Shadbolt campaign funded by Hollow Men

Written By: IrishBill - Date published: 7:02 pm, January 18th, 2008 - 96 comments
Categories: election funding - Tags: don brash, election funding, journalism, national, talleys, tim shadbolt

Remember how I asked who was funding Tim Shadbolt’s campaign to “bring down the government”? Turns out the Southland Times was interested too and they’ve found out his move to deliberately break electoral law is being propped up by the Talley brothers, who appear to have a bit of a history of that themselves.

Now the Talleys have a fine tradition of backing National (including offering Don Brash a million dollars and South Island use of a private helicopter for the 2005 election campaign) and are well known right-wing political activists. Most recently the Talleys have been behind a campaign to take the ACC to court – it turns out they got a cut-price ACC deal in exchange for covering all injury costs themselves. One of their workers got shot at their Wairoa plant and now they think the taxpayer should foot the bill – National has championed the company’s attempt to escape their contractual obligation.

It’s also interesting to note that Peter Talley was the guest speaker at National’s Canterbury Westland regional conference in 2004 and that they have a reputation as aggressive and anti-worker employers. After losing a case of sexual discrimination against one of their female workers Andrew Talley’s response was:

There are jobs – pole dancing being one and fish filleting being another – that have a higher predominance of either men or women. The decision is a joke.

So let’s have a look at this: we’ve got a bunch of extremely wealthy right-wing businessmen who think they are above contract law and have a very close relationship with the National Party and they’re funding an “independent” campaign by Tim Shadbolt to bring the government down. That stinks more than a Talley’s fish factory and when a veteran politician like Shadbolt claims he had no idea the Talleys were in the Hollow Men (note: he didn’t say he had no idea they were National Party activists) then he’s being more than a little bit slippery.

Tim mate – you should have learned by now that when you lie down with dogs you catch fleas.

[Kudos to Southland Times reporter Phil McCarthy for doing some real journalism – it’s nice to see someone asking some awkward questions rather than just recycling press releases]

96 comments on “Shadbolt campaign funded by Hollow Men ”

Comments are now closed

the sprout 1

18 January 2008 at 7:10 pm

well done Phil McCarthy – let’s see what the rest of the msm do with it…
Daveo 2

18 January 2008 at 7:10 pm

It’s a sad indictment on the media that some guy from the Southland Times to actually follow the money. That should be the first rule of journalism, but again they’ve let us down. This should have been out weeks ago when Shadbolt was being feted by the media as the saviour of education, democracy and little Johnny Key.
the sprout 3

18 January 2008 at 7:13 pm

speaking of which

http://www.website.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/286883.jpg
Dark Watcher 4

18 January 2008 at 7:58 pm

What business is it of yours if some wealthy businessmen choose to use their money to bring down this corrupt government? So what if they were in the hollow men? It’s called freedom of choice, but then you socialists wouldn’t know what that means.
illuminatedtiger 5

18 January 2008 at 8:01 pm

Is this the same Talley that told a bunch of school children that animals shouldn’t have rights and that he wants to “kill and eat” them?
westmere 6

18 January 2008 at 8:05 pm

“Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt yesterday said he was not aware of Friends of SIT supporters the Talley brothers’ alleged links to the National Party.”

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
illuminatedtiger 7

18 January 2008 at 8:06 pm

Can the man be any more stupid?
gobsmacked 8

18 January 2008 at 8:10 pm

For the benefit of any naive souls who think Shadbolt had never heard of the Talleys until last month:

http://www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/3220.html
IrishBill 9

18 January 2008 at 8:17 pm

“It’s called freedom of choice, but then you socialists wouldn’t know what that means.”

Sure we do watcher. In fact, by providing people with information like this we provide more freedom of choice. Now people are free to choose to support a campaign backed by the Talley brothers or not. If Shadbolt had his way people would not be free to make that choice as they would not have been informed. Just think of us as consumer watchdogs.
IrishBill 10

18 January 2008 at 8:21 pm

“For the benefit of any naive souls who think Shadbolt had never heard of the Talleys until last month:”

Oh dear.
Phil 11

18 January 2008 at 8:21 pm

Wait a second, are you seriously trying to tell us that a gang-related shooting is a workplace accident… You’ve got to be fucking kidding, right?
I cannot understand why ACC aren’t being persecuted in public for that.
Tane 12

18 January 2008 at 8:29 pm

Phil, the Talleys agreed to take responsibility for all injuries on their premises regardless of fault in exchange for reduced ACC levies:

“In 2000 AFFCO entered an agreement with ACC that explicitly stated they would be responsible for any injury that occurred on their premises, whether or not they were at fault. In return Affco paid reduced ACC levies. The agreement also allowed for certain high cost claims to be handed back to ACC, with AFFCO being liable to pay the first $1 million, much like an excess on a common insurance policy” said Dr Keith McLea, General Manager Levy and Scheme Management, ACC.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0712/S00203.htm

They were happy to get a discount from the taxpayer when it suited them, and as soon as it didn’t they changed tack. If anyone should be persecuted it’s the Talleys for trying to perpetuate this rort on the public, and the Nats for shamelessly backing them.
Policy Parrot 13

18 January 2008 at 8:34 pm

The Talley’s plants in regional New Zealand dominate the economies of the small towns of which they are a part of.

Yet almost every former employee I have met (and I know a lot as I am originally from Motueka) despises their employee relations directive, and typically look back on that period of employment if not the worst, one of the in their working lives.

I’m also not aware of many major community projects in the Tasman region (Nelson-GB/Motueka) or initiatives of which they are a part. The worst part is that Peter and Michael’s father was an immigrant from Eastern Europe, and yet they feel no sense of gratitude towards the community or country. Maybe philantropy simply isn’t part of their make-up.
IrishBill 14

18 January 2008 at 8:36 pm

Phil – I’d imagine you’ll find it is covered by the contract Talley agreed to. in fact it appears their own board of directers agreed to it:

“Affco’s board of directors made the decision to give Mr Storey work-related cover.”

And their own spokesperson says:

“There has always been a difference between law and common sense, and in this case the law flies in the face of common sense,”

Form what I can see Talleys entered into a legal contract, made a bad decision and got burned and now they’ve gone crying to the courts about it. Perhaps they should take some personal responsibility for their own business decisions and stop trying to get a handout from the taxpayer.

If this was a contract between Talleys and a private provider would you feel the same sense of outrage?
gobsmacked 15

18 January 2008 at 8:40 pm

The facts behind the Affco/ACC myth-story were outlined in the Herald on Sunday by David Fisher, but the story is not online. Spin seems to have won the day, sadly.

See Russell Brown’s piece in Hard News:

http://www.publicaddress.net/default,hardnews,215.sm
IrishBill 16

18 January 2008 at 8:48 pm

Damn! I wish I’d seen that Public Address story, it would’ve saved me a lot of googling!
Barnsley Bill 17

18 January 2008 at 8:53 pm

PROBABLY being propped up!
Irish Bill, you are probably a dickhead. However my use of the word probably (much like yours) does not make it a statement of fact.
He said , she said blah blah blah….
It is a terrible thing to see sad lefties turn on one of their own.
IrishBill 18

18 January 2008 at 8:59 pm

Bill, good to see you are back posting here. I used the word “probably” because Shadbolt obviously danced his way around the questions but didn’t do a very good job of it the quote:

“When I got interested in the issue I pledged confidentiality and I’ve got to stick to that. I’m not prepared to say (how much money the Talleys gave).

Show it’s highly likely as does the fact that he’s previously claimed they are supporters of the campaign.

Actually Bill, now that I read the quotes again I think you’re probably right – consider that “probably” gone.
gobsmacked 19

18 January 2008 at 9:05 pm

“he said, she said”??

Actually, Shadbolt said:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4327453a19756.html
Pingo 20

18 January 2008 at 9:31 pm

Get fucking real – that’s not real journalism. Let’s look at the story:

“Mr Hager’s book claims Nelson businessmen Michael and Peter Talley, who have business interests in Southland, offered Don Brash $1 million to help get the National Party elected in the 2005 election. The book alleges Dr Brash entertained the idea but it was never taken up.

The Talleys have said the claim is rubbish, and when contacted this week by The Southland Times, Michael Talley reiterated this and said his family was not aligned to any political party.”

The limp lefty journo got his info from reading the Hollow Men! What a fucking joke. So because Nicky Hager reckons the Talleys might have offered Brash a mill, and Talleys have said they support the Southern Institute of Technology, therefore they want to bring down the Government?

You guys couldn’t find your arse with both hands, let alone a decent facts-based argument. Dickheads.
dad4justice 21

18 January 2008 at 9:41 pm

Michael and Peter Talley have exception lawyers .
the sprout 22

18 January 2008 at 9:51 pm

are they the ones they used for their ACC exception?
gobsmacked 23

18 January 2008 at 10:03 pm

The Talleys’ involvement with National is not in doubt. It is not a “claim”, but a fact, with detailed, documented evidence. Read Chapter 15.
James Kearney 24

18 January 2008 at 10:12 pm

Pingo you sound like the kind of fool who can’t tell when he’s being spun a line. It’s people like you that allow right-wing politicians to get away with their crap because they know you’ll believe it. That doesn’t make you special, it makes you a tool.

The Hollow Men has documentary evidence of Brash saying the Talleys’ laywer Nick Davidson had brought him an offer of $1 million to help get National elected. He told his advisor Brian Sinclair: “They are saying that they can find a million dollars to encourage us to do certain things”, such as hiring campaign consultants. Sinclair replied: “Yes, they say they can source the million they have spoken of all by themselves.” It was then suggested by the Talleys that a front company called Vto be created so the money could be funnelled through it to avoid electoral law. (Pages 243-246).

There’s also evidence of Peter Talley giving National strategy advice at a regional conference (see the link in this post), as well as his racist tactics of targeting immigration and focusing on the Maori seats.

The Talleys are proven liars with strong National party connections. You shouldn’t let them take you for a fool.
Barnsley Bill 25

18 January 2008 at 10:32 pm

Nicky Hager……… Impartial………. Not
You should get him posting here ladies. He would fit in very well with the rest of you numptys at the axis of stupid.
He has a lot in common with many of you, never had a job. Adds no value.
Tane 26

18 January 2008 at 10:34 pm

Bill, it’s primary source material. Your opinion of Nicky Hager doesn’t matter – it’s indisputable evidence.
Barnsley Bill 27

18 January 2008 at 10:41 pm

Primary source material…. That nobody has seen or is allowed to be seen. purportedly genuine correspondence that was supposedly stolen, THAT IS NOT INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.
Can I assume from your forthright defense of hager that you agree with everything he says and has written.
Tane 28

18 January 2008 at 11:01 pm

Bill that’s pretty weak. No one, not even Brash, has been able to deny the accuracy of the emails. Nor has anyone taken a case, despite the large number of wealthy interests with access to vast legal resources who were exposed by the book.

And of course I don’t agree with everything Nicky’s ever written, but I’m not so blind as to refuse to believe the documented evidence in his book.

Just saw you’ve done a post on us on your website Bill, good to know we’ve got you talking.
http://barnsleybill.blogspot.com/2008/01/axis-of-stupid-unmasked.html

Did you set up the Robinsod parody blog you linked to?
http://robinslob.blogspot.com/
You give him far too much credit.
outofbed 29

18 January 2008 at 11:05 pm

remind me again why Brash resigned
Barnsley Bill 30

18 January 2008 at 11:10 pm

not me.
Remind me again what your hero Hager thought of your beloved EFA.
Tane 31

18 January 2008 at 11:16 pm

He gave a submission supporting it.

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/hager.pdf

But this isn’t a debate about the EFA, so let’s keep it on topic eh?
Barnsley Bill 32

18 January 2008 at 11:23 pm

You brought hager into the discussion. And you have not read it if you claim he supported it.
Furthermore NOBODY has seen the emails, including Helen’s police force who declined the request to investigate the alleged theft.
Too busy NOT doing things like arresting and charging your mate Len Richards with an assault everybody in the country with a TV witnessed.
It is a bloody tragedy what that Woman has done to this country
outofbed 33

18 January 2008 at 11:37 pm

“It is a bloody tragedy what that Woman has done to this country”
Bloody economic Growth
Bloody Unemployment rate one of the lowest in the OECD
Bloody not following Oz into Iraq

Bill , Like it or like it not. NZ is doing really quite well at the moment, There are of course areas that need work
but overall things are pretty good.
Tane 34

18 January 2008 at 11:40 pm

Bill, read it again, and look at his written submission:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1361AFAC-9530-4E40-9D6C-CB60F43799F6/65014/NickyHager1.pdf

The rest of your comment isn’t worth addressing.
gobsmacked 35

19 January 2008 at 12:08 am

Bill: “NOBODY has seen the emails …”

This is false. They were seen and used as a source for stories even before the 2005 election, a year before Hager’s book was published e.g. Ruth Laugesen in the Sunday Star-Times:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00226.htm
deemac 36

19 January 2008 at 12:28 am

why does anyone bother responding to these lame rightwing posts that are just abuse and/or rehash points that have been demonstrated to be false dozens of times? It’s just tedious and I read this blog for news I won’t get elsewhere, not to read ravings from idiots who don’t back down even when their claims have been utterly discredited.
Jum 37

19 January 2008 at 2:24 am

Barnsley Bill

Our Prime Minister, Helen Clark has been leading our country for eight years, so I presume what she has done to our country only really affects 0-8 year olds, because we all know that the first seven years of a person’s life determines their adult outcomes.

Adults, on the other hand will already have formed their beliefs and will have judged any changes according to their individual makeup.

Even then, if you hold our Prime Minister responsible for any tweens getting into trouble, you would then have to hold responsible the parents, the financial marketers who have brainwashed Kiwis into thinking they can have it all NOW, the previous money driven governments with a huge preponderance of mennnnnnnnnnnnnn, et cetera.

I assume you are over eight so please consider carefully what you feel personally aggrieved about, because we need to consider you as a person fashioned from many sources and why you as a person hate the Prime Minister so much, when there are so many other people, men and women, who consider she has brought back the very soul of New Zealand from disasters wrought upon Kiwis by Douglas and Richardson and strengthened New Zealanders against what will be a difficult future, considering current international issues.

Please list what our Prime Minister is responsible for, according to YOU BB. I’m interested to know. When you do that, please also explain when it occurred, why YOU think it occurred and how YOU would have done it better.

I also noticed your post talking about ‘having Nicky Hager on this blog site ‘ladies’. Did you mean this as an insult to the males on this site because you think that ‘ladies’ are somehow inferior? Is this part of the reason you hate the Prime Minister so much?
dad4justice 38

19 January 2008 at 7:34 am

Jum
Helen Klark is going to be exposed for what she really is and the back lash for Labour will take decades to fix, because many voters will be disgusted when the truth is revealed .
Honesty is always the best policy, as that way you got nothing than can surface and cause impending doom. I am glad I am not in her shoes !!
James Kearney 39

19 January 2008 at 9:10 am

Jum let’s not indulge Barnsley Bill and Dad4Justice on this one. They’re not interested in talking about the issue here, they just want to bang on about how much they hate Helen Clark. They’re ill-informed psychos and I don’t think we should let them change the subject.
lemsip 40

19 January 2008 at 9:16 am

“when there are so many other people, men and women, who consider she has brought back the very soul of New Zealand from disasters wrought upon Kiwis by Douglas and Richardson and strengthened New Zealanders against what will be a difficult future, considering current international issues”

Funnily enough she has never been able to claim to lead a majority supported government. Hmmm

Also, according to your argument we really can’t attribute much to the government since there are so many influences on human behaviour and social outcomes. Makes me wonder how YOU can imply the government is so great and villify those who might take issue with that statement.
James Kearney 41

19 January 2008 at 9:21 am

Jum. Lemsip’s last comment is why you don’t indulge these freaks. They don’t want to talk about their hero Shadbolt’s martyrdom campaign being funded by the Hollow Men, they just want a place to relieve their obsessive hatred of Helen Clark.

Doesn’t it bother you Lemsip that Shadbolt’s campaign against the Electoral Finance Act is being backed by the very people who corrupted our electoral laws in the first place? Don’t you see a vested interest here for weaker, more corruptable electoral law on the part of the Talleys? And are these really the kind of people you want pulling the strings on the right?
lemsip 42

19 January 2008 at 10:11 am

James where did I say Shadbolt was my hero? How did I support any of his actions? How did I display hatred of Helen Clark?
Billy 43

19 January 2008 at 11:01 am

“…the very people who corrupted our electoral laws in the first place?” Who was that again?

http://www.oag.govt.nz/2006/election-spending

As for the Affco thing, it seems more than a bit weird to me that an employer should be responsible for an inury suffered in their carpark as a result of a gang shooting. Seems like a pretty dumb contract to have entered into. Wouldn’t mind seeing what it said. Would ACC have been liable if the contract had not been signed?
Tane 44

19 January 2008 at 11:20 am

Billy that link is a pathetic attempt at distraction. This thread is about Tim Shadbolt’s dodgy dealings with Talleys, not National, Labour, the Greens, NZ First and United Future’s run-in with the auditor-general. Try to stay on topic.

And the AFFCO situation is a simple case of contract law. They knew what they were getting into, and it didn’t work out for them. It turned out to be a bad business decision and now they’re trying to load the cost onto the taxpayer. They have no case, as they’ve admitted themselves, so they’ve resorted to PR. And it looks like National’s willing to back their secret donors against the taxpayer. I’m don’t know why you seem to think any of this is worth defending.
Billy 45

19 January 2008 at 11:44 am

Morning Tane,

I hardly started the “you tried to steal the election” stuff. I was just trying to instroduce some balance.

As for the Affco thing, where did I say anything different to what you said? If they entered into a dumb contract they should be held to it, no matter how weird it seems.
Pascal's bookie 46

19 January 2008 at 11:58 am

Billy, yes ACC would have been liable if not for the contract.

lemsip: Funnily enough she has never been able to claim to lead a majority supported government. Hmmm

That’s a pretty basic misunderstanding of MMP. In any parliamentary system in fact, a government has majority support if they have the confidence of the house.
Billy 47

19 January 2008 at 12:03 pm

PB,

I think the question I should have asked was: would it have been considered a workplace accident for ACC purposes if not for the contract?
Draco TB 48

19 January 2008 at 12:16 pm

Primary source material.. That nobody has seen or is allowed to be seen. purportedly genuine correspondence that was supposedly stolen, THAT IS NOT INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.

Well, somebody (in fact, quite a few people) have seen it but the fact that nobody except the intended recipient was supposed to see it could only indicate that it was leaked. As for it being “supposedly stolen”, well, that could only have happened if it actually existed in the first place. All this indicates that the “purportedly genuine correspondence” is, as a matter of fact, genuine and indisputable.
Draco TB 49

19 January 2008 at 12:24 pm

Funnily enough she has never been able to claim to lead a majority supported government. Hmmm

Funnily enough, neither has National. In fact, almost all National governments since 1936 have had less support than the Labour opposition.
Barnsley Bill 50

19 January 2008 at 12:27 pm

Seen it yourself have you Draco? Know anybody other than hager who can claim to have seen it? No? Didn’t think so.
You clowns just don’t get it, completely fixated on how people propose to spend their own money when the real criminals just dipped into the public purse after being told not to and then when caught just ramrodded retrospective legislation through to legalise it.
Numptys one and all.
outofbed 51

19 January 2008 at 12:40 pm

NATIONAL PRESS RELEASE JAN 2008 “Don Brash Leader of the National Party, today won the court case against Nicky Hager for the lies and half truths propagated in his book “The Hollow man. Mr Brash said I’m glad I didn’t resign, this decision shows that my stance has been vidicated.
Pascal's bookie 52

19 January 2008 at 12:57 pm

would it have been considered a workplace accident for ACC purposes if not for the contract?

Why would this have been a better question? The point is that they signed a contract accepting liabilty for the things normally covered by ACC on their property. In return they avided having to pay ACC levies. Now they are up for monies that ACC would normally pay and they are trying to back out of the deal. In essence they are trying to breach the contract and cage a freeride off people who stayed inside the ACC system.

So how would your revised question shed any light? You may find it weird that ACC covers this type of thing, but that is an unrelated point. The only question here is are the Talley’s acting like wankers?

What I find interesting and slightly more relevent is how the supposedly left wing media have covered this case, barely mentioning the contract which is the central issue.
gobsmacked 53

19 January 2008 at 1:02 pm

Barnsley Bill

Your ability to ignore answers and repeat the same question is very amusing but hardly effective debate.

Follow link in my post above. Then acknowledge your error. Thank you.
Billy 54

19 January 2008 at 1:13 pm

Calm down, PB.

I know it’s not central to the issue, but as a related point, I simply wondered whether an employer who had not entered into such a contract would suffer higher ACC levies as a result of an injury of this kind beign treated as a work place accident. If they would, it is dumb.

That’s all I was wondering.
Jum 55

19 January 2008 at 2:18 pm

James Kearney

I see your point. I’ll just watch for a while and learn, and check in again later. But please ask Dad4Justice to spell our Prime Minister’s name correctly. I don’t want to add stupidity to his many issues.

Meanwhile, your site’s ability to put two sides to each sensationalised story in the media is great. Keep up the good work.

Thank you
James Kearney 56

19 January 2008 at 2:38 pm

Jum- I don’t write for the standard, I comment here like you do. I’m just getting sick of idiot right-wingers coming here and trying to disprupt it for the rest of us.
lemsip 57

19 January 2008 at 2:50 pm

“That’s a pretty basic misunderstanding of MMP. In any parliamentary system in fact, a government has majority support if they have the confidence of the house.”

I wonder why they call it a minority coalition government then?

Here’s a member of the 2002-2005 minority coalition government:

“What the voting record shows is that our minority coalition government, with just 53 of the 120 seats, has gone to extraordinary lengths to reach out and build very broad-based consensus among opposition parties to advance our legislation.”

http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1484

Here’s a memebr of 1999-2002 minority coalition government:
In just 10 years since the first MMP election, MMP has evolved and set new constitutional norms. Minority governments and coalition governments and even minority coalition governments have become usual.

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech9851.html

And here is the Office of the Clerk:
Minority coalition & two or more parties with a combined total of 50 percent or fewer of the seats join together to form a Government, with an agreement with another party/parties on confidence votes.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PubRes/About/FactSheets/0/e/7/0e7b11a6a32841bca7848ed6d9bb508e.htm

Need More Pascal? Crawl back under your rock
lemsip 58

19 January 2008 at 2:53 pm

James please answer my questions. You accused me of something so please have the deceny to give me your rationale (other than some generic crap) or withdraw your comments.
lemsip 59

19 January 2008 at 3:00 pm

Pascal Bookie this is how the Office of the Clerk describes a minority coalition government:
Minority coalition & two or more parties with a combined total of 50 percent or fewer of the seats join together to form a Government, with an agreement with another party/parties on confidence votes.

Please tell me how that doesn’t accurately reflect each of Helen CLark’s governments?
James Kearney 60

19 January 2008 at 3:02 pm

Lemsip I was referring to Barnsely, Dad and you. You’re better than them but my point was by answering the right’s attempts to disrupt you’re only encouraging them to go on anti-Helen rants and cloud the issue.
dad4justice 61

19 January 2008 at 4:55 pm

Back to censorship now girls ??

[Only of you Dad. Start behaving yourself.]
lemsip 62

19 January 2008 at 5:25 pm

one slight correction – the greens were of course not part of the 1999-2002 govt they merely propped it up
the sprout 63

19 January 2008 at 6:47 pm

suck it up righties
dad4justice 64

19 January 2008 at 7:21 pm

suck it up lemon face .
mausie 65

19 January 2008 at 7:29 pm

Billy,

If they had not entered into the contract, ACC would have been liable for the claim. This is because, although the shooting was, by definition, not an ‘accident’, it was an injury that occurred in the workplace. ACC’s definition is well-covered in the Public Address thread, particularly here: http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,901,hard_news_never_let_the_facts_.sm?p=38980#post38980
Pascal's bookie 66

19 January 2008 at 7:53 pm

“Minority coalition & two or more parties with a combined total of 50 percent or fewer of the seats join together to form a Government, with an agreement with another party/parties on confidence votes.

Please tell me how that doesn’t accurately reflect each of Helen CLark’s governments?”

It reflects them perfectly. The bolded part means that the minority govt is supported by other parties on C&S (which is what counts).

Here’s what you said originally:

“Funnily enough she has never been able to claim to lead a majority supported government.”

It’s no biggie lemsip, and I’m sorry if I got your back up. But what you said was just plain wrong. All of Clarks goverments have had majority support, without having a majority in their own right.
Buggerlugs 67

19 January 2008 at 10:13 pm

“tim shadbolt’s dodgy dealings with talleys”

Fuck Tane Tutae you dumb fuck. The original post is based on a journalist interviewing their navel after reading a book predicated on dodgy evidence.

You guys really are a bad advertisement for socialism…any ism, in fact.
ak 68

19 January 2008 at 10:19 pm

Bitter taste lemsip?
Could some clever youngster please list all the elections in which more people have voted Labour than have voted National?
(just think all our new-found FFFDs (freedom-fighters for democracy) might be interested – seeing as how they’re all so deeply concerned about our precious democratic system)
Pascal's bookie 69

19 January 2008 at 10:36 pm

Crivens! Tim Shadbolt is Phil McCarthy’s navel.

Who knew?
lemsip 70

19 January 2008 at 10:42 pm

i stand corrected
Pascal's bookie 71

19 January 2008 at 11:10 pm

kudos.

Like I said it’s no biggie, bloody trivial in fact, and I’m sorry if I came across as harsh, I just read it and thought ‘whaaaa?’

I’ll get back under my rock now. 😉
Daveo 72

20 January 2008 at 12:22 am

Buggerlugs see the link to The Press further up the thread. So much ill-thought out abuse – I’m noticing a pattern with the folks coming over from Kiwiblog.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4327453a19756.html
dad4justice 73

20 January 2008 at 9:57 am

I wonder if the Talley brothers give donate some money so our dysfunctional health system can treat some sick people on hospital waiting lists ?
DS 74

20 January 2008 at 1:24 pm

“Could some clever youngster please list all the elections in which more people have voted Labour than have voted National?”

1935 (counting Reform/United as National), 1938, 1943, 1946, 1957, 1972, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1999, 2002, and 2005. Labour also came within a handful of votes in outpolling National in 1954 (though lost the seat count by a fair margin), and 1993 (where it was Nat 35% Lab 34% and Alliance 18%).

In fact, the only occasions in the last 36 years where the Nats have really beaten Labour are 1975 and 1990. In 1978 and 1981 Labour got more votes but lost the election, in 1993 there was a split Labour/Alliance vote, and in 1996 you had Winston Peters and his “vote for me and get rid of National” promise.
the sprout 75

20 January 2008 at 2:31 pm

d4j i’m happy to get you treated now, where do i send the cheque?
ak 76

20 January 2008 at 5:47 pm

Many thanks DS:

“In fact, the only occasions in the last 36 years where the Nats have really beaten Labour are 1975 and 1990.”

Billboard-worthy. Where were our tory freedom-fighters and our fearless and valiant Heraldic defender of democracy all those years?
milo 77

20 January 2008 at 8:58 pm

Is this post a party political advertisement for the Labour party?
Aj 78

20 January 2008 at 10:31 pm

Other contributors to Shadbolt’s folly include the Richardson Group and NZAS. Owners of these firms are well know to lean hard right.
milo 79

20 January 2008 at 10:33 pm

And who is funding these attacks on Shadbolt? And what are their political persuasions? And what is hard right anyway? Or is it just an elastic term of abuse for those you disagree with?
Oliver 80

21 January 2008 at 3:33 am

Your right, we should follow the money. Is this blog supported (through cash or kind) by any NZ political parties, unions or lobby groups?
rod 81

21 January 2008 at 4:03 pm

I feel rather sorry for old Tim. He’s thrown all his jellybeans out the cot.
From Lovable Leftie to Tory Stooge.
burt 82

21 January 2008 at 8:31 pm

The Standard

Have I got this correct, you are posting that Shadbolt is funded by the hollow men when it appears that Labour funds the standard?

Did you forget to mention it on the “about” page or is it something you hypocrites at the standard don’t want to talk about? It’s a bit like supporting the requirement for people to publish their full name and residential address when expressing political opinions – while posting anonymously.

You guys are epitomise why people are turning away from the Labour party. “Do as I say and not as I do – we know how to run your lives better than you do”.
Daveo 83

21 January 2008 at 10:17 pm

Burt man you’re behind the times. Lynne Prentice explained it all on the Kiwiblog thread last night. You’ve got like 24hrs to catch up on. Russel Brown’s even gone and summed it up nice and simple for ya-
http://publicaddress.net/default,4762.sm
burt 84

21 January 2008 at 11:00 pm

Daveo

Public Address executes a perfect “Ad hominem tu quoque” ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ) with;

Meanwhile, in similarly-themed news, it turns out that Tim Shadbolt’s bold and independent stand for free speech is actually being bankrolled by Hollow Men stars the Talley brothers. Shadbolt claims he had no idea who they were, they just gave him a lot of money …

Not cutting it for me sorry, they just gave me an IP address is sounding a lot like ‘they just gave me money’ to me…
Outofbed 85

21 January 2008 at 11:14 pm

well burt try reading it again
think cock up not conspiricy
RANDAL 86

30 January 2008 at 9:31 pm

tim is a twerp
Aj 87

30 January 2008 at 10:19 pm

“The actions of Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt had brought the whole city into disrepute, a senior city councillor said at last night’s meeting’

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southlandtimes/4379741a6011.html
Zazpar 88

30 June 2008 at 6:56 am

Wow

judging from the extremely childish, finger pointing, mudslinging & name-calling nature of the above posts I can only assume that you are all beehive politians behavior practising for their next day’s ‘work’

The goofy thing is that most of you are most likely adults and that most likely makes me mostly decide that no matter who wins what election & wether or not whatever government is, has been or will be brought down would not make the slightest bit of difference anyway as things would probably just carry on exactly as they do regardless.

God save the future from the present which is most likely just a never ending rerun of the past.
randal 89

2 August 2008 at 6:38 pm

all things being equal tim is still a twerp…hehehe