The descent continues

87 comments on “The descent continues ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pat 1

   17 September 2008 at 10:18 am

   Helen Clark’s billboard: “Trust me – these are my real teeth!”
2. infused 2

   17 September 2008 at 10:19 am

   Yeah she does. Photoshopped to hell and back.
3. Billy 3

   17 September 2008 at 10:22 am

   weather pictures of Key

   With isobars on his head you mean?
4. higherstandard 4

   17 September 2008 at 10:25 am

   Surely the misogyny you speak of is primarily from the Labour party marketing team/advisors who feel that airbrushing is necessary.
5. Steve Pierson 5

   17 September 2008 at 10:25 am

   billy, ha! funny I was sure it said whether wen i wrote it.. maybe that devil eddie had a wee edit.

   Pat, infused.. you disgrace yourselves and your political allies
6. Steve Pierson 6

   17 September 2008 at 10:29 am

   hs. don’t be a dick. a) the image isn’t heavily airbrushed

   b) who gives a damn whether an image is airbrushed or not, of course any picture of a political leader for a billboard is going to look good. hell, all the billboards you see and the pics in your ‘men’s magazines’ are airbrushed. Key’s pics are airbrushed too.. It’s only people like you that feel it somehow matters that Clark’s pics are airbrushed… but please, keep on showing your true natures, all you misogynists, it gives something for moderate people to think about when they consider whether they want to vote for National.
7. r0b 7

   17 September 2008 at 10:31 am

   Surely the misogyny you speak of is primarily from the Labour party marketing team/advisors who feel that airbrushing is necessary

   And when National photoshopped Brash in the last election was that misterogyny?
8. higherstandard 8

   17 September 2008 at 10:35 am

   r0b

   A severe case of Brashrogyny I believe.

   I wonder if they’ll do it for R Douglas Rogrogyny !!
9. Brett Dale 9

   17 September 2008 at 10:36 am

   I guess the point they are trying to make, is Labour photo shopping their pictures to try to appeal to the public by making Helen looking better.

   If Labour is doing this, I hope the liberal media tears them a new one.
10. Tim Ellis 10

    17 September 2008 at 10:38 am

    SP, I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss whether a picture accurately represents the person it portrayed. To be quite honest, the picture of Helen Clark looks just ridiculous. She looks nothing like that.

    I don’t suggest that the picture of Helen Clark should capture her in her worst moments, but at least something that doesn’t look so blatantly manipulated. The Labour Party campaign theme is “trust us”. I think such a ridiculous billboard picture undermines that.

    I think you are wrong to dismiss criticisms of the use of that picture as mysogynistic. I think that Helen Clark looks perfectly normal for a 58-year-old woman. I think she dresses smartly, and is very presentable, and takes care of her appearance.

    So does John Key, and Winston Peters.

    Let’s face it, politicians as a whole are not the most photogenic people in the world. Rob Muldoon, David Lange and Jim Bolger did not become Prime Minister through winning any beauty contests. Nor did Helen Clark. I’m not saying she is ugly. She looks quite normal to me. But her billboard picture doesn’t look normal, and when I look at it I think that somebody is trying to portray her as somebody that she isn’t.

    I think that Labour should have put up a picture that people actually associate with her, rather than trying to manipulate perceptions of her by using a picture that people thinks looks very different to her in real life.
11. randal 11

    17 September 2008 at 10:38 am

    hs…take three thorazine and go to bed.
12. higherstandard 12

    17 September 2008 at 10:40 am

    Randal

    Thorazine is

    1. Not available in NZ
    2. A poor choice as a sedative.
13. randal 13

    17 September 2008 at 10:41 am

    tim ellis ..I dont think you have any right to comment on the appearance of nother person whatsoever. in another age you would have been taken outside and thrashed by her champion. if I was to give an accurate description of your churlishness I beleive I would run foul of the laws that gutless little namby pambys like you rely on to make your scurrilous attacks without fear of getting a fat lip.
14. Pat 14

    17 September 2008 at 10:53 am

    SP – what are you getting so wound up about? You cracked the first joke:

    “My Granny (i.e. Helen) has been replaced by a fox”

    [no, Pat. Granny Herald is a nickname for the Herald – ‘The Herald has been replaced by Fox News’ = ‘My Granny has been replaced by a Fox’. SP]
15. Tim Ellis 15

    17 September 2008 at 10:55 am

    Thank you randal. Your anonymous threat to punch me, because I said that Helen Clark looks like a perfectly normal woman of her age and that her picture should represent her, is noted.
16. Ray 16

    17 September 2008 at 10:58 am

    You are off message Steve
    Didn’t you read the memo
    JK name is no longer to be mentioned
    Replace with flip flop opposition
17. QoT 17

    17 September 2008 at 10:58 am

    And we all know, of course, that if Labour *didn’t* ‘shop the picture of Helen, the election campaign would TOTALLY focus on trust and not a series of cheap “Lololol looks like a MAN, dur hur hur” shots. After all, throughout Clark’s presence in NZ politics, I’m certain the majority of comments I’ve heard about her have been about policy and not her looks (with a side of “is ugly ergo LEZZZBIAN”). Yep.
18. iheartmjs 18

    17 September 2008 at 11:01 am

    Talk about not being able to win!

    I’ve lost count of the number of time I’ve heard people say “I’m voting national because I don’t like Helen Clark”. Well, okay, but when I challenge them about the reasons, the answers often include “she’s such a man” and “she’s a lesbian”.

    If she chose an unretouched, plain photograph as her campaign photo this is exactly the kind of crap people would throw at her, but when she appears in a photo which is more aesthetically pleasing, she’s criticised for being “too glamorous”.

    We might as well be saying “I don’t like John Key because he is such a man”. That would be just as relevant and intelligent as the Herald’s article.
19. iheartmjs 19

    17 September 2008 at 11:02 am

    sorry QoT, great minds think alike 🙂
20. Tim Ellis 20

    17 September 2008 at 11:15 am

    Speak for yourself QoT. The portrait photo of Helen Clark at the Beehive website looks perfectly nice and representative to me. I don’t know why they didn’t use it for the billboards.
21. Dom 21

    17 September 2008 at 11:15 am

    Let’s pose an equally useless question about Key – does John Key look manly enough in his campaign photo?
22. Tim Ellis 22

    17 September 2008 at 11:21 am

    That isn’t the question, Dom. The question is whether the picture of John Key looks like he does, and represents how we see him. I think the answer is yes. As to whether the picture of Helen Clark looks like her, or whether it looks substantially manipulated, I think the answer is the latter.
23. Felix 23

    17 September 2008 at 11:29 am

    So we have a slightly manipulated picture of Helen Clark vs an entirely artificial construction of a person in John Key.

    Hmmmmm.
24. Bill 24

    17 September 2008 at 11:29 am

    Welcome to the good old US of A. May the most photogenic/handsome/attractive leader of the various party leaders win the right to fuck us over for a term on Nov 8th.

    Only pretty people know how to rule and make the ugly masses obey.

    Maybe the NZ election campaign should comprise of a catwalk with a couple of asinine questions thrown in at the end before the judges select their overall winner?

    How DOES this captcha work? ‘pretty’ and ‘ugly’ were randomly generated?
25. weka 25

    17 September 2008 at 11:35 am

    Clark’s billboard photo is too poncy for my taste. But then so are most people in the public eye who have to present well (I’m thinking of last week’s NZ film and TV awards, where you used to see ordinary looking NZers, and they now all look like they’re at the Oscars).

    But really who cares. It’s not news. The Heraldfox is misogynist and stupid (that’s probably not news either).

    Captcha: supervis boxoffice
26. Pat 26

    17 September 2008 at 11:41 am

    I think Labour’s marketing people were wrong to try and tart Helen up. She is a long-serving Prime Minister and should be proud of what she looks like and what she represents. This is not a beauty contest and she has nothing to hide. I think Labour would be far better served to portray a quality “normal” photo of her. It would reinforce the Trust message, rather than undermine it.
27. Dom 27

    17 September 2008 at 11:52 am

    Tim – “The question is whether the picture of John Key looks like he does, and represents how we see him. I think the answer is yes. As to whether the picture of Helen Clark looks like her, or whether it looks substantially manipulated, I think the answer is the latter.”

    Um, so have you heard of makeup? Women wear it to make themselves look better. So do some men for that matter.

    And for the record, I saw Key last week. He doesn’t look half as good as his campaign photo does.

    But if you want to define the question I think the real issue here is why we are all wasting our time talking about a photo.
28. weka 28

    17 September 2008 at 11:56 am

    I broadly agree Pat. But if that’s the case then the news item is about how election advertising is changing in NZ. Not if Clark is too glamourous.

    Steve, can you please put up a link to the actual Herald article, as I can’t seem to find it.
29. Phil 29

    17 September 2008 at 1:04 pm

    The ‘Hutch’ made a good point on Campbell live a couple of nights ago.

    If make-up and a nice hairdo can make Helen look this good on billboard, why doesn’t she take the time to do that every day?
30. Vanilla Eis 30

    17 September 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Phil: Does it occur that she might actually be working pretty fucking hard? I’m quite certain that make-up and a nice hairdo aren’t at the top of her priority list when she gets up in the morning after a couple of hours sleep.

    It’s not a job you could pay me to do, and I’m certain that if I was in her position I’d look considerably more haggard than she often does. Seen any unedited photo’s of Key recently? He looks like shit. Why not just slap one of those up on all of their billboards?

    (P.S: I can hear the cries in the House if they found out that HC had employed a professional makeup artist to attend to her every morning, and she’d probably need a touch-up after lunch/before evening appointments too.)
31. Draco T Bastard 31

    17 September 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Here you go weka. Doesn’t have the same headline as what SP screen shotted.
32. Julie 32

    17 September 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Thanks for posting on this Steve. Sometimes I just despair about the underlying sexism still in our society, and the denials that it still exists at all. Today looks likely to be one of those days.
33. Scribe 33

    17 September 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Applying some makeup and getting a nice hairdo for a photo is fine. Even removing a few wrinkles is no problem, IMHO. Replacing someone’s teeth is just plain weird, and bordering on dishonest.
34. Tim Ellis 34

    17 September 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Dom, I’ve never said that Helen Clark should look haggard. It’s a portrait photo, so she should wear make-up. What interests me is why the picture is so very different to her other portrait photos: her picture at the Beehive website clearly casts her in a good light, as it should. But it looks very much like her.

    The Labour Party billboard picture of her doesn’t. I find this strange, since clearly Helen Clark is a very big part of the brand. To put up a picture that doesn’t look a lot like her just diminishes the Labour Party brand.
35. Steve Pierson 35

    17 September 2008 at 2:08 pm

    scribe. fuck off. have you got nothing less pathetic to add?
36. Steve Pierson 36

    17 September 2008 at 2:12 pm

    weka. the headline was different on the frontpage and on the actual article, that link Draco TB gave goes to the article
37. weka 37

    17 September 2008 at 2:14 pm

    
    If make-up and a nice hairdo can make Helen look this good on billboard, why doesn’t she take the time to do that every day?

    Yeah Phil, and all women in NZ should look like they stepped out the pages of Vogue. *rolls eyes*

    You do realise that most people don’t actually look like that?
38. Scribe 38

    17 September 2008 at 2:16 pm

    SP,

    What’s the problem? It’s on topic and seems like a reasonable opinion, albeit one that others would disagree with. Regretting posting this thread?

    Thanks for the kind wishes, though.
39. weka 39

    17 September 2008 at 2:20 pm

    ok, the Herald was actually talking about someone who took a complaint to the advertising standards authority that got rejected at the first hurdle. And the Herald linked that off the front page with the headline about Clark’s billboard being too glamorous. Because a baseless complaint is news too!
40. Steve Pierson 40

    17 September 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Scribe. the post is about how pathetic it is that The Herald would be obsessed with a politician’s photo, how this wouldn’t happen if Clark were male, and how they are looking more like Fox in their bizarre attacks.. her teeth aren’t even ‘replaced’
41. Phil 41

    17 September 2008 at 2:36 pm

    F*ck, and Steve complains that his humour is missed by people commenting here…
42. Scribe 42

    17 September 2008 at 2:52 pm

    how they are looking more like Fox in their bizarre attacks.

    Some of the posts on The Standard are looking more like the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.

    her teeth aren’t even ‘replaced’

    So those are Helen Clark’s own teeth on the billboard photos? Wow, they look different to me.
43. G 43

    17 September 2008 at 3:13 pm

    This is too funny… all Helen’s suitors chipping in to protect her ‘honour’… kinda cute.

    Except of course she lost the last shred of honour she had left when she stole our money to steal an election and introduced retrospective law to make the crime legal. Now that’s what I call airbrushing!!! 🙂
44. G 44

    17 September 2008 at 3:24 pm

    … and c’mon, Steve, are you so love sick you’ve gone blind?!! She’s been artificially enhanced from smash-mouth to pearlers!! You can add this to her growing list controversies: Paintergate, Corngate, Motorcadegate, Electiongate, Winstongate and now Colgate!! 🙂
45. r0b 45

    17 September 2008 at 3:31 pm

    she stole our money to steal an election and introduced retrospective law to make the crime legal.

    G gets his knowledge of electoral process from the back of the same cereal packets as his understanding of climate change I see.

    Just a quick history lesson G. After the last election one party lost its leader due to the piublic outcry at its despicable tactics during the campaign. That party was National.
46. Anita 46

    17 September 2008 at 3:33 pm

    G,

    … and now Colgate!!

    🙂

    That is the first use of -gate which hasn’t made me cringe this year 🙂
47. G 47

    17 September 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Are you a denier, Rob?! Are you saying she didn’t steal the money, didn’t use the stolen money for a last minute campaign that nabbed the crucial 1%, and didn’t rewrite the law to make the theft legal and avoid a court case that would have convicted her?

    I understand the process perfectly well. You’re the one who needs to be taught a lesson.
48. randal 48

    17 September 2008 at 3:38 pm

    gee you are a kreep. I know that and you know that but you dont want to do anything about it. just fuck off.
49. Anita 49

    17 September 2008 at 3:52 pm

    G,

    Yes, you’re wrong.

    There are two different issues:

    1) Whether Parliamentary Services misspent

    2) Whether political breached their spending caps by using the PS misspend.

    The first one was the subject of the retrospective validation. No-one could have been charged with theft whether or not the spending was validated.

    The second one could have been the subject of court action (although not for theft) but wasn’t because (from memory) the Police didn’t choose to prosecute within the statutory time limit. A number of parties could have been prosecuted for this.

    Out of interest, where are you figuring National’s broadcasting overspend in? Similarly could have been prosecuted but wasn’t.
50. r0b 50

    17 September 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Isn’t it cute to see G so excited? He thinks he’s on to a winner here!

    Are you saying she didn’t steal the money

    Correct.

    didn’t use the stolen money for a last minute campaign that nabbed the crucial 1%

    There was no stolen money.

    and didn’t rewrite the law to make the theft legal

    There was no theft.

    I’m sure you’re going to now bang on and on about this forever. Sigh. Perhaps you could begin by saying who this money was “stolen” from, what law was broken, and by whom?
51. r0b 51

    17 September 2008 at 3:55 pm

    With fixed tags:

    Isn’t it cute to see G so excited? He thinks he’s on to a winner here!

    Are you saying she didn’t steal the money

    Correct.

    didn’t use the stolen money for a last minute campaign that nabbed the crucial 1%

    There was no stolen money.

    and didn’t rewrite the law to make the theft legal

    There was no theft.

    I’m sure you’re going to now bang on and on about this forever. Sigh. Perhaps you could begin by saying who this money was “stolen’ from, what law was broken, and by whom?
52. Anita 52

    17 September 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Actually, I regret that comment. I am tired of relitigating the 2005 PS spending debacle.

    r0b and burt – can you remember where the epic thread on this is? Maybe we could point to that each time and not have to start from scratch.
53. randal 53

    17 September 2008 at 4:11 pm

    anita, egburt and co rely on the fact that fools can ask more questions than a wise man can answer and that you are too nice to give him a friggin slapping which he so justly deserves…I actually think he is colon from twiedme with another id but we will let that one go for the moment. what ever in the long run he’s just another kreep.
54. Anita 54

    17 September 2008 at 4:29 pm

    randal,

    Yeah, I just need reminding of that from time to time. Thanks 🙂
55. G 55

    17 September 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Inconvenient truths:

    1) The funds were ‘misappropriated’ for electioneering purposes: the money was not theirs; it belonged to the taxpayer.

    2) Labour promised to pay back the $800,000+ then promptly reneged the moment it regained power.

    3) There was yet another prima facie case which the police failed to act upon. (Tui: Helen didn’t strong-arm the cops.)

    4) The Libertarianz leader would have successfully prosecuted her if the court case had been allowed to proceed. It was invalidated by emergency retrospective law – in other words, the illegal made legal.

    Corrupt as corrupt gets.
56. G 56

    17 September 2008 at 4:39 pm

    BTW, Anita, National were also guilty (and should’ve been proportionately prosecuted), though theirs appears to have been a genuine oversight of a mere $11,000 as opposed to the massive $824,524 that Labour pinched.

    Anderton and Darnton were the only ones in the clear.
57. Jasper 57

    17 September 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Why is John Key hovering over the shoulder of all his MP’s in each and every one of their campaign billboards?
    Is he worried he might get overshadowed by someone that looks less insipid?
58. r0b 58

    17 September 2008 at 4:50 pm

    I am tired of relitigating the 2005 PS spending debacle.

    Me too. But I don’t like people spreading lies either.

    1) The funds were ‘misappropriated’

    I thought you said they were stolen G? So that’s the first back down from your lies.

    2) Labour promised to pay back the $800,000+ then promptly reneged the moment it regained power.

    That’s another lie.

    3) There was yet another prima facie case which the police failed to act upon.

    Was that the National GST overspend prima facie case you were thinking of?

    4) The Libertarianz leader would have successfully prosecuted her if the court case had been allowed to proceed. It was invalidated by emergency retrospective law

    He would not have successfully prosecuted “her” because she was not guilty of anything, and the case was thrown out by a separate deliberate vote in parliament – only National voted in favour of the court case proceeding.

    Corrupt as corrupt gets.

    That would be National, who lost their leader as a result of their tactics in the 2005 election.
59. r0b 59

    17 September 2008 at 5:04 pm

    I should have attributed comments better in by previous. “I am tired of relitigating the 2005 PS spending debacle’ was Anita, everything else was G.
60. Anita 60

    17 September 2008 at 5:11 pm

    G,

    Here is an awesome thread in which all possible variations of the 2005 PS election funding issue is canvassed: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2289

    All your questions will be answered, all your facts checked, all your illusions shattered, all your nightmares arrived at once.
61. G 61

    17 September 2008 at 5:17 pm

    misappropriate |ˌmisəˈprōprēˌāt|
    verb [ trans. ]
    (of a person) dishonestly or unfairly take (something, esp. money, belonging to another) for one’s own use : department officials had misappropriated funds.

    i.e. stolen. These funds were NOT allowed to be used for electioneering. End of story.
62. r0b 62

    17 September 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Anita, I didn’t think G would have the attention span to digest that thread, but now I guess we’ll see!
63. G 63

    17 September 2008 at 5:23 pm

    “He would not have successfully prosecuted “her’ because she was not guilty of anything, and the case was thrown out by a separate deliberate vote in parliament – only National voted in favour of the court case proceeding.”

    That’s like asking the Mongrel Mob to rule on legitimate charges against them: “Hands up youse who think we should be prosecuted… Passed! No case to answer for, eh!”

    Hilarious.
64. r0b 64

    17 September 2008 at 5:24 pm

    i.e. stolen.

    Still lying G. Read the thread that Anita linked to above, then get back to us.
65. randal 65

    17 September 2008 at 5:24 pm

    jasper…he has been taking lessons from the squibber rodney hide!
66. r0b 66

    17 September 2008 at 5:26 pm

    <i. That’s like asking the Mongrel Mob to rule on legitimate charges against them

    Parliament is the highest legal authority in the country G, and you’re comparing them to the Mongrel Mob? That’s a good start.

    Only National voted for the court case to proceed. No other party saw any worth in it.
67. r0b 67

    17 September 2008 at 5:27 pm

    G: That’s like asking the Mongrel Mob to rule on legitimate charges against them

    Parliament is the highest legal authority in the country G, and you’re comparing them to the Mongrel Mob? That’s a good start.

    Only National voted for the court case to proceed. No other party saw any worth in it.
68. G 68

    17 September 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Right, Rob ~ the highest legal authority in NZ is asked to rule on whether they should be prosecuted for using taxpayers’ money for electioneering purposes. “Ahhh… hands up those who think we did anything wrong?”

    Banana republic stuff.
69. G 69

    17 September 2008 at 5:35 pm

    I note that none of youse have denied that the funds were misappropriated for the purposes of electioneering — a direct contravention of the electoral rules.
70. r0b 70

    17 September 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Go read the thread linked to by Anita G, all covered there. Bye for now…
71. G 71

    17 September 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Run Spot run. 🙂
72. QoT 72

    17 September 2008 at 6:09 pm

    *waves back up at iheartmjs* See, now I’m just wondering which of the two MJSs I, too, heart, you mean.
73. r0b 73

    17 September 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Run Spot run.

    That’s very good G, well done. Now try the next page.
74. G 74

    17 September 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Yeah, look, I know it’s an indefensible position, Rob — Labour broke the electoral rules and stole funds that didn’t belong to them to electioneer a 3rd term — so let’s just leave it at that.
75. DeeDub 75

    17 September 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Dammit! Who let G off his string?!
76. r0b 76

    17 September 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Yeah, look, I know it’s an indefensible position, Rob

    The only one in an indefensible position after the 2005 election was the National Party and Don Brash. That’s why Don was forced to resign.

    The claims you have made above are not true (some of them are simply blatant lies), and all the issues were thrashed out in detail in this long thread here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2289

    And there I am certainly happy to leave it at that.
77. lprent 77

    17 September 2008 at 10:44 pm

    It is a pity that G never seems to actually read any of the material that people point him in the direction of. Gets a bit boring after a while, so you stop engaging with it.

    I’m kind of viewing it as a surrealistic parody of a human at present. Too intelligent to be a troll (defined as I could program their responses). Too boring to engage with because it spouts lines taken from inaccurate sources and ignores questions about the accuracy or interpretation of the data. That means it doesn’t engage.

    As an viewpoint it beats getting wound up and leaves more time for more interesting personalities.
78. G 78

    17 September 2008 at 11:31 pm

    … Jesus that was boring. Okay, read it and I see none of you denied Labour misappropriated the funds for electioneering purposes.

    Excellent, we can move on now in the knowledge your party literally stole the last election.
79. Dean 79

    17 September 2008 at 11:34 pm

    “Just a quick history lesson G. After the last election one party lost its leader due to the piublic outcry at its despicable tactics during the campaign. That party was National.”

    Yes, those despicable scumbags, aligning with the chinless scarf wearers who spent their own money to pervert the course of democracy!

    Nothing at all like unions helping Labour candidates erect billboards, is it?

    Sometimes I wonder if you’re not just playing devil’s advocate, r0b, because I honestly don’t believe you’re that naiive.

    But if you like, have another rage against the EB machine. It’s been entertaining up until now to see Labour members and advocates splutter their way through it – including Helen and everyone’s favourite Labour membter, Trevor – so I don’t see why it should stop now.

    For bonus points, get Trev to fly to Rome at the taxpayers expense and give the pope the bash. Even SP would sppreciate that.
80. Felix 80

    17 September 2008 at 11:50 pm

    lprent

    It could be a dog. Or a chimp.

    So cute, it thinks it can read.
81. lprent 81

    18 September 2008 at 12:07 am

    G: I missed out the essential smugness level. Probably goes with having a binary personality and knowing it is ALWAYS right.
82. lprent 82

    18 September 2008 at 12:08 am

    Dean:

    Nothing at all like unions helping Labour candidates erect billboards, is it?

    Have you asked the union members if they they were doing it on a voluntary basis or were they forced to do it? I bet no-one has. Instead we have jerk-offs like yourself attempting to denigrate people doing voluntary work.

    I mean what exactly is your point? What can you actually show is a problem in electoral law? People have been volunteering to help political parties for centuries.

    If you have a point to make – then make it. Don’t just sit there and make a comment that is simply a smear of people working. That is simply pathetic.

    a) unsupported in your comment – where is the reference.

    b) doesn’t have a point. What is wrong in the electoral law with people in unions helping a party. For that matter what is wrong with a union helping a party. In both cases the 3rd party rules of the EFA come into effect. They’re easy enough to check on.

    What is wrong legally with union members deciding to help the NZLP or the greens or whomever. Of course they are providing actual voluntary labour, and as we’ve observed, national party and act party members don’t like getting their hands dirty. They prefer using anonymous trusts to launder money from god knows where.

    BTW: Do you have the same attitude to people doing charitable work? To the people who do the ambulance duty like womans refuges? For PTA’s. For me to contribute my time to supporting the NZLP or womans refuges or my nieces or for that matter this blogsite?

    Why not try something different – go and do some voluntary work yourself. From your attitude it doesn’t seem to me like you have.

    Basically there are those who do, and then there are some who just moan.
83. Dean 83

    18 September 2008 at 1:53 am

    “Have you asked the union members if they they were doing it on a voluntary basis or were they forced to do it? I bet no-one has. Instead we have jerk-offs like yourself attempting to denigrate people doing voluntary work.

    I mean what exactly is your point? What can you actually show is a problem in electoral law? People have been volunteering to help political parties for centuries.”

    Have you asked the union members if they were driving union cars at the time? Have you asked them what time of the day it was?

    Have you asked Field if any takeaways may or may not have been purchased?

    No, thought not. Save your desperation for those who are willing to overlook it.

    “BTW: Do you have the same attitude to people doing charitable work? To the people who do the ambulance duty like womans refuges? For PTA’s. For me to contribute my time to supporting the NZLP or womans refuges or my nieces or for that matter this blogsite?”

    You just compared union employees erecting Labour billboards to women’s refuge volunteers. I’m lolling.
84. Dean 84

    18 September 2008 at 1:55 am

    Missed this one:

    “Why not try something different – go and do some voluntary work yourself. From your attitude it doesn’t seem to me like you have.”

    You might just be very, very surpised there, lprent. But I’d hate to shatter your world view.
85. marco 85

    18 September 2008 at 7:53 am

    Billboards and placards are there to create an instant impression as you drive past. Helens billboard barely resembles her, but at the end of the day its her scatter gun policy thats got her into trouble this election not her airbrushed image. National are not much better with their constant pandering to the swing voter. It might be time to get in behind a party that actually fights for what it believes in, now I’m very much a centerist so voting for the Greens isnt an attractive option but at least they have the b#lls to stand up for what they believe in.
86. lprent 86

    18 September 2008 at 9:38 am

    Dean: It was more reaction to the rest of the threads comments on the topic.

    What I was asking was “what is the problem?”. I saw a lot of people saying it was bad – my question is why?

    I expect voluntary work to go on in election campaigns. I do it all of the time for political parties and other organizations. Essentially I saw a lot of comments attacking the concept for no apparent reason.

    Good to hear that you do voluntary work. It is what maintains a lot of essential services (including politics).
87. Jasper 87

    18 September 2008 at 11:28 am

    Randal – Thought so.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS