Shipley to knife Banks?

32 comments on “Shipley to knife Banks? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bright Red 1

   30 November 2009 at 12:47 pm

   As you’re so obsessed with a mayoral election that’s still a year off, sam, maybe you could tell us a bit about your views of the other candidates, or your thoughts on the boundaries etc… you know, rather than smear after smear.

   It’s just not good politics. Apart from anything else, because of your posts when I think ‘Auckland supermayor’ one name jumps straight into my head, and it isn’t Len Brown..
2. Scribe 2

   30 November 2009 at 1:05 pm

   After seeing the latest TVNZ poll over the weekend, I’m not sure John Banks is the politician most concerned about his future.

   Can’t get excited about the supermayor race yet — too far down the track. Wait for the deadline for candidacy and get back to me.
3. Tim Ellis 3

   30 November 2009 at 1:20 pm

   There do seem to be a lot of smear attacks on John Banks from Sam Cash, and no mention of whether Mr Brown is his preferred candidate. Meanwhile, Eddie seems to have stopped writing about Mr Brown.
4. gingercrush 4

   30 November 2009 at 1:53 pm

   I don’t see the problem. We’re on a left-wing blog that generally espouses left-wing views and are critical of right-wing politicians and politics. Nothing new in that.

   As for Jenny Shipley. I liked her but she ran a dreadful 1999 election and is prone to mistakes. Usually things that can’t be redeemed. The right has to know this and they have to know the left will absolutely go for someone like Shipley. It just isn’t possible for her to be running the ticket for the right.
5. Tim Ellis 5

   30 November 2009 at 2:08 pm

   Fair enough points ginger, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask Mr Cash where his loyalties lie, as the only posts he makes seem to be attacks on Mr Banks.

   I have heard the rumour of Mrs Shipley running before, but only on the Standard.
   • felix 5.1

     30 November 2009 at 7:04 pm

     “…I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask Mr Cash where his loyalties lie, as the only posts he makes seem to be attacks on Mr Banks.”

     Then it’s fair to say that his loyalties don’t lie with Mr. Banks.

     From where, exactly, do you get the idea that you have some sort of right to know anything about what Sam thinks beyond what Sam wants to write about?

     Are you telling Sam what he can and can’t say on his own blog?

     Are you making the rules now?
     • Jared 5.1.1

       1 December 2009 at 1:45 am

       The inclination should be that those who write, particularly under a pseudonym outline their loyalties particularly if it is part of a tactical campaign against a particular member. Imagine if in the election a member of the Labour Party’s election campaign led a tirade of unfounded accusations under a pseudonym against the National Leader and we would just accept it? In the interests of transparency, and why I don’t lend the Standard a shit load of credence because the Author’s hide behind pseudonyms. We all know who Whale Oil is, Kiwiblog, Cactus Kate etc, yet those on the Standard, particularly those privy to sensitive information through working in the public service can hide behind a pseudonym and thats just “fine”?
       At this point its fairly obvious that “Sam Cash” is a member of Len Browns team, and I think it is unethical to hide behind such a pseudonym, at least have the balls to say who you are and who you work for.
       Im going to take a guess and say its [deleted], but I doubt the author has the credibility or even decency to own up.

       [“Jared” – the moderators have made it clear that speculation about “real names” is not encouraged here. Make your point (such that it is) about anonymity sure, but don’t go speculating about named individuals — r0b]
       • Jared 5.1.1.1

         1 December 2009 at 2:36 am

         Whilst I can see where you are coming from interms of opinion, it is clear this isn’t just an opinion piece, considering the last 11 posts made by “Sam Cash” have been vitriol against Banks. I will out myself for transparency considering I have nothing to hide, my name is Jared Jenkin, Auckland, if “Sam Cash” has any credibility then he will own up to his agenda by outing himself. If “Sam Cash” won’t own up, then the Standard has lost any credibility it might have ever had and will have resigned itself to a role as simply an propaganda machine of the left, rather than as Authors have tried to convince us of in the past as a legit leftist opinion blog. I respect the anonymity behind typical opinion pieces on here, and that we don’t necessarily need to know who is behind them, but this is a whole different kettle of fish.
         
         [lprent: It is a left-leaning blog. You’d expect that there would be posts supporting for a left-leaning candidate.

         Read the opinion in the posts or comments and respond to that.

         But trying to ‘out’ people is directly against our policy. So is demanding that posters or the site DO anything. If you want to do something, then start your own site and do it there. But don’t try it here again. The only reason you didn’t cop a severe ban was that rOb had already dealt with it.

         BTW: In fact you should probably be grateful for having Sam writing about Auckland city politics. My opinions on Banks or any of the purported possible right candidates and C&R are a whole lot more virulent than Sam’s. If he wasn’t writing it, then I or others from Auckland would be. As it is you can probably expect a lot more posts on the disorganized right candidates as the election draws closer. I certainly intend to do some posts on the candidates for the council seats looking at their track records, personalities, and policies. ]
         • r0b 5.1.1.1.1

           1 December 2009 at 2:59 am

           If “Sam Cash’ won’t own up, then the Standard has lost any credibility it might have ever had

           We’ll be sure and take that under advisement.
         • felix 5.1.1.1.2

           1 December 2009 at 8:40 am

           zOMG!!!! I KNOW WHO JARED IS!!!!!1

           Like anyone gives a shit.

           Didn’t Lynn make this a banning offense lately?
           • Jared 5.1.1.1.2.1

             1 December 2009 at 11:28 am

             You can complain all you want about transparency of trusts, about disclosures of pecuniary interests, and special interest groups like the brethren. But when [deleted] allegedly posts under a pseudonym on your site, offerring 11 “opinion pieces” his anonymity is protected? You used to give a shit Felix, not so long ago either, or is it different when you are trying to protect your own, ala Phillip Field?
             
             [lprent: Read the about about who we are and quit whining.

             It is absolutely clear where we are coming from, our sources of finance, roughly how much it costs from posters here, and what you can expect from posts here. If you want to do something then start your own blog and raise the topics there. If the NACTs or SST operated on the same basis then we’d have a lot better idea about who is manipulating politics in NZ.

             But basically I suspect you are too damn lazy to actually do the work required to get a profile, plus of course you’re a lousy writer. ]
           • lprent 5.1.1.1.2.2

             1 December 2009 at 11:40 am

             It was always a banning offense since we started banning.
           • felix 5.1.1.1.2.3

             1 December 2009 at 11:45 am

             You used to give a shit Felix, not so long ago either, or is it different when you are trying to protect your own, ala Phillip Field?

             Please show an example or apologise.
         • Jared 5.1.1.1.3

           1 December 2009 at 11:52 am

           You have completely missed the point of what I was saying Lynn. If a member of Len Browns campaign is running a series of vitriolic posts against the opposition then they should outline at a minimum their position. Anonymous blog posting is a privileged right as I am sure you know, however, to retain any credibility Sam Cash should say who they are. The Standard were stinging in their criticism of anonymous donors, and particularly the Brethren for not disclosing who they were and their motivations. As you well know, blog posting , particularly on a high profile blog like the standard is akin to a delivered publication regardless of the readership. Are you not interested in transparency? or are you more interested in hiding your own? I am not railing to have all authors unmasked, only “Sam Cash”. Or do you do what Trevor Mallard does and when he disagrees with a Point of View and just break out the ban stick?

           [lprent: So when Whale runs a vitriolic set of posts against the North Shore mayor it doesn’t matter whom he is friends with? Or that DPF is frequently mistaken for being part of nationals communications team? The principle you are espousing cuts all ways.

           Basically the only reason that Sams posts are good or bad is the opinions and facts he expresses. Deal with those.

           The standard is that we let selected people post here. Who Sam Cash is, I have no idea for the reasons in the about. He has been posting here since the site began on a variety of topics. In the same way that I frequently post on climate change, rocky posts on animal rights, Irish posts on union stuff, Marty G posts on numbers, Demeter on green issues, etc. Sam currently seems to post on the Auckland mayoral campaign. We all have areas of interest.

           In the absence of any actual information all you are doing is trying to make rumor out of unsubstantiated speculation. Totally pointless.

