They eat their own

14 comments on “They eat their own ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   26 August 2014 at 9:59 pm

   Yep. A trip down memory lane reveals all sorts of interesting information when compared to the revelations made by Hager. It seems that most posters were pretty close to the mark.
   • McFlock 1.1

     26 August 2014 at 10:10 pm

     lol
     I guess the most reliable tools for analysing tory behaviour are an unhealthy level of cynicism and utter contempt for their character.
   • RedLogix 1.2

     26 August 2014 at 10:13 pm

     And I still wonder what else we don’t know about.

     http://thestandard.org.nz/media-attention/#comment-673675
     • mickysavage 1.2.1

       26 August 2014 at 10:16 pm

       Yep RL. I have spent a bit of time reading old posts lately and comparing them to the Hager revelations. It seems that a lot of the conjecture was right …
       • Tautoko Viper 1.2.1.1

         26 August 2014 at 10:51 pm

         Agree with that, MS.
         Interesting to see this http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9315726/Brown-rumours-rife-within-National-camp from a risildowgtn comment in 2013

         “The MP who tipped off Auckland Mayor Len Brown his affair was about to be made public was just gossiping at a cocktail party, Prime Minister John Key says.

         Brown’s supporters say they discovered he was about to be outed over his two-year affair with Bevan Chuang after an MP mentioned the rumours to one of them.

         It is believed the MP is National MP for Rodney, Mark Mitchell.

         Key said Auckland councillor Penny Webster telephoned him this morning to confess she had been gossipping with the MP.

         “My understanding is that [he] … didn’t have the details but he was aware of some gossip at a function,” Key said today.”
         • BLiP 1.2.1.1.1

           27 August 2014 at 2:45 am

           ‘

           Surprise, surprise – John Key was lying. The information came from a Simon Lusk puppet MP, one Mark Mitchell, who just happened to mention it at a formal business meeting . . .

           . . . Mrs Webster, a former Act MP, said the comment Mr Mitchell made to her was not at a cocktail party or as part of idle gossip . . .

           . . . if Simon Lusk knew then Cameron Slater knew, so Jason Ede also knew. Hey presto . . . all the way up to John Key. Of course, it might have just been his “the Prime Minister’s Office” that knew, not the nice Mr Key. He doesn’t have a clue what goes on in his own office, apparently.
2. Tom Jackson 2

   26 August 2014 at 11:13 pm

   I’m starting to think that National’s plan is to hold on for dear life with what they’ve got, win the election, demote Collins and after a “decent interval” replace Key with English. I think that Key has been mortally wounded by the events of the past couple of weeks, and even if National wins, the scandals will force him out (the SIS thing is fatal IMHO and if Dotcom has Snowden documents showing he lied, he’s toast).

   Even Hooton seems to think this given his recent behaviour. Look at it from National’s perspective. You get rid of Key, Collins, Slater and Lusk, and the rest can get on with it.
   • RedLogix 2.1

     26 August 2014 at 11:32 pm

     You are right Tom. There are so many slow burners going on here and one of them will eventually get Key and his cabal.

     But a rump National lead by English would be completely rejected by the country. Zero political capital and even less of a mandate to do anything. An early election would be highly probable.
     • Tom Jackson 2.1.1

       27 August 2014 at 12:14 am

       Perhaps.

       Collins is more or less gone. Her public profile now about at the level of Helen Milner’s.

       My guess is that public tolerance for an English led government would heavily depend on the manner of Key’s exit. Were he to be dumped by his own party, the bad feeling would be very intense, as it would be if he simply resigned very quickly after the election leaving the electorate feeling hoodwinked, or if he just quit under pressure.

       However, were events subsequent to the election such as to make his position untenable, I can see him resigning in a Nixonian fashion with English ready to play the part of Ford. Given the very limited number of people implicated in Hager’s book, I think English would have a reasonable shot of convincing people that the problematic elements of the National Party had been eliminated.

       But if this is what’s going to happen, then the weathervane is going to be David Farrar. He’s such a brown-noser that any perceptive person should be able to discern which way the wind is blowing by observing him. If he starts subtly distancing himself from Key, I would say Key’s days are numbered.
       • Not a PS Staffer 2.1.1.1

         27 August 2014 at 4:10 pm

         Farrar is part of the Dirty Politics machine.

         Farrar allowed the most vile stuff to be posted on his blog.
         Farrar regurgitated much of Salater’s lies.
         Farrar was in the in pay or National though his Curia polling business.
         Farrar is more publically presentable than Slater and shopws less psychopatrhic behaviours: none the less Farrar plays dirty deceptive games and is an ally of SLater and Key.
3. Dont worry. Be happy 3

   27 August 2014 at 5:36 am

   Was it the MP for Rodney who claimed to a breathless media that Dot Com had been threatening at a BBQ? Sock puppets out on the scamper never seem to be off duty eh?
4. Karen 4

   27 August 2014 at 9:16 am

   Thank you for reposting this. The David Fisher piece says Key became closer to Slater after April 2012 and that was the time Fisher realised he was being manipulated and stopped using Slater as a source.

   So it seems it was all about the Pullar case – and my thoughts are that Slater wanted the close contact with Key to feed his ego and resented being held at arm’s length. So he decided on a story that would be damaging to the Nats just to show what he could do if he wanted to. He would also have enjoyed the fallout for Nick Smith and Michelle Boag, but his real intent was to get Key to take him seriously.

   Mitchell was obviously keen to play his part as well – a nasty piece of work on all levels.
5. Tracey 5

   27 August 2014 at 9:18 am

   I hope no one has forgotten the lengths taken by the ABC group… mnost (all?) of whom remain?

   Not alot of moral high ground here.
6. karol 6

   27 August 2014 at 12:36 pm

   This was eddy’s post on TS on 12 June 2011: Nats steal Labour donor data.

   National knows that the public oppose its agenda of asset sales, lower wages, and service cuts. So they’re going to campaign dirty. They’re running this week’s muck-throwing via sickness beneficiary* Cameron Slater. The Nats breached the Labour Party website and stole a list of online donors. Hardly the stuff of scandal, just an attempt to intimidate.

   Slater is going to publish that list and other things like blank candidate forms and, from this, try to concoct one of his conspiracy theories -you know, the ones he runs every couple of months that never go anywhere.

   The real goal, from the point of view of Slater’s controllers, like Jason Ede and Simon Lusk, is to try to scare off Labour donors and activists. National’s been playing that game for generations, of course, only the technology has changed.

   There’s a quote from this post on p 34 of Dirty Politics.

   This is part of the section of the book that shows how Slater et all planned to use the info from the Labour party donors’ list to cause maximum damage to Labour in the run up to the election.

   And Key is now crying about being on the receiving end of a smear campaign.

   But. as Hager points out on the same page of his book, there’s a big difference between holding a politicians to account for the way they exercise power, and “attack politics” that aims to attack opponents and distract from significant issues.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS