Of course it’s dirty politics

39 comments on “Of course it’s dirty politics ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ed 1

   13 July 2020 at 10:24 am

   I agree with your summation.

   However, it is much hard to resist such dirty politics, when significant parts of the media work in collusion with the National Party.

   Glen Johnson wrote an excellent article pointing out the way the billionaire press, fronted by Fox News style presenters ( Garner, du Plessis-Allan and Hosking) have framed the narrative so that "public health concerns have been eclipsed by a clamouring commentariat, all seeking to score political points and undermine the government's health-first priorities."

   How New Zealand's media endangered public health

   My full thoughts on the issue are here under Open Mike today.

   https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-07-2020/#comment-1729216

   [Link to comment fixed]
   • mickysavage 1.1

     13 July 2020 at 10:27 am

     Thanks Ed. Weka suggested we should turn this into a guest post. OK by you? There is a bit of information sought to do this.
     • Ed 1.1.1

       13 July 2020 at 10:39 am

       OK
2. Patricia Bremner 2

   13 July 2020 at 11:03 am

   The masks slipped to show the inflated belief that "winning is everything"

   New Zealanders of all stripes have weathered the lock down period with relief and pride that we have controlled this "tricky virus" so well.

   There is now growing anger at perceived threats posed by self interested politicians journalists and absconding returnees.

   National and some in the msm have made a health issue a political football instead of joining the team to fight this, and show poor ethics and judgement, and yes nasty "Dirty Politics"….planned and deliberate leaks… perhaps initially from the MOH or related department?

   Criticism is acceptable but wrecking and endangering is not, and that is a clear message to a party who appears to be losing their new mandate, and their hard right wing will peel off and possibly join Act.

   Those in the centre may join Labour or the Greens, though NZ First could gain as well.

   The problem for National now is a lack of credibility and sound policy which will see them in realms of the 20% region again. It will be a slow road back.
   • Adrian 2.1

     13 July 2020 at 11:21 am

     If they get into the 20s does Goldsmith have to win Remmers.?
     • ScottGN 2.1.1

       13 July 2020 at 12:35 pm

       Epsom.
       • Peter 2.1.1.1

         13 July 2020 at 12:41 pm

         Goldsmith doesn't have a hope in hell of winning Epsom.
         • Barfly 2.1.1.1.1

           13 July 2020 at 2:51 pm

           It would be very funny if he tried and failed
           • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.1

             13 July 2020 at 4:21 pm

             It'd be even funnier if he didn't try and won anyway.

             It would Act to retain him in the house and the gun nutbars out. A win-win for everyone with common sense.
             • georgecom …

               13 July 2020 at 6:59 pm

               whether he wins or loses it will be wonderful to see Goldsmith actually having to try and win the seat and will be great to hear Seymour whining about his rent boy deal disappearing and having to fit for his political survival. Go Goldsmith.

               [Fixed same error in user name]
               • Incognito …

                 13 July 2020 at 7:11 pm

                 Fixed same error in user name again.

                 Do you read any of the replies to your comments at all?
         • Incognito 2.1.1.1.2

           13 July 2020 at 9:30 pm

           Why do you say that?

           https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2017/electorate-details-12.html
3. Dennis Frank 3

   13 July 2020 at 11:18 am

   Listening to Linda Clark's lawyer-view yesterday made it clear how vulnerable National is. Breaking privacy law is serious in a political context so close to an election. I wonder how soon Heron QC will issue findings from the inquiry. Boag seems liable to prosecution, but will parliamentary privilege protect the others involved??

   And even if the findings do suggest they can't be prosecuted, if there's evidence of collusion by those Nat MPs – and the media report it – the public are likely to deem them guilty as sin regardless.
   • nzlemming 3.1

     13 July 2020 at 1:22 pm

     Parliamentary privilege applies in the Chamber only, not to anything a Member might do. You've been around long enough to know this.
     • Dennis Frank 3.1.1

       13 July 2020 at 1:48 pm

       Yeah I know the principle. Whether it gets enforced is the question, and it depends on the behaviours in context. Prosecutions are produced by a judgment call made by prosecutors. All hinges on if they see misbehaviour as law-breaking or not.

       I suppose you may be implying that an MP breaks the privacy law if they supply private details of quarantine-breachers to the media? You & I could agree it looks like law-breaking, but a prosecutor may not. In law, opinions matter as much as facts…
     • Dennis Frank 3.1.2

       13 July 2020 at 2:00 pm

       Gordon Campbell has this on the issue, see http://werewolf.co.nz/2020/07/gordon-campbell-on-why-todd-muller-needs-to-own-the-privacy-leak-scandal/

       Apparently, the Privacy Act allows MPs to release private health information not only inside Parliament, but outside of it as well. Legally, Walker seems in the clear for what he did.

       That does seem weird, given that the libel laws – which exist to protect reputation from harmful allegations – DO make a distinction between what MPs can do and say freely inside the Parliamentary chamber, and what they can’t do with impunity outside of it.

       Alas for Michelle Boag, it seems that no immunity defence is available to her. Boag’s declared aim – to allow Walker to back up his previous comments about the ethnic/national origins of the people bound for quarantine in the South Island – would appear to contravene the Privacy Act.
4. observer 4

   13 July 2020 at 11:41 am

   It's actually worse than dirty politics. Maybe we need a new term – "dirty dumping on the public"?

   Point is, "dirty politics", nasty though it is, basically comes down to spreading manure about political opponents.

   This was about private citizens. People who are entirely innocent, and for all we know, may even be innocent of a heinous crime like voting for the wrong party. National shat on them anyway.
   • Tony Veitch (not etc.) 4.1

     13 July 2020 at 2:53 pm

     In a nut shell, observer. I always felt that 'dirty politics' never made much impact with the general public – just those pollies having a go at each other, don't you know.

     But this is much worse – this is the Natz potentially endangering the lives of the same public and undoing all the hard work that lockdown entailed.

     This is unforgivable in the eyes of, to coin a keyism, the mum and dad voters.
   • Pat 4.2

     13 July 2020 at 6:51 pm

     "Point is, "dirty politics", nasty though it is, basically comes down to spreading manure about political opponents."

     that would appear a misanalysis….if 'dirty politics' is as described by Mr Hager’s writings, there were many examples of non political actors being targeted/ used.

     Sadly (as tends to be typical) that which is stated by politicians as the case turns out to be the opposite…..they are nothing if not predictable
5. ianmac 5

   13 July 2020 at 12:30 pm

   The climate of constant hunting for dirt on the Government is Dirty Politics and the climate it exudes leads the National Party to normalise such use of hunted grubby stuff. The sad thing in the current viral crisis is that the people may loose confidence through constant efforts to undermine.
6. Robert Guyton 6

   13 July 2020 at 1:14 pm

   Woodhouse claims the emails he received from Boag were different from the ones received by Walker. How will we ever know if that's true; he deleted them. Was that so Muller could make the claim he (disingenuously) made?
   • nzlemming 6.1

     13 July 2020 at 1:26 pm

     More importantly, how can Woodhouse even make the claim if he a) hasn't seen what Walker was sent and b) hadn't even opened 3 of the 4 emails he was sent? Where are the journalists, so outraged by Glen Johnson's article attacking their integrity, and why aren't they asking these question?
     • observer 6.1.1

       13 July 2020 at 1:39 pm

       I don't think he's said that he deleted them without reading them, has he? His language has been deliberately vague throughout (as in "subsequently", a word meaning absolutely nothing – there's no other time he could delete them, unless he has a time machine!).

       But ironically these criticisms of journalists are also vague, and unjustified. When Woodhouse has fronted (he barely has) he has been asked these questions. See Kathryn Ryan on RNZ, for example.

       Specifics are important here. It's hard to discuss these complaints without examples.
       • Sacha 6.1.1.1

         13 July 2020 at 1:44 pm

         He would still need to know what was in the email to Walker. How did that happen?
         • observer 6.1.1.1.1

           13 July 2020 at 1:47 pm

           I think we can infer from the careful language NOT used that Woodhouse and Boag had contact in some form. Not hard to say "I did not reply to the e-mail" while leaving many other contacts possible.
           • Sacha 6.1.1.1.1.1

             13 July 2020 at 1:48 pm

             Or with party strategists like Adams or staffers like Hooton..
       • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.2

         13 July 2020 at 1:45 pm

         He quite clearly said he'd opened and read the first, but deleted the others without reading them. Not even faintly credible, imo. How then, can he claim they were different from Walkers? Utter nonsense. Untrue too.
         • observer 6.1.1.2.1

           13 July 2020 at 1:49 pm

           You're correct, that is the claim he made to Ryan:

           https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/420906/covid-19-privacy-leak-todd-muller-told-about-emails-on-tuesday

           It is (just) credible that he didn't open them, but therefore – not credible that he was naive about their content.
         • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.2.2

           13 July 2020 at 1:51 pm

           I recall hearing him say that too & I agree he's making a false claim according to his own testimony. Retaining him as spokesperson despite such implausible behaviour makes Todd look weak.
     • Sacha 6.1.2

       13 July 2020 at 1:42 pm

       Quite, let's hear who reassured him if not himself.
   • mickysavage 6.2

     13 July 2020 at 2:33 pm

     I am sure they were different in that some of them were earlier lists with some different people on them. I presume that it was the same list that was circulated. If not there are even more questions for National to answer.
   • Pat 6.3

     13 July 2020 at 7:06 pm

     Apparently nothing is irretrievable…..will his hard drive be subpoenaed and examined?

     It should be.
7. Reality 7

   13 July 2020 at 1:47 pm

   The "born to rule" self-entitlement of National seems to mean it's ok to do anything and everything, no matter how unethical, to get into power.

   Nikki Kaye displayed that on Q&A. If she had accepted the wrongs done, people could have at least respected her for acknowledging that. Instead she was more worried about Boag being upset etc. Where was her concern for the people who had their private details leaked.
8. Marcus Morris 8

   13 July 2020 at 1:47 pm

   In talking with Jack Tame on television yesterday Kaye made the astounding claim that in passing judgement on Hamish Walker one had to take the "human element" into account. Good Grief. Did she and her colleagues, as well as the usual media culprits, take that into account when they crucified Claire Curran and David Clark. Unadulterated hypocrisy from the party which claims it has a "moral duty" to win the election.
   • I Feel Love 8.1

     13 July 2020 at 2:49 pm

     Take into a account the "human element", like the Nats do when beneficiaries fuck up, or when people run from the police, or Turei, ironic how the Nats get all touchy feely soft on crime when it's their own.
9. anker 9

   13 July 2020 at 1:58 pm

   Marcus Morris, Yes really annoyed that Kaye attempted to play the victim card for Boag and Walker……………..we the people must realize that they are only human and gosh the guys are really hurting…………..

   So definitely conditional compassion for her own team………………….where is the outcry for the rancid behaviour of Woodhouse with the toilet seat with Curran picture??????

   No I hear deafening silence from the Nats…………………….
10. Stuart Munro 10

    13 July 2020 at 10:23 pm

    I think it can be regarded as part of National's "moral obligation to win" a kind of jesuitry or special pleading that looks a lot like delusions of infallibility now that the media are not entirely bought and the media life support Key enjoyed is no longer comprehensive enough to conceal it.
    • Wensleydale 10.1

      14 July 2020 at 2:30 am

      I still find it hilarious people are using the terms 'moral' and 'National Party' in the same sentence. I suspect they might mean 'amoral'.
11. Tricledrown 11

    14 July 2020 at 7:49 am

    Mullers Strong team can't stop the rot .polling means most of Nationals list MPs will be gone Goldsmith,Woodhouse.

    National in a complete shambles like Muller trying to make hits on the govt while trying to herd the Catastrophe of his leaking and Dirty Politics Caucus.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS