Nats, have some pride in what you believe

25 comments on “Nats, have some pride in what you believe ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Craw 1

   7 August 2008 at 11:05 am

   Dear oh dear. Dirty ol’ Standard implicated in yet another Labour backed operation. You boy’s really are slippery.
2. higherstandard 2

   7 August 2008 at 11:05 am

   As this is more of the same I have nothing more to add to my comments here

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2685#comment-78741

   and here

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2685#comment-78753
3. illuminatedtiger 3

   7 August 2008 at 11:06 am

   I’ve been thinking the exact same thing over the past few days. If National really believes in honesty and transparency they would tell us why they want to sell off assets and how they think this will benefit us. It’s about time National argued for what it truly believes in.
4. Steve Pierson 4

   7 August 2008 at 11:16 am

   Craw. ‘boys’, not ‘boy’s’, and actually it should be ‘boys and girls’
5. Tim Ellis 5

   7 August 2008 at 11:18 am

   Steve I was at the National Party conference and I didn’t hear any secret agenda at all. So who to believe, somebody who was at the national party conference legally or somebody who was standing outside it protesting about it? There isn’t a secret agenda and this is just spin from you. A secret agenda is a plan to do something differently in office to what you plan to do on the election hustings. You know like the secret agenda that Labour rammed through in 1984 when Helen Clark was a minister and Michael Cullen was too.
6. Hoolian 6

   7 August 2008 at 11:18 am

   [lprent: Banned – so deleted.]
7. Policy Parrot 7

   7 August 2008 at 11:19 am

   TBPH – I think its obvious who the National mole is – Judith Collins for her welfare policies outlined earlier.

   Also, if people haven’t seen the Close-up Hoskings v Key interview, it may pay to take a look.

   http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1986026
8. Steve Pierson 8

   7 August 2008 at 11:34 am

   Tim Ellis. Well, we’ve heard three recordings of senior Nats telling delegates about their secret agenda and it’s simply not credible that those were the only comments made about a secret agenda… maybe you’re not in the in-crowd?
9. r0b 9

   7 August 2008 at 11:37 am

   edited – no longer relevant
10. Tim Ellis 10

    7 August 2008 at 11:46 am

    No we haven’t heard three recordings of that SP. What we have heard is a spy crashing a conference event and trying to goad National MPs into making admissions about difficult policy areas, and English saying that National’s policy is to hold on to kiwibank this term even though some National supporters don’t like it; Lockwood Smith saying National has had to change some of its policies to make itself more electable (like that’s news, National changed its anti-nuclear stance in 1990 because they knew they wouldn’t get elected on a nuclear platform and stuck to it, despite some wanting to change it).

    SP I back my knowledge of what goes on at National Party conferences than you do. But to be fair we are both biased. If there really was a secret agenda being expressed at national party conferences then the media would have picked it up. They haven’t. The big story is about labour party spies using dirty tricks to try and entrap MPs into saying things. I wrote in another thread a conversation I had with a Labour minister recently where he said that Labour will lose the election, made a lot of comments about Labour MPs which weren’t very nice, among others. If I recorded that conversation then he wouldn’t speak to me again. I suppose when you are a labour party supporter in such desperate times then you don’t really care if people don’t speak to you again. You are more interested in burning down the house.

    [lprent: As I said before. Personally I’d say you were lying about the conversation. I’ve found that labour politicians generally follow Rodney Hides dictum. What you describe is just a righties wet dream. Of course if you could prove it, say with a tape, then I might start to take it seriously. ]
11. r0b 11

    7 August 2008 at 11:50 am

    The big story is about labour party spies using dirty tricks

    You are a liar, spreading lies.

    The person in question has denied having any party affiliations – see this TV3 news piece.
12. Tim Ellis 12

    7 August 2008 at 11:58 am

    Calm down rob. I am not spreading lies. Read the opinion pieces in the herald and the dom this morning. They are about the ethics of using these dirty tactics to entrap MPs during secret recordings. rob given the person is anonymous and stooped to these tactics I don’t think we can take it as gospel what he says. That’s like believing Winston knew nothing about the Spencer Trust. Just because he says that doesn’t mean we automatically have to assume he’s being truthful. Winston is a proven liar in a court of law and is clearly a hypocrite. I don’t believe him. The person who sneaked into a National Party conference and used these gutter secret recordings to goad MPs into saying things.

    You can object to my saying they are labour party spies if you like. That is my belief rather than established fact but it is honest belief that the person conducting these secret recordings is a Labour party supporter, which is yet to be established. I believe in due course it will be established because the media are now on a witch-hunt and it won’t stay secret for long.
13. r0b 13

    7 August 2008 at 12:04 pm

    I am not spreading lies

    Ahhh – yes you are.

    You can object to my saying they are labour party spies if you like.

    Why thank you, very kind.

    That is my belief rather than established fact

    Then state it as a belief. Because when you state as a fact things that are not proven as fact, and are directly contradicted by the only person in a position to know, you are a liar spreading lies.
14. Tim Ellis 14

    7 August 2008 at 12:04 pm

    LP I don’t tell lies and I object to you calling me a liar. The scenario is not far-fetched and it happened. You ban anybody who calls you or a standard poster a liar. You have no evidence I am lying, and I am not calling you a liar but I do not believe that a labour party activist with close connections to labour party caucus members would have totally sterile, gossip free conversations with those caucus members. It challenges belief that there are no rivalries in caucus, whether petty or substantial. I am not calling you a liar and I understand that you are a party activist. I would ask you to extend the same courtesy to me. You might not agree with me but calling me a liar because I didn’t stoop to doing a secret recording of my conversation with a labour minister and then publishing it is going too far. Yes, it is hearsay, and not admissable in a court as evidence. But that is not the point.
15. Steve Pierson 15

    7 August 2008 at 12:07 pm

    I fail to see what is unethical about someone asking a wannabe Minister of the Crown for his position on important policies and then reporting that position to the people he wants to vote for him… if there was no secret agenda there wouldn’t be any secret recording… National brought this on themselves by lying to the people of New Zealand.
16. Phil 16

    7 August 2008 at 12:13 pm

    “The person in question has denied having any party affiliations”

    Tui bill-board, anyone? Get your head out of the sand r0b…
17. r0b 17

    7 August 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Innocent until proven guilty Phil. You Nat lynch mob types ought to have a wee break, a nice soothing cup of tea, and a bit of a think about that.
18. lprent 18

    7 August 2008 at 12:18 pm

    TE: “You have no evidence I am lying” – exactly. Otherwise I’d have specified and not used the words “Personally I think…”

    I suppose I should stop being lazy and write this as a comment. I have quite a lot of conversations with various politico’s all of the time, some social, and some while helping out. They are often about speculative topics, including post-Helen political structures.

    I’ve never heard a labour politician who says the lines straight out of Whale’s site or out of the cesspool that is DPF’s comment section. That is exactly what your description sounded like. As I said it sounds like a rightie’s wet dream.

    Frankly I don’t believe it without some verifiable evidence.
19. Ari 19

    7 August 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Phil- perhaps, but that’s the best we’ve got. National has proved nothing, it has made a bunch of empty allegations against its opponents. That is a dirty tricks campaign, and you didn’t hear Labour complaining about National plants when Mike Williams got caught out. Front up, chaps and chapesses.
20. darryl 20

    7 August 2008 at 2:13 pm

    “I’ve never heard a labour politician who says the lines straight out of Whale’s site or out of the cesspool that is DPF’s comment section.”

    Well actually Lynn I think John Tamihere would probably disagree with you… and look what happened to him!

    Personally I agree with Rodney Hyde, say what you think in public and private and that way you’re not likely to get tripped up by dirty little sneaks.
21. Matt 21

    7 August 2008 at 10:58 pm

    secret agenda – how is it a secret agenda that some national MP’s wouldn’t mind privatising some enterprises? (it should be noted that NZ would undoubtedly gain from having in the private sector) that just goes hand in hand with supporting enterprise. It doesn’t mean that is part of National policy, only a long term possibility.

    Labour MP’s wouldn’t mind nationalising a bit more, for no sound economic reason other than that they oppose private enterprise and free trade. to say SOE belongs to the people is a complete lie, and everytime a labour MP repeats that BS they are lying. You only have to listen to Clark on Key’s banking background and you realise that these people have nothing but contempt for hard work and initiative.

    Labour believe in themselves only, national believes in the people and their abilities. It really is as simple as National = morally good, Labour = morally repugnant.

    and on the Mike Williams thing – he got caught out conspiring to break the law. big difference
22. r0b 22

    7 August 2008 at 11:57 pm

    and on the Mike Williams thing – he got caught out conspiring to break the law.

    Wrong.
23. Razorlight 23

    8 August 2008 at 12:08 am

    rOb he may not have been conspiring…but he did say it was a bloody good idea!
24. r0b 24

    8 August 2008 at 12:17 am

    Yes he did. And it wasn’t a good idea. But it wasn’t against any law either.
25. Draco TB 25

    8 August 2008 at 12:38 am

    to say SOE belongs to the people is a complete lie,

    No it isn’t. An SOE belongs to the people because we paid for it – no lying about that. The reason why we paid for them is because they are economically unfeasible for private enterprise to set up while being a public good. This applies to all natural monopolies such as Telecom, power, roads etc

    It really is as simple as National = morally good, Labour = morally repugnant.

    The only evidence that’s come out though indicates that National are lying and that points to their morals – they don’t have any.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS