wish that liberals would stop assuming that the white blue-collar worker represents the establishment, since it is far from the truth. Corporate capitalism is the establishment, and it doesn’t give a damn about your colour, sex or gender orientation. I can only assume that many liberals come from working class or lower middle class families, and formulate their picture of the establishment by universalising the opinions of their own fathers.
  - Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 8:56 pm
    
    Liberals are liberals for a reason- it may be related to education, where they live, gender ethnicity but they are not the defining features.
    
    They believe what they believe because they have been introduced to issues of fairness, equality, re-distribution of wealth, support of governement’s to make life better etc….often via the political discourse of the day.
    
    If left parties like the Labour Party (and Labor in Oz or the Democrats in the US) refuse to discuss these issues seriously for offending the so called ‘aspirational’ voter with 2 kids and a big mortgage (and an AK47) they seriously disminish the capacity of the electorate to respond to the issues that they are supposed to champion.
    
    Have a look at the Democrats in the U.S. Too busy trying to our-conservative the Republicans, through wedge politics they end up marginalising the issues the party was ormed to champion in teh first place.
    - Olwyn 9.1.1.1
      
      18 August 2010 at 9:21 pm
      
      I did not say that Liberals were dismissible at all. But in a country where there is a growing rich-poor gap, Liberal issues do not trump economic issues. Furthermore, I think that the working class generally do not resent Liberal gains out of blind prejudice, rather they resent urbane professionals congratulating themselves on the number of women in executive positions or such while they continue to struggle. They also resent being infantilised by other people’s Utopian ideals, translated into law.
      
      That said, both are parts of the left and need to find ways of accommodating each other if the left is to get back into office.
      
      I can see what you mean though, about courting some imaginary tradesman character who has probably already emigrated to the Gold Coast.
      - Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 9:46 pm
        
        Not saying Labour shouldn’t be mindful that NZ is not all like Grey Lynn or Mt Eden. You’d have to say the ridiculous overreaction to the namby-pamby PC line is seriously damaging their cred. Have a look at the Foreshore and Seabed legislation for example. Terrified of being crucified by the redneck-vote they created legislation that alienated Maori so much they created a whole political movement which took their Maori seats.
        
        Olwyn 9.1.1.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 11:46 pm
        
        The way you are construing it, politics that kowtow to redneck sensibilities are simply an alternative form of identity politics, and the same problem arises that makes people get shirty with liberals – it takes the focus away from the central issue of social justice.
pollywog 10

18 August 2010 at 11:28 am

Now we know what Key is all about, how inept English is and how lacking in talent the National caucus is that they need to have bumbling eeedjits like Tolley, Bennett and Heatley in it, i’m pickin Labour can win despite Goff’s lack of charisma and media savvy…

…one should never misunderestimate the will of the sheeple though
- Tiger Mountain 10.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 12:21 pm
  
  Heh, well done Polly, a â€˜Dubya Bushism’-misunderestimate-and a new to me, description of the NZ voter-sheeple-in one post! Yeah, stick with Goff and hammer the policy and the facts.
  
  I always thought Danyl was a rightie, but there you go. I guess that there are thousands out there that think “it’s all about me’ and don’t consider the sweep of history and truisms such as a tory’s job in life being to transfer wealth upstairs and be all purpose reactionary pains in the butt.
  
  It is tempting to lambast change voters, but in general I would prefer to get rid of Shonkey than have the fleeting satisfaction of â€˜told you so’.
  - The Voice of Reason 10.1.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 1:09 pm
    
    Like you, Tiger, I never thought of DimPost as anything but conservative and could never figure why it was regarded as a left site. Mind you, I think the same about Chris Trotter, another supposed lefty, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
    
    Ps, if voters are sheeple, does that make Key’s entourage creeple?
    - Tiger Mountain 10.1.1.1
      
      18 August 2010 at 2:26 pm
      
      Nice jibe Voice. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Trotterite! (its gonna haunt you Idiot Savant). I do have a soft spot for Chris Trotters writing and served with him on the late unlamented Distribution Workers Federation in the mid 80s. â€˜Sleeping with the enemy’ was levelled at Mr Trotter as soon as he started writing for the NBR in that sad decade. That was the time of â€˜positive engagement’ and tripartism you may recall, Compact anyone?
      
      I realise career Labour people hate him, whats not to dislike for them, inaugural New Labour member, claimed not to check out details with people before publishing etc. Makes statements-“Peter Conway not elected to CTU leadership because he has testicles’ that kind of thing does not endear him. My take is Chris has to earn a living and the loneliness of the long distance columnist, not to mention deadlines, can do strange things to peoples real principles, or as you are suggesting Voice, reveal them.
      - RedLogix 10.1.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 3:05 pm
        
        God help me these labels are so unhelpful.
        
        Chris Trotter can write the arse off anyone in this country, with both eyes shut on a black day.He never lost sight of the fundamental tension between the classes and has always put the left’s economic concepts at the top of the agenda. Of all the bloggers I regularly read, Chris is the one whom I can rely on for thought-provoking essay I can read two or three times and feed the inspiration each time.
        
        Idiot-Savant has to be the unique enfant-terrible of the left; the man most likely to have read the relevant Act, armed to the teeth with Cabinet Manual and Speaker’s Rulings to rip shreds off his target of the day. And that target is just as likely to be a lefty he’s spied straying from the path of liberal purity, as his usual diet of venal righties that he munches on for breakfast.
        
        And Marty G’s sheer energy, dedication and policy horsepower is a force to be reckoned with. When it comes to the numbers, and in the modern world the numbers always tell the story, Marty is without peer. When he produces a post like he did this morning, brutally ripping Blingish a new one… the heart sings.
        
        So why is it, that the three men I admire the most… ‘The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost’… all seem to hate each other? Surely we can do better than this?
        
        Lew 10.1.1.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 3:09 pm
        
        FFS, RL, that’s going a bit far, don’t you think?
        
        If the future of the NZ left is Trotter, I/S and Marty, then we’re all fucked and might as well give up now.
        
        L
        
        RedLogix …
        
        18 August 2010 at 3:28 pm
        
        Ah sorry Lew but I couldn’t quite fit you into that little 30 sec sound-bite narrative above.
        
        Do I have to spell out the bleedingly obvious? That the left is a fairly broad movement and coming over noxiously positional and shutting down the conversation with hate-terms like ‘red neck’ is old-world behaviour.
        
        Lew …
        
        18 August 2010 at 3:36 pm
        
        RL, seems you mistake my despair at a lack of genuine depth of talent for the delusion that I represent its salvation.
        
        I hear what you’re saying about ‘old-world’ behaviour, but would just like to point out that all three of those you cite are very much guilty of engaging in it. As am I.
        
        So I’m not really sure where that leaves your point.
        
        L
        
        RedLogix …
        
        18 August 2010 at 3:45 pm
        
        RL, seems you mistake my despair at a lack of genuine depth of talent for the delusion that I represent its salvation.
        
        And neither am I Lew. No one of us is. I guess that is my point.
        
        (Gotta run…my city needs me.)
        
        Lew …
        
        18 August 2010 at 3:50 pm
        
        Well, we can agree on that much.
        
        L
- KJT 10.2
  
  18 August 2010 at 3:41 pm
  
  This is what we are talking about with left wing arrogance. If you all disagree with me then you are all wrong.
  Being derogatory about voters intelligence is really going to get support?
  
  There is a reason why people voted National.
  
  The only way they can signal disapproval of labour is to vote National and vis-versa. There is no mechanism for people to wrest control of their country from self appointed politicians.
  
  The choice is FU gently or FU quickly.
Deborah 11

18 August 2010 at 11:32 am

I didn’t vote for National last time around, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Labour again. The reason was quite straightforward. Winston Peters. Plus a whole lot of other issues over the three terms, such as the absolutely cynical use of Parliamentary funding to pay for the pledge card, and continuing to back Philip Field. But the big reason was Labour’s willingness to work with Peters.
- Blighty 11.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 12:13 pm
  
  But why would you think that Peters is the biggest issue? What about wages, jobs, the environment, public services, privatisation, the fact that National were caught out with a secret agenda they didn’t want voters to know about?
- aj 11.2
  
  18 August 2010 at 5:18 pm
  
  Didn’t National’s similar use of funding in previous years figure in your calculation? it’s use of trusts to obscure it’s funding? it’s failure to account for gst?
  Winston was not angel, but did you listen to Cullen’s defence of him prior to the election? spot on.
  Deborah, I think you closed your mind back in 1998
- Blue 11.3
  
  18 August 2010 at 8:31 pm
  
  It makes me angry that so many people fell for the Winston Peters smoke and mirrors bullshit. But then I find I can’t blame them because the media fell for it too, and that’s where people get their information.
  
  If I can spell it out in simple terms – National were getting desperate. They had spent nine years on the Opposition benches, and they absolutely, positively were NOT going to go back there again, no matter what the cost. They had put up the nice smiley John Key as leader and were gaining ground with their ‘nanny state’ spin line and baying for tax cuts, but that just didn’t make them feel secure enough. Haunted by the spectre of the 2005 election, when victory so narrowly eluded them, they wanted to make damn sure that Labour couldn’t possibly cobble together a ‘five-headed monster’ coalition and beat them again.
  
  So the strategists went to work. They couldn’t get Labour on anything, so they cleverly singled out the weakest link in the last Labour Government – Winston Peters. Destroy him and the Labour Government would go down with him. It was an elegant piece of political sabotage and it worked a treat.
  
  They got Rodney Hide to do the dirty work so Key and National could remain at arms length. They knew Winston would fall straight into their trap and he did – he couldn’t have played into their hands better if they had scripted it. And the public and the media ate it up, managing to spend an entire year, countless pages and minutes of news coverage and a lot of foaming at the mouth on…
  
  …something about donations that hardly anyone actually understood.
  
  But that didn’t matter. The impression people were left with was that Winston had done something dodgy and Helen Clark basically had no choice but to defend him so the mud stuck to her too.
  
  And that is how turkeys can be convinced to vote for Christmas.
  
  And before someone says that Winston was in the wrong, yes, but the point is no one cared. National and Act didn’t give a monkeys about addressing the issues surrounding political donations, the media forgot about it five seconds after National were elected and the public never understood it anyway.
  
  And back here in 2010 that principled man John Key has refused to rule out working with NZ First if they get back into Parliament in 2011.
  - Puddleglum 11.3.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 10:09 pm
    
    Yep, I think that’s a pretty accurate summary.
    
    Concerted and coordinated attacks almost always work in politics because it is compost-rich ground for behaviours that most of us like to think (probably incorrectly) that we would never engage in ourselves. A coordinated attack strategy simply feeds the public’s righteous conceit on that point.
    
    Such attacks don’t happen more often because, most of the time, politicians are busy fighting more proximate battles (e.g., Heather Roy and Rodney Hide).
    - vto 11.3.1.1
      
      18 August 2010 at 10:19 pm
      
      So, Blue and Puddleglum, which lies of Peters were inaccuracies then? Which of the major meltdown issues around Peters and Clark in the last 12 months of their affair were other than as broadly portrayed by all and sundry media?
      
      Broad accusations of conspiracy with no detail or evidential examples are just that.
      - Olwyn 11.3.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 10:38 pm
        
        The careless book-keeping of a small political party was treated like something tantamount to slave trading. And if you didn’t get the picture there was a rich, disgruntled man with a pretty secretary and a little crucifix to make you see the seriousness of it all – like a poor man’s version of the Soprano’s.
        
        vto 11.3.1.1.1.1
        
        18 August 2010 at 10:46 pm
        
        You may have missed my second paragraph Olwyn.
        
        Olwyn …
        
        18 August 2010 at 11:39 pm
        
        As I remember it, the dispute revolved around the relation between Peters himself and the finances of NZF: whether or not he actively solicited donations to the party, whether or not he knew exactly what those donations were, and whether money donated to NZF counted as money donated to him.
        
        I do not think that the media necessarily lied about facts, but Peters may not have lied about facts either – one can solicit donations in such an oblique way that it does not count as soliciting, and I imagine politicians can become quite good at this.
        
        However, the media did convey these things with a lot of obfuscation, at fever pitch, as if whatever he had done was the outrage to end all outrages. It almost didn’t matter what he had done – all you needed to know was that it was outrageous.
        
        vto …
        
        19 August 2010 at 8:29 am
        
        What planet are you on Olwyn? “one can solicit donations in such an oblique way that it does not count as soliciting, and I imagine politicians can become quite good at this.”.
        
        one can tell lies in such an oblique way that it does not count as lying, and politicians are in fact the best in the land at this.
        
        liars are as liars do.
        
        One of the great flaws of politicians, imo, is that they seem to actually believe that people don’t notice their deception / lying. Example – Key saying the current iwi/kiwi is inaccurate after having said the 2005 iwi/kiwi was accurate. BULLSHIT ON KEY. What a f….g deceptive lying prick.
        
        Another example – Winston Bjeikle-Peterson roared with moral outrage over the winebox enquiry despite everything being in compliance with the rules. At the same time he claimed Tuku Morgan was ok with the taxpayer paying for his undies because he was in compliance the rules, despite the outrageous moral situation. BULLSHIT ON BJEIKLE-PETERSON. What a f……g deceptive / duplicitous prick.
        
        Personally, I loathe these politicians. Just as I loathe any person around me who lies and deceives. And the two situations are directly comparable – Politicians have granted to them such massive powers which directly and absolutely affect our personal lives in many many ways – of course it is intensely personal. Fuck them.
        
        Pascal's bookie …
        
        19 August 2010 at 8:50 am
        
        “Politicians have granted to them such massive powers which directly and absolutely affect our personal lives in many many ways of course it is intensely personal. Fuck them.”
        
        Quellism.
        
        The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way you stand a far better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous, marks the difference – the only difference in their eyes- between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life, and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.
        
        Richard Morgan, Altered Carbon.
        
        As always, I remain opposed to unneccessary violence. 😉
        
        loota …
        
        19 August 2010 at 9:00 am
        
        It seems the bar for ‘unnecessary’ is inching higher by the week.
        
        vto …
        
        19 August 2010 at 12:44 pm
        
        mmmm, very interesting p’s b. Seems Mr Quell and I are on similar pages.
        
        Of course the only solution is to strip back the politicians power. Give it back to the people.
        
        Been tinking recently that maybe it is time to, to an extent, let policies of political parties play less of a role in voting decision-making and bring the integrity and principles of politicians way up the ladder of factors to consider.
        
        In this way Key and Peters are out. But is Goff in, on this basis?
        
        Pascal's bookie …
        
        19 August 2010 at 1:11 pm
        
        But is Goff in, on this basis?
        
        Fucked if I know. Which would be the problem I think.
        
        Fake integrity, as the saying goes, and you’ve got it made.
        
        (BTW, Quellcrist Falconer, who is fictional, which is probably for the best all things considered, is a woman and was also quoted thus: “There are some arenas so corrupt that the only clean acts possible are nihilistic.”)
        
        RedLogix …
        
        21 August 2010 at 9:17 pm
        
        Yes PB.. that’s the mood I’m in right now. Mostly I want the best for them, and sometimes I want them to get on with their own stupid self-imolation… and then there are the times I’m ashamed for even caring.
      - Puddleglum 11.3.1.1.2
        
        21 August 2010 at 8:18 pm
        
        Hi vto, Sorry I haven’t responded earlier.
        
        Peters’ primary lie was to say that he hadn’t received a donation from Glenn. It was a lie to the public and was done so that his criticism of the donations into trusts that National operated could appear to come from a position of not using such trusts. The various investigations initiated, for example by Hide with the Police, etc. were meant to suggest that something illegal was afoot. I think three investigations concluded that, in a legal sense, there were no grounds to move on Peters.
        
        My point was that, so far as anyone can tell, there was therefore little that was illegal in the receipt of the donation from Glenn, except the technical issue of filing returns (perhaps – I’m no expert on accounting and financial reporting). Yet, there was a concerted campaign, duly reported blow by blow by the media who served as stenographers for these claims from Peters’ political opponents, whose aim was to suggest illegality.
        
        You seem to think that suggesting that politicians strategise about how to undermine opponents means I’m making “accusations of conspiracy”. Well, if that’s your measure of being a conspiracy theorist then count me in. Politicians do this all the time. Read a few political biographies and it becomes apparent. International ‘diplomacy’ often follows similar ‘conspiracies’, if you wish to call them that.
        
        Having read some of your comments below where you make it clear that you have little respect for politicians, I have to say I’m surprised that you appear to think they are, in general, above mounting a deliberate campaign to target another politician.
        
        I agree with you that many politicians have lost a sense of what is ‘moral’ behaviour, what is lying, etc.. That’s why I made the point that politics is a “compost-rich ground” for such behaviours – they happen all the time so, once a politician’s opponents have sufficient reason to go on the attack, it is relatively easy to draw blood. That’s why I said concerted attack campaigns in politics usually work.
        
        This was clearly a case of a concerted campaign – call it ‘dogged and noble opposition’ if you want to (it’s the same thing).
        
        RedLogix 11.3.1.1.2.1
        
        21 August 2010 at 8:55 pm
        
        Peters’ primary lie was to say that he hadn’t received a donation from Glenn.
        
        A terrible tactical error on his part. The correct answer was “None of your business, I’ll reveal my finances when National does the same for theirs”.
        
        I wonder how often he must have kicked himself for such a stupid mistake.
Pete 12

18 August 2010 at 11:52 am

Actually, good on Danyl for giving us a peek at his thinking. At least this sort of disclosure gives us some decent debate about the real issues that need to be addressed to allow parties on the left to have broader appeal.

Though I agree that it’s strange to vote for National and expect something else (despite the pre-election facade).

As a side note – the Crosby-Textor machine are, without doubt, very good at what they do – even Dunne raised ‘Nanny state’ in the house yesterday – so clearly the themes they established have legs.
vto 13

18 August 2010 at 12:15 pm

Guilty.

Well actually not quite. Like Deborah above, the distance Clark et al had, imo, fallen from grace over many many issues left a very distasteful taste in the mouth. Peters and Owen Glenn and Clark’s refusal to deal with it. Anti-smacking. Pledge card. EFA. Cullen’s nasty attitude at times. the list goes on. Integrity and credibility had become too compromised, which when combined with a tendency towards rightish policies left limited choices for myself and I suspect many other NZers.
KJT 14

18 August 2010 at 12:21 pm

The problem is our system where you do not like one lot of arrogant dictators, the only way of sending them a message you do not like what they are doing is to vote in the lot you voted out the last time.
NACT are pretending to listen to us. Labour did not even have the courtesy to pretend.
Both lots are only slightly different flavours of Neo-lib anyway.
Labour will not get any traction unless they come up with real answers instead of more of the same that has already failed.
Time for real democracy.
- The Baron 14.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 1:18 pm
  
  real democracy being…?
  - KJT 14.1.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 1:49 pm
    
    Try this. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ Of course people having a say in their own destiny is anathema to politicians because it takes away their power.
    - The Baron 14.1.1.1
      
      18 August 2010 at 3:28 pm
      
      Oh no, I’m onboard, at least in a funky thought experiment kinda way. Representative democracy has some funny undemocratic outcomes – but so could direct democracy too… but i see where you’re coming from.
The Baron 15

18 August 2010 at 1:17 pm

Holy crap – we have turned one blogger around! If that isn’t a reasonable proxy for the public at large, I don’t know what is!

VICTORY IS SURELY OURS NOW! Start printing the Rosettes!
bbfloyd 16

18 August 2010 at 2:07 pm

when i first discovered the standard i had got to the point where i was starting to think i was living in a giant nut house.
it seemed that i was the only one in the country who saw through (don)keys lies. it seemed so completely obvious to me that he was talking out of his arse pretty much all the time. but what i saw on tv and in the newspapers led me to believe that it was only a matter of time before i got locked up as being an annoying nutter for speaking my mind…
my thanks to the standard for restoring my faith in the intelligence of new zealanders. although it must be remembered that even a well patronised and informative blog such as this can only reach so many people.
challenging people to think has it’s risks when the majority of people tend to use their emotions instead of their intellect to decide their opinions on issues. a situation encouraged by the very people who profit from having compliant consumers.
in a reactionary environment such as this, intelligent, thought provoking comment that invites a considered response is going to do no more than create stress and resentment in the minds of those who have never exercised that part of their brain.(or felt they needed to)
it has been my experience that whenever i have succeeded in making ditto heads listen to themselves, the response has been for them to resort to partisan name calling.(we see that on this site every day).
so it would be overly optimistic to expect your warnings to make any appreciable difference to mainstream thinking. that doesn’t mean it’s pointless to try. we can only hope that, in the end we’re not left with nothing more than…..i told you so.. why didn’t you listen…
thanks.. i feel better now that i’ve got that out..
Draco T Bastard 17

18 August 2010 at 2:17 pm

Reading his post it’s obvious that he bought the lies that National sold him and he’s still holding on to them tightly. He hasn’t yet realised that the last Labour led government didn’t tell him how to live his life especially in comparison to the present National led government authoritarian streak.
Danyl Mclauchlan 18

18 August 2010 at 2:33 pm

I never thought of DimPost as anything but conservative and could never figure why it was regarded as a left site.

My support for progressive taxation and drug legalisation stand is pure Edmund Burke. Oh Standard authors and commentators! I’m just a butterfly for you to pin and disect.
- Tiger Mountain 18.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 2:40 pm
  
  Dig deep Danyl, what is your world view really? Grab us fellow travellers by the lapels of our black leather 3/4 length coats and tell us…
- The Voice of Reason 18.2
  
  18 August 2010 at 2:58 pm
  
  More like a moth who thinks he’s a butterfly, I’d suggest, Danyl.
  
  As a one man band, rather than a collective, your site is a reflection of personal views, some of which I agree with, but most of which I had found hard to reconcile with the left perspective attributed to you by others. I’m glad to have some light shone on where you are (or were?) politically and even if you are an accidental Tory, you do write bloody well. You’re no Auberon Waugh, mind you, but then, none of us are.
Danyl Mclauchlan 19

18 August 2010 at 2:58 pm

Dig deep Danyl, what is your world view really? Grab us fellow travellers by the lapels of our black leather 3/4 length coats and tell us

That seems like a waste of my time, don’tcha think? I’ve written about this subject extensively on my own blog, but if Marty had been of a mind to read that instead of making stuff up then he wouldn’t be writing at The Standard.
- felix 19.1
  
  18 August 2010 at 4:39 pm
  
  Yep that would be a waste of time.
  
  A waste because apparently whatever it is you believe you don’t see a problem with voting against those beliefs and then complaining that you’ve elected a govt which doesn’t share those beliefs.
  
  But yeah, Marty has no idea about you and neither does anyone else. You elusive little butterfly.
  - NickS 19.1.1
    
    18 August 2010 at 11:14 pm
    
    But yeah, Marty has no idea about you and neither does anyone else. You elusive little butterfly.
    
    There’s only one solution for that, napalm. Or is the libertarian propaganda device, with that over simplistic 2 axes political compass?
    
    /shrug
B 20

18 August 2010 at 11:08 pm

My theory: people in general just do not think deeply about who would be best to vote for. Few actually analyse policies or look at our political history when making a decision. Lots of people dont recognise media spin – they take the news at face value.
loota 21

19 August 2010 at 9:10 am

No you guys are being way too complex.

NZ’ers vote for their politicians like they pick race horses at the track. They go for the one who they think is going to win.

Key successfully portrayed that winning image while his machinery managed to cast Labour as the losers well before the date of the general election.

This basic principle is what makes the MSM and C.T. such critical, integral parts of National’s success.

It is also a large ingredient in what makes Jonkey so popular – a poor boy done good. The very example of the (American) dream. A natural winner, someone who shows that it can be done. Even as the ranks of poverty and hardship increase.
M 22

20 August 2010 at 1:36 pm

`I mean, it’s not like there was a shortage of clues this would happen.’

Wonder if the line uttered by the Countess de Merteuil (Glenn Close) in the film ‘Dangerous Liaisons’ would be suitable on this occasion:

“Like most intellectuals, he’s intensely stupid.”