National seeks to stop free speech

Written By: - Date published: 8:56 am, February 15th, 2008 - 96 comments
Categories: election funding, workers' rights - Tags: ,

workrightsrally.jpgVernon Small reports today that National party blogger David Farrar has taken out a complaint against the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union’s registration as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act. Now aside from the fact that the founder of the Free Speech Coalition is trying to use the very legislation he has so actively campaigned against, it strikes me the bigger hypocrisy is the fact that 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 in this year’s election campaign.

Meanwhile Farrar has registered the Free Speech Coalition (which has backers including Business Round Table members Roger Kerr, Doug Myers and Peter Shirtcliffe as well as senior National Party members) as a third party.

It seems Davey and the National Party have decided free-speech is best left to the super-rich. I very much doubt this complaint will be upheld but it does show the attitude of the Right to working Kiwis: “STFU“. I guess they figure democracy is too important to leave in the hands of ordinary people.

Just as an aside, I wonder if this attempt has anything to do with the fact that EPMU members led the campaign to stop National’s last attempt to take all work rights from tens of thousands of workers in 2006?

UPDATE: Blogblog weighs in over here.

96 comments on “National seeks to stop free speech”

  1. Daveo 1

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

  2. Santi 2

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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. 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

    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

    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

    ‘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. “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

    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

    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

    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. 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

    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. 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

    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. “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. 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

    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. 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

    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

    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

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

  27. Daveo 27

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

  28. Michele Cabiling 28

    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

    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

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

  31. Wayne 31

    And that you were lying.

  32. politically naive twat

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

  33. Michele Cabiling 33

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

  34. Tane 34

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

  35. Matthew Pilott 35

    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

    “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

    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

    That’s ‘if’ not ‘is’.

  39. Tane 39

    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

    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

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

  42. Tane 42

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

  43. lemsip 43

    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

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

  45. 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

    “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

    “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

    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

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

  50. 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

    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

    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. 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

    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

    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

    “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

    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

    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. 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

    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

    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

    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. 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

    I heard the fly-by-nighter taggers were chinless and wore scarves

  65. Matthew Pilott 65

    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

    ” 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

    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

    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

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

  71. The Double Standard 71

    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

    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

    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

    “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

    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

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

    Interesting.

  77. Michele Cabiling 77

    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

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

    IrishBill says: and that’s two.

  79. Matthew Pilott 79

    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

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

  81. Michele Cabiling 81

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.

    National seeks to stop free speech

  86. burt 86

    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

    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

    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. 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

    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

    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. 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. 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

    ‘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. 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. 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

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    22 hours ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago