Open mike 11/12/2012

139 comments on “Open mike 11/12/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. KhandallaMan-an Absolutely Fabulous Viper 1

   11 December 2012 at 6:28 am

   Tracy Watkins wrote the following in the Dominion Post on the 21st November.

   “What would it take to quieten Camp Cunliffe after Labour’s pro forma backing of David Shearer? An olive branch, and preferably with the heads of Trevor Mallard, Annette King and Phil Goff skewered on it.
   Because the tussle between Camp Cunliffe and Camp Shearer is not just over performance, or personality, though both are big factors behind the train wreck leading up to yesterday’s 100 per cent backing of Mr Shearer.
   It is also about direction and resentment within parts of Labour at the role played by the “old guard” in last year’s leadership run-off.”

   So what effort has there been by “the old guard” to extend an olive branch?  
   Has an ’eminent arbitrator’ been been sent to look for middle ground for the sake of the country?  
   Have the supporters of Cunliffe been asked into Shearer’s office for a team-building chat?
   Me thinks not. Why, you ask!

   The mindset behind the Tamihere affair and the Curran bullying plan indicates that the Caucus leadership is pushing further and harder down the anti “vox populi” road. 
   The common themes in these two messes are rejection of the members preferences and brow beating of the NZ Council. Those themes align with the Caucus leadership’s fury over the 40/60 threshold vote at Conference and the demotion of Cunliffe for this “defeat”. 

   So, the party needs to find a path that binds the wounds and stops the Tamihere and Curran style hara-kiri acts of the current Caucus leadership. 

   If the membership are to be denied involvement in a February selection process then, in return, they have to see a new modus-vivendi for the whole Caucus.
   A February 100% endorsement of Shearer without any change to the composition, mind-set and behaviour of the current Caucus Leadership will have a withering effect on the membership. Cynicism, resignation, defection and revulsion will weaken the party very significantly.  
   That type of no-vote/no change scenario in February is not an option. 

   Moira Coatsworth, Tim Barnett, senior NZ Council members and former MPs must intervene to break this deadlock. 
    
   • Socialist Paddy 1.1

     11 December 2012 at 8:14 am

     Watch out Khandalla Man. Clare will be out to get you …
     • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised 1.1.1

       11 December 2012 at 2:28 pm

       The reality on the streets of Dunedin South is – to put it very politely and in the most generous terms – that voters in the electorate have experienced growing distance with the MP.

       From past voting figures, the Labour predecessor won a significant number of votes and held an impressive majority, while maintaining or even improving both the electorate and party votes at those levels (1999 – 2005).

       However, the numbers in this dark red Labour bastion have dropped quite noticeably under the current MP’s watch in terms of the electorate vote for the MP and, very worryingly, Labour’s party vote which was just recently LOST to National!

       Party vote:
       The predecessor oversaw a significant 10,656 party vote majority (in 2005).
       Under the current MP’s watch, the party vote plummeted by about 3,000 votes (in 2008), and then last year, fell more dramatically by 5,000 votes with the result that the party vote was LOST (!!!) to National. National won the party vote with a majority of 1,837.

       Electorate vote:
       The electorate votes dropped by about a thousand for the MP’s first election (from the predecessor’s 20,033 in 2005 to 19,199 votes in 2008), and despite having the advantage of being a sitting member, this MP’s electorate votes fell some more by another 2,355 (to 16,844) last year.

       At the rate things are trending for this MP, the future might see Labour lose also the electorate vote.
       • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised 1.1.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 2:45 pm

         deep red, rather
       • Geoff Cartwright 1.1.1.2

         11 December 2012 at 7:41 pm

         I live and breath south d everyday, I’ve been deep red labour since high school, but enough is enough, we need an functioning party, an inclusive vibrant energised organised with modern operational tecniques. There are people on the sideline who can will and want to contribute and bring about a labour victory NOW.
         I’m a professional of sorts, educated in operational management and marketing and have a skill set that is in dire need but dismayed at the power clique, the knive plays, the gate keepers and revolving chairperson positions.
         I have witnessed the rock solid safe seat of Dunedin south turn blue….CC lost the party vote.
         My eye weeped red blood tears at state of this once proud and strong seat.
         Now I’ve met CC a nice caring too be sure person who has paid her dues but enough is enough.
         A symptom of the misguided philosophy that has been adopted by the elite parliament wing which have devolved the party to merely silent letterbox stuffers.
         The Tories in my electorate where more organised connected resourced and more flexible -they won….learn CC and take it too the Tories NOW.
         • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised 1.1.1.2.1

           11 December 2012 at 10:47 pm

           “I have witnessed the rock solid safe seat of Dunedin south turn blue….CC lost the party vote.
           My eye weeped red blood tears at state of this once proud and strong seat”

           Yes, some major reconnecting and rebuilding needed.
2. Just viping 2

   11 December 2012 at 6:55 am

   http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/238634/curran-hits-out-online-critics

   Ms Curran responds.

   Interestingly, she says is concerned about bloggers criticising “other party members”. This convenient demotion of herself, other MPS and party management, to mere members for the purposes of spin really pisses me off. It is outright dishonest to deliberately misrepresent the power relations in the issue, and to pretend that serious political criticism is a personal matter between members.

   Also, she claims to have found CV’s identity from personal emails from CV to her*, rather than via red-alert. I suspect this may be untrue. Will be interesting to watch this unfold.

   *I’d be gobsmacked if CV has sent any emails signed-off as CV. Comparing email addresses between RA and MP correspondance is a completely different animal.
   • felixviper 2.1

     11 December 2012 at 7:04 am

     lol @ cc.

     fta: “Ms.Curran said she had sought discussion at the party council level about what was an ”acceptable” standard of behaviour, particularly when a member was expressing views anonymously, in a way in which was intended to damage other party members and the party overall.” [emph. mine]

     Big claim, cc. Hope you have some solid examples of that.
     • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1

       11 December 2012 at 7:34 am

       And it would be much clearer if she just released the letter she wrote to council, rather than just characterising it.
       • felixviper 2.1.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 7:40 am

         It really would.

         Clare, let’s have the letter out in the open so no-one can accuse you of sniping from behind closed doors in a way that could be construed as intending to damage other party members and the party overall.

         pic related
         • Jackal 2.1.1.1.1

           11 December 2012 at 1:15 pm

           You want an MP to release a private letter from a party member in breach of confidentiality laws? What a couple of morons!
           • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.1.1.1

             11 December 2012 at 1:19 pm

             No, a i’m suggesting an MP release a letter she wrote about party members to the council. She is busy saying what the letter contains, so why not release it?

             What letter are you on about?
             • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised …

               11 December 2012 at 1:28 pm

               The MP can release her letter of complaint which she talks about so much, without revealing, or causing to be revealed, the identity of any pseudonymised blogger.

               Or she may agree that those who are in receipt of her complaint letter may release that letter on request, while protecting the identity of the blogger.
             • Jackal …

               11 December 2012 at 1:48 pm

               I don’t think it’s legal to publicly release the correspondence from CV that identified him from personal emails without his permission to do so, and I don’t think it’s ethical to release a private email from Clare Curran to Labours council concerning how the party might deal with cyberwarfare. These are both private matters.

               Only a moron would think that some of the comments on The Standard weren’t designed to damage Labour.
               • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised …

                 11 December 2012 at 2:11 pm

                 There are no two ways about this. Even my less interested colleagues and friends can see the bullying, threatening and gagging that is driving the complaint letter. This is continuing to reflect poorly on the MP, the leadership and the party overall.
                 • Jackal …

                   11 December 2012 at 2:16 pm

                   Way to sidestep the issue of wanting private correspondence publicly release… But since you have obviously attained the letter yourself to be able to make such grandiose claims, why don’t you release it Jim Viperald? What’s that… You don’t actually have the letter? “Bullying, threatening and gagging” are pretty big claims to make about a letter that you’ve never even read eh!
                   • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised …

                     11 December 2012 at 2:40 pm

                     I hope you are reading your own comments when you type them, as well as what others have written.
               • One Tāne Viper …

                 11 December 2012 at 2:15 pm

                 Only an authoritarian would attempt to discipline someone for their “intention”.
                 • Jackal …

                   11 December 2012 at 2:21 pm

                   So if a party member is intent on damaging the party they belong to, should the party still accept them no questions asked One Tāne Viper? The intention was to damage Labour, whether the subsequent actions have actually damaged Labour is debatable.
                   • One Tāne Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 2:43 pm

                     How do you know the intention was to damage?

                     For example, my saying I think Shearer is a mumbling bumbling disaster is an attempt to improve the Labour Party, not damage it.

                     There are rules in place to discipline or expel members who bring the party into disrepute, for example, but they say nothing about “intention” because intention is basically impossible to prove.

                     I contend that John Tamihere, for example, had the intention of boosting his own fragile ego and expressing his puerile opinions, but he was expelled for the disrepute he brings to the party, not his “intentions”
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 2:47 pm

                     There’s a huge divide between creative criticism and criticism for the sake of it One Tāne Viper… And clearly that’s a decision for Labour to make, which is obviously why Clare Curran was seeking further advice on the issue.
                   • One Tāne Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 2:51 pm

                     Hence the relevant test is “to bring into disrepute”, not “to intend to bring into disrepute”.

                     PS: “seeking further advice”. That’s a very pretty spin you’ve got there. Have you seen her letter so that you can make such a bold interpretation of her intent?
                 • Jackal …

                   11 December 2012 at 4:16 pm

                   You’re playing with semantics One Tāne Viper. Someone can intend and attempt to bring a political party into disrepute… Whether they succeed or fail doesn’t detract from their initial intention, an intention that most bonafide members of a political party wouldn’t dream of.

                   You contend that I don’t know the content of the letter Curran wrote to Labours council, so cannot say if she was simply seeking advice or not. That to me would seem like the most plausible thing to do, for an MP to seek advice about members of their political party that were bringing that party into disrepute through access to information that only a member could have.

                   MP’s must at all time ensure that they and the party they belong to aren’t brought into disrepute whether this is actual or only perceived. In effect Clare Curran was trying to adhere to that rule by informing the council of the problem so that they could make an informed decision in order to reduce the amount of damage some bloggers and commentators were causing to the Labour party. Perhaps you don’t like my argument because it is too reasonable and not controversial enough?

                   You’re argument amounts to; none of the comments on The Standard matter and nobody believes what is written here anyway so they couldn’t have caused harm to the Labour party. Unfortunately this recent spat of infighting somewhat validates your argument One Tāne Viper.
                 • One Tāne Viper …

                   11 December 2012 at 4:26 pm

                   Do you mean “invalidates”?

                   “Plausible” – speculation!
                   “Intention” – impossible to ascertain without a specific statement of intent.
                   “Disrepute” – how does demanding open debate and a more democratic party constitute disrepute?
                   “Damage” – if the Labour Party can be damaged by public debate, the Labour Party is the problem, not the debate.
                   My argument amounts to – “The Standard is an open forum devoted to political debate, which cannot be anything but healthy, and those who seek to attack it belong in a wingnut gulag like the National Party, not the left.” FIFY.
                   • McFliper …

                     11 December 2012 at 4:30 pm

                     lol
                     +1 
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:16 pm

                     Another pretty decent semantic argument there One Tāne Viper, however the intentions were obviously acted upon. Besides, intent is still viewed as a crime under current law… And obviously people who intend to undermine Labour shouldn’t be member’s of the party.
                   • rosy viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:29 pm

                     I really don’t get where anyone can say CV had the intent to undermine Labour. Clare Curran and co may feel that what he writes does that, and that his words were ill-considered (I don’t think that btw) but imo in no way did he intend to undermine the party.

                     He advocated for membership and left wing values. If that doesn’t suit the current leadership that still doesn’t mean he intended to undermine the party.

                     And she’s being disingenuous when she is complaining that he is aiming at other party members. The barbs were directed at her and other right-leaning labourites in caucus. She in turn should be aiming to the right with her own barbs, not to the left, and maybe we’ll all be a bit happier.
                   • McFliper …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:30 pm

                     But CV’s stated intentions weren’t to “undermine” labour, but to improve it. And his comments, while strong, were pretty consistent with that intent.

                     There is a difference between criticizing the performance of elected representatives and simply referring to party members as “frontbums” or whatever JT’s wording was.
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:46 pm

                     I’m still at a loss to know why you think Clare Curran’s letter to the council was about CV?

                     While not saying who her complaints were against, several left-wing bloggers named the person as ”Colonial Viper”, from Dunedin, a member of the party.

                     It might be easier for some commentators here at The Standard to use CV as an example, but as far as I can tell Clare Curran hasn’t sought disciplinary action against any particular individual.

                     So why are you now saying my commentary about people who attempt to damage a party they belong to is strictly talking about CV rosy viper?

                     But CV’s stated intentions weren’t to “undermine” labour, but to improve it.

                     I must have missed that comment, care to link to it McFliper? People can state their intentions and then do the complete opposite btw, just look at what National promised before the last election.
                   • mickyviper in solidarity …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:52 pm

                     Hey Jackel.

                     Have you read the letter?  If not why are you going out so far on a limb?  Perhaps you should read it first and then comment. 
                   • QoT …

                     11 December 2012 at 9:01 pm

                     I really don’t get where anyone can say CV had the intent to undermine Labour.

                     Clare Curran thinks that the Green Party releasing policies which attract Labour voters is “undermining Labour”, so anything’s possible when she’s involved.
                   • McFliper …

                     11 December 2012 at 9:07 pm

                     Tell you what:
                     I’ll go back over the arguments I’ve had with CV over the last 3 months just to link to some of the numerous comments where he said Labour should follow policies xyz in order to INCREASE labour support…
                             
                     …When you supply the content of Curran’s email that you have been so earnestly defending here. 
                            
                     “Pete G of the left” indeed. 
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 11 December 2012 at 2:58 pm

                 I don’t think it’s legal to publicly release the correspondence from CV that identified him from personal emails without his permission to do so, and I don’t think it’s ethical to release a private email from Clare Curran to Labours council concerning how the party might deal with cyberwarfare. These are both private matters.

                 The only letter anyone suggested releasing was the one from Curran to the council. She has been describing the contents of that letter. It is the contents of that letter that are in dispute. Releasing it would clear things up.
                 • McFliper …

                   11 December 2012 at 3:09 pm

                   I’d also suggest that there is a public interest, and at least the membership would have access to Council documents? It would have been minuted by the Council secretary?
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 3:51 pm

                     Yes! So if that letter is already accessible to party members, why don’t the party members who are claiming such things point to the actual paragraphs where Clare Curran says she will name and shame CV etc? That would constitute evidence, and that’s what is currently missing from this debate.
                   • McFliper …

                     11 December 2012 at 4:38 pm

                     lol
                          
                     “Public” as well as “party” interest.
                        
                     Although if council correspondence were genuinely available to the membership, chances are a copy would have already been leaked… 
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:52 pm

                     I thought it already had, with Eddie writing:

                     ”Apparently, the letter also included reference to bringing The Standard ‘back into line’.

                     Or is this just more speculation?
                 • mickyviper in solidarity …

                   11 December 2012 at 4:33 pm

                   Um Jackel you are drawing a lot of conclusions from something you have not seen.

                   There is no way that CV wanted or intended to or did damage the party.  All he has done is engage in robust debate.

                   The party has always enjoyed robust debate.  You only have to attend a good old fashioned meeting of trade unionists to understand what has always gone on.

                   And the debate here has reflected this.

                   Curran’s attempt to stifle this debate is rather bizarre.  And to allow Tamihere back into the party despite what he said yet punish CV for something he may think is weird.

                   As for the letter why shouldn’t members be allowed to see it?  We have a say in constitution of the party list and on selection of MPs so any evidence about their approach to things is relevant.
                   • Anne …

                     11 December 2012 at 4:43 pm

                     You only have to attend a good old fashioned meeting of trade unionists to understand what has always gone on.

                     You only had to attend Labour Party conferences in the 70s and early to mid 80s to recognise that the robust debates on the conference floor (Wellington Town Hall – remember folks?) have now been transferred to the internet. As a supposed expert in communications, one would think CC could have figured that one out for herself!
                   • One Tāne Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 4:47 pm

                     “Supposed”

                     I think you may have hit the nail on the head there Anne.
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 9:14 pm

                     mickyviper in solidarity

                     Um Jackel you are drawing a lot of conclusions from something you have not seen.

                     As are others… The difference being that my conclusions align with what Clare Curran has been reported as saying and they do not malign a Labour party MP.

                     There is no way that CV wanted or intended to or did damage the party. All he has done is engage in robust debate.

                     It appears that Clare Curran’s letter wasn’t specifically about CV, and it’s difficult to say what his intentions were when he made numerous claims that clearly undermined David Shearer. In my opinion there was no positive aspect to many of CV’s critical comments.

                     Curran’s attempt to stifle this debate is rather bizarre.

                     I don’t think Clare Curran was trying to stifle debate, I think she was wanting to limit the damage to Labour that has occurred through the leaking of information by party members.

                     And to allow Tamihere back into the party despite what he said yet punish CV for something he may think is weird.

                     CV being punished by Clare Curran or CV self flagellating? I agree that letting Tamihere back into the party was weird.

                     As for the letter why shouldn’t members be allowed to see it?

                     Perhaps because it might involve potential policy that hasn’t been properly devised yet? I think the council should be given a chance to consult and then present a potential solution to the party’s membership first, that way nobody can claim things from what amounts to a private conversation in correspondence.

                     It’s also a private letter between Clare Curran and the council. They’re under no obligation to release it even to the membership.

                     Having said that I think the claims that have been made about what the letter might contain are probably more detrimental than what the letter is actually likely to contain, so it should be released.
                   • McFliper …

                     11 December 2012 at 9:43 pm

                     It’s also a private letter between Clare Curran and the council. They’re under no obligation to release it even to the membership.

                     Bullshit. It’s a letter to a representative committee. As inward correspondence it should be on record for membership. 
                            
                     There is no such thing as “private” correspondence to representative committees. 
   • lprent 2.2

     11 December 2012 at 7:45 am

     Or if you are sophisticated, comparing the IP numbers in the header of emails against ones at red alert – which is pretty trivial.

     Based on the known misuses that went on at Red Alert last year, Occams razor would tend to suggest the simplier explanation of technical means is a damn sight more likely than someone referring to themselves by their psuedonym in a email. Matching email addresses or IPs for a admin at RedAlert is a hell of a lot more likely.

     But I suspect it isn’t that likely he was signed as colonial viper. We know that CC spoke to CV about being CV in person on at least one occasion. When she was threatening to “out” him during lobbying at this years conference.

     In any case, he was operating under a psuedonym all and saying no more than you’d expect a party member to say. If describing the deficiencies of last years campaign is making the party lok bad, then the MP’s and their staff should look in a frigging mirror.

     Quite simply you kind of think that Clare and some of the other MP’s would prefer that we were mindless bots…
     • Just viping 2.2.1

       11 December 2012 at 7:51 am

       Having reread the article I linked to, with the benefit of one and a half coffees on board, I see, Curran claims that CV was open with her about his online identity, in correspondance, and in person. Can we get a confirm or deny on this particular matter?

       edit I see Lprent has suggested that the so-called conversations in which CV identified himself, were, in fact one occasion in which Curran identified CV , and threatened him with it.
       • Neoleftie 2.2.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 8:09 pm

         I had a conversation with CC just after the last election and I stated I posted on TS and she then bugged me to disclose the online pseudo name of the said person involved here who,s real name is still held in confidence by the few who know.
         So the knives were out at that time.
         Long live CV and freedom to speak and critique in a constructive and reasoned manner.
     • Jackal 2.2.2

       11 December 2012 at 1:16 pm

       “A damn sight more likely” or just more speculation without any evidence from you 1prent?
       • lprent 2.2.2.1

         14 December 2012 at 1:22 am

         Problem is that there have been similar leaks like this from people at Red Alert in the past. One resulted in someone losing their job. 

         Basically when it comes to breaches on the net, you have to look at what is likely from the access and what has happened in the past. The presumption is that there won’t be any definitive proof and usually the behaviours are not illegal. So you warn people about likely idiotic behaviours instead. 

         Some people running Red Alert have been doing some seriously stupid stuff for quite some time. Threatening to out people for mere political advantage kind of tops even the previous low of getting someone fired for comments that they left on RA.

         I’m merely voicing my opinion on exactly how people should avoid such arseholes of the net. If you don’t trust me to recognize such fools, then that is your problem. Go leave comments there.
   • Just viping 2.3

     11 December 2012 at 7:45 am

     Having reread the article I linked to, with the benefit of one and a half coffees on board, I see, Curran claims that CV was open with her about his online identity, in correspondance, and in person. Can we get a confirm or deny on this particular matter?
     • lprent 2.3.1

       11 December 2012 at 7:48 am

       It would be pretty unlikely. CV changed from a previous psuedonym because he thought it had been compromised by the right. At the time I told him that it was unwise to tell anyone.

       From what I understand she has reversed the order of events. She asked if he was CV after getting it from other means, and he confirmed it after she pestered. After all what would a Labour MP do to Labour member, right? You can trust them right?

       Evidently not.

       Edit: pesky iPad.
       • Anne 2.3.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 10:01 am

         …she has reversed the order of events. She asked if he was CV after getting it from other means, and he confirmed it after she pestered.

         That’s pretty much what I was told. Given her apparent unrepentant attitude, I will reveal something else. The pestering started well before the Conference.

         This is what can happen when individuals are parachuted in from elsewhere… without having gone through the normal process of climbing the party ladder and learning the ropes of the political game (what you can and can’t do) in the process.
         • Jackal 2.3.1.1.1

           11 December 2012 at 1:24 pm

           So on one hand we have people complaining that Labour is full of the old guard, but when Labour get some new blood people complain about that as well.

           You believing 1prent concerning things he/she is speculating about is particularly naive. Perhaps 1prent might like to provide some information ie evidence and facts to base such a claim on?
           • Anne 2.3.1.1.1.1

             11 December 2012 at 1:53 pm

             I suggest you are the one being naive and might I add childish over this affair. You don’t read comments properly then base your argument on the misread – see Pascal’s bookie @ 2.1.1

             You bet I believe 1prent, and he isn’t speculating as you well know. I also believe other people with whom I am acquainted whose reliability and integrity I know to be impeccable. Now grow up Jackal and show respect for those who, for various reasons, are in a position to know more about this matter than you obviously do yourself.
             • Jackal …

               11 December 2012 at 2:11 pm

               You bet I believe 1prent, and he isn’t speculating as you well know.

               I know nothing of the sort hence my questioning 1prent for some evidence? I’m asking because at this stage it appears to be complete speculation that Clare Curran gained CV’s identity through his comments at Red Alert. Curran has now refuted that claim made by 1prent and others, which means 1prent needs to supply evidence for making such claims. Otherwise I’m going to call bullshit on such Whaleoil tactics.

               Now grow up Jackal and show respect for those who, for various reasons, are in a position to know more about this matter than you obviously do yourself.

               You mean I shouldn’t question the baseless claims of people on The Standard because they’re in a position of power? Get fucking real Anne.

               People get as much respect as they deserve from me, and as an outside observer it would appear that 1prent and others have lied in order to discredit a Labour MP. I happen to believe her when she says she found out who CV was through an email over mere speculation by people who cannot back up that speculation with evidence.
               • quartz …

                 11 December 2012 at 2:20 pm

                 All the way through this saga you’ve claimed that people are bullshitting, then when it’s turned out they were right, you’ve shifted your position to needing evidence of something else while continuing to claim people are bullshitting.

                 The only bullshitting that’s going on here is you bullshitting yourself.
                 • Jackal …

                   11 December 2012 at 2:27 pm

                   Pft! What a silly argument quartz.

                   Just to clarify, I think 1prent is bullshitting when he/she tries to speak with authority about knowing Clare Curran learnt CV’s identity through the Red Alert blog. I now have even more reason to not believe The Standards administrator. I’ve always asserted that and nothing has changed. I have also learnt that it’s bullshit that the intention of Clare Curran’s letter to the Labour council was to publicly name and shame CV.

                   You’re welcome to point out where I’ve actually been wrong quartz?
                 • Te Reo Putake …

                   11 December 2012 at 2:51 pm

                   Nicely put, quartz.

                   I was pretty insistant at the time of IB’s post that the facts needed to come out. I felt that the LP was being tarred because of one MP’s bullying and that was unfair on the wider party. I still feel that way, but I now know more of the detail, though I have not seen Curran’s letter.

                   In summary, what I’m told is that Curran wrote to the NZ Council of the Labour Party moaning about CV. CV’s real name was not used in the letter. The NZ council threw the letter in the the big round bin, because it was just soooo stoopid.

                   In addition, from reading comments here, I pick up that Curran has previously, and concurrently, tried to intimidate CV in person. That intimidation has now worked, with CV being too scared to comment further. In my eyes, that makes Curran a bully and not fit to be a member of the party.

                   In addition, I had an interesting chat with a senior LP official that was quite illuminating. In short, it appears the party considers that the internet is only useful for sending emails. And therein lies the problem. The LP only wants the internet to be used if it can control the content. I find it distressing that such a pre-Obama mindset is in place. Its clearly one of the reasons why Labour can’t get traction in the polls; they have no modern communication strategy.

                   On a final note, can the Standard please drop Shearer Sezzzzz. While a member of his caucus is attacking Labour Party members here and in the msm and suppressing free speech, in solidarity with the victim/s, we should not be allowing his d’ohpinion pieces to see the light of day.
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 4:21 pm

                     Its clearly one of the reasons why Labour can’t get traction in the polls; they have no modern communication strategy?

                     Have you looked at National’s woeful excuse for an interactive website? Clearly Labours modern communication strategy is light years ahead of theirs, so your claim that this is a reason for the lackluster poll results is obviously something else… Perhaps the baseless claims by various bloggers and commentators who are also Labour party members might be a more plausible reason?
                   • lprent []

                     11 December 2012 at 5:55 pm

                     Perhaps the baseless claims by various bloggers and commentators…

                     You mean like the letter that Curran sent to NZ Council? Why do you think that was baseless. Or do you have a yet another new explanation. Looking at your posts over the last few days it seems to me that you’re simply saying that they are baseless purely as a act of dumb and blind faith rather than thinking.

                     For instance this one…

                     That’s nothing new, Red Alert has a policy of identifying commentators through their IP and an active email address so that their details can be passed onto the police if needed. Most blogsites automatically log such details these days.

                     Yeah? Link to it. Or is this just matter of you and others making crap up after the fact. I’ve been pointed out to the people at Red Alert when they started that they needed clear written down policies specifically to avoid this kind of idiotic stupidity. In fact something like your own clearly written one would have been enough.

                     So it wasn’t Claire Curran that named Colonial Viper, it was CV himself and other left wing bloggers. This contradicts the claims that Curran was targeting any specific dissident members of the Labour party and threatened to out them ie make their real name publicly known.

                     According to Clare Curran who will of course conveniently be unable to release the relevant e-mails. Of course that doesn’t explain the two cases last year that had to be done from Red Alert data.

                     But ignoring all that as you’re doing as being inconvenient to observe. CV told me on the Saturday morning of the conference that he’d been threatened with being outed by Curran the previous night if he didn’t vote the way that she wanted. He wasn’t representing her electorate. Now in your curious timeline, this appears to be well before the NZ Council where she was seeking ‘guidance’ on it. It was also simply outright bullying, well beyond the scope of any of the other rather intense lobbying that was going on that night (and which I suspect actually lost the caucus the vote).

                     What I find interesting is that you seem to be saying that members don’t have a right to debate anything about the Labour party. And yet your own Welcome states

                     The Jackal is a New Zealand blog for politics, satire and everything in between. We’re a light-hearted bunch and appreciate the time you take to post your ideas on this site. We think that a healthy world requires healthy debate…

                     Except apparently when it regards the actions of Labour MP’s. There is a word beginning with ‘H’ that seems to be dropping to my lips.. But perhaps you are merely the Pete George of the Left – pontificating because you can stretch your legs over a pungent slit toilet without ever looking or smelling at the crap below (as the walls crumble under your feet).

                     Could it just be that you never want to see any of these things? Or don’t you think that MP’s should be criticized for their behaviour? After all as well as representing the voters, they are also meant to represent us. And as a group they really are doing a really crappy job of it right now.

                     The claims that she wanted to out people are clearly a fabrication promoted by people who want to further damage Labour for some reason. Interestingly enough they’re the same so-called left wing bloggers and commentators who promoted the Cunliffe coup, which also makes me question where their loyalties lie? They clearly have no place within Labour if they constantly try to undermine the party by attacking its leadership.

                     Ah, you obviously didn’t read any of the posts or at least not carefully. The only post that was calling for Cunliffe as leader was by QoT, who isn’t even a Labour member. Eddie, Irish and myself were essentially saying that the caucus was out of control and that the caucus discipline was about as useless as it was possible to get. r0b and Mike wrote posts supporting the leadership (while carefully not looking at the caucus I might add)…. As far as I can see the great Cunliffe ‘coup’ was just a nice fiction for the whips to do something to clamp down on caucus. Hopefully it will improve the caucus discipline. So far that doesn’t appear to have been the case – but these are early days.

                     All the caucus have to do to stop attracting my ire is to stop acting like ill-disciplined dickheads. For the last 4-5 years on this site we’ve had a virtually uninterrupted series of complete screw ups from the Labour caucus that we’ve been trying to ignore or gloss over. You can see each of these screw ups displayed in large spikes in the page views for this site that I’d have preferred not to have to have dealt with.

                     Each time it gets keeps getting harder to explain exactly why the black comedy in Wellington has been worth supporting. And I’ll swear that the frequency of the screw ups has simply increased.

                     What you are objecting to are some long-time party members and supporters giving the idiots of the party who appear to be concentrated in caucus some idea of our irritation. Personally I’ve come to the conclusion that they could do with some scathing analysis of their faults because they appear to spend far too much time seeking wisdom in that little village in the mid-country. Quite a few other people appear to have hit the limits of their toleration as well.

                     You’re just going to have to get used to it. Because what we’re expressing is what much of the actual activists inside the party are at least thinking. And all they have to do to stop me being permanently irritated is to stop screwing up…. damnit and do their bloody job without MP’s like Jones and Curran doing something mind-numbingly stupid every other month. Hell I’m sure that most of the MP’s are sick of this continuous level of wasted opportunities.
                   • Anne …

                     11 December 2012 at 4:32 pm

                     Thanks TRP. You’ve put it clearly and succinctly.

                     My own impression is that Shearer can’t control the Mallarfia. To some extent he is indebted to them, so he has to be careful how he treats them?
                   • Te Reo Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 5:21 pm

                     Jackal: you miss my point.

                     I believe if Labour knew how to communicate well, they’d be creaming National in the polls. National and Labour are both treading water, poll wise, but it’s up to the opposition to lift their game if they want a decent majority, not just limping to a one or two seat victory.

                     I’m not talking about either party’s websites, I’m talking about using the internet in all its aspects, including the issue du jour; blogging. The official I spoke to was convinced that the internet was basically irrelevant, which is an astonishing position to take, IMHO. It’s far from the experience of the Obama campaigns, for example, where the ‘net was used for organising, fundraising and policy promotion. And winning elctions, obviously.

                     Anne: Thank you. I agree Shearer is indebted to the likes of Mallard, but I’m also convinced that the vast majority of caucus now see Shearer as their only hope of keeping their jobs. Which is terribly sad, not just because it shows a lack of ambition, but because it shows a caucus beaten down by mediocrity and malice.
                   • One Tāne Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 5:33 pm

                     “Mediocrity and malice”.

                     ‘kinoath!

                     Add fear and distrust – the curse of the mediocre, manifested in the way passion and ability are regarded as a threat rather than an asset.

                     cf: David Shearer’s Cunliffe-phobic handicap, or Clare Curran’s wretched Quisling attempt to attack The Standard.
                   • One Tāne Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 6:06 pm

                     +1

                     Lprent: he taonga.

                     Edit – a response to LP at 5:55.
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 7:43 pm

                     1prent

                     Perhaps the baseless claims by various bloggers and commentators…

                     You mean like the letter that Curran sent to NZ Council?

                     No! Like your claims that Clare Curran was going to out CV and was bullying. What was there not to understand there 1prent? I’m pretty sure the letter is not proof of the claims of bullying or of how exactly Clare Curran learnt CV’s identity. It is more likely a letter to draw the problem to a head so that the Council can deal with the matter.

                     Or is this just matter of you and others making crap up after the fact.

                     Not at all, I simply read lots and remember things 1prent. Last year sometime Red Alert came under a lot of attack and it was then that they said commentators had to be real identifiable people with working email addresses. So not strictly a policy, but a clear indication that commentators would be identified. I can waste a large amount of time trying to find the actual quotes if you like (and I agree they should have an easy to find commentating policy), or you could look it up yourself.

                     According to Clare Curran who will of course conveniently be unable to release the relevant e-mails.

                     Yes! According to Clare Curren who’s a duly elected MP and somebody I have no reason to disbelieve. The relevant emails you refer to are one from CV that identifies who he is and a letter to the council. Both of these would be protected by various privacy laws and agreements.

                     Unfortunately for you, her statement today directly contradicts yours 1prent, I have chosen to disbelieve you… Sorry about that.

                     Of course that doesn’t explain the two cases last year that had to be done from Red Alert data.

                     Could you link to this or explain what cases you’re talking about 1prent? As an avid reader of all New Zealand blogs I fail to reference any similar cases.

                     Now in your curious timeline, this appears to be well before the NZ Council where she was seeking ‘guidance’ on it.

                     My curious timeline? I don’t recall ever providing a timeline 1prent apart from saying it has taken a very long time for CV, Irish Bill and yourself to inform us. Three weeks in fact since the Labour conference?

                     Could you explain the association between Clare Curran and John Tamihere that might cause her to threaten a member of the Labour party to ensure he was allowed back into Labour? You see there are many holes in your story that just don’t add up.

                     It was also simply outright bullying, well beyond the scope of any of the other rather intense lobbying that was going on that night.

                     According to CV, somebody who has been continuously negative about Labour and has also promoted numerous untruths to undermine them. You can see why I find such claims hard to believe.

                     What I find interesting is that you seem to be saying that members don’t have a right to debate anything about the Labour party.

                     What makes you think that? My argument is that you and others should be able to back up your claims with evidence, especially when you’re making such serious claims that malign an MP. You haven’t verified even a small amount of what you’re claiming 1prent.

                     Let me put it another way. You have often said that attacking the writers at The Standard is the best way to gain your ire. This is particularly true when those attacks are made with claims that are baseless ie not factual. To me, it appears that you’re not adhering to that philosophy by attacking Clare Curran 1prent without having any verifiable evidence for us to see to back up your claims. Therefore the word beginning with H seems to apply more succinctly to you than myself 1prent. I think you should live by, well your own standards.

                     We think that a healthy world requires healthy debate…

                     Except apparently when it regards the actions of Labour MP’s.

                     Healthy debate shouldn’t include speculation in order to malign an MP 1prent. Healthy debate shouldn’t include undermining a Labour MPs with claims that cannot be verified.

                     But perhaps you are merely the Pete George of the Left – pontificating because you can stretch your legs over a pungent slit toilet without ever looking or smelling at the crap below (as the walls crumble under your feet).

                     Pete George of the left? Fuck that for a joke!

                     If you want to trade insults… Perhaps you’re the real bully of the left 1prent. Unhappy that the candidate you supported didn’t achieve leadership. So vindictive in that disappointment as to attack the party you once supported. So deluded as to think the Greens might welcome somebody who has shown a complete lack of loyalty. Why don’t you confirm your hypocritical philosophy by banning somebody for speaking their mind 1prent, simply because they don’t agree with you.

                     I’m interested to know why you have copy and pasted some of my blog post about this over to here, instead of commenting at The Jackal?

                     Or don’t you think that MP’s should be criticized for their behaviour?

                     How many times do I have to say the same thing before it works its way into your cranium? I welcome criticism of MPs when it’s warranted and based on evidence. I don’t when it’s baseless and cannot be verified.

                     As far as I can see the great Cunliffe ‘coup’ was just a nice fiction for the whips to do something to clamp down on caucus.

                     And my observation was that the so-called coup was a fabrication invented by Cunliffe supporters/bloggers on The Standard, that was then picked up by the MSM.

                     You can see each of these screw ups displayed in large spikes in the page views for this site that I’d have preferred not to have to have dealt with.

                     ? You don’t like the increased readership such controversy creates? Don’t make me laugh 1prent.

                     I’ve come to the conclusion that they could do with some scathing analysis of their faults because they appear to spend far too much time seeking wisdom in that little village in the mid-country.

                     Well that’s all well and good if you can back up your claims with evidence 1prent. In my opinion the claims you’re making malign Clare Curran and Labour… That in turn undermines the left wing. I’m all for harsh criticism where its due when such critisism has some semblance of evidence attached to it. Presently you’re basing your beliefs and accusations on nothing more than heresay.

                     You’re just going to have to get used to it. Because what we’re expressing is what much of the actual activists inside the party are at least thinking.

                     I should just accept claims without supporting evidence? I don’t think so 1prent. You’re wanting me to accept whatever you say without question… There’s that H word again. If you can actually supply some evidence of your claims then I’ll withdraw, but presently it appears to me you’re making shit up 1prent. In other words I’m calling you a liar!

                     As for claiming that other activists inside the Labour party are in agreement with you, that doesn’t particularly support your claims. As we all know, many people can be deluded, just look at who New Zealand elected as the government in 2011.

                     Te Reo Viper

                     I believe if Labour knew how to communicate well, they’d be creaming National in the polls.

                     I would have to agree with you then. Most political party’s have an issue with communicating with the public. Thankfully the Greens appear to have overcome that disability.
                   • One Tāne Viper …

                     11 December 2012 at 7:51 pm

                     “The Pete George of the Left.”

                     Burn.
                   • Jackal …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:19 pm

                     Not an original “burn” though eh!
               • Anne …

                 11 December 2012 at 2:22 pm

                 I happen to believe her when she says she found out who CV was through an email…

                 Your ignorance is profound.
           • ianmac 2.3.1.1.1.2

             11 December 2012 at 8:19 pm

             Jackal: I have misgivings about the accusations being flung around by some highly respected posters on this site. As a more distant supporter all I can see is critics of Labour who make mountains out of scraps of real or imagined faults and which sound so much like the NAct trolls. To me regardless of the justification they seem intent on undoing any Labour solidarity at a critical time in the cycle.
             So by 2014 the cry will go up that they have won a huge victory, and that victory will to have split the Party into factions – and been wiped of the Electoral platform.
             Solidarity wins Elections. Being Fractionated doesn’t.
     • Just viping 2.3.2

       11 December 2012 at 7:52 am

       I have no idea how a duplicate of my last comment just materialised above. need more coffee
       • lprent 2.3.2.1

         11 December 2012 at 7:55 am

         Coffee, keyboard, darn involves getting out of bed..
       • Anne 2.3.2.2

         11 December 2012 at 6:35 pm

         it shows a caucus beaten down by mediocrity and malice.

         Enough to reduce me to tears. There are some good people in that caucus.
   • David Viperious H 2.4

     11 December 2012 at 8:03 am

     If she had released any of my details she would be explaining to the Police and as many Lawyers I could get to roast her ass..

     Time to resign Curren, as this is the sort of cyber bullying is just what we are supposed to be teaching our children NOT to do. And here we have a Member of Parliament doing it. Nope sorry immediate resignation, because a slapping down from Shearer ain’t going to happen, because he’s too weak, when faced with the ‘old guard’.
     • Colonial Weka 2.4.1

       11 December 2012 at 11:40 am

       I’m not sure this is covered by the Privacy Act. Neither the Labour party website nor Red Alert have visible privacy policies. They’re private organisations. Do they have a legal obligation to not make use of private details like email addresses or IPs?
       • lprent 2.4.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 11:56 am

         Yes. I don’t have time to lay my hands on the detail, but in NZ law you have to give explicit permission for whatever private information that you give to be used for other than the purpose for which it was given. The act for that went through in either the late 90’s or early 00’s. (my brain is fried with coding)

         There is probably a massive grey area around IP’s as they are almost an artefact of the process rather than something you give voluntarily. There is no such grey area around e-mails.

         However I also seem to recall that there is a major set of exemptions around political parties…
         • Colonial Weka 2.4.1.1.1

           11 December 2012 at 1:15 pm

           ” but in NZ law you have to give explicit permission for whatever private information that you give to be used for other than the purpose for which it was given.”
            
           Not sure that’s quite it. The person/organisation who holds the information can release it if they genuinely believe that the person who the information is about would be ok with that (that’s me badly paraphrasing, I think it’s more that they are unaware of any reason why the person wouldn’t want the information released). This is why medical records can be shared between practitioners without specific, explicit permission. It happens all the time. It’s also why many organisations are now routinely asking patients/clients to sign generic (usually badly worded and without information) consent forms to share information with whoever they want in order to provide service.
            
           What I am unclear about is whether a Labour Party member posting at Red Alert would be considered to have given implicit permission by being part of the Labour Party (given that Red Alert is a Labour blog). I’m thinking no in terms of the intention of the privacy act, but unclear about how that would play out in reality.
            
           Re the emails, does that mean releasing email addresses to spammers is illegal, unless someone has given permission?
           • Adele 2.4.1.1.1.1

             11 December 2012 at 7:07 pm

             Kiaora Colonial Weka

             Not sure that’s quite it. The person/organisation who holds the information can release it if they genuinely believe that the person who the information is about would be ok with that (that’s me badly paraphrasing, I think it’s more that they are unaware of any reason why the person wouldn’t want the information released). This is why medical records can be shared between practitioners without specific, explicit permission. It happens all the time. It’s also why many organisations are now routinely asking patients/clients to sign generic (usually badly worded and without information) consent forms to share information with whoever they want in order to provide service.

             No. Medical records and information are also covered by the Health Code. Patients / clients must give consent for their health information to be released or shared. While generally there may be a blanket consent process in place, usually at the time a person registers into a health service, that blanket does not extend towards granting everyone within the health service access to a person’s health information. The obligation on the health service is to protect the privacy of health information from anyone not directly involved in the care of the person concerned.

             Should there be a need to discuss someone’s health information as part of a wider forum identity (name) is removed.
             • Colonial Weka …

               11 December 2012 at 7:33 pm

               Kiaora Adele,
                
               Nevertheless, health practitioners routinely share information without explicit permission. This is because when you share information with your GP, it is assumed that you are ok with your GP sharing that information with whoever they deem needs it. Happens all the time. My understanding is that the Privacy Act doesn’t say don’t share information without express permission, it says you can share information if you have no good reason to believe the person wouldn’t want it shared. Hence a GP can send medical records to a hospital but not a newpaper, because it is assumed that the patient would be ok with the first but not the second.
                
               (and this is why, as mentioned, some health organisations now ask patients to sign generic waivers when they first become clients. They usually contain the phrase something like “we may not be able to provide this service without this permission” which is coercive and complete crap. They don’t usually point out that it’s entirely optional).
                
               Likewise, if someone shares information with the Labour Party (name, address etc), it’s probably assumed that the Labour Party can share that information within its own systems, but not hand that information over the the Greens, or a mail order company. The reason the former is ok, is because it’s assumed that the person supplying information about themselves will be ok with this.
                
               Not sure how many people realise this, but when you share information with your GP you are in fact sharing it with the practice as a whole not the individual doctor. Likewise, it might be that sharing information with Red Alert is seen to be sharing information with Labour as a whole. Still a shitty and unethical practice, but not sure it’s illegal.
                
                
               • Colonial Weka …

                 11 December 2012 at 7:39 pm

                 And just to clarify
                  

                 While generally there may be a blanket consent process in place, usually at the time a person registers into a health service, that blanket does not extend towards granting everyone within the health service access to a person’s health information.
                  

                 When I signed up with a new clinic, I didn’t sign anything that gave consent for the clinic to share information outside of the clinic. But the clinic considers it has the right to do so (and afaik the law supports this). This doesn’t mean that any old person in the health system can ask for information about me and be given it, but if for instance a specialist wants some information about me from my GP file, they will go straight to the GP practice, they won’t come to me. Actually they will come to me in my case, because I make sure that every person I give info to knows that they have to consult with me before sharing information. But if I didn’t do that, the law says that if the practitioner has no good reason to think I wouldn’t want the relevant information shared, then they can share it.
                 • Colonial Weka …

                   11 December 2012 at 7:45 pm

                   (1) A health agency that holds health information must not disclose the information unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, that—
                   (a) the disclosure is to—
                   (i)    the individual concerned; or
                   (ii)    the individual’s representative where the individual is dead or is unable to exercise his or her rights under these rules; or
                   (b) the disclosure is authorised by—
                   (i)    the individual concerned; or
                   (ii)    the individual’s representative where the individual is dead or is unable to give his or her authority under this rule; or

                    

                   (2) Compliance with subrule (1)(b) is not necessary if the health agency believes on reasonable grounds that it is either not desirable or not practicable to obtain authorisation from the individual concerned and that—
                   (a) the disclosure of the information is directly related to one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained; or
                    

                   http://privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Codes-of-Practice-materials/HIPC-1994-incl.-amendments-revised-commentary.pdf
                   • Adele …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:24 pm

                     Kiaora Colonial Weka,

                     That is my point. A health system cannot share a person’s health information to anyone unrelated to that person’s care or treatment. When I visit a GP she / he tells me what she / he intends to do in terms of my care including seeking the advice of a specialist. When I visit the specialist she / he explains to me the steps necessary for my treatment including what other specialities may be consulted in respect to my treatment.

                     At all points along the care pathway I have a absolute right to be fully informed on any matter pertaining to my care and an absolute expectation that whomever gets to view my health information is a necessary part of that care pathway. The passages that you quote simply confirms:

                     That a health agency must disclose a person’s health information to the person concerned, or to their representative (next of kin or spouse) if they should happen to be dead or dying, or by authorisation (usually in written form).

                     2(a) reaffirms that the information cannot be released to all and sundry and should only be released to those agencies or others directly involved in that person’s treatment or care.

                     Privacy of other types of personal information follows a similar logic.
                   • McFliper …

                     11 December 2012 at 8:37 pm

                     Um – just to throw another spanner in the works, the Health Act also allows personal information to be gathered from any source by the minister’s various review committees, e.g. mortality review committees. This is distinct from coronial and police investigations. And the powers under the Health Act are significantly more extensive than criminal investigations.
                   • Colonial Weka …

                     11 December 2012 at 9:34 pm

                     Kiaora Adele,
                      
                     I think we are talking at cross purposes here. My point was that information can be shared without express permission. We see that in the health system, and I suspect that information sharing between Red Alert and the rest of Labour would be considered legal in the same way as it is in the health system. I don’t know for sure, but I’m not yet convinced that such sharing would be illegal.
                      
                     Re the Health System, I think you are talking about best practice. Many times however information is shared, as a matter of course or in unusual ways, without the patient being aware, and certainly not with express permission. For many patients this is not a problem. For others it is.
       • Te Reo Putake 2.4.1.2

         11 December 2012 at 1:53 pm

         From the Redalert FAQ’s (How to comment):

         “Enter your name (can be an alias if you prefer).

         Enter your email adddress (won’t be shown publically).”

         Of, course Curran could use the Dunnokeyo style excuse that as ‘publicly’ is misspelled, it doesn’t mean what we think it does.
         • Colonial Weka 2.4.1.2.1

           11 December 2012 at 3:58 pm

           Ta, hadn’t seen that. Still, there is a difference between ‘wont’ be shown publicly’ and ‘won’t be shared within our organisation’.
   • Colonial Weka 2.5

     11 December 2012 at 11:41 am

     I’m still trying to figure out what it is that CV has said that is so bad (compared to what everyone else has been saying).
     • McFliper 2.5.1

       11 December 2012 at 1:03 pm

       well, I’m somewhat surprised that CV is a member, given his comments (especially about Shearer). If I were that pissed off I’d have gone somewhere else long ago.
            
       Be that as it may, the next time someone rips shit out of someone for not having the “guts” to use our real names, this is another clear example as to why those with less power need to be able to speak publicly without fear of repercussions from those with more power. 
               
       Curran’s been solid but unspectacular as an electorate MP, from what I’ve seen. But as a politician, she seems to be well accommodated in the vindictive area, but undersupplied with tact, strategic foresight and discretion. 
            
        
       • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised 2.5.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 1:44 pm

         Not going somewhere else may involve holding one’s party to account. If there is no hope of that, what hope is there that one will hold one’s party in government to account?
         • McFliper 2.5.1.1.1

           11 December 2012 at 1:59 pm

           true, but when the parting of ways reaches a certain level, surely one should choose another party that is closer to one’s beliefs rather than flogging a dead horse.
         • Jackal 2.5.1.1.2

           11 December 2012 at 2:03 pm

           but undersupplied with tact, strategic foresight and discretion.

           That’s funny! That’s how I would currently describe CV, 1prent, Irish Bill and others when they chose to publish lots of speculation and then weren’t able to back it up with any evidence. I’m still waiting for that evidence to show Clare Curran was going to publicly name CV after finding out his identity through comments at Red Alert?

           Holding a political party to account is all well and good Jim Viperald, but blaming Shearer for what previous Labour governments have done (which was always the main crux of CV’s argument) isn’t particularly beneficial to the party he signed up for. Being that there are alternatives, it appears CV is/was a member only in order to gain information to complain about, and much of his complaining was baseless!

           “John Key is a better politician than David Shearer”, C’mon CV… Cat got your tongue?
           • One Tāne Viper 2.5.1.1.2.1

             11 December 2012 at 4:05 pm

             Jackal, your allegations of speculation are themselves speculations. Perhaps you just aren’t in the loop.
             • Jackal …

               11 December 2012 at 8:32 pm

               One Tāne Viper

               Jackal, your allegations of speculation are themselves speculations. Perhaps you just aren’t in the loop.

               My accusations aren’t speculations because Clare Curran has confirmed much of my argument by refuting the speculation that has been made here on The Standard.

               The desperate scramble for relevance. Sad but true?

               Um! Just in case you haven’t noticed, I’m an anonymous blogger One Tāne Viper. Relevance ie recognition is clearly not what I want to achieve. Perhaps you might like to actually debate the issues instead of resorting to stupid personal insults?

               IrishBill

               You sound desperate Jackel. For someone who’s not even a member you seem to have a lot invested in denying what’s right in front of you. What’s up with that?

               Isn’t it obvious? I’m concerned with so-called Labour activists undermining their own party with what appears to be baseless speculation to the detriment of the entire left wing. It’s not desperation and you haven’t presented any evidence for it to be “right in front” of me IrishBill.

               By all means perform harakiri on yourselves sometime in the future, in other words when I’ve had enough time to ensure the Greens have enough support to be the main opposition party in New Zealand.
           • IrishBill 2.5.1.1.2.2

             11 December 2012 at 7:27 pm

             You sound desperate Jackel. For someone who’s not even a member you seem to have a lot invested in denying what’s right in front of you. What’s up with that?
             • One Tāne Viper …

               11 December 2012 at 7:31 pm

               The desperate scramble for relevance. Sad but true?
3. Logie97 3

   11 December 2012 at 8:01 am

   Apparently the PM is royly plezed with the downstream benefits of the success of the Hobbit and Warner studios here. Any truth in the rumour that the producers of the Muppets are being invited here. They certainly have a ready cast awaiting them. Any suggestions as to who might play the leading roles
   • Colonial Weka 3.1

     11 December 2012 at 11:43 am

     Lol. Very good. Except the Muppets are 😎
     • Logie97 3.1.1

       11 December 2012 at 7:11 pm

       Apparently it’s no contest for Miss Piggy.
       • Jim Viperald - Once was colonised 3.1.1.1

         11 December 2012 at 7:20 pm

         If the casting requirement is gender neutralised, there should be strong competition.
4. Just viping 4

   11 December 2012 at 8:02 am

   Don’t get up yet. I’m amazed that you can blog before you rise. In cigarette smokers, having a fag in bed first thing is considered a bad sign 🙂

   http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/mistaken-assumptions-labours-anti.html

   Chris Trotter;s latest blog on the issue.

   edit – damn, this was meant to be a reply to Lprent at 2.3.1
   • David Viperious H 4.1

     11 December 2012 at 8:28 am

     It’s not that bad I admit the lappie is a bit hard to use in bed, but way easier than using my Smartphone. I gotta Blog in bed as I gave up the Ciggies 🙂
   • vto viped 4.2

     11 December 2012 at 10:02 am

     Trotter’s piece seems to confirm what was seen when Labour was last in power. And is confirmed by this vipergate shit. And was seen in Trotter’s example of Lange and Prebble etc.

     That is ……. the Labour party people resist having to abide by the decisions of the people. They resist democratic principles. This is what the accusation was during Clark’s term – that they were too busybody, telling people what to do and wear and eat and shit. Bossy school teachers (apologies to our fine teachers…) treating everybody else like a class of school children.

     And still it goes on.

     How on earth can Labour claim to be a party of the people when it resists listening to and being directed by the people?

     Sounds like a sham to me.
   • alwyn 4.3

     11 December 2012 at 2:39 pm

     “having a fag in bed first thing is considered a bad thing”
     My God, I hope you aren’t talking about your education at an English Public school?
5. KhandallaMan-an Absolutely Fabulous Viper 5

   11 December 2012 at 8:17 am

   I have seen a chain of emails from/to an active LP member who was barred from RedAlert last year because of comments she made on the Standard during the Leadership battle.  
   The chain includes emails to/from Trevor Mallard, Moira Coatsworth and Grant Robertson.
   The practice of looking in RedAlerts for real names, electorates and email addresses of people who are critical of certain party MPs is openly admitted. 
   Shearer was a c.c. in some.  Prior to the barring, the information was used in an approach to the member’s nearest MP. 
   Robertson saw no problems with the practice and effectively endorsed it. Mallard administered the practice. Moira was aware of the practice.  Clare Curran is just one of the cast in this farce.
6. Skinny 6

   11 December 2012 at 8:27 am

   Has Winston Peter’s crossed the line by allegedly leaking sources phone numbers? 

   Reading an article on Stuff today regarding allegations Winston Peters    leaked not just the TAB phone records to the media, but also contact details of individuals is appalling. 

   My opinion below what do you think?  

   I find any leaking of private phone numbers to be totally unacceptable. Brendan is quite right, some taxpayers have phone conversations with members of Parliament in the MP’s capacity as spokesperson’s on various portfolio’s. In Brendan case one of his roles was as NZ First’s industrial relations spokesperson. 

   At times information could be regarded as sensitive and an expectation is that the call is in ‘confidence.’ 

   Winston Peters should know some sources may ‘expect’ a high degree of confidentiality. Certainly ‘not’ to have their contact phone numbers handed over to the media, if this is true?

    Having had phone conversations with Brendan in his capacity as a NZFirst spokesperson on industrial relations, I am mortified to hear these allegations & will give consideration to ‘laying a complaint’ if my rights have been breached? 

   p.s Bret your opinion is yesterday’s news so spare us your opinion son!
   • Populuxe1 6.1

     11 December 2012 at 12:09 pm

     Unless you are the TAB, I doubt your rights have been breached
   • Fortran 6.2

     11 December 2012 at 1:29 pm

     Skinny

     Winston Peters is above the law –
     in HIS party he is the almighty, and will continue to do whatever suits him under Parliamentary Privilege.
     Ask him when is he going to pay back the $148,000 he stole from the taxpayers.
7. mickyviper in solidarity 7

   11 December 2012 at 8:45 am

   Oh dear ABC is at it again …

   This continuous undermining of David Cunliffe is so wearying, destructive and stupid.  Shearer should be brave and attempt to unite the caucus rather than allowing this continuous undermining to occur.  If he does not the party is going to go through a rough time. 
   • Another Viper 7.1

     11 December 2012 at 9:11 am

     Mmm it says Parker was sitting in the Chairperon seat when Cunliffe arrived.
     That is surprising from Parker. I’ve only experienced courtesy and impeccable manners from him.
     Perhaps he too is being bullied? I suspect he was told that Shearer or Hipkins had sanctioned it
     There is some serious petty bad-attitude from sone staffers in the Labour offices in Parliament.
     • higherstandard 7.1.1

       11 December 2012 at 9:16 am

       People can say what they like about Heather Simpson nut she would never have allowed the buggers muddle that is the current Labour caucus and staffers to have occurred during her time.
     • QoT 7.1.2

       11 December 2012 at 6:54 pm

       The nicest interpretation for Parker is that some underling said “Oh hey David P, you’re taking over from David C at that meeting” and he assumed this meant it had all been sorted out with David C.

       There are less nice interpretations.
       • One Tāne Viper 7.1.2.1

         11 December 2012 at 7:20 pm

         Hmm. So you’re saying that it’s better that he be stupid and naive rather than a player?

         I’d say he’s fucked compromised either way.
   • Skinny 7.2

     11 December 2012 at 9:50 am

     I doubt DC would be a Bill Rowling type of Leftie  Leader, the last true socialist Labour Leader in my opinion.   

     I really believe the Party needs a clean out of pretenders start with Chris Hipkins & keep on rolling rolling!  
   • tc 7.3

     11 December 2012 at 11:05 am

     ‘ Shearer should be brave and attempt to unite the caucus rather than allowing this continuous undermining to occur.’

     LOL mickey, what like his immediate stamping on all those caucus leaks or his strong leadership in reigning the loose Curran and co in so he looks in control and electable.

     Works as per specification, just what the hollowmen ordered.
8. David Viperious H 8

   11 December 2012 at 9:13 am

   I see that Telecom has had a major system failure yet again.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10853234

   And on telecoms website..

   We apologise for the inconvenience caused by this outage, which occurred when a problem arose during a scheduled software upgrade on one of our main internet servers.

   http://www.telecom.co.nz/whatsnew/broadbandservicestatus/?f=all

   Don’t they error check and test Software upgrades before they implement them??
   I mean it’s not the home PC with windoze 7 and autoupdating is it.
9. coronial typer 9

   11 December 2012 at 9:36 am

   Anyone care to respond?

   http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/238634/curran-hits-out-online-critics
   • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 9.1

     11 December 2012 at 11:53 am

     Wow, Curran playing the victim? Never saw THAT coming.

     /sarcasm
   • One Tāne Viper 9.2

     11 December 2012 at 12:00 pm

     “…a member was expressing views anonymously, in a way in which was intended to damage other party members and the party overall.”

     “Intended”? This snivelling wretch thinks she’s entitled to her own facts?

     Let’s be clear about this: Curran is personally responsible for any “damage” that ensues from her authoritarian brain fart. She is the disease in the Labour Party.
     • Ennui in Requiem Mass for CV 9.2.1

       11 December 2012 at 12:50 pm

       A negotiation heard between Lucifer and St Peter recently.

       (St P) Watch that Labour Caucus go, they really desire power…now that’s a good thing is’nt it?
       (L) Lust in my book

       (St P) And look how they turned off that challenge from the members, a quick vote and all, clever?
       (L) Yes, eating too eagerly of their power, Gluttony no less, had their cake and ate it too. Nice bit of trickery and manipulation of their authority, very devilish losing the floor vote to the members then kicking them in the teeth with a quick Caucus vote…grabbed far more power than they needed…now that’s Greed in my book.

       (St P) Yes, but in doing that they failed to act on democratic principle, or even within the spirit of what the Party at large asked of them.
       (L) Yes that is Sloth, a failure to do what you should.

       (St P) And sort of vindictive?
       (L) Yes, full of Wrath. Nice bit of nastiness.

       (St P) And now they have one of them outing the members on a blog and attempting to “discipline” them.
       (L) Quite so, now they have tasted blood they show an insatiable desire for more, they covet power , they want what the membership took back. That’s pure Envy.

       (St P) And that particular MP, she is pushing her way to the top over the bodies of bloggers etc, she thinks she knows best, that she is more important?.
       (L) Yes, the deadliest of all sins, Pride. I win their souls with a full set of the Seven Deadly Sins.

       (St P) Looks like as you say “The Devil take the hindmost”……no argument from me on this lot.
     • QoT 9.2.2

       11 December 2012 at 6:55 pm

       Clare Curran: latest (immensely unsurprising) addition to the list of People Who Don’t Fucking Understand The Difference Between Anonymous and Pseudonymous.

       The clue is that if it were truly anonymous, Clare, you wouldn’t have a pseudonym to bully people over.
   • Veutoviper 9.3

     11 December 2012 at 12:45 pm

     Aah, but perhaps she has a new job lined up, LOL!

     http://www.imperatorfish.com/2012/12/new-zealand-cricket-recruits-fresh.html

     Brilliant!
10. vto viped 10

    11 December 2012 at 10:26 am

    I see the government is looking at legal action against those responsible for the CTV building collapse in the Christchurch earthquake (among others).

    If only the government itself would take responsibility in the exact same way for its exact same failings. i.e. changes and failings around mine safety regulations which led directly to the deaths of 29 men at Pike River.

    The Ministers of the Crown who oversaw those mine safety regulations being changed, ignored, reviewed etc are directly culpable for the deaths of those men. What say you Gerry Brownlee, kate Wilkinson, and those others back in the 90s? You caused death by your actions and non-actions. Gonna stand up and be responsible?
    yeah right
    • Chris 10.1

      11 December 2012 at 12:07 pm

      Kind of funny how you include the recent National ministers then the 90s government but no mention of the Labour government in the middle. Surely if the ministers of the 90s are directly culpable you should also be calling for the early 00s ministers to be held accountable as well.
      • vto viped 10.1.1

        11 December 2012 at 12:37 pm

        Yes I do. inadvertantly left out.
11. bad12 11

    11 December 2012 at 12:20 pm

    It appears that Tau Henare has thrown in the towel in His bid to become Speaker of the Parliament, within His abdication statement Tau is muttering darkly about the Maori Party promising to support Him in His bid for the Speakers job and then not doing so,

    Gosh politics,never a dull moment and i would like to take a moment here to fall about the place in gales of mad laughter at the poetic nature of such a snubbing, previous NZFirst voters will also, along with Winston be having one hell of a giggle about Tau’s latest failure to rise, (perhaps a extra teaspoon of baking powder might help),

    Tau doesn’t seem to have the ability to see that His particular place on the National Party list is there solely by dint of His previous desertion of the voters who elected Him to the Parliament in the first place as a NZFirst MP where He set about on a mission of destruction by quitting that Party along with 4 of its MPs,

    Face it Tau, you have been well rewarded by National for the previous hatchet job on NZFirst, you don’t seriously believe that they are now going to give you any position of actual power do you….
    • fender Viper 11.1

      11 December 2012 at 10:35 pm

      +1

      Tau would be a useless speaker IMO, even a 90 day trial would be torture.

      Key (or the puppet master Joyce) would have told the Maori Party to renege on any promise they had made.
12. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 12

    11 December 2012 at 4:34 pm

    I’m not saying the current Labour leadership are the types to kick a man when he’s down, but

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8061291/Trust-dumping-slip-up-further-insult-to-Cunliffe
    • jenny Kirk 12.1

      11 December 2012 at 5:02 pm

      To SHG (Not Colonial Viper). If you read the Dom Post story carefully, you’ll see Parker was already in Cunliffe’s seat when C turned up at the meeting. That itells me this was a “set up”. And what is the dithering Leader doing when his staff DECIDE who can sit on a Trust without his knowledge – why wasn’t he involved in that decision ? Definitely a set up. And yes, I think the nasty sods can kick a man when he’s down. I watched them do it, over and over again, in caucus
      – to David Lange. This is almost the last straw for me : I’ve stopped my VFL, and I’m not going to be delivering or organising delivery of any pamphlets after the New Year ! or anything else for that matter. Its time NZ Council got serious with these rogue MPs, and told the ditherer to reinstate Cunliffe. Until they do so, that VFL remains stopped.
13. mickyviper in solidarity 13

    11 December 2012 at 4:43 pm

    And the High Court have ruled against the Maori Council in the water case.  Off to the Court of Appeal we go …
    • mickyviper in solidarity 13.1

      11 December 2012 at 4:51 pm

      One interesting clanger by the Prime Minister has emerged in the judgment.  He filed an affidavit in the case that said the following:

      “Ministers were clear throughout the process that particular Māori iwi/hapū have rights and interests in specific water and geothermal resources in rohe. If the applicants are seeking to suggest otherwise that is simply wrong”.

      I have tried to but no matter how hard I try I cannot reconcile this statement by Key with his comment that “no one owns water”.

      So is this evidence of him telling a porkie?
      • One Tāne Viper 13.1.1

        11 December 2012 at 6:27 pm

        That would be “perjury”, no?

        The corrupt low-life often referred to as “The Right Honourable John Key, Prime Minister” seems to believe that facts are a matter of opinion.
14. halfcrown 14

    11 December 2012 at 7:04 pm

    I see Crusher Collins does not agree with the high court Judge they employed from Canada to look into compensation for David Bain. Now doesn’t that sound familiar and usual from these right wing arseoles. I remember Justice Mahon who gave a verdict which has been proved to be correct on the DC10 crash on Mt Erebus when he said there was a litany of lies. Muldoom nearly feel out of his tree as this was not the answer that Mahon was employed to give. This is why Crusher Collins is seeking “further” advice because the right wing shit have not got the answer they wanted. She will “seek” advice until they find someone who will give them the answer they want. And that is don’t pay Bain a penny
    Fucking arseoles I don’t know if Bain is guilty or not, but like Ellis they have been found “NOT GUILTY” and have spent a considerable amount of their time incarcerated They deserve something.
    • One Tāne Viper 14.1

      11 December 2012 at 7:08 pm

      In the corrupt low-life’s defence she has asserted that “The review would not have an impact on Bain’s claim, other than to delay it…”
    • muzza 14.2

      12 December 2012 at 7:15 am

      Judge Judy: Collins slams Binnie’s Bain report

      The National Party and in particular Judith Collins are acting more and more like the German National Socialist politicians of the late 1930′s. Collins, herself a second rate lawyer, has the audacity to belittle the retired Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ian Binnie; doe’s Collins really believe that her blatant political interference will be seen for anything other than what it is?

      All she will achieve, with this latest fiasco, is to yet again bring New Zealand’s legal system into disrepute, cause international observers to conclude that the country’s Parliament and so called democracy is a fucking joke….an international laughing stock!

      The Justice Binnie’s report needs to be released immediately so that tax paying New Zealander’s (the people that are funding the Beehives vendetta) can make up their own minds – What is Judith Collins trying to conceal by hiding the report?

      Going well in NZ at present innit /sarc!
15. Chris 15

    11 December 2012 at 9:27 pm

    omg so you are all vipers now!!!!
16. Pascal's bookie 16

    11 December 2012 at 9:29 pm

    I just can’t believe nobody’s made a snakes on the muthafucking plane joke yet.
    • felixviper 16.1

      11 December 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Bahaha they have now
      • Rhinoviper 16.1.1

        11 December 2012 at 11:18 pm

        On a frakkin’ battlestar, you mean.
17. vto viped 17

    11 December 2012 at 9:47 pm

    Given that website Red Alert has allowed its private information to be used for other purposes what websites are considered safe to visit?

    Whale oil? Kiwiblog? Scoop? Pundit? Handcream? This site?

    I mean, pretty much the game is over is it not? There can be no certainty that identification of people is securely held. By any site.
    • McFliper 17.1

      11 December 2012 at 9:58 pm

      Faith in Lynn. And non-permanent IPs, and non-obvious email addresses (e.g. not j.smith@… but mcflock@… or similar). Not perfect, but at least makes it slightly difficult.
         
      The thing is that someone could still narrow me down to a few folk from my comments, but they will still be guessing. So my comments won’t be bringing my employer into disrepute, or whatever some tory (or wannabe machiavelli in Labour caucus) would try to fuck me with for no good reason. 
    • lprent 17.2

      12 December 2012 at 6:02 am

      Working on it. Because of the proposed “cyber bullying” bill and it’s innovative approach to removing the ‘anonomity’ on psuedonyms I will be removing all identifying information on this aite into non reversible hashes. A complaint seems to be all that will actually be required as far as I can tell for whatever structure happens to force me to reveal ino otherwise. This means that all identifying information will be transitory in nature and would require direct control of the server or man in the middle access – both of which are far more difficult than a enforceable order by a quango.

      It will be a bit more awkward to moderate, but the would have happened anyway as more people went ipv6 on the site.
18. laurieh 18

    13 December 2012 at 11:30 am

    Hi all,

    Can anyone tell me when the Leadership vote in February will actually take place… most places/people just say, “in February”…

    Cheers.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS