The Herald still campaigning for National

Written By: - Date published: 9:26 am, January 22nd, 2008 - 99 comments
Categories: housing, Media - Tags: , , ,

Yesterday The Herald reported that:

Demographia, an international survey business run by Hugh Pavletich of Christchurch and Wendell Cox of the United States, today issued its fourth annual report, showing New Zealand has slipped drastically on an international scale.

Now quite aside from the shoddy methodology of the study to which the PM has already responded, a moment spent with Google reveals some interesting results.

The highlight is this extraordinary bit of brown-nosing from Hugh Pavletich to John Key back in October:

Dear John,

Housing Affordability

Congratulations on your sterling efforts over recent months in articulating sound policies on this issue. It is clear from your recent speeches and statements and those of your Housing Spokesman, Philip Heatley MP, that the National Party as a team. is researching the issue thoroughly and developing policies which will work & and over a reasonable time & allow young New Zealanders the same housing opportunities their parents had. They deserve nothing less.

My apologies for not writing to you earlier & but my wife Marg and I have been overseas since mid July.

It is particularly heartening to me to see the progress the New Zealand National Party is making & since I embarked on this issue on a voluntary basis in late 2004, when I initiated and with my good friend Wendell Cox, developed the Annual Demographia Housing Affordability Surveys. The 2008 4th Edition will likely be released late January…

I almost wish I had a Herald subscription just so I could cancel it.

99 comments on “The Herald still campaigning for National ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Daveo 1
    22 January 2008 at 9:39 am

    I almost wish I had a Herald subscription just so I could cancel it.

    Gold.

  2. Monty 2
    22 January 2008 at 9:54 am

    Oh Dear – shoot and attack the messenger – but do not under any circumstances try and address the serious issue. My children will struggle to purchase their own house in 15 to 20 years time (they are still very young) – Home affordability is a major concern for the younger generation. Labour do not have a grasp of the issues or the solutions – in typical socialist fashion, their solutions are too targeted, incorrect and simply not feasible on a macro-economic basis.

    Labour do not understand the drivers behind the extraordinary increase in Property prices. (suites me – I have become a millionaire under this corrupt government) – But I worry about my children having the ability to afford a home when the time is right. A major reform of the RMA so that land can be freed up is a key solution to solving the home affordability crisis that is affecting NZ.

    It now costs about 7 x the average income to purchase a house. The ideal is about 2.5 x the average income – where is your solution you dumb-arse socialists?

  3. Tane 3
    22 January 2008 at 10:04 am

    I actually agree Monty – this country does need to take serious action on housing and that’s something this blog will focus a lot more on in the coming months. I personally don’t think Labour’s done anywhere near enough to put a brake on house prices. Their reaction has been timid and I fear their current crop of proposals may be too little, too late.

    But if we’re going to have this debate then it needs to be done properly, not on the basis of a report based on dodgy methodology and written by a mate of John Key’s.

  4. Matthew Pilott 4
    22 January 2008 at 10:05 am

    Well Monty, the solution isn’t urban sprawl with the multitude of problems that brings – or are you happy to ship your kids off to a shiny new ghetto?

    One would think that a reform of tax laws so that it isn’t profitable to own more than, say, two houses would be the most adventageous – reduce demand instead of incresing supply.

    For a dumb-arsed socialist, my solution is a fair bit better than yours, Monty. Nice of capitalists to be really keen to encourage ghettoisation though – that’s well ‘targeted’ at the poor isn’t it?

  5. Robinsod 5
    22 January 2008 at 10:13 am

    I don’t know what’s wrong with a capital gains tax on second houses. Many other countries have them including Australia. It would make property speculation far less enticing for folk like Monty – sorry bro but if you’re happy to get rich off this but want cheap housing for your kids then you’re really trying to eat your cake and have it too.

  6. Insolent Prick 6
    22 January 2008 at 10:17 am

    An appropriate disclosure statement by the Standard should read:

    “The Standard is proudly supported by the Labour Party, which subsidises the hosting of this blog. Some Standard authors are active Labour Party members. Some Standard authors are also paid employees of the EPMU. Some Standard authors are employed by Parliamentary Services and work in the Beehive.”

    Unfortunately, the Standard is too dishonest to make that statement. Despite campaigning for everybody else’s political affiliations to be outed, and championing the cause of the Electoral Finance Act, which by the Standard’s own claims, increases transparency and accountability in politics, the Standard has done everything it can to conceal its political ties.

  7. Robinsod 7
    22 January 2008 at 10:23 am

    Still fucking pigs Prick?

    http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/pig-fucking/

    Your arguments are a joke

  8. Whaleoil 8
    22 January 2008 at 10:31 am

    Didn’t take long for the hollow labour sponsored attacks to continue.

    I even predicted this this morning.
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/oh-thats-right-attack-messenger

    You guys sound hollower and hollower.

  9. insider 9
    22 January 2008 at 10:31 am

    Gee matthew

    100 years ago Island Bay, the North Shore and Papanui were probably considered ‘urban sprawl’ but they don’t seem too ghettoised…Remember the Vim ads featuring “100 housewives in Pakuranga” when it was a nappy valley. Pretty mainstream now.

    Why is the concept of a city growing to meet increased populations and people having a choice to live where they want such a negative concept to some?

  10. Insolent Prick 10
    22 January 2008 at 10:36 am

    The astonishing irony, Whaleoil, is that just two days after the Standard has been outed as a blogging front for the Labour Party and EPMU, this post attempts to smear Hugh Pavletich for his alleged political affiliations.

    Tane still hasn’t declared the very real political affiliations of the Standard’s authors.

  11. Aj 11
    22 January 2008 at 10:42 am

    “It now costs about 7 x the average income to purchase a house. The ideal is about 2.5 x the average income – where is your solution you dumb-arse socialists”

    The US and Australia must have this type of socialist government as well…..

    “what’s wrong with a capital gains tax on second houses”

    This has not prevented exploding values across the ditch.

  12. Daveo 12
    22 January 2008 at 10:42 am

    Whale- Just had a look at your blog. You quoted Maryan Street saying Demographia were politically biased. You said “Oh yeah, prove it bitch”.

    I think this proves it.

    IP- you haven’t proven anything. I’m sure you’re familiar with the old saying that if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Well I hate to break it to you mate but it’s not working, we’re all just sick of you. You stopped fucking pigs yet? I still haven’t seen that photo of you not fucking a pig and mate, until I do I’m going to have work on the assumption that you’re a filthy pork fiend.

  13. Whaleoil 13
    22 January 2008 at 10:47 am

    Yes indeed, IP, very hollow….hardly even a mention.

    and the tech explanations hold about as much water as a colander.

    Free, $10, donated, opensource, Server 2003, hosted and so on…Zero credibility.

    Hollow like…well a Zero.

  14. Robinsod 14
    22 January 2008 at 10:47 am

    Yes Whale – I read your piece. I was quite taken by this line:

    25 years ago the survey authours voted for Muldoon or some other sort of bs excuse as to why they are politically motivated.

    Apart from the fact that you spell like a five year old I’m impressed you predicted that the standard would find a link between the authors (note spelling) and key. I suppose a piece of personal fan mail isn’t as strong a link of bias as once having voted for muldoon but y’know not everyone’s the super-sleuth you are.

    Hey how’s that disclosure about the mystery $11K FSC spend going. I noticed davey said the donor list would be update in “a few days” (as you did over a month ago) – has it been done yet?

  15. Barnsley Bill 15
    22 January 2008 at 10:49 am

    I agree with the basic tenet of this post, the herald should have revealed the report authors links to National…… Oh hang on a minute, isn’t that okay now? Haven’t you guys made hiding your backers the new black?

  16. Robinsod 16
    22 January 2008 at 10:53 am

    Bill that should be “authors’ links” – the apostrophe signals the term is possessive and placing it after the “s” indicates it’s plural possessive ie the links belonging to the authors.

  17. Barnsley Bill 17
    22 January 2008 at 10:56 am

    Thanks for the grammar lesson Rob, nice to see our national day of mournsturbation has not put you off your important role of chief side stepper.

  18. Kimble 18
    22 January 2008 at 11:00 am

    “One would think that a reform of tax laws so that it isn’t profitable to own more than, say, two houses would be the most adventageous – reduce demand instead of incresing supply.”

    Wow, what a total dumb-fuck of an idea. But no surprise your only answer is to increase taxes and restrict freedom. You simultaneously dont want to let people be free to build houses and you want to reduce their ability to own more than 2.

    Hey how’s that disclosure about the mystery funding of The Standard going?

  19. Insolent Prick 19
    22 January 2008 at 11:05 am

    It’s very simple. Despite Tane’s hysterical claims that this is a campaign to out people, he could comfortably disclose political affiliations without identifying personalities. There’s an astonishing irony that Tane cites the alleged intimidation of the Left’s Stalker-In-Chief, who only four days ago was bragging about having me on his “shit-list”, as a reason for not disclosing political interests.

    It is, of course, a smoke-screen designed to avoid disclosing political interests–again, stunningly hypocritical, given that the Standard championed the cause of the Electoral Finance Act, which was supposed to make declarations of political affiliations by third parties more transparent.

    It’s very simple for the Standard. Are any of the Standard’s authors members of a political party? If so, which political parties? Are any of the Standard’s authors employed by a trade union affiliated to a political party? If so, which trade unions? Are any of the Standard’s authors employed by Parliamentary or Ministerial services?

    Further, apart from the subsidy by the Labour Party for the Standard’s hosting, what other support, if any, does the Standard receive from the Labour Party, an affiliate union of the Labour Party, or Parliamentary or Ministerial services?

  20. milo 20
    22 January 2008 at 11:08 am

    “Still fucking pigs Prick?”

    You know, it would be nice if the blog owners could moderate comments like that, or warn the author, or ban him (I doubt it’s a her) for persistent infringements.

  21. Matthew Pilott 21
    22 January 2008 at 11:09 am

    Insider, it’s probably because there are actually enough houses, they are just owned by absentee landlords instead of young people, and rents charged mean they are less and less likely to be able to afford a house of tehir own.

    There is nothing worng with a city expanding to meet population growth requirements, s’long as it’s well thought out. What’s not so flash is rapid expansion of low-quality housing – remember that the only was to make such housing cheaper is to go skint on quality – the land is still the kicker, and that’s why you’ll find people often oppose urban sprawl.

    Now, if you disadvantage the people who own multiple homes to make a profit at the expense of young people, such as Monty has highlighted, you’ll reduce demand for housing, thereby allowing people the chance at purchasing existing housing without rapid low-quality expansion.

    That’s the theory anyway, and it would also depend on people being able to save for houses. Schemes such as Kiwisaver will help out the other side of the equation.

    However as Aj mentioned, Australia hasn’t fared much better – I don’t know a lot about how they implemented the tax, but it would still be worth looking into here.

    Disclosure statement for IP: I worked for a supermarket once so I am a capitalist. Everything I say is vetted by the Business Roundtable, John Key and the Project For A New American Century. I do not fuck pigs.

  23. Robinsod 23
    22 January 2008 at 11:15 am

    Prick – you know full well that naming someone’s employer in New Zealand is as good as giving someone’s name. You’ve got no proof of your claims. What you have had is an answer that the standard’s authors blog for themselves and you also run a political blog but fail to give the name of your company or a list of clients. All you offer is that none of your clients (employers) influence or have interest in your blogging. You’ve had the same assurance from the standard. How about you put up or shut up.

    Oh and you’ve still not denied you fuck pigs. I guess using your logic that means you do…

  24. Russell Brown 24
    22 January 2008 at 11:15 am

    Wow, what a total dumb-fuck of an idea.

    Not really. The tax advantages around owning a second property are ludicrous, and have driven up house prices. Well, that’s what the Herald’s editorial this morning says, anyway …

  25. Matthew Pilott 25
    22 January 2008 at 11:15 am

    Wow, what a total dumb-fuck of an idea. But no surprise your only answer is to increase taxes and restrict freedom. You simultaneously dont want to let people be free to build houses and you want to reduce their ability to own more than 2.

    Nice comment Kimble, but feel free to add any substance and intelligent thought, y’know, critique the idea, if you can.

    P.S. Kimble, who is going to be responsibe for providing infrastructure to this ghettoised urban sprawl you’re championing? Who pays for it? Is it not a bad idea to properly plan growth? Na, guess not, that would be not letting people be free to build houses…

  26. the sprout 26
    22 January 2008 at 11:16 am

    Impotent, for a guy who pretends to be an amateur, your questions sound remarkably like they’ve been written for question time in the House.

  27. Monty 27
    22 January 2008 at 11:20 am

    A range a solutions are required to address home affordability – the major problem remains a short supply of land (because of the RMA) for subdivisions. Urban sprawl may be the result, but it is a key requirement. In any instance the amount of additional land taken up compared to to total available is in fact very small. A single % point may be all that is required in the immediate and foreseeable future. To deny the development of greenfields for subdivisions means that NZ will be ofrever locked into no supply which will drive property prices skyward. So your choice socialists – no affordability of housing for the current and next generation or have some spine and take what actions are required to address the issue?

  28. Barnsley Bill 28
    22 January 2008 at 11:26 am

    Firstly let me say i am ambivalent about calls for capital gains type taxes. By nature I am against tax but am able to recognise that we all need to contribute for the basics.
    That said I find calls for a new tax to dampen demand one of the most ridiculous (and there have been many on here) comments I have seen for a while.
    Your argument works under the premise that all these houses that the rich pricks own are standing empty. Lack of a tax does not engender demand, people needing somewhere to live does.
    Once underlining fixed costs are removed the only variable for pricing is demand. i.e. people needing a roof over their heads.
    The fixed costs are a whole other topic, encompassing councils, the rma and nimbys.

  29. Robinsod 29
    22 January 2008 at 11:29 am

    Monty – if you follow the link you’ll realise that while I’m being a little facetious I have a valid point.

    Sprout – I’ve lived in a privately developed scheme and in a state housing suburb and in both cases the suburbs were depressingly ghetto-like. The difference was that in the private development the houses were cheaply (badly) built and more expensive.

  30. Robinsod 30
    22 January 2008 at 11:33 am

    Sorry – that last post should’ve been directed to Matt.

  31. Matthew Pilott 31
    22 January 2008 at 11:33 am

    Bill, no, not quite – the assumption I made was that the people living in these houses are people who would like to buy them, but can’t because demand is too high and they’re ourpriced. There isn’t a shortage of housing that is not being met by current growth (where has this sudden idea that there’s a freeze on new housing come from?), but there is too mich demand from people wanting to own a house for profit.

    I am suggesting is that the profit motive be taken out of the market – then those who wish to buy a house to live in, as opposed to exploit, will be more able to do so. So you are right in one sense Bill – the most important variable is demand. Reduce this, and prices will fall, or incomes will catch up. A change in tax laws is one way to address excessive demand in the market.

    This is of course a longer-term solution, but I don’t think shitty sprawls are the short-term solution.

  32. Barnsley Bill 32
    22 January 2008 at 11:38 am

    We have the same approx land mass as britain with 4 million versus 65 million people. now I am not suggesting we should try to get to that but suggestions of ghetto like urban sprawl is ridiculous. With planning we can grow. simplify the rma, neuter the councils and free up some land. Why not some new towns on the main roads through the country ?

  33. Draco TB 33
    22 January 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Capital gains tax of at least 50% – that’ll stop the speculation that’s helping to drive up house prices. Government mandated minimum of 3% of income per residence – this will make it uneconomical to own rental housing as a main income without totally destroying rental housing.

    Bring in these two options and you can pretty much guarantee most rental houses will be on the market very rapidly and that house prices will stabilize at an affordable level.

    Kimble:
    Try reading:
    The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin

    You cannot have the freedoms that you want because it will kill us off.

  34. Whaleoil 34
    22 January 2008 at 12:05 pm

    It is not surprising to here Robinsod call for a capital gains tax, since he owns no property he can safely call for such a thing.

    Still I wonder about the anonymous backers of the Standard, did they insist on this little attack piece. Would the fact that the EPMU represents the interests of workers at the NZ Herald have something to do behind the constant attacks on the Herald.

    We really need some trasparency at the Standard, otherwise you run the risk of being called for the hollow people you apparently are.

  35. Insolent Prick 35
    22 January 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Excellent point, Whale.

    Whether somebody is beholden to their workplace, or owes allegiance to their employer, is a matter of judgement. Take conflict, and
    perceived conflict of interest cases. The Standard has run the argument that the Exclusive Brethren is a sinister sect that engages in secret politics. By your argument, if the Exclusive Brethren said: “No, we’re not a sect. We are just a bunch of concerned individuals. Our religious leadership of the Brethren has no relationship to our political activity,” then you would be the first to howl them down.

    Being members of a political party, being employed by a political party, being employed by an affiliate of a political party, being employed by Ministerial or Parliamentary Services, ARE relevant and material information. The Standard has repeatedly made an issue of David Farrar’s links to the National Party. Kiwiblogblog right now claims that DPF’s polling company works exclusively for the National Party. Only the Standard is trying to spin its way out of this issue, and hoping it will go away.

  36. The Prophet 36
    22 January 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Alternative headline for this post? –

    The Standard still campaigning for Labour

  38. Outofbed 38
    22 January 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Really sprout!

    its just a problem with cookies

  39. Daveo 39
    22 January 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Alternative headline for this post? –
    The Standard still campaigning for Labour

    I expect they are- “The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0”

    This is a left-wing political blog that openly supports a labour led government (though they’ve recently advised their readers to vote green). The Herald pretends to be objective – it’s that these guys are taking an issue with.

  40. the sprout 40
    22 January 2008 at 12:23 pm

    “its just a problem with cookies”

    guess DPF is still learnin this fancy intarweb thing.

  41. Insolent Prick 41
    22 January 2008 at 12:24 pm

    If my party was on 35%, and the Greens were on 4.5%, I’d be doing everything in my power to get Labour voters to push Green over the thresh-hold as well, Daveo. You can merely cite ONE post from ONE author that gives mild criticism of Labour, and a mild encouragement to vote Green. There are good strategic reasons for this. In 2005, Labour luminaries were encouraging Labour voters in Epsom to vote for Richard Worth, in order to keep Rodney out. That was never an endorsement for Rodney.

    But we don’t know the Standard’s precise political affiliations, or their motivations for spinning the Labour Party’s line–apart from the fact that the only line they do spin is the Labour Party line–because the Standard has been so secretive and hollow about its donors, its political links, and who funds them.

    Crikey. And I thought the EFA was designed to stop this.

  42. the sprout 42
    22 January 2008 at 12:25 pm

    “This is a left-wing political blog that openly supports a labour led government (though they’ve recently advised their readers to vote green). The Herald pretends to be objective – it’s that these guys are taking an issue with.”

    exactly daveo

  43. Daveo 43
    22 January 2008 at 12:45 pm

    IP- If you think “So that’s the main party choice this year – you can vote Labour for low wages and poor working conditions or you can vote National and see it all get even worse. Kinda makes all this talk from both parties about supporting families seem a bit hollow really” counts as spinning the Labour party line then you’re not nearly the political operator I thought you were.

  44. Robinsod 44
    22 January 2008 at 12:46 pm

    It is not surprising to here Robinsod call for a capital gains tax, since he owns no property he can safely call for such a thing.

    So you base this on what, Whale?

  45. Robinsod 45
    22 January 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Oh and Whale its’ “hear” not “here”. Did you even finish high-school?

  46. Russell Brown 46
    22 January 2008 at 1:13 pm

    its just a problem with cookies

    Yes, that’s what it looks like. It’s really not a big deal.

  47. Tane 47
    22 January 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Yeah, gotta agree with Russell guys. I’m willing to give DPF the benefit of the doubt on this.

  48. Insolent Prick 48
    22 January 2008 at 1:29 pm

    You would have to give DPF the benefit of the doubt, Tane, since Russell’s already done so. Unfortunately, we can’t give you the benefit of the doubt about your spinning and lying about your political affiliations, since you continue to spin, avoid, and implement aversion therapy as your main course of dialogue.

    You have said, Tane, as your main objection to disclosing the Standard’s political affiliations, that you’re concerned that there will be some kind of retribution for you. You have used as an example of retribution, the outing of the Standard’s Stalker-in-Chief. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that if the Stalker-in-Chief actually felt any intimidation–which is more likely to be hysterical hyperbole than real–it would have more to do with his stalking behaviour, than his political opinions.

    Further, I note the astonishing hypocrisy between your concern about the consequences of having your personal identities known, and your shameless advocacy for the Electoral Finance Act, and your demands that political activity, and political links be transparent.

    Finally, I have never asked for your identities to be known. You could very comfortably write a declaration of political interests–stating, for example, whether some of the Standard’s authors are employed by an affiliated union of the Labour Party, the Labour Party itself, or Parliamentary or Ministerial Services–without revealing any information about the Standard’s authors identities. The reason you choose not to reveal your material political affiliations is that you are engaging in a sneaky, secretive campaign against John Key and the National Party, and you do not want the Standard’s Labour Party connections to be known.

    That is astonishing hypocrisy from the Standard, Tane, and it is destroying your blog’s credibility.

  49. Robinsod 49
    22 January 2008 at 1:36 pm

    That is astonishing hypocrisy from the Standard, Tane, and it is destroying your blog’s credibility.

    Yep you say it enough and it becomes true, IP(f) – don’t you have some pigs to fuck?

  50. Max Call 50
    22 January 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Monty:

    now that there is a heap of land available in Tga do you think this is going to cause a crash in house prices?

  51. Max Call 51
    22 January 2008 at 1:49 pm

    NB:
    local section sales – many ‘actual’ sale prices have been for far less than the listed price

  52. the bean 52
    22 January 2008 at 1:55 pm

    IP…how is any of what you have said logical?

    The EFA deals with people spending money in order to overtly campaign for a certain political party.

    The Herald is a newspaper that spends a large amount of money to produce content that is then disseminated to a large proportion of the population. It is our only daily nationwide newspaper and should abide by basic principles of media- balance, fairness, and transparency. Or is should just declare itself tabloid and be done with it.

    Your hysteria stems from an openly left-wing blog being helped for a period of time by someone who is a member of the Labour party. This techie has made it clear to you they are not an employee of the party and host many number of sites with differing material. Where the writers of this site- a voluntary opinion site that is free to the public and has no advertising- spend their professional time is really of no business to anyone else. It does not impact on their credibility to analyse arguments and provide differing perspectives. If one of these writers was being trumpeted in the media as an ‘objective commentator’ then it might matter what their back ground was. If one of these commentators were spending vast amounts of money on billboards then I would want to know where the money was coming from. But they are not- running a blog is a luxury open to any vaguely computer literate person who can afford to own a computer (I am well aware this is not everyone). Running a highly successful, high traffic blog is a luxury open to anyone with IT minded friends. But give up with your lies and irrationality. Your quickness to try and re-frame the word hollow is just pathetic in the extreme. Don Brash, John Key, Gerry Brownlee and the strategists behind the 2005 National campaign will not be forgotten for their hollowness. Nor will those that erect smoke screens in an attempt to try and deflect attention away from the continued hollowness within Nationals ranks

  53. the bean 53
    22 January 2008 at 2:02 pm

    From the disgusting, obscene personal attacks that go on in the blogsphere on a daily basis it is no wonder Tane or any other members do not want that in their workplaces or personal lives.

    Your friend whaleoil hounded a 15-year-old boy, along was a vast pack of others who happily joined in with whaleoil, personally abusing the boy every time he dared comment on anything on his OWN blog. whale oil also ensures he is obscene about any commentator that dare challange his behaviour.

    they are cowards for behaving like this on a computer and you are pathetic for aligning with them. if you treated someone like that face to face you would be hauled up before the courts. tane has worked to make the standard a vaguely sane place to have a conversation. Sadly for him his efforts are being undone by trolls and washed up has beens who gain their jollies from bullying someone online.

  54. Outofbed 54
    22 January 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Well said

  55. Insolent Prick 55
    22 January 2008 at 2:05 pm

    bean:

    Given this blog’s obsession with DPF, and his political links (which he has always openly declared), you continue to make astonishingly hypocritical claims.

    The EFA deals with anonymous campaigning for, or against, a political party or candidate. You’re welcome to claim that the NZ Herald is biased, or that it is in breach of the Electoral Finance Act. It would appear to fly directly in the face of the Standard’s claims that the media would not be muzzled in election year. But go for it. Lay a complaint with the Electoral Commission.

    As far as I know, none of the Herald’s political reporters are members of a political party. If they were, I’d expect the Standard to out them. Nor are they employed by a political party, or an affiliated union of a political party, or Parliamentary or Ministerial Services.

    Granted, I will accept that the standards of neutrality of a newspaper reporter, and of a blogger, are very different. But the Standard has always portrayed itself as an independent, left-wing blog. It has said it has no links to the Labour Party.

    I am not referring to the political affiliations of the Standard’s techie, who does not control the content of this blog. That is like asking for the political affiliations of a the printer of a political pamphlet.

    What I have asked, as have others, is a declaration of the Standard’s political interests and affiliations. Kiwiblogblog has already made a disclosure: none of its authors are employed by a political party, a lobby group, think tank, union, ministerial or parliamentary services. That is abundantly clear.

    We already know that the Standard receives material financial support for its blog from the Labour Party. What makes the Standard appear so secretive and hollow is that it is being so secretive about the political affiliations of its authors.

  56. Insolent Prick 56
    22 January 2008 at 2:11 pm

    bean,

    I hardly think the Standard is the epitome of good commenting behaviour. The Standard’s Stalker-in-Chief was bragging just a few days ago that I was on his “shit-list”. He has continued to launch into the most extraordinary level of abuse, which to date I have not responded to, because it actually says much more about him, and his friends who repeat the defamatory claim, than it does about me.

    I note you have not said anything to admonish him for that. I don’t expect you to admonish him. I haven’t seen you encourage him, and I don’t hold you responsible for his actions. Nor should you hold me responsible for the actions of others who overstep the mark in their comments.

    I also note that far from Tane discouraging the Stalker-in-Chief from engaging in his defamatory abuse, Tane has done nothing to delete the constant links from the Standard, to the Stalker-in-Chief’s blog. Tane is evidently aware of these links, since he has posted twice on this thread at the Stalker-in-Chief’s blog, and at no point did Tane express his concern at the Stalker-in-Chief’s behaviour.

    Like I say, to date I have done nothing to discourage that behaviour. It shows their true colours.

  57. the bean 57
    22 January 2008 at 2:14 pm

    where the heck did i say the herald was breaking the ERA? I was addressing your obsession with calling the standard out on political affiliations. You used supporting the ERA as some reason for Tane having to say who he was. This claim has no logic.

    The standard have been calling the Herald out on their lack of declarations in regards to political affiliations of their sources. This is quite separate from the EFA. Have you heard of the Press Council? They certainly are bending those stipulations currently.

  58. the bean 58
    22 January 2008 at 2:23 pm

    “It has said it has no links to the Labour Party.”

    Really? they may have told you to go jump when you demanded all commentators told you what their links were but I don’t recall the writers saying they have NO links. you’d be a little lacking in mental capacity if you thought the politically obsessed bunch of people that lurk around these little echo chambers (DPF’s blog included) didn’t have any links to political movements. Some like DPF gain more from revealing their identity as it gains publicity for their business, public profile and repulsive billboard campaigns. Many choose to not make their blog a public declaration of identity.

    You may have noticed, but probably why would you, I used to engage on this blog and with robinsod quite frequently. As the dialogue has gotten more offensive I have tapered off. your consistent trolling is part of the reason why robinsod has gotten so insistent in his attacking.

  59. the bean 59
    22 January 2008 at 2:25 pm

    i take your tag team act with whale oil this morning as an indication you support his level of cyber interaction

  60. Insolent Prick 60
    22 January 2008 at 2:35 pm

    bean,

    No, I had not noticed your lack of interaction with the Stalker-in-Chief. I merely observed that you didn’t appear to be encouraging his deranged behaviour. On the other side, you may not have noticed an interaction I had with dad4justice and James Sleep at kiwiblog, where I told d4j that as a 50 year old man, he should have better things to do than trying to wind up a 15 year old boy, and to James that he should have much better things than winding up cranky old men.

    Like I say, I don’t hold you responsible for others’ behaviour, and I’m surprised that you choose to hold me responsible for others. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, with respect to a tag team between Whale and myself. There may have been a couple of messages from each of us on the same topic, but I’d hardly call that a tag team. Given that Tane has done nothing to condemn the defamatory personal abuse which no less than four of the Standard’s regular commenters directed at me this morning, as I say, I find it astonishing that you would assert that Tane has made a genuine attempt to clean up this blog. That claim has as much credibility as Tane saying that blog authors have no relevant links to the Labour Party or the union movement.

  61. the bean 61
    22 January 2008 at 2:47 pm

    this blog started out clean, Tane did chide people that stepped over the line. After your hysterical trolling over the last while and the bile that has started to creep through from other forums I rather think Tane has realised slight chiding is no longer the answer.

    Why does it matter what the blog authors links are if they are doing their writing in their own time and not taking donations/financial help or editorial guidance from the organisations? That statement is illogical. Am I not allowed to blog if I have affiliations to political parties or unions? Or is it only blogs that threaten DPF’s blogging monopoly that get you all upset?

  62. the bean 62
    22 January 2008 at 2:49 pm

    and before you lie…the standard received help from a techie friend not the labour party

  63. Insolent Prick 63
    22 January 2008 at 3:07 pm

    bean:

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Tane said that at email went out asking for support to get its server going, and the Labour Party responded with an offer of help. We don’t know who sent out that appeal. We don’t know who responded on behalf of the Labour Party. This is not a matter of a Labour Party techie acting all on his own. There have been markedly different responses from the techie, and Tane respectively, on what support was received.

    It is material that the Standard is supported by the Labour Party. The Labour Party did not gift its resources to the techie for the techie to use as he wished. They gifted their resources to the Standard, so that the Standard could continue to publish their blog.

    I am not saying that the Standard would have no credibility if the political affiliations of its authors were known. I am saying that people would take those political affiliations into account, and make judgements accordingly. But despite the Standard campaigning all year for the Electoral Finance Act, and championing the cause of third parties, and political parties, disclosing their funding sources, their expenditure, and their political affiliations, the Standard has done everything possible to spin and lie about their own affiliations.

    When Bryce Edwards yesterday claimed, at kiwiblog, that the Standard was authored by employees of the EPMU, Tane responded that the EPMU does not pay for the Standard to be published. That wasn’t the point that Bryce made, although he seems to have trusted that Tane was giving a full and complete response. Subsequent follow-up questions show that Tane was giving a sneaky, weaselly answer to conceal the Standard’s authors’ connections to the Labour Party.

  64. Daveo 64
    22 January 2008 at 3:18 pm

    IP says:

    “It has said it has no links to the Labour Party.”

    Tane says a while back:

    “Many of the contributors are Labour Party members, others are not. We’re all labour activists with a small l, though.”

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=616#comment-2976

    This is why no one takes you seriously IP, because you lie.

  65. the bean 65
    22 January 2008 at 3:18 pm

    IP you don’t have any idea of what happened and the little bit you do know you have twisted beyond reason. how do you know lynn was not the person that responded to the email? does this still count as the labour party just because lynn states he is a member?

    you have no idea how the resources got passed on. knowing the technical illiteracy of many members of the party it is likely lynn snaffled them up because he was the only one who knew what to do with them.

    You have no credibility for being a weaselly, twisting troll. being a collective of volunteers with nothing to hide they obviously didn’t realise they needed to be intimately involved with every detail to satisfy your trolling. instead they have each said as much as they know or thought was going on.

  66. Matthew Pilott 66
    22 January 2008 at 3:25 pm

    IP, so why not take them at their word that their content is in no way endorsed, vetted or in any other way interfered with by whomever their employers may be?

    That’s what has been said, and any further attempt to press the issue is just lying on your behalf, as is your modus operandi.

  67. Insolent Prick 67
    22 January 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Bean,

    The Labour Party owned the IP cluster. They then passed it to the Standard. This is not a matter of a Labour Party member, who happened to be a techie, contributing his resources. This is a matter of the Labour Party contributing its resources for the Standard’s use. For that to happen, somebody with the authority to make that donation in the Labour Party, had to make a decision to make that donation. This was not merely a techie who happened to be a Labour Party member, choosing to independently register the IP as owned by the Labour Party, and then passing it on to the Standard. It was the Labour Party who gifted that resource to the Standard.

    Matthew:

    That is a matter of judgement based on the facts. It is a judgement call as to whether the Standard’s authors blog on their own time. The Standard has, since the beginning, relied on the Hollow Men for its principal source to argue in favour of greater transparency in links between political parties and their supporters. There is never any direct evidence that Don Brash ever read any emails from the Exclusive Brethren. There is no evidence that he ever took any of their advice. Yet the Standard has been hammering the position that the National Party’s parallel campaign was set up in conjunction with the EBs.

    The Standard has insisted that connections such as the EB and National be made clear. The EFA, supposedly, provides this transparency. How would you respond if the National’s party position was that meetings between Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren were conducted in an unofficial capacity, had nothing to do with campaigning or funding, that the National Party did not vet, endorse, or in any way encourage the EB’s activity?

    You would have laughed that argument out of the park.

    It is a significant, and material fact, whether somebody who insists on political transparency actually is employed by a politically affiliated organisation. That includes employment in a union, a lobby group, a think-tank, a political party, or for ministerial or parliamentary services. It is for the reader, knowing that background, to assess whether the author’s view is influenced by that affiliation.

    Except Tane wants to make that assessment for us. By doing so, he continues to lie, spin, and conceal the secretive and hollow relationship that the Standard has with its anonymous backers.

  68. Michele Cabiling 68
    22 January 2008 at 3:57 pm

    At the end of the day Labour will be toast after the next election.

  69. the bean 69
    22 January 2008 at 3:58 pm

    hmmm million dollar campaign vs temporary use of server. yes i understand your deep concern IP. go on spinning out about it. just do it on your own blog

  70. the bean 70
    22 January 2008 at 4:01 pm

    at the end of the day, to be frank, and honest, the way the wind is blowing, when all is said and done, those that use cliche phrases in a bald assertion should be given as much notice as…flying pigs

  71. Michele Cabiling 71
    22 January 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Does anyone remember Liarbour’s last attempts to create “affordable housing” and attack evil property speculators that took place in the 1970s?

    At a time when a mortgage was difficult to come by and banks were picking and choosing as to who got a housing loan, property developers were doing up houses in inner city Wellington, then onselling them at a profit with vendor finance to people ineligible for a bank loan. The vendor then got their money out by discounting the mortgage off to a second tier lender.

    Sure, the purchasers were paying a higher interest rate on their loans, but these were people who would otherwise have been unable to afford their own home.

    Railing against the twin evils of “speculators” and “profit” Liarbour introduced a capital gains tax (soon repealed by National) which abruptly halted a market response to a human need, as developers shifted out their cash to more profitable investment mediums.

    As a consequence, Liarbour had to step in an build hundreds more state houses, which created a raft of additional state serfs and cost taxpayers a bomb. All Nanny had to do was stay out of it and let the market get on with meeting the needs of consumers.

    Correction: I have never said the market is “perfect” but left alone it is always seeking an equilibrium. A TEMPORARY market failure is always preferable to long-term GOVERNMENT failure and its ongoing unintended side effects.

    As note previously, what Thomas Sowell calls “The Vision of the Anointed” is one in which good intentions will always trump consideration of real outcomes. When people pay no price for being wrong they feel no compunction in co-opting others as human cattle for their social experiments.

  72. Insolent Prick 72
    22 January 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Come on, bean, you’re being dishonest now. The EBs distributed two pamphlets. They weren’t particularly high quality, were clearly not written by communications professionals, and I don’t think I know anybody who actually received it.

    Compare this with the mouthpiece for the Labour Party, set up with the potential support of the EPMU, who may or may not be turning a blind eye while its staff write this blog. We won’t know for sure until Tane makes a proper disclosure statement. As Bryce Edwards notes in kiwiblogblog, it is an issue if EPMU staff are writing the Standard’s blog and it isn’t declared, since the Standard has championed the cause of the Electoral Finance Act, the EPMU is an affiliate union of the Labour Party, and the EPMU will be a third party campaigner during the election campaign.

    [Irish Bill]: Prick you have been warned about this. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the first warning. If you continue to make the same baseless allegations against the owners of this blog you will be banned for a week.]

  73. IrishBill 73
    22 January 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Welcome back Michele, I hope you can behave more civilly this time.

    I’m afraid you are wrong about the capital gains tax. There wasn’t one. As I recall there were cheap first home buyer loans available from the housing corporation in the early seventies but one of the prerequisites for the loan was that the house had to be new. This lead to a boom in privately developed affordable housing across the country including the creation of whole suburbs (such as Kelson in Wellington). There was also a boom in state housing.

    If anything the Housing Corporation loans encouraged private sector development. I can’t recall the vendor finance schemes you talk of. They might have existed but they were not such a significant portion of the market as to be memorable.

  74. Michele Cabiling 74
    22 January 2008 at 4:52 pm

    The were sufficiently significant for Liarbour to move against them politically …

  75. IrishBill 75
    22 January 2008 at 4:56 pm

    What evidence do you base this on?

  76. RedLogix 76
    22 January 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Overseas experience clearly shows a relatively weak link between GCT’s and speculative bubbles.

    The real driver is the availability of cheap credit. If the banking industry demanded sensible equity ratios (instead of the 90-100% loans that we have been seeing lately)… and where also required to maintain lower fractional reserve ratios with real liquid assets…the actual supply of borrowed money that actually drives these bubbles would be moderated.

    Fractional reserve banking means that banks are essentially commercial printers of money. Once the supply of credit becomes too loose then inflation is inevitable. Viewed from this perspective, calls from people like Wendell Cox to increase the supply of land fall into perspective. Because banks make their money by creating credit, then it becomes obvious that no matter how much the supply of land increases… the supply of credit will always grow faster.

  77. Insolent Prick 77
    22 January 2008 at 7:01 pm

    Ah, Bill, now we’ve got threats of banning. I didn’t make baseless allegations. I picked up on an allegation made by Bryce Edwards, which Tane chose to fudge an answer on. All his answers have been fudged. He hasn’t answered the substantive issue, as to whether any Standard authors are employed by the EPMU, the Labour Party, Parliamentary Services, Ministerial Services, or any other affiliate union of the Labour Party.

    In case you’ve missed it, Bill, this has been the issue dominating the blogs over the last couple of days, since the Standard was forced to reveal that its hosting has been subsidised by the Labour Party. Since Tane’s fudging, kiwiblogblog has declared its political affiliations–that its authors are amateurs, and none of them are employed in the public service, by a political party, by an affiliate to a political party, by a third party, by a lobby group, think tank, or by Parliamentary or Ministerial Services.
    Unfortunately, Tane’s deliberate obfuscation–on the very flimsy pretext that it would encourage stalking, while Tane encourages the Standard’s Stalker-in-Chief and uses a nonsensical argument that the stalker-in-chief felt intimidated–as a reason for not divulging the Standard’s political affiliations. It is clear that the Standard could easily do so without revealing the identities of the persons involved.

    Finally, the Standard’s support, as Bryce Edwards has noted at kiwiblogblog, for the Electoral Finance Act, and championing the cause of everybody else declaring their political affiliations–makes the Standard’s excuses for acting in a sneaky, secretive manner, trying to hide its political affiliations–seriously compromises the integrity of this blog.

    [Irish Bill] That’s it prick, you’re banned for a week for repeated lies and groundless accusations.

  78. the sprout 78
    22 January 2008 at 7:43 pm

    probably best you be off then really IP – give you more time at quality sites like kiwiblog.

  79. Dean 79
    22 January 2008 at 7:52 pm

    the sprout said:

    “probably best you be off then really IP – give you more time at quality sites like kiwiblog.”

    and..

    “is that you SlaterWhale, or DPF?”

    Russel Brown even disagrees with you. Perhaps you’d like to bust out some fundamentalism and call him a fascist too now?

    I’d be surprised if anybody takes your shrill outbursts at all seriously.

  80. Kimble 80
    22 January 2008 at 8:20 pm

    BANNED FOR WHAT? For asking a few questions?

    Where did he lie Bill? How were his questions BASELESS?

    Banned for asking questions? Hope you are all proud of yourselves. Authoritarians of the highets order.

    Fascists!

    The Standard is OVER.

  81. the bean 81
    22 January 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Hi Kimble, thanks for your contribution

    I think this sums it up

    [IrishBill]: Prick, you’ve posted this comment several times now across several threads and are becoming a troll. You’ve been given more space to make your point than you would have been given on other blogs. If you don’t refrain from this behaviour you will face a one week ban.]

    seems more than fair to me. two warnings. three strikes trolls are out

  82. Insolent Prick 82
    22 January 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Really? I got banned for asking questions that weren’t even answered? This doesn’t augur well for the investigators at the Electoral Commission. They’ll get deported as soon as they start looking at the activities of the EPMU.

    I’m a little bit confused. Is this the same Standard that harangued DPF for banning left-wingers?

  83. the sprout 83
    22 January 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Deano
    Russell was being polite. How can a guy like DPF, who isn’t all that new to blogging, miraculously have an innocent “cookie problem” from when “Cameron once logged in from this laptop, and a cookie remembered his details. But the last time Cameron used my laptop (going off memory) was the local body election night in October”.

    (http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,917,hard_news_monster_weekend.sm?p=39619#post39619)

    ah… yeah right. so despite DPF having commented successfully as DPF on PAS many times since, some how a rogue cookie lodged in his machine and just resurfaced then – when DPF had just made a comment as Slater Whale that was clearly identifiable as a reply from DPF (otherwise he wouldn’t have said anything, would he).

    how very very odd.

    how odd too that DPF never sweeps his cookies. a far more likely explanation is that DPF was standing in as Whale and had to declare “It is quite baffling to me how it happened” when in the excitement of the server story DPF shot himself in the foot by exposing the fact he stands in for Slater Whale

  84. Psycho Milt 84
    22 January 2008 at 9:22 pm

    BANNED FOR WHAT? For asking a few questions?

    How about, banned for constantly fishing for their identities while seeking to remain anonymous himself? I’m just surprised they let him carry on with that bullshit as long as they did.

  85. Insolent Prick 85
    22 January 2008 at 9:27 pm

    Nonsense, PM. I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve called on the Standard to disclose their political affiliations, not their identities. Given that two EPMU employees have already been named at Kiwiblog, it’s astonishing that the Standard would allow their names to be bandied about as potential authors of the Standard, if they are innocent.

    The Standard has deliberately obfuscated and played clever games about their political affiliations, despite calling on everybody else to disclose their political ties, and championing electoral law that is supposed to clean up the involvement of shady third-parties in politics.

  86. Pearl 86
    22 January 2008 at 9:28 pm

    With a name like psycho milt and you go on about people remaining anonymous on blogosphere ? Really, you should stop throwing stones inside your glasshouse .

  87. the sprout 87
    22 January 2008 at 9:51 pm

    it’s a shame your “banning” still allows you to comment IP.

  88. Insolent Prick 88
    22 January 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Perhaps IrishBill has reconsidered the rashness of his actions, and un-banned me. He’s a very reasonable chap.

    Hopefully he’ll be reasonable enough and give a proper disclosure of the Standard’s political affiliations now.

  89. the bean 89
    22 January 2008 at 10:07 pm

    i don’t see anything rash in warning someone twice, giving them the option to stop trolling, and when the troll remains and keeps acting like a prick the person follows through on their warning. seems fair

  90. the sprout 90
    22 January 2008 at 10:39 pm

    IP you’ve been given a perfectly adequate disclosure – you know that, now you’re just lying again and again.
    can’t the NRU come up with more lines than that? they shouldn’t make you lie so persistently, it ruins your stellar credibility.

  91. milo 91
    22 January 2008 at 11:09 pm

    So is it okay to call somebody a pig-fucker then?

  92. AncientGeek 92
    23 January 2008 at 3:44 am

    I dug out the source report…
    Demographia PDF

    I haven’t gone over it in any detail (only reason I looked at it was insomnia). However looked at it enough to know I wouldn’t use it for ANY decision making I’d use.

    I consider it another good example of how to lie with carefully selected statistics. It compares apples with oranges.

    I ignored all of the conclusions while I checked the visible source data. Basically the sources are really suspect.

    Just look at the differences in table 7 (extracted below)

    Australia
    Markets over 50,000 population
    Canada
    Markets corresponding to metropolitan areas (CMAs)
    over 100,000 population
    Ireland
    Markets over 50,000 population
    New Zealand
    Markets over 100,000 population
    United Kingdom
    Markets corresponding to urban areas over 150,000
    population
    United States
    Markets corresponding to metropolitan areas (MSAs)
    over 400,000 population

    This means that looking in NZ/US that in NZ it has all of the areas that people are moving to (look up the NZ census 2006). In the US it has areas that people are moving to and moving away from. Looking at Schedule 2 :-

    So in NZ there are 7 markets with a range having a price/income multiple of 5.3 (Dunedin) to 7.5 (Tauranga).

    In the US there are 227 markets ranging from 1.9 (Youngstown, OH) to 11.5 (Los Angeles, CA)

    There is exactly 1 market, Auckland on 6.9 that would maybe fit into the criteria to be included in the US table.

    It states that there are 49 areas in the US that are affordable. Looking at Table 4, to me it looks like a list of urban areas that I wouldn’t want to live in. Flint-MI for instance I have those vivid images of Moore’s documentary section on U-Haul. But I can see a number of urban areas in there that I know I’d want to stay away from.

    As I say – comparing apples with oranges…

    Where is the table that shows the population in the data points?

    Where is the table that shows the population growth or decline in each of data points?

    Where is the table that shows the actual number of house sales in each market?

    Where is the table that shows the proportion of rental houses compared to owner occupier? This is particularly important in a market like Canada where a LOT of accommodation is rental on long term leases that area regulated by legislation.

    They have used median incomes and prices everywhere. Anyone who has done ANY statistics knows that is an excellent way to hide variances. For instance if only the low income houses are turning over – then the median will be very low.

    The central tenet of the paper appears to be that a high median price/income multiple is strongly related to restrictions on use of land area (ie land rationing). This is expressed in figure 9.

    Ok? So where is the data on how this figure is constructed? One side of the graph is from schedule 9. Where is the data that was used to decide if there was land rationing or not in the areas shown on the graph. It SEEMS to tell me to refer to previous demographia surveys. It’d be nice to have a reference to where to look – that is why you cite sources – so people reviewing your data have a place to check it.

    On the basis of the munged up numbers in this paper it seems like a waste of time looking further into data from demographia. This ‘survey’ looks like a way to rationalize a pre-detirmined opinion. It is the sort of stuff you expect to see from a first year student.

  93. AncientGeek 93
    23 January 2008 at 4:03 am

    I haven’t seen the herald article (or any of the other msm) that reported on this garbage survey, so I really have no idea about how prominent it was. But the article in the online herald is an extremely poor piece of journalism by Anne Gibson.

    The herald article looks like direct copy of a press release from demographia with a few quotes from other people. Were they in the press release as well? I can’t believe that anyone who’d actually looked at the data in the survey would have wanted to rely on it (see my previous post).

    But surely any journo that actually read the survey would have realized that it was bogus – just there to provide superficial evidence to support a viewpoint.

    They must teach journo’s something about either statistics or checking facts. This looks like an example of the msm doing what IrishBill described in Spinning the spin.

  94. Psycho Milt 94
    23 January 2008 at 6:30 am

    With a name like psycho milt and you go on about people remaining anonymous on blogosphere ?

    Your reading comprehension not up to much then? For obvious reasons, I’m in favour of bloggers’ anonymity being respected.

  95. Phil 95
    23 January 2008 at 11:31 am

    No Sprout,

    A “perfectly adequate disclosure” has not been given. I light of the fact thestandard is sitting on a Labour party funded server, I think it is perfectly reasonable to then ask what other affiliations the two entities have – this is the issue, and it has not been addressed by the blogger of thestandard.

    Taking into account the disclosure demanded by thestandard of other groups, not answering these questions is amazingly poor form

  96. Matthew Pilott 96
    23 January 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Phil, I’ve got somewhat lost here – how have you managed to tie in the server upon which The Standard is hosted (which also seems to host several right-wing websites, in case you missed it) with a demand that the authors reveal their workplaces?

    I can’t see the link between two two issues. Wouldn’t it be more honest to act like IP and demand, without good reason, that the bloggers reveal their workplaces because…umm…because you’re asking them to.

  97. Phil 97
    23 January 2008 at 1:27 pm

    I’m not demanding anything Matty, I’m simply pointing out that the standard to which thestandard.org.nz expects it political rivals to adhere to, is not being followed in the case of its own (accused) behaviour.

    I would not expect an individual blogger to divulge their place of employment if they were not willing to do so. However, where potential conflicts of interest occur – and on the face of evidence presented, this appears to be the case here – the authors have a responsibility to their readers, like you and I, to be open and honest about it

  98. Matthew Pilott 98
    23 January 2008 at 2:25 pm

    So “In light of the fact thestandard is sitting on a Labour party funded server” is a cover for you insisting that the authors of this site give up any semblance of anonymity on the internet, and you’re admitting it has nothing to do with the server. After all, as Lynn Prentice noted, there were a few right-wing sites also hosted on the same server. Not quite a smoking gun.

    I just want it to be clear that anyone demanding to know the bloggers’ identities and places of employment doeesn’t try and hide that demand behind the server issue.

    The server is the only ‘evidence’ that has been presented here (on KB anyway), and it has nothing to do with the questions people such as IP are trying to raise.

  99. lprent 99
    23 January 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Matthrew.

    Actually the RWS’es were on one of the previous servers that I used. I’ve done a number of sites for various people in the past. A friend, or friend of a friend asks…. Some of the sites have been pretty radical (by my standards) as well – especially some of the animal rights stuff one of my young relatives worked on.

    TheStandard has moved around servers a bit in its brief history. I think where it is at present is mainly LWS.

    Lynn Prentice