           Deal with the post and its opinions. I look at attacks on the posters as being from people incapable of doing that. They find it easier to construct conspiracy theories. pretty damn lazy in my opinion. ]
           • felix 5.1.1.1.3.1

             1 December 2009 at 11:57 am

             Still waiting for an example or an apology, Jared.
6. Tiger Mountain 6

   30 November 2009 at 2:55 pm

   Burn Shipley burn! demos and her dinner meeting with Bill Clinton at APEC clad in opaque black ‘nightware’ are my Auckland memories of JS. Lets keep it that way.
7. ron 7

   30 November 2009 at 4:09 pm

   You REALLY want to remember Jenny in her night wear? I can’t spell the sound you make when someone walks over your grave but….that.
8. prism 8

   30 November 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Move over Gok Wan, fashionista Tiger Mountain is on the way.
9. Jess 9

   30 November 2009 at 5:14 pm

   Amused by your reference to Shipley’s propensity for knifing; I naively wait for some commentary on your own Labour 4% leadership.

   Would it be too much for readers to expect some analytical commentary on Goff’s possible replacements from your direction. After all it is much more likely he’ll be the one getting “knifed” over the hols isn’t it?
   • snoozer 9.1

     30 November 2009 at 5:22 pm

     jess. you can always write whatever you like on your own blog. I think it’s the height of rudeness to demand specific content from people who are writing for us in their spare time and giving us a forum to discuss issues.
     • felix 9.1.1

       30 November 2009 at 7:08 pm

       If only there were some kind of daily”open mic” forum here so the poor under-represented likes of jess could express all of their concerns…
10. Robert Winter 10

    30 November 2009 at 5:25 pm

    The Shipley rumour came my way first in July. It has some currency still, as does the rumour about Mr Barnett. and about people ‘doing the numbers’ around Mr Banks’ candidacy. I suggest that how things fall will be determined by the evolving difficulties around the implementation of the Supercity model, and who is seen by National (let’s not pretend that C&R are something different) as capable of both winning an election and leading a very difficult and politically sensitive process in the run-up to a General Election.
11. Parnell Boy 11

    30 November 2009 at 8:26 pm

    Good to hear someone holding Banks and his mob to account in Auckland (they sound like a bloody disaster). Brown seems like a good guy with good stuff to say. If you want to read that you can read his website. Keep putting the boot in.
12. graham 12

    1 December 2009 at 9:47 am

    The point about this post is it just a left wing view or is it part of the election campaign by [deleted]?
    Remember you cant complain about the bretherian and pull the same stuff

    [lprent: In case you hadn’t noticed, Len is a competent left-leaning candidate. It is highly likely that any of the posters here would tend towards supporting him (including me). Are you then going to assert that I’m part of some f*ckwit conspiracy?
    Read the about and policy. I’m going to start banning shortly rather than simply amending. ]
    • Pascal's bookie 12.1

      1 December 2009 at 9:58 am

      Is the standard being stuffed in people’s letter boxes now is it?
13. graham 13

    1 December 2009 at 12:03 pm

    [lprent: patience exhausted – banned for a week]
14. graham 14

    1 December 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Again it comes down to the ends justifiy the means iprent

    [lprent: It is a standing policy in the about. Live with it or live without access. Has been there since the site started. Banned for 2 weeks. ]
15. graham 15

    1 December 2009 at 5:33 pm

    GET FUCKED LOSERS you are baned from my life
    • felix 15.1

      1 December 2009 at 6:36 pm

      Please please please leave graham’s comment here. It’s just beautiful, in a way.
      • Smokie 15.1.1

        1 December 2009 at 8:58 pm

        felix – agreed. It’s o for oarsome.
      • r0b 15.1.2

        1 December 2009 at 9:11 pm

        OK, I for one will leave it be. Shouldn’t mess with Great Art.
      • Armchair Critic 15.1.3

        1 December 2009 at 10:40 pm

        I don’t believe that was graham, he only spelled one word wrong. And he should have still been hosing down the yards or cleaning out the milking machine at 5.33

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS