The Cindy effect

67 comments on “The Cindy effect ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   1 October 2009 at 7:43 am

   The blatantly dishonest approach to political debate run by NACT for the last few terms also got people like me and many of the writers on this site to get active in the same manner here. It was a politically short-sighted strategy that we’re turning on the right.

   Labour may not want to go there, which is generally why Goff is reasonably conciliatory at the political side. However I have no such inhibitions and nor do many people in the broad left. We’ll have fun slicing and dicing this government highlighting its flaws, stupidities, and outright incompetences. The objective is to make it clear that using these types of dishonest tactics so beloved of political operators like Joyce, McCully and Crosby-Textor are a negative sum game over the longer term.

   Making it clear to the more reasonable politicians how destructive these tactics are to their objectives will help make political debate in NZ more constructive. The best way of getting that across is to perform the same tactics on them, except more intensively and better. Having some collateral damage on relatively undeserving targets is a good teaching experience.

   Beside these pompous arrogant fools we have in government are such easy targets. Now about Joyce…..
   • r0b 1.1

     1 October 2009 at 9:30 am

     The blatantly dishonest approach to political debate run by NACT for the last few terms also got people like me and many of the writers on this site to get active in the same manner here.

     Agreed, me too, with one important clarification of phrasing (I hope!). Its not the “same” manner here – a dishonest approach – I would not support that. I’m happy use the same tactics – “slicing and dicing this government highlighting its flaws, stupidities, and outright incompetences”. But not dishonestly. NACT are a target rich environment even keeping it completely honest.

     If The Standard ever starts running Iwi / Kiwi or spreading Section 59 anger or the like then we will have become the dark side, and I’ll be gone. We need to keep it honest and not make the same mistakes as NACT! I’m sure that this is what you meant Lynn, but your comment conflated head on tactics and dishonest tactics, and I want to adopt one without the other.
     • lprent 1.1.1

       1 October 2009 at 12:26 pm

       Yep. You’re correct, I accidently conflated the NACT’s dishonest approach with the ‘no mercy’ tactics.

       Just like all of those pleas about Bill just doing ripping us off for his family are currently falling on my deaf ears. It is irrelevant because whiners can always find excuses. Where I’d have once made allowances for human frailties, the NACT campaigns have taught me not to bother. Just go for the jugular and keep squeezing.

       It is only after the NACT politico’s realize that the type of political campaign they have run for the last few years is stupid that we can restore some semblance of humanity to the political system. That will be when this lot are turfed out as the most reviled government since their last one – but this time not on policy question – but on their depth of stupid behavior.
2. Tim Ellis 2

   1 October 2009 at 8:02 am

   Good for you r0b. If you repeat inaccuracies long enough, then the decreasing number of people who still read the standard might believe them.
   • rocky 2.1

     1 October 2009 at 8:09 am

     Yet you’re still here… 😉
     • felix 2.1.1

       1 October 2009 at 10:09 am

       All day, every day.
   • lprent 2.2

     1 October 2009 at 12:33 pm

     Are you hoping that leaving a line about inaccuracies enough you’ll somehow make it true? Yeah right…

     I spend a significant amount of time constraining things like the damn spambots and spiders from sucking up all of the available processing. Looks like I succeeded in early september. The system has been really stable since then.

     The number of ‘people’ reading the site just keeps rising at a rather constant overall rate. Has done so ever since the usual xmas/new year drop. It passed the November 2008 human numbers earlier this year.

     Of course if we reported the same way as some of the sites around, our ‘ranking’ would look a whole lot different. I’d love to look at the raw numbers because I’m sure that many are reporting machine entities.
3. Hilary 3

   1 October 2009 at 8:03 am

   The Cindys of NZ are also those sort of people likely to take a night school class, or employed as school support staff, and never expected that attacks on these would be part of the Government’s plans.
   • gargoyle 3.1

     1 October 2009 at 8:35 am

     Really ?

     I thought the Cindy’s of this world were the same people who wrote on sites like this under different pseudonyms to try and score a political point.
     • felix 3.1.1

       1 October 2009 at 10:13 am

       Has everyone met gargoyle? He used to be bilbo, before that hs, and god knows what else in between.
       • BLiP 3.1.1.1

         1 October 2009 at 1:19 pm

         Was he a doctor?
         • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1.1

           1 October 2009 at 1:27 pm

           Both a plagiarist and spectacular failure at outing me, is what he was.
         • felix 3.1.1.1.2

           1 October 2009 at 1:59 pm

           If by “doctor” you mean “bullshit muncher” then yes, a total doctor.
       • gargoyle 3.1.1.2

         1 October 2009 at 2:01 pm

         Yawn, wrong as usual Mr Standard tame troll – shouldn’t you be picking up your unemployment benefit today or spending more time stalking Tim Ellis.
4. Adrian 4

   1 October 2009 at 8:09 am

   With a quietly reasoned letter yesterday(unusual for me) I got the “I think I didn’t know” story about the illiterate Tolley to the notice of the local paper and on to page 2. Good on them, particularly on such a big sad story day, considering that they had missed it on their own associated Stuff site,which incidentally removed the story later in the day from the site( interference, I wonder), it was, by the way lead and banner in The Chch Press. It can be done, opinion will change bit by bit, just bring the the stupidity to the notice of the local papers which are still where most people get their political info. NZers don’t like to admit they have been sold a pup,it’s like the bloke who buys a second hand car his mates told him not to, he’ll defend it for ages against all reason and then something snaps, he drains the oil, jacks up the back wheels, puts sugar in the tank, several bricks on the accelerator, fires up the barby, gets a few beers and waits for it to blow. It’s going to happen to NACT, it’s going to be swift and vicious and fun.
5. illuminatedtiger 5

   1 October 2009 at 8:26 am

   Nice to see there are still some thinking individuals among those that National think of as their “punters”.
6. Tom Semmens 6

   1 October 2009 at 8:47 am

   Is Cindy Waitakere woman personified?
7. Herodotus 7

   1 October 2009 at 9:11 am

   For voters to return to labour, there has to be some REAL evidence that we are not getting just the same. From what has been stated from Labour, there is nothing new.
   NZ I believe is looking for a leader/party to enable NZ to move forward. From comments and behaviour I have not seen anything that will enable individuals to aspire comming from Labour.
   So from someone who has voted for “both” sides of the spectrum I am not looking for a negative campaign. I accept that there has to be some of this strategy to undermine Nats but where is and real constructive, tangable comments from Labour?
   • r0b 7.1

     1 October 2009 at 9:52 am

     Labour just lost an election, and the public (in general) is not yet listening to them or looking for an alternative. So Labour aren’t announcing much, or doing much in public. But of course you’ll see more of this as time goes by.

     You can, however, already see a REAL difference clearly. Labour is a constructive and honest opposition. It isn’t exploiting the angry s59 crowd. It is offering to work constructively with the government on foreshore and seabed, electoral reform / EFA, and carbon trading / ETS.

     An honest and constructive opposition is a REAL difference for this country, and next time round it will be nice to have an honest and constructive government.
     • Daveski 7.1.1

       1 October 2009 at 11:55 am

       I agree with your implication that the last Labour government was neither honest nor constructive.

       I also agree that people aren’t listening and much to our mutual surprise it hasn’t been the complete hospital pass that we expected being in Govt to be given the dire economic predictions.

       However, the rest of your general comments are simply Labour spin. Nothing has changed within Labour – same old last century leadership.

       Likewise, the more the Standard writers bad the PM, the more his popularity appears to increase. It’s increasingly clear that the accepted view here is out of touch with the public reality.

       I have no doubt that National is still underperforming in areas. That criticism is completely valid. But I don’t see any groundswell of people heading back to Labour nor a genuine acknowledgement that Labour need to do more than put their leader on a motorbike. Mind you, Cindy most likely has a thing for bikies!
       • r0b 7.1.1.1

         1 October 2009 at 12:48 pm

         I agree with your implication that the last Labour government was neither honest nor constructive.

         I appreciate that we all take different things from what we read, Daveski, but I think you’re stretching to drag that “implication” from what I wrote.

         It’s increasingly clear that the accepted view here is out of touch with the public reality.

         There’s no such thing as one agreed public reality. The view here is a view of a good chunk, and possibly a growing chunk, of public opinion.
       • lprent 7.1.1.2

         1 October 2009 at 12:50 pm

         He implied nothing of the sort… What he said was that national were a dishonest and destructive opposition. Care to try and show where they did anything that was constructive?

         They are carrying on in the same vein in government. So far it appears that this government doesn’t want to even listen to anything apart from their donors. They have been noticeable for their anti-democratic habit of excessively using urgency. Where there have been select committees to listen to submissions, they have been noticeable that they ignore most of them.

         Tell me – do you defend those actions?

         On the economy, they haven’t done ANYTHING to date apart from increasing deficits by stupid tax-cuts. There have been NO real budget cuts. Even their aborted second round tax-cuts were for October. So on behalf of Cullen, I accept your generous accolade of his stewardship of the economy. To date his actions in 2008 are still guiding the economic situation in so far as it can be controlled from NZ
         • Daveski 7.1.1.2.1

           1 October 2009 at 1:18 pm

           Where I have been largely consistent is that National’s lack of any response has been effective at least at a macro level. I’m not sure if this was planned or not – I must admit to some amazement of the lack of any coherent policy or actions in areas directly affecting me.

           Your view of Cullen is rose tinted. While he did some good, he also allowed the public service to spiral upwards out of kilter with the growth in the economy. As pointed out elsewhere the reduction in debt was only possible given the boom and indeed the debt burden has moved from the public to private sector. Under the same good steward, we went into recession before the rest of the world.

           Still, the ongoing honeymoon (altho starting to wane) does raise questions as to why National is perceived to being a good job. To put it blunt, I think the public had had a gutsful of your lot and wanted change. It’s neither logical or objective and must piss you off no end but that is the most logical explanation. Which means of course that Labour either has to hope that National implodes spectacularly or Labour is able to change its spots.
8. Tom Semmens 8

   1 October 2009 at 9:47 am

   Herodotus: Labour under Clark shook off the revolution, and achieved what was possible to ameloriate the worst of the excesses of neo-liberalism. All the while National has remained bankrupt of new ideas – just by the way, this why I still believe National will be a one term government. Key isn’t growing into the job and his government has at its heart a policy vacuum of a party paralysed between a neo-liberal faction and a pragmatic power at all costs faction. One knows the other is wildly unpopular with the public, whilst the other thinks it’s opponent is made up of intellectual lightweights. Both assesssments are accurate. Into this policy vacuum is stepping a revanchist Treasury, whose hardline extremism will destroy National electorally. Anyway, I see signs that Labour is already looking at more serious structural changes to the economic mix and we might just see some serious proposals for change from them before the next election that will be popular with an exasperated electorate.
9. Herodotus 9

   1 October 2009 at 10:01 am

   For labour to be strong again AND act for the best interests of NZ, there needs a lesson to be learnt. A 3 year wait with the old guard in my mind is not in our countries best interest.
   The good that occurred with labour was diminished by the last 3-4 years damage caused by a tired govt. (Tireness was caused from no new energy being brought in, the same has happened with Nats previously and many other regeimes thoughtout the world)
   NZ is best served with a strong govt & strong opposition both working in their own way to progressing NZ. I have not seen this YET in my voting history.
   • r0b 9.1

     1 October 2009 at 10:09 am

     For labour to be strong again AND act for the best interests of NZ, there needs a lesson to be learnt.

     Labour have changed their leadership, taken in new talent, and broken with the past. The lessons have been learnt.

     A 3 year wait with the old guard in my mind is not in our countries best interest

     If you are suggesting another 3 years of NACT instead then I put it to you that that is a far worse outcome for NZ.
     • Herodotus 9.1.1

       1 October 2009 at 10:18 am

       One major motivation of the last govt was to promote NZ within the OCED ranks, I notice that this was dropped in the last commentary within the budget. Over the last 3 years of labour there was nothing to signal a change in the countries progress. Like the current govt, labour in ’99 lead a charge re a Knowledge economy, great sentiment but nothing tangable followed. We had a great opportunity with the windful of funds flowing into govt but this potential was not able to be translated into reality. I believe that this occurred because other agendas superseeded what was best for the country.
       • r0b 9.1.1.1

         1 October 2009 at 10:46 am

         One major motivation of the last govt was to promote NZ within the OCED ranks,

         Do you suppose NACT have the same motivation?

         Knowledge economy, great sentiment but nothing tangable followed.

         I quite agree, it was poorly done.

         We had a great opportunity with the windful of funds flowing into govt but this potential was not able to be translated into reality.

         Yes there was opportunity, and yes it was translated into reality. We paid off huge amounts of overseas debt, leaving the country well positioned to ride out the current crisis. That’s a huge outcome! We started saving for the future with KiwiSaver and Cullen fund. We started to address our abysmal childhood poverty stats, with WFF lifting children and families. All of these are huge, the opportunities were by no means wasted.

         I believe that this occurred because other agendas superseeded what was best for the country.

         Ahh – “other agendas” eh. Right, sorry, as you were then.
         • Herodotus 9.1.1.1.1

           1 October 2009 at 11:02 am

           Yes govt debt did reduce, but all that happened was that private debt increased at a greater level. For many of us living in the suberbs, I found that taxes both direct and indirect happened. tax creep, power coys price gouging then paying dividends BACK to the govt, increases in ACC to name a few.
     • Tim Ellis 9.1.2

       1 October 2009 at 10:44 am

       That’s right r0b, Labour have changed their leadership. They got rid of a leader and co-leader who were first elected during the Muldoon years for a leader and co-leader who were first elected… during the Muldoon years. I wouldn’t call that renewal.

       If the lessons have been learnt it doesn’t explain why the Labour Party is still trailing National in the polls by twenty percent.
       • r0b 9.1.2.1

         1 October 2009 at 10:49 am

         If the lessons have been learnt it doesn’t explain why the Labour Party is still trailing National in the polls by twenty percent.

         Oh don’t be dim Tim. It doesn’t work like a light switch, it takes time for public opinion to move. But once it moves it acquires quite a bit of momentum…
         • Tim Ellis 9.1.2.1.1

           1 October 2009 at 12:01 pm

           I’ve never known a light switch to take a year to turn on r0b. I’ve also never known the room to get darker when you flick the switch.

           There has been one poll so far showing an improvement in Labour’s fortunes. It is still a long way behind where it was at the 2008 election. A bit early to start claiming there’s momentum.
           • bill brown 9.1.2.1.1.1

             1 October 2009 at 12:07 pm

             Tim,

             Doesn’t is a contraction of does not.
           • felix 9.1.2.1.1.2

             1 October 2009 at 1:28 pm

             Indeed bb. Oh Timmy, what a ‘wit you are.
           • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1.2.1.1.3

             1 October 2009 at 2:52 pm

             Not as far as you may think.

             Labour plus Greens in last poll was over 40%. Another 5 or 6 % both ways would bring Nat/ACT and Labour/Greens (assumeing they get their 5%) quite close together- something for the Maori Party to have to think about
     • Swampy 9.1.3

       2 October 2009 at 9:03 am

       The Labour leader is yesterday’s man, a core part of two previous Labour governments that fell out of favour. He cannot seriously be considered renewal. Nor can most of the front bench people who are the same people who helped carry Labour to election loss last year.
10. HitchensFan 10

    1 October 2009 at 10:03 am

    Oh Man, I so hope you guys are right. Maybe “Cindy” represents all those Kiwis who voted naively “for a change” without thinking about a change from what to what and are now realising their error……please, please, please let this pack of fools be a One Term Government……
11. Ianmac 11

    1 October 2009 at 10:09 am

    What karma. The day that John Key wiped Winston from any possible connection by saying that he would not tolerate anything but the highest standards while he was the leader, I thought he would regret those words. Worth? English? It also seemed to me as writers above say once the “mob” get a taste for vocal democracy they will not stop at the closing of an election. Watch this space! But maybe more involvement is better than apathy, but who is to say what is good/bad involvement?
12. felix 12

    1 October 2009 at 10:15 am

    And not even a tax cut to dull the sting of betrayal.
13. Blue 13

    1 October 2009 at 10:29 am

    I’ve always found it interesting how insane things got last year. I don’t think people even understood why they were angry half the time. It was hard to pin down exactly what was so terribly, horribly world-endingly awful about the EFA but people turned up in droves with tape over their mouths in public places. Ditto Winston – ask the average punter exactly what the seedy, no-good, very bad deed he was supposed to have done was and I don’t think many would know. But they got exercised about ‘corruption’ and the like nonetheless.

    Now that National is in government and having to take the tough decisions, keep their support parties happy and having their every move scrutinised in a way they weren’t in Opposition, the tables are turning somewhat.

    When the public are ready to listen again, I hope Labour are ready, because there are a lot of issues that seriously need addressing. I hope they won’t keep getting bogged down in rehashing the issues of the last Labour Government. I want to see some new, big, bold ideas.
    • Rob 13.1

      1 October 2009 at 12:15 pm

      With Winston, obviously the very visibly and public lying he did , to the extent of holding up signs saying NO. Is not that important to you. It amazes me that you do not get this and it worries me that you do not think it is important.
      • Blue 13.1.1

        1 October 2009 at 12:55 pm

        Well, I’m glad you know what’s going on inside Winston’s mind. I suppose somebody has to.

        Am I concerned that a donation was given to a small-fish political party, but not declared and then the leader of said party said he didn’t know anything about it?

        Actually, no. I think there are far more important things to be worried about.

        Wow, how out of touch am I?
14. r0b 14

    1 October 2009 at 10:41 am

    people turned up in droves with tape over their mouths in public places.

    I wouldn’t say “droves” exactly. Those protests were astroturf, there was never a large turnout…
15. logie97 15

    1 October 2009 at 11:37 am

    “So from someone who has voted for “both’ sides of the spectrum…”

    Don’t you love these individuals who try to claim the moral high ground. Float around the traps like Peter Dunne – aren’t I sensible.
    Sit in the middle of politics and think only about what’s in it for them. No political philosophy.
    • Ianmac 15.1

      1 October 2009 at 11:49 am

      But people are like that. Follow to be part of the in-crowd. We all drink straight out of the bottle. (I don’t)
      We all have the right hemline. (I don’t.)
      We listen to the right music. (I don’t.)
      A friend of mine worked alongside some workers of a big business while he set up the Data system last October. His casual conversations with the workers left him staggered at how little they knew about politics yet they were still able to trot out the “lines.”
      • logie97 15.1.1

        1 October 2009 at 11:58 am

        … mmm Herod (otus) where have we encountered that name before. Was he the one who couldn’t quite make up his mind 2000 years ago and changed the path of history?
        • Herodotus 15.1.1.1

          1 October 2009 at 12:06 pm

          He was better at recording that say Xenophon. But I am amazed how quickly and efficiently past events (evan those that happened quite recently) are either forgotten or “manipulted”. No one wants themselves to be judged by their past actions as that may indicate what they will do in the future. It also allows the finger to be pointed at others with immunity as top what they have done. The real scary thing for me is it is all self interest. (I will be generous here) little is done for the betterment of NZ and the vast majority of people who ARE struggling.
      • Rob 15.1.2

        1 October 2009 at 12:20 pm

        It must be fantastic to be so intellectually superior than other people, look why dont you just make it easier for the “great unwashed” and vote for them.
        • Herodotus 15.1.2.1

          1 October 2009 at 12:37 pm

          No one is superiour, perhaps if there was more listening then we may all learn from others. No one has the sole ownership of knowledge or wisdom. I get the impression that some think that they have, or listen to a select few i.e. preaching to the converted.
          Perhaps as a suggestion those in Wellington should get out and put them in a position to listen.
    • Herodotus 15.2

      1 October 2009 at 11:56 am

      logie97 not trying to take the moral high ground, that area of land is alread well over populated, and re politicial philosophy can you tell me of any party that is consistent in that. I believe that only philosophy followed is that of Niccolo Machiavelli.
16. ak 16

    1 October 2009 at 11:48 am

    Blue: ……even understood why they were angry half the time.

    Heh – so true Blue: one of the great entertainments pre-election was to endure some ranting and follow with a gentle “so what exactly has this bitch done again, to make you hate her so much?” The sight of empty fury ricochetting inside empty vessels produced some delightful facials! “Why, she’s …ummmm…. welll….that car thing, – anyway, time for a change…”
    In more cruel moments: “So nothing solid then. Just a general hatred – gosh look at the time, have a nice day”.

    Good post r0b – the Cindy effect, love it. Yes, now that the euphoria of the ball has warn off, it’s dawning on Cindy and her ugly sisters that they really slopped the dripper – their prandsome hince is all tongue and no bung, and life in the scullery is about to get a lot grimmer….
17. burt 17

    1 October 2009 at 12:13 pm

    rOb

    Perhaps you could put your cards on the table, was the EFA good or was it bad. Yesterday you tried pitifully to prove you hadn’t supported it but it seems having failed in doing that you are going to take the position there was noting wrong with it and any opposition to it was purely National/ACT dishonesty and scare mongering about it.

    Ignoring for a moment the hypocrisy of National/ACT if they were to introduce an EFA substantively similar to the Labour EFA, would you consider it to be good legislation or bad legislation?
    • r0b 17.1

      1 October 2009 at 12:54 pm

      Stalking me is becoming quite an obsession for you Burt. Don’t you have better things to do with your time?

      Yesterday you tried pitifully to prove you hadn’t supported it

      You’re a liar Burt. Yesterday you challenged me to supply any example of me criticising the EFA, and I supplied half a dozen. Of course I supported the EFA. The disgusting election rorts that National ran in 2005, the rorts that cost them the election and their leader Don Brash when the truth came out, they had to be stopped. The EFA wasn’t perfect by any means, but the job it tried to do needed doing.

      substantively similar to the Labour EFA, would you consider it to be good legislation or bad legislation?

      Good in most but not all respects.
      • Swampy 17.1.1

        2 October 2009 at 9:14 am

        Politics is a dirty business. There are a certain number of players in it, who for the most part skate very thin ice on a lake of hypocrisy as they accuse each other of one thing or another. Anyone who gets involved in politics has to take the rough with the smooth. You’ve chosen to have a political blog. Like all political blogs it is largely of disinterest to the general public. It merely serves to emphasise one side’s political campaign against the other. Dig deep enough and one finds that there is a lot that is not being said that materially changes the picture. I read a number of political blogs, just to keep myself informed to some degree about some of the major issues in politics. I wouldn’t use any of them as a credible source of what the public thinks or of news, the media does a much better job of filtering out the political white noise from the substance of what is really relevant.
    • burt 17.2

      1 October 2009 at 1:25 pm

      I think you are the liar rOb, you supplied evidence that you had been critical of the initial drafting. No such criticism of the final Act or the process that was used to pass it, quite the opposite actually.

      I’ll ask again – shall I start adding links here where you defended the law and the process used to pass it?

      You have however half answered today’s question, you think the intent of the EFA was good and it was required. The intent is also debatable given the implications that some parts of the EFA appear to be solely to shut down dissent. Now you might think shutting down dissent was necessary when Labour was in govt but I doubt you would be so happy about it with Labour in opposition. Perhaps you could be clearer about what parts you though were good and what parts you might, under duress, concede were odorous.
      • r0b 17.2.1

        1 October 2009 at 1:33 pm

        Burt your question was: Can you point me to any comments you made condemning the anti democratic nature of the EFB/EFA ?.

        I pointed you at half a dozen and I stopped when I got bored (it was after all 1:40am). You can whine all you like about it now, sure, but stop lying about what was asked and what was answered.

        I’ll ask again shall I start adding links here where you defended the law and the process used to pass it?

        Oh would you Burt? Yes please! I think that would be a great idea. Off you go Burty…
      • burt 17.2.2

        1 October 2009 at 9:05 pm

        rOb

        Here are a few things to think about;

        In this thread ( http://www.thestandard.org.nz/nationals-campaign-to-muzzle-union-continues )

        talking about the use of urgency to pass the EFA

        Lots of bills get passed under urgency at the end of a year.

        OK, so National passing stuff under urgency at the end of the year will be just fine for you rOb? I’ve already seen a few comments about National using urgency (which was OK for RV and the EFA) – shall I link them here ?

        rOb spinning…

        The EFB is supported by an overwhelming majority of parties in parliament.

        And justifying a partisan approach
        http://www.thestandard.org.nz/will-the-real-john-key-please-stand-up/#comment-6509

        and then a few comments later in that same thread

        The EFB represents an attempt to tighten up and modernise those laws. It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.

        And you continue on and on in that thread to defend the EFB….

        On another thread;

        Electoral finance laws are apparently not constuitutional change…
        http://www.thestandard.org.nz/anti-efb-crusader-calls-for-armed-revolution/#comment-7773

        You still think this rOb ?

        RE: What the ODT had to say about the EFB;
        http://www.thestandard.org.nz/odt-on-the-electoral-finance-bill/#comment-9653

        “The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil [wo]men Plato’

        It’s deja moo all over again. (As in, we’ve heard this bullshit before).

        Then later in that thread;
        http://www.thestandard.org.nz/odt-on-the-electoral-finance-bill/#comment-9804
        and then here;
        http://www.thestandard.org.nz/key-demands-we-publish-full-quote/#comment-81556
        • r0b 17.2.2.1

          1 October 2009 at 9:45 pm

          Very good Burt, anything I said I stand by. What was your point again?
          • burt 17.2.2.1.1

            1 October 2009 at 9:58 pm

            That you defended the EFB/EFA both the law itself and the process used to pass it.

            Good luck pointing to hypocrisy if National carry on with a electoral funding bill similar to Labour’s – I’ll back you pointing that out.

            But unless you are prepared to wear that label yourself you had better be very careful what you say about the actual law itself and especially careful about being critical of the process National use to pass it.
            • r0b 17.2.2.1.1.1

              1 October 2009 at 10:07 pm

              That you defended the EFB/EFA both the law itself and the process used to pass it.

              I defended that which needed defending, and criticised that which needed criticising. It’s called independent critical thought Burt. You should try it some time.

              Good luck pointing to hypocrisy if National carry on with a electoral funding bill similar to Labour’s I’ll back you pointing that out.

              I shan’t mind if National come up with a similar Bill Burt. It wasn’t perfect by a long shot, nor was it terrible. If National can improve it, or at least not stuff it up completely, I’ll be happy.

              But unless you are prepared to wear that label yourself you had better be very careful what you say about the actual law

              Thanks terribly for the warning Burt, I’ll give it all due consideration.
18. BLiP 18

    1 October 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Great post. The effects of tactics used by Crosby/Textor to stir up the fears and anger of the public so disgusted me that for the first time in my life I became active politically.

    I work in an office that is wall-to-wall Tory and the level of personal invective against Helen Clark became near intolerable as the election date drew close. As the one “greenie” in the office, I became the target of, at first, sly jokes and nasty innuendo which, in the end, devolved into outright bullying. I’m big enough and ugly enough to stand up for myself but, in effect, I had to keep my head down and mouth shut. Any attempt to query the antagonists for National resulted in being shouted down with lies and abuse – there was no room for any discussion or consideration of the facts: that “socialist, lesbian bitch whose policies have trashed democracy, left people terrified in their own homes, and wants to run our lives has to go” was the refrain.

    A year later and things have settled down. There’s not quite the same edge to the comments. Basher Bennett’s bullying didn’t help, but there’s room now to explain what “reported crime” is, to share a laugh at John Key cycling around New Zealand in his poncho and goober dancing at the Big gay Out, and coming up with our own Top Ten and expressing a shared sense of embarrassment at the Letterman appearance. I’m even welcome back at the Friday drinks even if its just to take piss, but the mood has changed.
    • r0b 18.1

      1 October 2009 at 2:04 pm

      Good for you BLiP – stay strong. I was in a similar environment once (long ago now) and it isn’t easy being the stand out…
      • outofbed 18.1.1

        1 October 2009 at 2:40 pm

        i was very till very recently working in the transport industry doing some manual work. Being a Greenie in that environment was immensely difficult too.
        I felt like I came from a different planet. although jokes were in general light hearted and one gives as much as one takes.,
        But people had no grasp of sustainability issues at all. No idea
        Made me realise that the Greens were just not connecting

        I found the whole thing very soul destroying actually all the ideas about politics were those that can weree gleaned by 30 sec sound bites on the National news.
        I did find that after a while one could get through some new ideas and ways of looking at things but it wasn’t easy

        It was interesting that the perception was , that we were all dope smoking sandal wearing dropouts( It was amusing to find out the only person in the place never to have smoked dope was me)
19. HitchensFan 19

    1 October 2009 at 2:40 pm

    BLiP and rOb. Agreed. Me too. But the mood is definitely changing……I’ve just had to keep my head down for a year and put up with the vile invective but it’s now starting to go in the other direction thanks to Crusher, Basher and now Double Dipton………and everyone seems united in thinking Key is just an idiot and sort of amusing in an OMG he’s the PM kinda way……
    Give it another year…
20. Anne 20

    1 October 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Interested in your experiences Blip. I went through the same thing in the late 1980s. It was a government service too! It reached the point where the local management asked staff to report any witnessed misdemeanours they could use “to get rid of me”. They failed because there was nothing anyone could find. It was a case of puerile, political vindictiveness.
    • BLiP 20.1

      1 October 2009 at 6:16 pm

      Yes – I know – I can hear it in the background – its the smallest violin in the world playing just for me . . . but what my experience gave me was an idea of just how divisive and nasty the tactics were to the national psyche, never mind my little world.

      At its worse, I had National Ltd stickers plastered all over my car, everyone in the office got new ergo-dynamic furniture (made from nyatoh) except me, necessary information to do my job was delayed, and there were a few weirdo phone calls at home. There wasn’t any real threat to my employment as such except that the atmosphere was made so toxic I began seriously to consider other options.

      Like I said, things have settled down now and one or two people have even approached me to say they were upset by the actions of others at the time. The fact that they didn’t speak out when it mattered annoys me but, again, is evidence of the effectiveness of tapping into that irrational human aspect Crosby/Textor and National Ltd delight in and profit from. My only consolation is that individuals on the Right must have suffered significant effects from their cognitive dissonance and now have a putrid pool of malignant nastiness eating away at their souls.

      Prior to the election campaign I didn’t really bother with politics even though close family members are involved. These days, however, in my own little way, whether its delivering pamphlets or banging up bill boards, or blogging or slipping the odd comment into conversations, I like to think that so far as I am concerned the C/T tactics have backfired. I know I’m not the only one and, in fact, as the real face of National Ltd emerges, our ranks will swell. As r0b says: stay strong.
21. Mac1 21

    1 October 2009 at 10:40 pm

    Cripes, BLiP, 2008 candidates got a cruisy run compared to your experience.Stay strong yourself, brother.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS