Open mike 17/08/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, August 17th, 2014 - 162 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

162 comments on “Open mike 17/08/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. greg 1
    17 August 2014 at 1:01 am

    Karol, can you accept that parties from the left have engaged in smear politics in recent election campaigns?

    [lprent: If you want to ask one of my authors a question, then make it quite specific and explain why they should bother answering. And read the policy before I wind up having to ban you.

    In this case remember that karol isn’t a member of any political party. She probably has better things to do (like writing detailed posts) rather than extracting information to a lazy dickhead who hasn’t bothered to put any effort into making their question specific.

    If I see another “pig-fucker” question from the ACT playbook (why you idiots all sound the same is beyond me), I will kick you off the site. This is your warning. ]

    • TeWhareWhero 1.1
      17 August 2014 at 9:51 am

      greg – can you accept that this is of a completely different order of magnitude from anything which has gone on before?

      That it involves not just smear tactics against members of other political parties, but smear tactics within the National Party to advance the political careers of the clients of one of the smearers – whose political agenda is to push the National Party further to the Right?

      That it involves smears against people who protect the public interest?

      That it involves smears against third parties to advance the commercial interests of the right-wing, anti-union mates of the smearers?

      That all this smearing was done by people intimately connected to the National Party and in close personal contact with key NP politicians and members of the government – including Mr Teflon Man himself?

    • Foreign Waka 1.2
      17 August 2014 at 1:36 pm

      Greg, may I counter with a question for you? Why is it when facts are in the open domain the right always cries foul despite being the ones responsible for the bad decisions that precipitated those facts?

    • Colonial Viper 1.3
      17 August 2014 at 2:17 pm

      Hey greg, can you accept that the PM’s office has co-ordinated smear campaigns with Whaleoil, allowing the PM to claim that he has no knowledge, when in actual fact Key himself frequently talks to Cameron Slater about content for the Whaleoil blog?

      • TheContrarian 1.3.1
        17 August 2014 at 7:02 pm

        Key suggests content for Slaters blog?

        Citation needed

        • felix 1.3.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 7:11 pm

          Yeah you probably should find a cite for that one, Conty. It doesn’t look anything like what CV said.

          • TheContrarian 1.3.1.1.1
            17 August 2014 at 7:14 pm

            “when in actual fact Key himself frequently talks to Cameron Slater about content for the Whaleoil blog”

            Kinda says it there doesn’t it? Key talks about content for the Whaleoil blog. Perhaps CV would like to clarify what he means if he didn’t mean Key himself frequently talks to Cameron Slater about content for the Whaleoil blog

            • karol 1.3.1.1.1.1
              17 August 2014 at 7:20 pm

              Nope.

              “talk about” does not equal “suggests content”

              • TheContrarian …
                17 August 2014 at 7:27 pm

                Talking about something for a blog, as opposed to content on a blog, would suggest it hadn’t been posted and it was a discussion, or a suggestion, about contents which could or should be posted. If CV didn’t mean that then he can say so.

                • felix …
                  17 August 2014 at 7:35 pm

                  “…and it was a discussion, or a suggestion…”

                  …or a donut. Or an antelope. Or a blueprint for a flying machine.

                  I mean if we’re just going to add random words to other peoples sentences to change the meaning, fill your fucking boots.

                  Or as I call them, seminars.

            • felix 1.3.1.1.1.2
              17 August 2014 at 7:21 pm

              Yes Conty, “talks about content”. So why didn’t you just say that instead of claiming that CV said Key “suggests content”, which he didn’t say at all?

  2. CnrJoe 2
    17 August 2014 at 7:25 am

    Oh Rodney – hasn’t, can’t read, brain hurts, math hard, dot dot dot, its all lies cause I’m like Banksy – don’t do wrong, can’t be wronged, Jordan and Don wouldn’t lie to me……

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11309981

  3. Neoleftie 3
    17 August 2014 at 7:45 am

    Well challenging and concerning times.
    Are we surprised at the revelations in hagers serial book, or is it a case of connecting the dots in the public demain.
    With the labour strategy of be positive vote for positiveness and it’s raft of sound costed policy releases labour must stay on message, on strategy and stay united to present to the swing switch voter a solid front that portrays a real meaningful alternative to the dirty swilling wallowing corporate Tories who think any means to achieve the end result is legitimate and who cares cause the public are really blind dumb and turned off.
    Time for real labour to step up and represents the people.
    Time for real labour to keep above the mire the dirty trick and blackest of political arts that really is foreign to the average kiwi outlook.
    So mr cunliffe and co keep positive.
    Think positive, act positve, be positive and dream/ hope for a better nz.

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      17 August 2014 at 11:43 am

      I think Cunliffe should reply to Key’s stupid line of “the left don’t want to debate policies”, by inviting Key to a snap debate, and pointing out that Key offered Cunliffe a debate earlier in the year, and then re-negged on it after Cunliffe accepted.

  4. UglyTruth 4
    17 August 2014 at 8:10 am

    Over on Kiwiblog I’ve been going on about the difference between theft and copying for a few days now. Initially I described the motivation for this as being to the copyright industry’s desire to increase the size of their catch via US fair use doctrine. However there is a more important reason for the abuse of the English language the the media trots out: control of the judicial process.

    Evidence is information, and information is typically obtained by copying it from the original source. When copying is misrepresented as theft, it appears that the evidence has been obtained unlawfully and is therefore inadmissible in judicial proceedings.

    This is significant given the corporate media’s role of defending the status quo: in the corporate world the state is the final arbiter of justice. Also given the association between Judith Collins and Cameron Slater, Slater’s correspondence as described in Nicky Hager’s book means that the issue of controlling the evidence has serious implications for the National party.

    • UglyTruth 4.1
      17 August 2014 at 12:06 pm

      Rodney Hide just posted about the emails that “everyone agrees were stolen”.

      I’ve posted some legal references which show that “everyone” is mistaken.

      Mr Hide, are only people who agree with you real people?

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 12:59 pm

        Anyone who is familiar with Rodney’s musings will know he lives in a little bubble world all of his own.

  5. Once Was Tim 5
    17 August 2014 at 8:34 am

    Interesting “Insight” documentary on Immigration this morning (RNZ) – audio under http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday

    One thing I’ve noticed that’s concerning to me is the manner in which politicians usurp what should be ‘judicial’ powers – especially evident with Immigration matters, but across the board.

    Why do we not have proper ombudsman-like independent bodies to handle such matters rather than having to appeal to Ministers of the Crown who’re open to lobbying and political expediency?
    I don’t understand why we’ve not heard more from the judiciary over the years but its been a gradual chip chip chipping away at their role in a functioning democracy.

    If you listen to “Insight” – you’ll understand the potential for being able to buy PR and Citizenship status, and for legitimate refugees and others to be either stuck in limbo with no means of support, OR simply deported (sometimes when they have rip-off employment issues needing investigation). It’s all very convenient.

  6. felix 6
    17 August 2014 at 8:35 am

    That Slater interview really needs re-posting:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Interview-Whale-Oil-blogger-Cameron-Slater/tabid/1348/articleID/357106/Default.aspx

    Whole lotta explaining going on.

    • weka 6.1
      17 August 2014 at 10:44 am

      Lisa Owen was very good in that interview. Amazing to see a journo actually coping with the material and not being afraid to do their job.

      • felix 6.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 12:07 pm

        Yeah she’s impressed me lately. And that’s pretty sad, because she’s just doing what they’re all meant to do.

      • Rodel 6.1.2
        17 August 2014 at 12:50 pm

        Interesting to see at about 2.30 Gower shaking his head in disapproval when Lisa Owen explained that JK and other nats wouldn’t come on the programme.
        Couldn’t finish watching it myself..too much Slater is bad for health.

  7. just saying 7
    17 August 2014 at 8:48 am

    Nicky Hager picks snippets from the book for the Herald

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11310001

    The problem is snippets are particularly misleading in this case because in order to really understand you have to read the book. The relentlessness and weight of what Hager has uncovered is part of what makes it so affecting. A whole chapter would give a better idea. Even if just one aspect is illuminated, people could start to taste the decompositon.

    It is slandersous to suggest that the Standard is in any way comparable. Probably nothing in NZ politics is. None of us here is perfect but we’re not freaking evil.

    • Molly 7.1
      17 August 2014 at 9:45 am

      I’ve got a suspicion that the article you point to is misleading. Nicky Hager’s name is not on the byline, and it does not read like his writing.

      It does read like one of those anonymous editorials that the Herald is so fond of writing, and not allowing comments on.

    • Red Rosa 7.2
      17 August 2014 at 12:11 pm

      +1

  8. Chooky 8
    17 August 2014 at 9:07 am

    ‘Hager’s Dirty Politics – Death threats or hit jobs?’

    By Martyn Bradbury / August 16, 2014

    “Let’s be clear, no one deserves death threats, but Slater is now outed as the Wolf that cries boy, and all attempts to justify his actions by pointing to the angry reaction that has occurred because he has been outed simply don’t wash and quite frankly are open to a level of scepticism…”

    Matthew Hooton is not a fit person for Radio New Zealand.

    • weka 8.1
      17 August 2014 at 10:51 am

      I need to go look up the exact bits in the book, but I’ve also been thinking that RNZ has a bit of a dilemma now. If Hooton has been using his spot on RNZ to disseminate false information* and that is part of the whole thing that Slater and NACT have been doing, then that’s a clear conflict of interest and must surely breach broadcasting standards.

      I was gobsmacked that Kathryn Ryan had Hooton on the day after the book release, and then, after letting him comment for most of the spot as an independent commentator, tried to ask him about what Hager says in the book about him and his own involvement. It’s like she had no sense of where the boundaries lie or what is proper (sorry to sound so old fashioned). This more than a lot of the other stuff worries me, because while we can expect Slater and co to be unethical, manipulative and have no sense of right and wrong, we might still reasonably expect an organisation like RNZ to be able to tell the difference between someone whose opinion is independent versus someone who is up to their neck in the thing being discussed.

      *by ‘if’ I mean beyond the usual bullshit he peddles.

      • Lanthanide 8.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 11:47 am

        Don’t blame Kathryn for her producer’s shoddy job.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 12:16 pm

          Yes, the producer’s fault too, but Ryan was asking the questions.

          • Once Was Tim 8.1.1.1.1
            17 August 2014 at 1:36 pm

            no you don’t understand @ weka – it’s ALL the producer’s fault.
            Kathryn has NO input into it (/sarc)

            That’s why Mike I-tend-to-agree-with-you-Matthew Williams is used as being representative of “the Left”

      • Puddleglum 8.1.2
        17 August 2014 at 8:38 pm

        On National Radio today, Media Watch did a good analysis of the Hager reporting.

        Part of that included the question Ryan put to Hooton about the ‘conversation’ between him, Cathy Odgers and Cameron Slater in which, I think, Hooton provides to Odgers Nicky Hager’s address. This despite the clear indication from Odgers that this would be dangerous for Hager.

        His ‘defence’ was that Hager’s address was publicly available (e.g., in his submissions to select committees). That misses the point completely, of course, given the context within which he apparently offered Hager’s address up to someone who had indicated what she would do with it and how dangerous that would be for Hager’s security.

        Ryan just let that answer stand and did not follow it up to point out that the public availability of Hager’s address was not the issue in relation to Hooton’s behaviour – either she had not read the book properly or she simply didn’t want to cause a scene.

    • tricledrown 8.2
      17 August 2014 at 2:36 pm

      A BSA complaint should be lodged this is not the first time Hooton has bullied people who he Doesn’t approve of its time he went RNZ ‘s credibility on Hooton is a joke and shows whose pulling all the strings in the Media in NewZealand, While bomber Bradbury highlighted John Keys throat slitting gesture in parliament he was given the chop straight away!
      Hooton published Hagers address in a very intimidating way he should not only be sacked but prosecuted!

  9. outofbed 9
    17 August 2014 at 9:11 am

    I think we can kiss goodbye to Winston going into Govt with the Nats
    The Nats Brand is just too toxic

    • just saying 9.1
      17 August 2014 at 9:17 am

      Funnily enough, I was just talking to a former National voter in the whanau. He’s decided to vote NZF after reading the excerpts in today’s Herald (so much for my theory above) and reckons that they will be the main beneficiaries of all this.

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 2:20 pm

        Quite possible. They’ll never vote Labour, Greens are too flakey, that Dotcom is a crim (and Hone isn’t far behind), Colin Craig – bah. So Winston is all that is left, you know what you are voting for, and you know what you are getting.

    • weka 9.2
      17 August 2014 at 10:54 am

      “I think we can kiss goodbye to Winston going into Govt with the Nats
      The Nats Brand is just too toxic”

      Probably the biggest danger at this point for the left is people assuming that, voting NZF because they believe that will keep Labour in the centre. However history tells us that Peters will do whatever he wants and whatever works for him at the time. For instance, were Key to resign as leader/PM, what is to stop Peters supporting the new, reformed National party?

      Peters/NZF is never a vote for the left, and if you want a change of govt this year then vote for an actual left wing party.

      • Lanthanide 9.2.1
        17 August 2014 at 11:50 am

        “For instance, were Key to resign as leader/PM, what is to stop Peters supporting the new, reformed National party?”

        If Key does it before the election, National won’t be in a position to form a government.

        If he does it after the election, in negotiation with Winston, National voters will be in an uproar and there will be cries of “tail wagging the dog” like you’ve never seen before. ACT getting charter schools pales into insignificance if Winston got to choose the PM.

        For those reasons, this won’t happen.

        • weka 9.2.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 12:09 pm

          Are you suggesting that Peters doesn’t have the capacity to influence coalition negotiations to the point that he gets to decide who the govt is? History says otherwise.

          Or perhaps you are saying that the National Party would rather lose the election than have Winston dictate who is leader. I doubt that. I also doubt that the National Party membership will have any overt power in that decision. Voters will have no say.

          “If Key does it before the election, National won’t be in a position to form a government.”

          Do you mean because voters will swing away from a party that replaces its leader that close to the election? Maybe, but are you willing to take the risk? I’m not.

          • Lanthanide 9.2.1.1.1
            17 August 2014 at 12:24 pm

            Are you suggesting that Peters doesn’t have the capacity to influence coalition negotiations to the point that he gets to decide who the govt is? History says otherwise.

            Of course he has chosen the government before. But he has not simultaneously chosen the leader of that new government.

            Or perhaps you are saying that the National Party would rather lose the election than have Winston dictate who is leader. I doubt that. I also doubt that the National Party membership will have any overt power in that decision. Voters will have no say.

            That is exactly what I’m saying. Any government formed from such an arrangement would not be appreciated by the NZ public and would be seen as illegitimate. As much as National might like this outcome (they get to hold power), it would be a government under huge criticism and have a hard time getting work done, and of course seriously damage the National party brand.

            Note, in the two-part Helen Clark documentary that aired on TV3 last year, Winston said he chose National because Helen Clark and Jim Anderton were literally not speaking to each other and he didn’t see how it would be possible to form a stable government in such a situation. So he probably made the right call, there, especially given subsequent events with the Alliance anyway.

            Do you mean because voters will swing away from a party that replaces its leader that close to the election? Maybe, but are you willing to take the risk? I’m not.

            Partly that, but mainly because the only reason National is polling as high as it does is “that nice man Mr Key”. I would have thought that was obvious, especially given that the biggest angle about the Dirty Politics book is the way in which it tarnish’s teflon-John’s image.

            • weka 9.2.1.1.1.1
              17 August 2014 at 12:35 pm

              “That is exactly what I’m saying. Any government formed from such an arrangement would not be appreciated by the NZ public and would be seen as illegitimate. As much as National might like this outcome (they get to hold power), it would be a government under huge criticism and have a hard time getting work done, and of course seriously damage the National party brand.”

              You are assuming that it would be done overtly. From what I recall Peters likes to negotiate in secret, and as we have seen this week NACT are masters at covering their tracks.

              I honestly don’t think that Key and his mates give a shit about the long term National Party brand other than to the extent that it affects their power. They will be weighing up the relative merits of getting another term at this point in time even if it means being in opposition for longer after that.

              Note, in the two-part Helen Clark documentary that aired on TV3 last year, Winston said he chose National because Helen Clark and Jim Anderton were literally not speaking to each other and he didn’t see how it would be possible to form a stable government in such a situation. So he probably made the right call, there, especially given subsequent events with the Alliance anyway.

              Chooky has often cited that. I’d like to see two other credible sources that support that view. It’s certainly not how people at the time saw it playing out. Looks like Peters spin to me.

              Partly that, but mainly because the only reason National is polling as high as it does is “that nice man Mr Key”. I would have thought that was obvious, especially given that the biggest angle about the Dirty Politics book is the way in which it tarnish’s teflon-John’s image.

              Still a risk though, to vote for Peters on the assumption of what other swing voters might do.

              • Lanthanide …
                17 August 2014 at 12:57 pm

                You are assuming that it would be done overtly. From what I recall Peters likes to negotiate in secret, and as we have seen this week NACT are masters at covering their tracks.

                Um, it would have to be public? John Key wins the election, then immediately stands down and the leftovers of National form a government with Peter’s propping them up? Don’t you think the MSM might be asking questions about why Key decided to stand down, given that he’s committed to staying for the full term if he wins this election? Pretty drastic turnaround to stand down within the weeks of a good election victory, don’t you think?

                Personally I see Winston as leaning towards Labour, not National, although I know many others don’t agree.

                Chooky has often cited that. I’d like to see two other credible sources that support that view. It’s certainly not how people at the time saw it playing out. Looks like Peters spin to me.

                Difficult to see where any other sources would come from to back it up. It’s possible Winston is using it as an excuse to cover up his decision that ultimately proved to be an unpopular one that didn’t stand the test of time. The other point here of course, is that rather than saying “Winston went with National before, he’ll do it again”, you could say “Winston went with National and it turned out to be a disaster…”. And that’s before you factor in John Key’s particular venom towards Winston.

                Still a risk though, to vote for Peters on the assumption of what other swing voters might do.

                Of course, if you want to change the government, you should vote left, not NZFirst. My point is that your bogeyman of Winston orchestrating a National-led government by getting Key to stand down is far-fetched.

                • weka …
                  17 August 2014 at 1:09 pm

                  You’re still making quite a few assumptions. Perhaps Key resigns for personal reasons. Perhaps National think he is a liability. Maybe there are more revelations before the election. The scenario you present of Peters orchestrating this himself the week after the election isn’t the only way it could go down. And you have far more faith in the MSM than I do in regards to asking the right questions.

                  “Personally I see Winston as leaning towards Labour, not National, although I know many others don’t agree.”

                  That’s not relevant though. The point is that Peters can’t be trusted as a vote to change th govt, irrespective of what one thinks about his politics.

                  “My point is that your bogeyman of Winston orchestrating a National-led government by getting Key to stand down is far-fetched.”

                  No more farfetched than the idea that he would go with National in that election where lots of lefties voted for him. Peters is capable of much more than you are giving him credit for, that’s the point.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    17 August 2014 at 1:20 pm

                    You’re still making quite a few assumptions. Perhaps Key resigns for personal reasons. Perhaps National think he is a liability. Maybe there are more revelations before the election. The scenario you present of Peters orchestrating this himself the week after the election isn’t the only way it could go down. And you have far more faith in the MSM than I do in regards to asking the right questions.

                    “Personal reasons” is of course possible, but he is on record as saying he will stick around for the full term if he wins this election. So if he tried to use the fig-leaf of ‘personal reasons’, I think he’d have to give a little more detail.

                    It seems unlikely that National would see Key as more of a liability than they would shacking up with Winston in what would obviously be a very unpopular government.

                    More revelations before the election is possible I guess, with the obvious one being KDC’s coming just 5 days before polling day. Key could stand-down as a result of that, but I suspect any revelations that were so damaging to Key, would also damage National and once again Winston wouldn’t want to stitch up such an unpopular government.

                    That’s not relevant though. The point is that Peters can’t be trusted as a vote to change th govt, irrespective of what one thinks about his politics.

                    Yes, I agree, but the point you are making, which I’m arguing against, is that we could end up with a National government where Key resigns that is propped up by Winston. This really is incredibly unlikely. My comment about Winston’s politics is irrelevant to this particular point, I just threw it in there to give you an idea where I’m coming from.

                    No more farfetched than the idea that he would go with National in that election where lots of lefties voted for him. Peters is capable of much more than you are giving him credit for, that’s the point.

                    No, it is far-fetched. Winston went with National and Bolger. You are proposing a situation where Winston goes with National and not-Key. That is a very different scenario, one which would be publicly untenable. Why would Winston prop up an unpopular and likely-to-be-viewed-as-illegitimate government when he could just go with the left? He already made this sort of decision back in 1996 and it did not go well for him (although again, the situations are not directly comparable).

                    Now, if you just want to say, Winston would go into coalition with National after the election with John Key as PM, I have no problem in agreeing to that. The point is you’re suggesting an outcome where Key isn’t PM.

      • greywarbler 9.2.2
        17 August 2014 at 2:35 pm

        @weka 10.54
        Good call.

  10. outofbed 10
    17 August 2014 at 9:23 am

    Danyl post about Hide being blackmailed is pretty amazing

    http://dimpost.wordpress.com/

  11. nadis 11
    17 August 2014 at 9:58 am

    Very close to actionable I would have thought. He seems to be publicly calling hide a liar.

    • Hanswurst 11.1
      17 August 2014 at 10:38 am

      Rubbish. A timeline is presented noting that Hide suddenly decided to step down for undisclosed reasons, and that the dates of the alleged blackmail would explain it. There is a big difference between saying that a theory fits, and saying that any other explanation must be a lie. The difference isn’t a matter of pedantry, either, but one that you could drive a truck through.

      • Lanthanide 11.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 11:53 am

        A commenter there claims to know the inside story and implies that while something dodgy went on, it wasn’t blackmail.

        • Hanswurst 11.1.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 9:06 pm

          Yeah, I read that. I have no idea whether it’s true or not, but it pays to remember that it’s just another person claiming to know what went on (without saying what did). There seem to be quite a few of those right now, on all sorts of subjects.

    • lprent 11.2
      17 August 2014 at 11:15 am

      I’m sure that if Hide is completely confident about his story then he will risk the discovery motions and slow gears of justice and start a defamation suit.

      On the other hand if he does not, then it won’t be surprising either. As it involves politics, the public interest parts of the Lange vs Atkinson decision will kick in.

      Incidentally calling someone a liar is not “actionable”. It appears to be a common (and quite boring) misconception based on the old common law basis of libel/slander. These days we only have defamation and it largely concerns itself with facts. There appears to be no statement of false facts. There is understandable speculation.

  12. Morrissey 12
    17 August 2014 at 9:59 am

    It’s not easy being a person of conscience in a totalitarian state

    The few who have spoken out of line have been threatened or denounced as traitors.

    After Haaretz commentator Gideon Levy accused air force pilots of perpetrating “the cruelest (and) most despicable deeds” against Gaza’s weakest and most helpless,” his employer hired him bodyguards. Readers cancelled their subscriptions, people stopped in the street to insult him and government whip Yariv Levin denounced him as a liar, a “mouthpiece of the enemy” who should be put on trial for treason.

    “I have never faced such aggressive reaction, never,” Levy told AFP in his cramped office at Haaretz in Tel Aviv, away from the coffee shops where he fears being insulted. “Nobody cares here about the suffering of Gaza. More than this, if you dare to express empathy you are a traitor,” he said.

    Read more….
    http://news.yahoo.com/witch-hunt-against-israels-war-critics-134302477.html

    • UglyTruth 12.1
      17 August 2014 at 10:23 am

      Slater doing his interview from Tel Aviv is not a coincidence here, Zionism has long been present within the conservative tradition of the right. But to be fair there are also honourable values within that conservative tradition, the light and dark threads have been there since the time of the Roman empire.

      • tricledrown 12.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 11:54 am

        Ugly Truth Slater claimed he was still in regular contact with John Key .Shonkey is claiming the opposite. A Slater Slip up excuse the pun but Key and Slater are Compulsive Liars telling more lies to cover previous lies!
        Claiming Labour caucus members regularly feed him information what BS!

    • joe90 12.2
      17 August 2014 at 12:26 pm

      Look who’s on the payroll.

      Cameron “Whale Oil” Slater is bleary-eyed, having spent 24 hours on a plane, and now finds himself in a war zone during a ceasefire. It’s Friday in Israel; Saturday back home.

      He’s one of a group of international journalists invited to visit by the Israeli government, which has been earning bruising international condemnation over the civilian death toll in the Gaza conflict.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10391846/Blogging-money-and-blurred-lines

  13. adam 13
    17 August 2014 at 10:19 am

    Is it me, or is dirty politics just describing the actions of some privileged white folk?

    These white folk are just so unsure of themselves and their white privilege, they fear losing any power? These same white folks, then use said white power, and privilege – to attack, and vilify anyone they see in the way of their keeping power? Hell they even attack other white folk, later, a whole city of them. Funny how some of the most nasty comments are directed towards poor white folk, they got class hatred going on too?

    • weka 13.1
      17 August 2014 at 10:58 am

      Beyond the fact that this is happening in NZ and the power elite here is European patriarchal and caucasian, I don’t follow what you mean. Maybe you could be more specific eg give an example of the nasty comments directed at poor white folk.

      • crocodill 13.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 1:42 pm

        There needs to be a better word for the cultural dysfunction here in NZ, and to some degree otherwise known as “European patriarchal”, than the standard broad brush of “white privilege”. I’m white, but not white enough (not that I’d want to be given the examples set for me) and know exactly what white privilege has cost me and can see it every day. To refuse entirely to be white in my world, I’d have to live on the street. The things I refuse to do, for example, emulate that goddamn cowardice that unpins NZ white culture, has cost me big time. Life makes cowards of us all, unexpectedly, but to hell with always and only swinging at he little guy. I often wander around muttering about goddamn whities, and I’m white.

        Historically speaking, what we see here is not sourced from Patriarchy, or European in a specific sense. If we allow other cultures to trace their roots back to year dot, just to find something admirable by today’s political values, it is not consistent or fair to maintain the line that ol’ whitey may not do the same. If we restrict white culture to the past few hundred years, we’re already seeing how it was distorted from an earlier time. But if we go back a thousand or more, we find something very different.

        We find a patriarchy that was more enlightened than any of the isms available today. Seemingly as an oxymoron, early patriarchy did not restrict women from owning or inheriting property or maintaining respected positions within a group. It didn’t kick them out on their ass if their husband died or left them. It did not seek to control their sexuality either. It allowed groups of people with limited wealth and power to band together to form equally representative groups in political matters, so that they were heard too – communism within a patriarchy. There were severe penalties against wealth and power attacking those not as powerful. Mental illness was known about and allowed for; xenophobia was not something they were interested in at all.

        It’s not good enough to wave around patriarchy and men as some sort of inherent evil in the world, since forever. We need to call it what it is: Greed and avarice. Being white, or being a greedy whitey has a certain style, no doubt about it. Most of us can spot it. But whites don’t have a singular claim to greed with all other peoples just honest babes in the world. As most of you know, when a culture tries to appease and assimilate into white greed, things get really complicated, take a look at what it did to Indian culture, for an example. I saw evidence of that at the supermarket yesterday, and how many steps removed from the original event is that?! Yesterday too, I received a flyer from a company that was using aboriginal patterns and they’d included a long spiel about how it was ok, because the artists were being paid. No one comes out clean once they “dance with the devil” and unravelling it becomes impossible.

        Something went badly wrong in white culture around the time the Saxons (not to imply blame) went on a rampage across their corner of the globe. But there are records, romanticised or not by time, of what was before then. What is ol’ whitey’s excuse for not appealing to the source values of his culture?

        • vto 13.1.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 2:02 pm

          There is no more wrong with ‘whitey’ culture than there is with pretty much every other culture.

          Your descriptions give your bias away

  14. Bearded Git 14
    17 August 2014 at 10:30 am

    Nicky Hager has just told Wallace Chapman that his email source has refused him permission to release the original emails (Hager says he handed them back to the source so he could not be injuncted) because he (the source) is probably going to release them.

    Hager has asked him not to release the personal stuff, but who knows what will be released?

    This is dynamite-fun and games ahead.

    Meanwhile Hager says he does not believe Key when he says he didn’t know what Ede was up to. (Duh!). It is the Key-Ede link that will destroy Key-this is what the media should be concentrating on, as Patrick Gower is doing in the Herald today. Funny how Ede has gone to ground.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11310029

    • weka 14.1
      17 August 2014 at 11:12 am

      Gower is concentrating on the Ede’Key connection, but only because he’d be an ass if he didn’t. Hence the sprinkling throughout his article of some Key-esque bullshit.

      From Gower’s article

      “And so far this campaign there’s been all sorts of tricks to get to Key – ”

      “F-John Key” chants

      At an IMP event, probably orchestrated to some extent.

      anti-Semitic graffiti

      afaik there is zilch evidence tying this to the left.

      the clever blues song Planet Key

      A song written by an independent musician who afaik has no ties to any political party.

      and even a burning effigy.

      done by a small group of people who also have no affiliation to any political party.

      None of those really worked and, as usual, Key has charged on through.

      Probably because none of them were designed to hurt the Key brand in beltway terms. They all had different agenda that are probably illegible to many in the beltway.

      There’s a lot of faux outrage from the Labour Party about dirty politics. Let’s face it, if five years of Labour’s emails were leaked there’d be a similar book.

      Really? give us some examples then Paddy so we can make a valid comparison.

      • Bearded Git 14.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 11:25 am

        Agreed Weka-Labour needs to counter the Nats argument that “we are bad but they are just as bad”.

        (Perhaps I should make it clear that I didn’t mean to imply that I supported the contents of the Gower article.)

        • weka 14.1.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 11:52 am

          Thanks BG, yes I didn’t think you were supporting Gower’s article, I just got a bit carried away with his bullshit. I agree that Hager’s statement about the emails is very interesting.

      • marty mars 14.1.2
        17 August 2014 at 11:37 am

        Interesting some of the quotes in this interview with key just before Hagar’s book was released

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10392394/In-the-swing-of-things

        Have you given Slater story tips?

        “I don’t do stuff with him, believe it or not. I don’t leak because I don’t need to. Look, ministers might feed things, and other people might feed things, but I just don’t do that. If I want to do something I just say, ‘I’m doing it.’ “

        So Ministers might feed things eh – what did you really know key-with-the-faulty-memory – it will come out.

        What’s the last book you read?

        “Portrait of a Prime Minister. John Roughan’s book.”

        Don’t laugh. A bit earlier in the piece he explained…

        He said he found Portrait of a Prime Minister, a mildly hagiographic account of his life by New Zealand Herald writer John Roughan, “a lot more interesting than I thought I would”

        Personally I hope the revelations of how filthy key and the rest of them are destroy the political life of him and he has to scuttle off right quickly.

    • yeshe 14.2
      17 August 2014 at 11:33 am

      Nicky Hager said the same things first to Susan Wood on Q&A this morning .. worth a look but
      footage not online at TVNZ yet but this written summary is:

      http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/hager-can-t-reveal-original-material-kim-dotcom-not-source-6058922

  15. tc 15
    17 August 2014 at 10:32 am

    My what a fascinating week. Shonkey always admired Muldoon and it seems perhaps he’s gone straight to the piggyplaybook in his use of the sis.

    Unlike back then we have some new voices and this material from hager which didn’t exist back when Moyle was the target.

    Liking the Labour campaign message, keep on that and the costed policies whilst others can examine this gov’t and their corrupt behaviour. Time for the NACT to reap what they’ve sown.

    A rerun of the hollowmen is required before 20/9/14.

  16. Te Reo Putake 16
    17 August 2014 at 10:34 am

    Why getting rid of sub editors is a bad idea No94: The New Zealand Herald.

    An insider told The Sun newspaper: “You would be mad to try to get on a plane if you had a child abuse inquiry hanging over you.”

    However, people who have been questioned under caution by police can apply to the US Embassy for special consideration for a visa and will be assed on an individual basis.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11310110

  17. Chooky 17
    17 August 2014 at 11:15 am

    Wallace Chapman really comprehensive and good this morning on Radio NZ ‘Sunday Morning’ on issues related to Nicky Hager’s book ‘Dirty Politics’

    ….and a very good interview with Nicky Hager himself ( this latter yet to be available on audio)

    … also an interview with an academic on the issues surrounding the legality /morality of journalists using hacked emails

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/20145962/chris-bramwell-explores-dirty-campaign-claims

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/20145963/marian-hobbs-blames-bloggers-for-new-level-of-nastiness

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/20145974/dirty-politics-an-ethical-minefield

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/20145971/mediawatch-for-17-august-2014

    My comment: Wallace Chapman is a very worthy successor to Chris Laidlaw …I am very pleasantly surprised

  18. Pete 18
    17 August 2014 at 11:27 am

    Kim Dotcom has analysed Whale Oil’s traffic and has concluded most of it is bot-generated, with only 30 percent coming from NZ. He posts a graphic of his findings in this tweet https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/500719306947059713

    • weka 18.1
      17 August 2014 at 12:24 pm

      Nice! Lynn has done some analysis too in the past (tried to find it recently but couldn’t), but it’s handy to have the graphs laid out like that.

  19. KJS0ne 19
    17 August 2014 at 11:41 am

    I have been thinking quite a lot about ‘safe’ and former ‘safe’ Labour seats, and of National’s increasing popularity within these electorates. Especially Auckland Central.

    Nikki Kaye won the Auckland Central electorate in 2011 by a mere 700 odd votes. A very small majority. Before 2008 the seat had been safely in Labour’s hands since 1919. Jacinda Ardern was popular enough that she should have been able to bring the seat back safely into Labour’s hands. But the Greens Denise Roche won 2,903 votes, effectively splitting the left vote, and allowing National to take the seat, despite overall having less votes than that of the left.

    My question is since it seems this election will come down to the wire, wouldn’t it be prudent for Labour and the Greens to work together on this one, for the Greens to withdraw their candidate and throw their support behind Ardern. It would be a tough sell admittedly given Roche’s support in certain areas, but Roche will not win that seat, it’s just not going to happen. So why bother running? Isn’t it counter productive to do so?

    Labour and Greens need to show unity in Auckland Central, every seat counts.

    • tricledrown 19.1
      17 August 2014 at 11:46 am

      The same in Ohariu and Epsom KJSone

      • greywarbler 19.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 2:56 pm

        KJS One 11.14
        “wouldn’t it be prudent for Labour and the Greens to work together”

        Yes. But that can’t be done because Labour wants to test themselves before the NZ public for their own individual league rating, even if it could lose them the election. Great strategic thinking.

        Labour always taking the ideologically pure line.

        • Murray Olsen 19.1.1.1
          18 August 2014 at 12:45 am

          For a certain length of time they might be ideologically pure, until the ideology changes.

          • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1.1
            18 August 2014 at 1:23 am

            Ideological purity has nothing to do with the constraints limiting Labour’s approach. Rather it is a bad mix of internal political rigidities and strategic disconnects.

            • greywarbler 19.1.1.1.1.1
              18 August 2014 at 9:09 am

              @C olonial viper 1.23
              “bad mix of internal political rigidities and strategic disconnects.”

              Sounds like a colonoposcy? is called for. Situation serious.

    • Pete 19.2
      17 August 2014 at 11:54 am

      Not when it’s a fight between parties who will get over the 5 percent mark. Then it’s a case of maximising party vote. The Greens gained nearly 8000 party votes in Auckland Central in 2011, they would likely see a reduction those numbers if they didn’t have a campaign team there. Strategic voting centres on getting minor parties over the mark to bring in coat-tailers. On a national level, Auckland Central doesn’t really matter as both Kaye and Ardern are already both going to return to Parliament.

      That said, there is some mana to holding an electorate seat and I would much rather see it with the left.

      • tricledrown 19.2.1
        17 August 2014 at 12:03 pm

        Pete an advantage of electorates is they have a lot more funding and electorate MPs
        can get a higher voter turnout.

      • Lanthanide 19.2.2
        17 August 2014 at 12:37 pm

        I’m not sure why not having an electorate candidate means they can’t have a campaign team there.

        • Colonial Viper 19.2.2.1
          17 August 2014 at 12:42 pm

          It could be done that way. However, having a strong candidate provides a convenient and powerful focal point for events, leadership and media/journalists during an electorate campaign.

          • Lanthanide 19.2.2.1.1
            17 August 2014 at 12:48 pm

            National makes a big deal of their “list MP for [electorate]”, don’t see why the Green’s can’t do the same. Obviously sitting MPs should be used to their best advantage during the election campaign, so they can still focus electorate-level events on that MP, just on the day you can’t vote for them on the electorate ballot.

            In fact, it would mean the sitting MP could comfortably campaign across several adjoining electorates.

            • weka 19.2.2.1.1.1
              17 August 2014 at 1:04 pm

              The GP pioneered using list MPs in electorates.

              The point is still that standing people in seats you won’t win still raises the party vote. ie it give the GP more MPs overall.

              • Lanthanide …
                17 August 2014 at 1:09 pm

                I guess it’s conceivable that having a Green MP on the electorate vote would increase party votes for Greens. I’m specifically talking about when someone gets into the polling booth and sees the voting ballot, here.

                It does also make the campaign electioneering easier to just say “I’m your electorate candidate” rather than some other vague thing about vote for Green party but not me personally.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 August 2014 at 1:56 pm

                  There is at least a strong effect in Rongotai (Russel Norman) and Dunedin North (Metiria Turei). In both those electorates the Greens scored well over 20% party vote.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    17 August 2014 at 2:18 pm

                    Yes, but is that because their name is on the ballot, or because they’re personally campaigning there? They can do the latter without the former, allowing other left wing parties to win the electorates while hopefully still garnering the same party vote. Or perhaps even more, since as I suggested they could then campaign in other nearby electorates without looking like carpet baggers.

                    • felix …
                      17 August 2014 at 6:55 pm

                      Without a candidate it’s a bit tricky to appear at candidates’ meetings and also a bit tricky to get covered by local media.

                    • karol …
                      17 August 2014 at 7:01 pm

                      is that because their name is on the ballot, or because they’re personally campaigning there?

                      I think it’s a bit of both.

                      Partly it’s because their names are on the ballot with a Green logo beside them.

                      I understand some people think that people are more likely to Party vote Green, if they see a GP logo included beside the list of electorate candidates.

                    • felix …
                      17 August 2014 at 9:18 pm

                      “I understand some people think that people are more likely to Party vote Green, if they see a GP logo included beside the list of electorate candidates.”

                      It legitimises the party. Silly, I know, but in lots of ways we all are 😉

        • weka 19.2.2.2
          17 August 2014 at 12:49 pm

          “I’m not sure why not having an electorate candidate means they can’t have a campaign team there.”

          Of course they can have a campaign team there, it’s just not as effective. The GP have a lot of experience with this.

    • weka 19.3
      17 August 2014 at 12:00 pm

      KJS, the official GP line this election is to go for the party vote (the implication is for voters to vote tactically on the electorate vote if they want to). I think it’s fair to make the case for the GP to step back in an electorate where their absence increases the chances of a left wing govt. But as I understand it that is not the case in Auckland (Waitakere was similar). Where the issue is about who wins the electorate and becomes the MP for that area, I think the GP is right to campaign hard in the seat because it increases their party vote. You have to remember that Labour are not doing the GP any favours either. Note that the GP has not stood candidates in the two crucial Māori seats (TTT and Waiariki), but then there are other crucial seats where it has stood candidates so who knows what is intended. By crucial I mean where the outcome of that electorate could affect the left’s ability to form a govt.

      • KJS0ne 19.3.1
        17 August 2014 at 12:12 pm

        I wouldn’t suggest Greens don’t campaign for party vote, but rather that they focus entirely on that, and do not run an electorate candidate.

        It’s true that both Kaye and Ardern will be returning to parliament regardless, but if the seat goes to Labour that still means another list MP can come in, and above all, a moral victory in reclaiming a seat that was Labour for the greatest part of a century.

        Perhaps Labour feels they can unseat Kaye without support from the Greens, especially since the Greens lost 4.6% of their previous electorate vote and -1.3% the previous time, so there seems to be trend, but is it worth the risk? Labour and the Greens will need to form a coalition to govern, perhaps this is a case where Labour can offer the Green something concrete.

        Thank you Pete, Weka and trickledrown for your reponses, interesting reads.

        • weka 19.3.1.1
          17 August 2014 at 12:21 pm

          Standing someone in an electorate seat IS campaigning for the party vote, that’s why they do it (partly anyway). You get a much bigger presence if you stand someone in the electorate than if you don’t. The GP are experienced in this and know what they are doing. It might not suit Labour, but like I said Labour aren’t doing them any favours either.

          Myself, I would prefer to see more accommodations made, but we have this history now that includes NZF fucking with MMP early on so it’s a bit skewed, and then Labour fucking with the GP which forced the GP to harden up and go for exactly what they want without having to consider Labour.

        • Lanthanide 19.3.1.2
          17 August 2014 at 12:41 pm

          but if the seat goes to Labour that still means another list MP can come in

          No, that’s not how it works.

          The total number of MPs depends on the party vote. Electorate MPs automatically get seats, and then the list MPs are used to “top-up” the allocation until they reach equivalence with their party vote.

          So, say Labour got 30% of the vote, which entitles them to 36 MPs total. If 25 of those MPs are electorate MPs (and Jacinda lost the seat), they get another 11 list MPs, amongst them would be Jacinda due to her list ranking (so there are 10 ‘other’ list MPs). If Jacinda wins the electorate, they get 26 electorate MPs and their total number of MPs remains unchanged at 36, so they get 10 ‘other’ list MPs.

          So the outcomes are identical. It is only when the party vote is equal or less than the number of electorate won, OR the person who wins the electorate seat is low down on the party list, where the winner of an electorate seat matters for the makeup of Parliament.

        • nadis 19.3.1.3
          17 August 2014 at 12:44 pm

          KJS

          Not clear from your post but it looks like you are confused on mmp? If labour is entitled to (say)35 seats because of hte part vote, winning an electorate will in fact mean one less list MP, not one more. They would be entitled to 35 – whether they are list or electorate is irrelevant.

          If you are confused about MP I think that is a great illustration of the problems with our version of MMP. You, who are obvoiusly keenly interested in politics, and partisan still dont understand how MMP works. What hope for the average punter?

          • Lanthanide 19.3.1.3.1
            17 August 2014 at 12:46 pm

            “If you are confused about MP I think that is a great illustration of the problems with our version of MMP.”

            What other “versions” of MMP are there? The whole point of MMP is that it has locally-elected representatives but that the Parliament is determined by the national party vote. That’s actually what “Mixed-Member Proportional” means.

            • nadis 19.3.1.3.1.1
              17 August 2014 at 1:11 pm

              well you know what I mean. I should have said PR instead of MMP.

              I’d just like a simpler system. Maybe MMP with no thresholds and no coat tailing. I don’t like the inequity that its possible to create with the threshold and with electorate seats.

          • KJS0ne 19.3.1.3.2
            17 August 2014 at 1:43 pm

            I think you’re being a little off colour there. It is evident from what has been said that yes, I was mistaken in thinking that winning an electorate seat would result in an additional MP, but I don’t think that means I am confused about MMP on the whole. I don’t think it was an unreasonable assumption for someone not familiar with the intricacies of MMP to think that you have a party vote which determines X number of list MPs and then electorate MP’s are tact on to the total.

            Despairing at the ‘hopes’ of the average punter based upon on a simple mistake of one passionate young man is quite unwarranted.

            • Lanthanide 19.3.1.3.2.1
              17 August 2014 at 9:37 pm

              Despairing at the ‘hopes’ of the average punter based upon on a simple mistake of one passionate young man is quite unwarranted.

              I don’t think so. I think the majority of “punters out there in punter-land” (to quote Don Brash) don’t really understand how MMP works, including the ones that think they do. Many probably understand the broad strokes, but like yourself, get hung-up on the details.

              Thankfully the system rather protects against this, in the fact that generally it’s only the party vote that matters. Once they abolish the coat-tailing rule and drop the threshold, it’ll matter even less what the average voter understands, or doesn’t, about how the system actually works.

    • yeshe 19.4
      17 August 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Akld Central is super critical due to boundary changes that shifted large blocks of Ardern’s support.

  20. Adele 20
    17 August 2014 at 11:44 am

    Kiaora,

    Rather unusual for Stuff online but there is this piece of satire written under the heading John Key’s Diary. The only mention, I might add, of Nicky Hager’s book on the site.

    I would try to post a link but am posting this from my phone and am already crosseyed with the effort and besides I am in the middle of a bush about to go for a walk.

    • Lanthanide 20.1
      17 August 2014 at 11:59 am

      It’s not “unusual” at all.

      Steve Braunias has been doing this series of ‘secret diaries’ every week for months, about a figure in the news that week, usually politicians. He’s done ones for Cunliffe, Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte and McCully, amongst others, all of which I’ve read on stuff.

      Here’s the one on Whyte, which is very much worth a read: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/10338356/The-secret-diary-of-Jamie-Whyte

      “The only mention, I Might add, of Nicky Hager’s book on the site.”
      Not at all, you clearly haven’t looked very hard: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10391846/Blogging-money-and-blurred-lines

      • Adele 20.1.2
        17 August 2014 at 1:17 pm

        Kiaora Lanthanide

        I always do appreciate your anal retentive replies even when directed my way. Perhaps because I am not so retentive that I did miss reading link 435 on page 7689.

        Now, don’t disappoint me by not linking to every Hager item on the front page.

        More importantly, why didn’t you mention these dairies before, as obviously, they’re a good read.

        I look forward to the link which says that you did.

        I am sitting on a log in the middle of nowhere thinking; I am hungry, where’s the nearest shop.

        • Lanthanide 20.1.2.1
          17 August 2014 at 1:26 pm

          I always do appreciate your anal retentive replies even when directed my way. Perhaps because I am not so retentive that I did miss reading link 435 on page 7689.

          Don’t make sweeping claims about “the only story on the site” if you haven’t actually spent the time to check that. The story I linked to, at the time of writing this, is 4th in the politics section on the home page. Earlier in the day it was the 2nd or 3rd story. Hardly “page 7689” or “link 435”.

          More importantly, why didn’t you mention these dairies before, as obviously, they’re a good read.

          I look forward to the link which says that you did.

          Because I actually have found most of them to not be very funny. The John Key one is ok. I particularly like the Whyte one, which is why I linked to it now.

          I don’t think I’m under any obligation to post every link I find interesting on stuff.co.nz to this blog; in fact I think people would be rather irritated if I did. I’m not really under any obligation to post anything on this site.

          • Adele 20.1.2.1.1
            17 August 2014 at 3:58 pm

            Kiaora Lanthanide

            Here I am thinking that you are about informing the greater left about other opinions, but apparently not, your particular viewpoint counts more. If I find something particularly interesting to this forum, I would share it. We call it tatau tatau, an expression of togetherness.

            But you are absolutely right – you don’t have to share a thing.

            Stuff is usually presented by the general left as corporately driven. Its articles lean to the right and conversely the left is in the cold. That occasionally some article bears fruit in otherwise infertile dirt should be enjoyed and not choked on.

            Now have the last word as I am about to have a coffee and cake.

            • Once Was Tim 20.1.2.1.1.1
              17 August 2014 at 4:21 pm

              someone’s obviously never in need of laxatives

              • Adele …
                17 August 2014 at 6:55 pm

                Kiaora once was Tim

                Are you recommending a course of treatment? And, to whom? And for what reason?

            • Lanthanide 20.1.2.1.1.2
              17 August 2014 at 9:43 pm

              Actually the point behind my reply to you was rather an admonishment against hyperbole, than anything else. It irritates me.

              But I have also discovered, reading several other blogs over the last few days due to Dirty Politics (generally TS is all I read), that a lot of people actively avoid Whaleoil or The Standard because they consider both sites to be full of crazy partisan loons. Personally I don’t think The Standard is full of crazy loons (there are of course, some), but hyperbolic comments such as yours (regardless of their merit, or the intent behind them) doesn’t help the perception that people here are crazy. So I like to point it out to their authors where I can. I wish no ill-will whatsoever.

              • Adele …
                18 August 2014 at 12:21 am

                Kiaora Lanthanide

                Instead of saying “site” I should have said “front page” because I was looking for anything on Stuff to suggest they were giving oxygen to Hager’s book. At the time I could see nothing on the front page to say otherwise. I am not a great fan of stuff but did click onto the diary thing out of curiosity.

                I am sorry for over-reacting.

  21. RedBaronCV 21
    17 August 2014 at 12:01 pm

    I confess I don’t watch the broadcast media much but it puzzles me that apart from the bit about hacking Labour’s website we don’t seem to have seen anyone looking to Nact party presidents etc for comment. After all they now employ Jason Ede don’t they?

    Are we alse seeing more women interviewers because they are unlikely to frequent the gentlemen’s club?

  22. Adrian 22
    17 August 2014 at 12:15 pm

    The Nat Party President is well tainted, do a bit of looking, restraining oders etc.

    • RedBaronCV 22.1
      17 August 2014 at 8:59 pm

      I always rather though that that was the case ‘a tainted president’ yet they continue to hang onto him. Pity the public right to know takes a back seat.

      However, you would have though there would be some party spokesperson fronting up even if it was only to claim the moral high ground “It came from us”.

  23. Awww 23
    17 August 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Does anyone still care about GMO’s in our food supply? They are still around and I’m guessing more so if we sign the TPPA.
    http://farmwars.info/?p=13246#more-13246

  24. nadis 24
    17 August 2014 at 12:36 pm

    i prefer this view on GMO

  25. tricledrown 25
    17 August 2014 at 12:37 pm

    The lack of Right Wing Spin Bullies on this site today is is very peculiar given their indefensible circumstances !
    I believe they are regrouping for a new strategy being worked out over the weekend ready for another onslaught tomorrow !
    Berend de Boer Joyce Key and Hooton will be burning the Midnight Oil to work out a strategy to shift the blame of their corruption!

    • Once Was Tim 25.1
      17 August 2014 at 4:40 pm

      Indeed – Infused/Puckish/Jamie Lee Hooten et all have extended morning prayers and are busy learning their lines – they’ve got to get it right – loading bullshit on bullshit doesn’t seem to be working too well. There’s “From the Right ….. and From the Right ….” on NinetoNoon tomorrow, as well as those in-depth, incisive breakfast TV ‘spots’

  26. tricledrown 26
    17 August 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Slater has been cut adrift he will be the fall guy as he is to toxic to be trusted

  27. emergency mike 27
    17 August 2014 at 1:38 pm

    “While Slater was having his photo taken for this article, a text arrived – from Justice Minister Judith Collins. He wouldn’t reveal its content, but exclaimed that it was 4am in New Zealand and wondered out loud what she was doing up.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10391846/Blogging-money-and-blurred-lines

    I guess Judith is an early bird.

  28. tricledrown 28
    17 August 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Who pays the piper on stuff News had a big dig at Big donors extracting favours from National !
    Dongwha Liu”s connections to John Key and Judith Collins connections both with Orivda !
    The Electoral commission should be looking at the$6.3 million in secret donations to New Zealand.
    The Stuff article calls it corruption and it should have no place in NewZealand!
    can’t link on not so smartphone!

  29. Tom Jackson 29
    17 August 2014 at 2:21 pm

    I see that slug is about to “reveal” who hacked his computer.

    My guess is that he’ll pin it on KDC or someone close to him.

  30. tricledrown 30
    17 August 2014 at 3:01 pm

    The whale is beached and and flailing around looking for water somewhere near the dead sea!
    As Rob pointed out Team Key continue to pour Oil on a fire to try and calm thongs down showing how desperate they are!
    So if Slater gets who has hacked him wrong the flames will turn into an inferno!
    Steve Braunias’s Satire is pure gold on Merrill Lynch Bangster John Key.
    The smiling assassin feeding a sack of raw meat to Slippery Slater Crusher Collins in the sewer that runs under parliament while the smiling assassin becomes the laughing assassin!

  31. tricledrown 31
    17 August 2014 at 3:07 pm

    I Can(sarc)see why John(sarc)Key doesn’t any Tiolets on Plant Key, So he can climb out of the sewer he has been wallowing in with whale oil!

  32. Tom Jackson 32
    17 August 2014 at 3:08 pm

    From blubber boy’s orifice

    All the visits to the mansion by Clare Curran, Russel Norman, Winston Peters, Laila Harre, Martyn Bradbury, Alistair Thompson, Nicky Hager. They are all part of a mega-conspiracy to wreck an election, all for the benefit of Kim Dotcom.

    Yeah right.

  34. outofbed 34
    17 August 2014 at 4:22 pm

    My vote compass result was Green
    http://tvnz.co.nz/votecompass
    Funnythat

  35. Kiwiri 35
    17 August 2014 at 5:01 pm

    NZ quote for the history from the Prime Minister:

    “I don’t know, you’d have to ask whoever is responsible for that. But it’s not me”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10392956/Jason-Ede-still-has-Beehive-access

    • felix 35.1
      17 August 2014 at 7:06 pm

      This stuck out too:

      Key said he doesn’t know what Ede’s role with National was now.

      Eh?

      See I would’ve thought that with all the events of the last week, with all of the questions about Ede and his ties to the PM, and all the potential his actions have to damage the PM, Keys would’ve had someone find out everything there is to know about exactly what Ede is is up to right now and made sure he wasn’t doing anything that might be a bad look for Keys and National.

      But hey, what do I know about image-driven control freaks?

      • Puddleglum 35.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 9:22 pm

        I wonder if when Ede moved from the PM’s office to the National Party he sought and received a reference from his boss?

        I’m not sure when Ede became a National Party employee but I presume they hired him because of the skills he demonstrated while working in the PM’s office.

        After all, it’s election year and those particular skills may have been thought to be very useful to ‘bolster’ an election campaign?

  36. CnrJoe 36
    17 August 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Amounts of cash on left by staff on desks around the office had not been taken either.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11310180

    Are the oravida offices a honey trap?

  37. Murray Olsen 37
    17 August 2014 at 5:31 pm

    I am saddened by the love fest arising from the posting by a police informant and especially one who is quite probably a sex criminal as well. Anyone worth listening to knows how careful and thorough Nicky Hager is. He doesn’t need a reference from someone who made a living off lies and betrayal.

    • karol 37.1
      17 August 2014 at 6:02 pm

      Agreed.

    • felix 37.2
      17 August 2014 at 6:04 pm

      Agree 100%.

      Totally unnecessary and in poor taste.

    • Anne 37.3
      17 August 2014 at 6:22 pm

      I agree. Some have gone over the top… but lets be clear that just because others – including me – were willing to give him credit for submitting the post here (and I have no knowledge of sexual criminality) it hardly constituted a “love fest”.

    • marty mars 37.4
      17 August 2014 at 7:56 pm

      I agree too.

      “Anyone worth listening to knows how careful and thorough Nicky Hager is.”

      That is it in a nutshell.

  38. karol 38
    17 August 2014 at 6:01 pm

    TV3 News ! 🙂

    • Bearded Git 38.1
      17 August 2014 at 6:14 pm

      Yep good stuff Karol. Nats 47.5 Lab 29.0 Gr 13.0 IMP 2.0 NZF 4.6. GAME ON!

      Did you notice how happy and PM-like Cunliffe looked and how panicky Key looked?

      What a load of rubbish that IPSOS poll is.

      • karol 38.1.1
        17 August 2014 at 6:15 pm

        One News, slightly different – margin of error stuff.

      • Ffloyd 38.1.2
        17 August 2014 at 6:25 pm

        And poll taken before The Book apparently. Looking good.

      • Leroy 38.1.3
        17 August 2014 at 8:57 pm

        Same poll by TV3 in the 2011 (vs. the one tonight )was:

        National 57.4 (47.5)
        Act 1.6 (0.3)
        MP 0.8 (0.8)
        UF 0 (0.2)
        Right 59.8 (48.8)

        NZ First 1.9 (4.6)

        Labour 26.6 (29)
        Greens 9.8 (13)
        Mana 0 (2)
        Left 36.4 (44)

        Gap between right and left in 2011 was 23.4, now it’s 4.6 – wow, says it all!

        Given TV3 was the second most accurate (Roy Morgan most accurate) in 2011 election, it is getting very very close!!!

        • Bearded Git 38.1.3.1
          17 August 2014 at 9:46 pm

          Very nice comparison Leroy.

          Now a good Roy Morgan (which is imminent) would put the icing on the cake.

  39. Weepus beard 39
    17 August 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Prime Minister John Key says he can’t explain why “black ops” spin doctor Jason Ede still has a staff access card to Parliament.

    Ede was spotted in the Parliamentary complex last week – with a security access swipe card – despite National saying he is employed by them at the party’s Wellington head office.

    – Andrea Vance

    Nice opening from Andrea Vance. There’s hope for pressure journalism in this country yet.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10392956/Jason-Ede-still-has-Beehive-access

    • bad politics 39.1
      17 August 2014 at 7:25 pm

      Cunliffe said on Radiolive (during an extraordinary speech about ‘the book’) that he had a staffer attempt ringing Ede & it went thru the parliamentary switchboard. So, still on the payroll it seems.

  40. Ant 40
    17 August 2014 at 6:26 pm

    So are National using Charles Finny now that the usual suspects have been outed by Hager?

  41. Travis 41
    17 August 2014 at 6:47 pm

    Left a post on Whaleoil decrying the death threats directed at Cameron and suggesting I would assist him in reporting these to the police….his moderators removed my post. Why? Why would Cameron not want to report these numerous threats he has been receiving?It’s very simple to track back and identify where online threats originate….but why on earth would he not be interested?

    • millsy 41.1
      17 August 2014 at 10:18 pm

      Probably because he realises that there is this thing called ‘karma’. And you cannot spend the last 6 months acting like a wannbe brownshirt without it coming back to bite you on the ass.

      Feel sorry for the kids though, they never asked for Slater to be their father. If he was my dad, I would hang myself.

  42. tricledrown 42
    17 August 2014 at 8:11 pm

    Victimizing himself!
    his txt claims are laughable!
    When the real person who handed Hager releases the real emails and himself all Slaters slipperyness will have him going to Alaska next For a lovin with Sarah Palin!

  43. feijoa 43
    17 August 2014 at 8:58 pm

    Have read the book
    It is jawdropping
    Another thing about it, that I haven’t seen talked about alot, is the jacking up of National Candidate selections for the electorates. And also the man called Simon Lusk.
    Seriously, all Members of the National Party need to read this book. IF they had any delusions about their fine upstanding party of gentlemen and ladies, they might be in for a shock
    Might be a bit of stuff going down within its hallowed walls methinks !!!!!

  45. logie97 45
    17 August 2014 at 10:12 pm

    If the leadership doesn’t want to answer any of the questions raised by “Dirty Politics” and Slater, then perhaps the journalists should start picking off individual National MP’s for their opinions regarding the closeness of the likes of Slater, Ede and co to their beloved party.

    I bet many of them are as appalled as Jo.Bloggs is over this. Saw one less than happy looking electorate MP striding for her plane to Wellington this evening. May have been that she had just seen the latest poll on tonight’s news but suspect she may also be feeling the affects of having to be connected with Slater and co.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.