National seeks to stop free speech

100 comments on “National seeks to stop free speech ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Daveo 1

   15 February 2008 at 8:59 am

   No surprises there- the anti-EFA campaign has always been about free speech for the rich.
2. Santi 2

   15 February 2008 at 9:04 am

   Good on DPF for taking the EPMU to task and exposing it for what it is: an arm of the socialist Labour Party.

   That’s how the EFA works guys. You passed the law and now must live with its consequences.
3. James Kearney 3

   15 February 2008 at 9:07 am

   Farrar is increasingly becoming a one-trick pony. Just a few months back he was touting himself as an independent political commentator, now he’s in the Dom as a “National-aligned blogger” running a petty beatup over the EFA and trying to deny free speech to union members. What a jerk.

   [captcha: Irish expressed]
4. T-rex 4

   15 February 2008 at 9:07 am

   What’s the basis of his complaint? I could understand him having an issue if they WEREN’T registered as a 3rd party (given they are probably likely to campaign in support of Labour), but I can’t understand his beef now?

   Bringing to bear legislative powers you actively disagree with is fair enough though isn’t it? If you think legislation is bad then testing it and proving it as such is a good way to get it changed, I don’t think that’s hypocrisy.

   I’m not saying I don’t think DF is a hypocrite, simply that his actions in this instance aren’t necessarily hypocritical. Afterall, he’s being held to the same standards.
5. IrishBill 5

   15 February 2008 at 9:10 am

   I really don’t think there will be a “consequence” here Santi, it strikes me as just another DPF bush-lawyer/PR beat up attempt. The thing is he’s not very good at either.
6. T-rex 6

   15 February 2008 at 9:22 am

   From the article

   He said the union fell foul of the provision that “a person involved in the administration of … the affairs of a party” cannot register.

   It was heavily involved in the selection of candidates through its members on local electorate committees and in the party list selection process, he claimed.

   What would be a reasonable interpretation of “involved in the administration of the affairs of a party” in this case?

   Farrars point seems hollow: of course they’re involved in candidate selection, they represent 50,000 people!

   Does this mean I can’t register as a third party? I was involved in candidate selection at the last election… you know, what with being eligible to vote and all.
7. Benodic 7

   15 February 2008 at 9:31 am

   Just more evidence that National hasn’t learned its lesson from the 90s and is still gunning for the unions. The Nats know the EPMU can hurt them on their policies for workers so they’re trying to muzzle them.

   There’s no doubt Farrar will have been working in conjunction with the party on this given his extremely close links.
8. Robinsod 8

   15 February 2008 at 9:33 am

   I was at the Phoenix Foundation gig last night and Sam Scott gave the shout-out for a labour-green coalition. I eagerly await Davey’s complaint to the commission about that one…
9. Michele Cabiling 9

   15 February 2008 at 10:00 am

   Most Labour Party MPs and activists are trade unionists.

   A trade union is meant to represent ALL its members, not just those who vote for one party. Trade union support for the Labour Party using members’ funds is therefore a form of pro forma invoicing for political purposes of members who support other parties.

   Immoral by any normal standards …
10. Steve Pierson 10

    15 February 2008 at 10:08 am

    Michele. Unions are democratic and voluntary organisations. Members regularly vote on whether to affiliate or stay affiliated to a political party.Members who do not want to be afiliated can vote against it or leave the union. No union members’ funds are used for poltiical purposes without their consent.

    Affiliated unions have a voice in matters such as candidate selection but the unions do not direct Labour, nor does Labour direct the unions. Seperate bodies that cooperate, openly and democratically.
11. Tane 11

    15 February 2008 at 10:08 am

    ‘chele, I try not to engage with you but I will just this once and I’ll spell it out nice and simple:

    Trade unions are voluntary democratic organisations. That means issues like party affiliation are decided democratically by people who have volunteered to join. Last time I checked libertarians supported the right of voluntary democratic organisations to undertake political activity, or is the Libertarianz Party immoral now too?
12. the sprout 12

    15 February 2008 at 10:13 am

    “Davey and the National Party have decided free-speech is best left to the super-rich”

    never a truer word spoken. the rich deserve a louder voice, because they work so much harder than us ordinary folks and they know what’s best for us
13. djp 13

    15 February 2008 at 10:31 am

    Shouldnt the title of this post say “The EFA seeks to stop free speech”.

    Farrar is asserting the the EFA blocks the EPMU from becomming a third party. Whether he is right or wrong I dont know.

    you know what they say.. “the law is an ass”
14. Benodic 14

    15 February 2008 at 10:32 am

    The EFA says nothing of the sort and the Electoral Commission is just following process in considering Farrar’s claim.

    It’s Farrar who’s trying to muzzle the democratic rights of 50,000 working New Zealanders with this strange interpretation.
15. Matthew Pilott 15

    15 February 2008 at 10:36 am

    I think Farrar is incredibly stupid – how similar is the BRT and FSC to National? But his retarded assertions, they’re clearly one & the same.

    It’s just that there’s no-one of the left that’s as stupid and desperate enough to clutch at that straw (although it would be good as a laugh, now that Farrar’s kicked it off, any takers?) as Farrar clearly is.

    (CAP: enormous liquor. Well it’s Friday, why thank-you 🙂 )
16. peteremcc 16

    15 February 2008 at 10:39 am

    No benodic,

    if the EFA hadn’t been passed, then there wouldn’t be a problem.

    Farrar is making this complaint to highlight how ludicrous the EFA is.

    The EFA is what will ban the EPMU from registereing, not farrar, and farrar supports repealing the EFA which would allow those 50,000 workers their democratic rights.
17. IrishBill 17

    15 February 2008 at 10:39 am

    No djp, like I’ve said the chances of Farrar’s complaint being upheld are very slim. EFA complaints could be laid against lots of right-wing organisations and blogs including the FSC and Kiwiblog (the kiwiblog one might even have merit as it is a commercial blog) but nobody is stupid enough to bother. This is simply Davey letting his opportunism get in the way of good judgment.
18. Robinsod 18

    15 February 2008 at 10:42 am

    if the EFA hadn’t been passed, then there wouldn’t be a problem.

    And if the crimes act didn’t exist then people wouldn’t be able to be falsely accused of crimes either. Suck it up.
19. insider 19

    15 February 2008 at 10:43 am

    You guys are seeing this the wrong way. This is not IMO an attack on EPMU, it is instead an attack on Labour, the process it followed and some of the absurdities of the EFA, and in that light is consistent with his campaign on the EFA.

    I note none of you actually address what the LAW actually says but instead choose to ignore the argument and instead personalise it by attacking Farrar. Why is that? Are you not capable of reading the act?

    He did not write the law or pass it. All he is doing is asking questions of the appropriate authorities. Are you denying he has the right to do so?

    If he is found correct it will not be him “depriv[ing] the fifty thousand working New Zealanders the union represents from having a collective, democratic voice in this year’s election campaign.” It will be those that wrote and passed the law. Now I wonder who that was…?
20. the sprout 20

    15 February 2008 at 10:46 am

    “Farrar is making this complaint to highlight how ludicrous the EFA is”

    umm, no – Farrar is making this complaint because he’s stupid enough to do whatever his bosses tell him to do no matter how damaging it is to his credibility, and so lacking talent or real arguments that his best attempt is to try and get publicity for a lost cause through litigation.
21. peteremcc 21

    15 February 2008 at 10:50 am

    right…

    so he’s lacking arguments (those would be the arguments the EC are now considering) while your argument consists of saying that he doesn’t have an argument.

    oh and that would be the ‘lost cause’ that continues to get in the news media every time something like this comes up?
22. insider 22

    15 February 2008 at 10:50 am

    I woul;d add that it is a bit ironic for you to be castigating Farrar for supposedly supporting free speech for the rich, when rich Labour donor Owen Glenn is in the paper claiming he was offered a role in government.

    So is this free speech for the rich under national and free seats of power for the rich under Labour?
23. the sprout 23

    15 February 2008 at 10:58 am

    see what i mean – he doesn’t even seem to have the energy to trot out the fake, ampley disproven arguments that you guys manage to faithfully cut and paste here. i mean, how hard is that?
24. Daveo 24

    15 February 2008 at 11:00 am

    Owen Glenn wasn’t offered a cabinet position in exchange for his donation, it was for his experience in business and administration. You should stop smearing him: what you’re saying is libel.

    The point of the EFA is to level the playing field so everyone can have a fair say, not just the super-rich. Judging by National’s actions here it’s pretty obvious that if they can’t let the super-rich buy the election then they’ll try and silence ordinary Kiwis instead.
25. Matthew Pilott 25

    15 February 2008 at 11:02 am

    Yeah Insider, transport mogul would clearly be unsuited for, umm, a transport ministership. Let’s ignore reality though.

    The reason few have mentioned the details behind Farrar’s claim is that it is thoroughly absurd, although t-rex makes a good point.

    If Farrar has stumbled onto something, it is that a single provision of a several-hundred page bill was poorly written. However I find it unlikely that voting for membership constitutes “administration of a Party’s affairs”. Participation in an organisations democratic selection process is not administrative, it is functional.

    Farrar’s basically lying by mentoning the EPMU’s affiliation with Labour – that has absolutely nothing to do with the Party’s administration, another reason his complaint will be tossed out.
26. Matthew Pilott 26

    15 February 2008 at 11:05 am

    Daveo – you can’t fault the right for drawing such a conclusion about Glenn – it’s how they operate right? 😉
27. Daveo 27

    15 February 2008 at 11:10 am

    Yeah, it’s a pity we can’t all sell our ACC policies to the insurance industry aye?
28. Michele Cabiling 28

    15 February 2008 at 11:14 am

    Don’t be disingenuous Tane.

    Most non-political union members (the majority) join a union because although union membership is nominally voluntary, unions have been granted a statutory monopoly on the negotiation of collective contracts. Workers who want to be on the collective contract are thus driven into the arms of the union.

    Because the lion’s share of these people are not political, they have no ongoing involvement in union affairs. This meand a handful of organised activists can hijack the process, including committing union support to Liarbour, despite the fact that many members don’t want their union to do anything more than represent them where necessary in employer-employee negotiations and disputes.

    The organised activists rely on the fact that the majority of union members don’t take close order of what the activists are doing with members’ funds to get away with their political rorts.

    What a bunch of unwiped assholes!!!
29. Wayne 29

    15 February 2008 at 11:25 am

    Actually Michelle I’m a member of the SFWU and we had an election last year on whether to stay affiliated with labour. Every union member got to vote, including me. Affilation won – sorry love.
30. Michele Cabiling 30

    15 February 2008 at 11:27 am

    Just goes to show what a politically naive twat you are then, Wayne.
31. Wayne 31

    15 February 2008 at 11:29 am

    And that you were lying.
32. Robinsod 32

    15 February 2008 at 11:32 am

    politically naive twat

    This from “freedom ship” Cabiling? What a joke.
33. Michele Cabiling 33

    15 February 2008 at 11:46 am

    You, Robinsod[homosexual insult deleted], are also a politically naive trade union twat, so you can quit handing out the insults.
34. Tane 34

    15 February 2008 at 11:47 am

    Michele, you just got owned. Be a good sport for once and take it on the chin.
35. Matthew Pilott 35

    15 February 2008 at 11:57 am

    Interesting that Wayne is politically naive, when by Michele’s account, he’s one of the clever group that has managed to affiliate the SWFU with Labour under the noses of the politically neutral/apathetic members (who, if they cared that much about Labour affiliation, are free to form their own Libertarian-affiliated union, for the purposes of collective negotiations only, of course).

    Bit of a contradiction though, the “politically naive” carrying out affiliation rorts for a party?

    Think Tane got it right there.
36. lemsip 36

    15 February 2008 at 12:02 pm

    “Every union member got to vote, including me.” And how many ACTUALLY voted?

    Every eligible person over the age of 18 is entitled to vote in local body elections – how many actually vote? Somewhere between 40 and 50% I believe.

    In general elections 1/5 of people who are enrolled don’t usually vote.

    any studies on the voting patterns of union members?
37. Ruth 37

    15 February 2008 at 12:06 pm

    OT perhaps, but I would be very surprised is ‘Michele’ – I think it should be Michelle – is a woman. The rhetoric and style is most unusual for female writers. Plus he sounds kinda familiar.
38. Ruth 38

    15 February 2008 at 12:07 pm

    That’s ‘if’ not ‘is’.
39. Tane 39

    15 February 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Lemsip that’s the stupidest argument ever. I remember the vote going ahead and though I can’t recall exactly how many voted I’m pretty sure it was in the thousands and overwhelmingly for keeping affiliation.
40. Tane 40

    15 February 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Ruth, I’m pretty sure Michele is who she says she is – a female in her 20s. Someone posted a link to her Bebo page a while back and it checked out – her claims of Filipino ethnicity and all.
41. lemsip 41

    15 February 2008 at 12:13 pm

    It wasn’t an argument Tane it was a question. Good to know you can tell the difference
42. Tane 42

    15 February 2008 at 12:15 pm

    The subtext was clear lemsip. Don’t be disingenuous.
43. lemsip 43

    15 February 2008 at 12:18 pm

    BS Tane – i gave a rationale for asking the question or are you saying that the composition of the people who execerise their right to vote isn’t important?

    I don’t know much about the internal workings of unions so I was merely curious. Thanks for your tolerance
44. Michele Cabiling 44

    15 February 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Anyone who believes that Big Gummint is the natural instrument for the betterment of the human condition is politically naive.
45. Robinsod 45

    15 February 2008 at 12:25 pm

    i gave a rationale for asking the question or are you saying that the composition of the people who execerise their right to vote isn’t important?

    If people don’t vote they can’t complain (ask any of the apathetic Aucklander’s stuck with Banks about that one). The main thing is that the democratic process is there. If members feel strongly enough about disaffiliating they can campaign against affiliation and vote against it. As with all democratic processes you can lead a horse to water…

    I’m sure most unions will have their rules regarding elections up on their sites. You should have a look.
46. Santi 46

    15 February 2008 at 12:27 pm

    “The rhetoric and style is most unusual for female writers.”

    Is it the fact that Michelle who writes cogently, instead of the usual tripe from left-wingers, that makes her unsual in your eyes?

    Debate her, not stereotype her.
47. mike 47

    15 February 2008 at 12:29 pm

    “Owen Glenn wasn’t offered a cabinet position in exchange for his donation, it was for his experience in business and administration” Thats right Daveo and Taito was only trying to help a poor imigrant and Helen did’nt know she was speeding etc etc.
48. insider 48

    15 February 2008 at 12:48 pm

    I see no one has actually come up with any arguments as to whether Farrar has actually seriously misread the rules. One has said the EPMU voting is not an involvement in the administration of a party. Fair enough but limited. That would be fine but farrar’s letter outlined a range of involvements that went beyond just voting.

    I’m interested in whether any of you have the horsepower to play the issue not the man. It’s also intersting that some are so selective in concerns about libel yet miss these gems:

    “Farrar is making this complaint because he’s stupid enough to do whatever his bosses tell him ”

    “Farrar’s basically lying…”

    “he (and presumably his National Party employers) are trying to deprive the fifty thousand working New Zealanders the union represents from having a collective, democratic voice…”
49. MikeE 49

    15 February 2008 at 12:51 pm

    The irony of this is lost on the readers of the standard.
50. Inventory2 50

    15 February 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Slightly off-topic, but what about Glenn’s call for New Zealand to adandon the anti-nuke legislation? Seeing as Clark and Co got a bee in their bonnet when National decided (quite rightly and belatedly IMHO) to support Nuke-free NZ, are they happy accepting the tainted money of a uranium supporter?
51. insider 51

    15 February 2008 at 1:04 pm

    SOunds like a rich prick more interested in making money than principle I2. Not the kind of person Labour should associate with.
52. Matthew Pilott 52

    15 February 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Insider – do you have a link to Farrar’s letter – I was basing what I saw around the DomPost article, I didn’t realise there was more to it. I suppose I should subject myself to kiwiblog for a look, right?

    Mike (not mikeE) try and be constructive, that comment’s about as useful as me suggetting you beat your wife. Which I wouldn’t do, because it’s not constructive. So, got any evidence that Glenn was asked to consider a ministership in Transport because it’s an area with which he has a lifetime of experience and knowlege, as opposed to because he gave Labour money. Or are you being a turd-throwing monkey?

    P.S here’s a hint from the article, in case you are as dim as your post makes you appear:

    “In the past, Miss Clark had tried to lure him back to New Zealand and into the Labour Cabinet, suggesting that, with his background, he would be a sitter for the plum role of transport minister”

    The key word is PAST. I.e. before he made the donation.
53. George Darroch 53

    15 February 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Or, the EPMU could disaffiliate from the Labour Party. The EPMU should be an independent body, free to support whoever best supports their members – this isn’t the 1930s, and Labour isn’t synonymous with labour.

    IrishBill says: A union can’t disaffiliate without the permission of its members. That would be undemocratic. If you’re so worried about the plight of EPMU membersyou should join the EPMU and then campaign for disaffiliation. I’m sure they’ll all thank you for emancipating them.
54. Matthew Pilott 54

    15 February 2008 at 1:19 pm

    I2/Insider – people, as you may be aware, have differing opinions. You don’t have to agree with everything Labour does to support them or give them money. Do you think Labour should refuse his support because of this personal opinion of Glenn’s (which was only expressed recently, and not when the donation was made, FTR…)?

    insider – read the article before spouting off – he said he liked the direction of NZ under Labour and Helen Clark.
    “She was determined, honest and really cared about the country and its people, he said. “I think you get a fair deal from her.””

    No principle there eh?
55. IrishBill 55

    15 February 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Boys, boys, boys, I’m not gonna waste my time refuting Farrar’s complaint because it would involve a long winded explanation of how the democratic structures of the EPMU and the Labour party work and frankly I can’t be bothered. I suggest you read the decision when his complaint is rejected.

    Suffice to say his argument is predicated on the idea that the EPMU and other affiliated unions (he tends to conveniently conflate the two) have a level of influence in the Labour party that they simply don’t.

    I’ve noticed that National seem to be starting to smear unions this year. What are they afraid of? That their plans to fuck-over Kiwi workers will be revealed?
56. Michele Cabiling 56

    15 February 2008 at 1:22 pm

    “She [Helengrad] was determined, honest and really cared about the country and its people, he said. I think you get a fair deal from her.”

    Determined … yes.

    Honest?

    Paintergate
    Doonegate
    Speedgate
    Marriage of covenience

    Honest? Don’t think so ….

    Really cared about the country and its people?

    Really cares about the attainment and retention of political power to order the world as she wills in her overweening arrogance, more like!!!
57. ghostwhowalks 57

    15 February 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Remember the party hopping legislation that the right opposed, opposed that was until they needed it to get rid of Donna Awatere BEFORE the election.
    Farrar also claimed in january that his blog fell under the news category for the purposes of the EFA , was ‘non commercial’ inspite of having advertisements.
    The guy has the vocabulary of George W Bush when it comes to telling whoppers.
    Now he is running stories passed on from nationals american style ‘oppostion research’ unit ( muck rakers) so that they get a bit of background to see if the MSM pick them up. Its pretty tame stuff right now but no doubt much more lies are being prepared over the next 9 months
58. Tim 58

    15 February 2008 at 1:47 pm

    The word “trade union” is no longer a synonym for “Labour Party” in New Zealand.

    Only the EPMU, the SFWU and the Dairy Workers’ Union are affiliated to the Labour Party. Their combined membership is around 70 – 80,000 people out of a total of about 325,000 union members in unions that are part of the NZCTU.

    It is odd that the voting process for affiliation in unions is being criticised, when companies don’t need to get majority approval from shareholders or hold a shareholder vote before making donations to political parties.

    My personal opinion is that no trade union should be affiliated to a political party, all trade unions should be independent from Government. However, unions should support parties that deliver for workers.
59. George Darroch 59

    15 February 2008 at 2:04 pm

    If the EPMU membership think their best interests lie in being affiliated with Labour, then they’re welcome to do so.(incidentally, when was the last time the membership got to vote on affiliation – I’m asking out of ignorance). However, there’s a price they may have to pay – no longer being allowed to campaign ‘independently’ of Labour.

    As you note Irishbill, the EPMU and the Labour Party have constitutional structures, and it isn’t obvious that the complaint will be upheld. I’ve got great respect for Helena Catt as head of NZ electoral commission, and will be interested to see her ruling.
    
    IrishBill says: The last time I know of was 2004 but they may have voted again since then
60. insider 60

    15 February 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Matthew

    Link to his letter is here. I,m convinced he didn’t write it but a friendly lawyer, judging by the format and style.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/02/epmus_third_party_eligibility.html

    I’m surprised it’s not linked to in the original post above.

    On Owen Glenn, of course he can have a different opinion – my comment was a joke. It would actually do Labour good to have someone like him in cabinet as one of the concerns around wellington is that there is not enough testing of issues within the executive and by the civil service. Sometimes having a heretic close to you asking the hard questions can have a benefit of testing your own faith.

    I’d also say that there is nothing wrong with HC asking him to get into govt. Various union, business and farming leaders have done the same over many years. No big deal. I also have no problem with his gong. I would prefer he got a few board positions on SOEs rather than some of the lightweight and outright political Labour appointees that are increasingly stacking govt entity boards.
61. IrishBill 61

    15 February 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Tim, I agree with you as I believe in industrial unionism but the Labour party was founded out of the union movement as their political arm (I guess Farrar’s argument would have held more water in the 1930’s!) and there are arguments that it is a union’s duty to use every avenue they can to advance their members interests including building political influence.

    The issue of political engagement is one that is hotly debate in unions world-wide. The biggest recent example of this was the SEIU split from the AFL-CIO in 2005 over just such an issue. The way I figure it, it is best to leave it to union members to democratically decide which way they want to go. After all since voluntary union membership was introduced it is very much a case of “the union is the members.”
62. Matthew Pilott 62

    15 February 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Insider – cheers for the link, I’ll have a read.

    Also on Glenn – it’s hard to tell the jokes from the sarcasm and baiting sometimes, sorry. It would indeed be interesting and useful to have someone such as Glenn in the Labour Party (from what I know of him). I think it’s a weakness to not be strongly represented by all areas and spheres of life, and Labour isn’t strong in that area. I guess many people such as Glenn tend towards the right!
63. Inventory2 63

    15 February 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Matthew P said “I2/Insider – people, as you may be aware, have differing opinions. You don’t have to agree with everything Labour does to support them or give them money. Do you think Labour should refuse his support because of this personal opinion of Glenn’s (which was only expressed recently, and not when the donation was made, FTR )?”

    If it was just a policy, I would agree with you Matthew. But “No Nukes” isn’t just ANY policy – it is Labour’s flagship – supposedly a sign to the world of what New Zealand believes in. As I’ve said on my own blog, I don’t believe that the nuclear policy would ever be up for sale, but it does strike me as odd that Labour was prepared to accept its largest ever single donation from a man who disagreed with their most bedrock policy.

    BTW – Captcha = sale starting – does this refer to Labour Party policy??
64. gladfly 64

    15 February 2008 at 2:35 pm

    I heard the fly-by-nighter taggers were chinless and wore scarves
65. Matthew Pilott 65

    15 February 2008 at 2:46 pm

    As I said, I2, Labour accepted the donation in, what was it, 2005? And he’s just said this now. Seems you’re just stirring a bit, but to answer, I disagree with Glenn and I imagine the Labour Party does.

    From the article, it doesn’t seem Glenn is planning to contribute again, but if he did, I’m sure it would be with the understanding that Labour’s stance on the anti-nuke policy is unchanged and unchanging. If that was enough to make him choose to not donate then so be it. Now he has this view it would be up to Labour to decide whether to accept his support, given that view is now known.

    Finally, I would say Labour’s core (or as I see it anyway) is based around social democracy, worker’s rights and equality; not to diminish the Nuke policy as it’s a New Zealand thing – I thought it was largely apolitical.

    P.S. the “sale starting” will be our assets and ACC if the Nats win 😉

    Gadfly – try the post about tagging, yeah?
66. Pablo 66

    15 February 2008 at 3:21 pm

    ” It would actually do Labour good to have someone like him in cabinet as one of the concerns around wellington is that there is not enough testing of issues within the executive and by the civil service. ”

    Collective Cabinet Responsibility means there can be debate and disagreement amongst Cabinet members but when a decision is made they all fall into line behind it.

    Seems to be a fairly long-standing feature of the Westminster system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_cabinet_responsibility
67. Michele Cabiling 67

    15 February 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Liarbour’s disgraceful anti-nuclear grovel of the 1980s was actually a triumph for militant Marxist-Leninism.

    IrishBill says: Deleted. Too long Michele. You’ve been told to use links. Have some respect for our property.
68. Tane 68

    15 February 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Tim, I understand the Rail and Maritime Union and the Meatworkers are also affiliated. The Labour website is very out of date.
69. insider 69

    15 February 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Pablo

    The point is that there is concern the debate isn;t even happening and that views that don;t ‘conform’ are just being ignored even if they have merit, with the excuse ‘well they would say that’. I have direct knowledge of one such this week. You don’t have to look too hard for similar such stories from a range of interested parties. And they are not just sour grapes.

    I have no problem with collective responsibility once a position has been taken. It;s the robustness of debate I have concerns about. The EFA is a salient example

    Captcha – annoucements cult
70. Inventory2 70

    15 February 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Matthew – me stirring? Sheesh, I don’t know whether to be flattered or offended!
71. The Double Standard 71

    15 February 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Well well well, are the Union boyz a little pissy today?

    Have you found that your heroes in Teh Party might have made a little mistake.

    I notice that you didn’t quote this line from the Dom

    “It is an interesting question and potentially an unintended consequence,” Dr Catt said.

    Sounds like its not as clear cut as you make out IB.

    And as usual you attack Farrar instead of actually addressing the issue.

    Double standards and hypocrisy at Teh Standard – situation normal
72. Michele Cabiling 72

    15 February 2008 at 4:13 pm

    IB you are a twat. You delete certain posts for “undue length” basically because you don’t like the substance, while leaving others intact.

    That’s called stifling debate.

    IrishBill says: and that’s called not learning from your mistakes. Take a week off Michele.
73. Matthew Pilott 73

    15 February 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Inventory2, umm – take your pick! 🙂

    Michele – soporifics don’t count as debate!

    TDS – Drama Queen, Extraordinaire! We’ve been over it in the thread, should you wish to comment. I notice that you don’t comment on the content of the post, but choose to attack the messenger instead – you have a surprisingly apt moniker. How is that hypocracy going?
74. Michele Cabiling 74

    15 February 2008 at 4:26 pm

    “Michele – soporifics don’t count as debate!”

    Personal attacks don’t count as debate either.

    Did you read my posting before it was taken down by the bog-dweller?

    IrishBill says: just in case you missed it further back Michele you’re banned for a week. Enjoy your weekend.
75. Matthew Pilott 75

    15 February 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Apologies Michele, it’s Friday afternoon, and I have a tendancy to make light of comments around then.

    I know, I know, you hope the barman pisses in my beer, etc.

    Take it easy 🙂
76. andy 76

    15 February 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Nat radio 5pm bulliten “David Farrar blogger with links to the National Party said……”

    Interesting.
77. Michele Cabiling 77

    15 February 2008 at 5:07 pm

    IB you are truly a spud-thick mick as in the great Stiff Little Fingers song “White Noise”

    Paddy is a green wog
    spud-thick mick
    fights all the time
    and thinks with his prick
    anything throws him
    if he can’t fight or drink it …

    IrishBill says: make that ban a month
78. Michele Cabiling 78

    15 February 2008 at 5:10 pm

    The bog dweller is a spiteful little bitch isn’t he …

    IrishBill says: and that’s two.
79. Matthew Pilott 79

    15 February 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Andy – that is becoming de rigeur – one has to wonder in the MSM was getting sick of getting called up in it repeatedly in the bologsphere.

    If you read the link to stuff at the top of this entry, Small introduces our friend as “National-linked blogger David Farrar”.
80. andy 80

    15 February 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Michele, give it a rest. You are truely odd!
81. Michele Cabiling 81

    15 February 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Well the guy is truly a knobspank!!!!!

    [lprent: Michele, please don’t let me get involved. And there is no need to answer, silence is sufficent.]

    IrishBill says: And that’s three months. See you in May, Michele.
82. Matthew Pilott 82

    15 February 2008 at 5:17 pm

    You’re on his patch michele.

    Learn to respect those property rights you worship. Everyone else accepts that they apply to blogs.
83. andy 83

    15 February 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Matthew,

    Yep but its a first for nat radio, think the honeymoon period is over for some types of commentators. I think in DPF’s case he may have criticised or been economic with a journalists work once too often.

    Also its only a matter of time for DPF when journalists start asking about his personal motivation beside his obvious ideological bent..

    I think attacking the EMPU may have been a step too far as they have been around for a long time and have some standing with employers as being moderate.

    If you can tune in an extended report on nat radio coming up..
84. andy 84

    15 February 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Nat radio Shorter:

    Mr Little: what eva!
    Mr Williams: he (DPF) is a funny little man
    Mr Farrar: they, they, they made me do it, waaaaaaaah…..
85. The Double Standard 85

    15 February 2008 at 7:45 pm

    I notice that you don’t comment on the content of the post, but choose to attack the messenger instead – you have a surprisingly apt moniker. How is that hypocracy going?

    How ironic of you Matthew. Was that on purpose? I suggest you go back and read it again and see if you can spot the on-topic part. Here’s a link to make it easy for you.

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1115#comment-18425
86. burt 86

    15 February 2008 at 7:59 pm

    TDS

    That is an excellent analysis. The issue here is that the EPMU may have run aground on the sames rules that were designed to restrict the EB.

    As the law was so well drafted, broadly consulted and non partisan we can only consider it’s not an unintended consequence at all. It’s deliberate. Keep the big money out of the elections, that what the people on this site supported!
87. burt 87

    15 February 2008 at 8:03 pm

    TDS

    That is an excellent analysis. The issue here is that the EPMU may have run aground on the sames rules that were designed to restrict the EB.

    As the law was so well drafted, broadly consulted and non partisan we can only consider it’s not an unintended consequence at all. It’s deliberate. Keep the big money out of the elections, that what the people on this site supported!
88. The Double Standard 88

    15 February 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Keep the big money out of the elections, that what the people on this site supported!

    No No No!

    Keep the big money away from National, that’s what the people on this site supported!
89. Robinsod 89

    15 February 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Hey TDS – I see you’ve got a little doggy to keep you company. Tell me bro, when the answer comes back that Farrar is full of shit will you recant? Oh, no of course you won’t you’ll be too busy veering off on some other trollish whimsy. Don’t for get to take your doggy with you. Good boy Burt, good boy, now roll over, rolllllll over burty boy…
90. George 90

    15 February 2008 at 8:39 pm

    I look forward to Farrar stopping anyone from the BRT, Federated Farmers, Family First, the Maxim Institute registering under the EFA, given their close close connections with the National Party. This of course stops farrar registering as he works for the National Party. Why do the words Hypocritical bastard come to mind. David, stop being such a hypocritical bastard, stop sulking like a baby, admit that your grubby little secret schemes of yesteryear are over and get on with life.
91. Gooner 91

    15 February 2008 at 9:25 pm

    I like to think I’m an objective, reasonable rightie and I will prove this by saying I agree with Matthew Pilott’s interpretation of the article concerning the offer of a cabinet post.

    The key word is PAST, and interpretatively it is quite clear it was before the donation, and is talking about prior actions and events.
92. Barnsley Bill 92

    15 February 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Pssst. how much for a junior ministerial job? i hear I can get transport for a 100K, but I really want sport. can you let me know how much?
    [lprent: sport is for the young clowns – haven’t you heard Teh Nats policy on fast cars]
93. Robinsod 93

    15 February 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Ha! Bill, it wasn’t funny on blogblog. It’s not funny here. Go to bed old man.
    [lprent: hey!!! I’m old as well. ]
94. Aunty Helen 94

    16 February 2008 at 6:41 am

    ‘Tell me bro, when the answer comes back that Farrar is full of shit will you recant?”

    Such a refined, classy, and educated individual this guy.

    Michael Porton, you are a disgrace to this blog and should go back to the sewer with your fellow rodents.
95. Robinsod 95

    16 February 2008 at 9:32 am

    Hey Aunty, you keep trying to post stalker-filth on our blog. Now you come here to insult me? You’re a creepy, creepy child, AH.
96. Barnsley Bill 96

    16 February 2008 at 10:19 am

    Leave rob alone, he is the best blog weapon National have this year.
    See fran is giving it heaps today, I wonder what the rest of the media will make of Owen Glen’s comments that he was offered a ministerial position… Oh and his outright lies about the EB timeline.
    The tangled web we weave eh lads.

Links to post

1. Farrar: Free Speech For Super-Rich, Not Workers « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 15 February 2008 at 10:00 am
2. PM announces plan to tackle graffiti at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 15 February 2008 at 11:28 am
3. Davey gets it wrong again at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 4 April 2008 at 3:57 pm
4. Bad politics at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 13 April 2008 at 8:29 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS