Two Chinese are more valuable than two Indians

Written By: - Date published: 8:05 am, October 19th, 2018 - 87 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics, national, paula bennett, Politics, racism, same old national, Simon Bridges - Tags:

National is hoping and praying that the damage caused by Jami-Lee Ross is now over.  Fat chance.

Each day new revelations serve to undermine Simon Bridges’ leadership and National’s reputation.

Take for instance the latest evidence of Ross’s attacking and harassing women.  National has known for some time about at least two of the allegations.  Then reconcile this with the original reason advanced by Simon Bridges for Ross taking time out or even with Paula Bennett claiming that the issues had nothing to do with harassment, but were about inappropriate behaviour from Ross as a “married Member of Parliament”.

With the benefit of hindsight their descriptions are difficult to reconcile with what was happening.

As part of his jihad Jami-Lee Ross has released texts between him and National General Secretary Greg Hamilton.  The release was met with large amounts of meh but for me they do cause some interest.  National is obligated to report on donations made up of contributions and in this case on the face of it they have not.

The other aspect that will be hurting is National’s use of ethnic candidates and communities as cash flow machines.

As there is focussed interest on National’s ethnic campaigns I thought I would cut and paste something I wrote 18 months ago which I believe is still very relevant.  Here it is or at least the first part …

I hear that local National members in New Lynn are upset at the person selected as their candidate. He is Paulo Garcia, a member of the Philippine community and a local lawyer.

He is clearly part of National’s ethnic strategy. They have made an art form of getting away from the old perception that they are a bunch of bigoted anti diversity conservatives. The loss in 2005 when Don Brash talked about Mainstream New Zealanders and confirmed that this group did not include people who were not white or were born overseas showed how important the strategy is.

Since then National has been very careful to cultivate ethnic candidates and have sent them out to spread the word.  Candidates such as Melissa Lee, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, Jian Yang, and Alfred Ngaro have done the job for National.

If you look at National’s list from last election the strategy is clear.  Slots 31 to 34 were reserved for ethnic candidates.  Neo conservatives no longer care about race.  The only battle they are worried about is the battle between the top 1% and the rest of us.  Every other dividing line, gender, sexual preference or ethnic origin is irrelevant.

I can’t blame National for targeting the Philippine community.  I have had quite a bit to deal with them recently and they are very decent and very social people as well as being very well networked.  The Catholic religion dominates.  As a born and bred although lapsed Catholic I understand their commitment.  They are big on new testament virtues such as loving each other, looking after the poor and making sure that money dealers are excluded from the temple.  Call me biased but I think that progressive Catholic beliefs and Labour Party values have much in common.

I also hear that Garcia will be given a good list placement, presumably in the safe ethnic bracket, so his path to Parliament appears to be very likely…

National is claiming they are now on top of things.  The reality is they are wounded and are losing all the credit built up over a decade of careful political management.

87 comments on “Two Chinese are more valuable than two Indians ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ed 1
    19 October 2018 at 8:12 am

    Some of the photoshopping in that photo is really quite bad.

    • roy cartland 1.1
      19 October 2018 at 11:13 am

      I quite like it. It’s just like them: a veneer hiding their unpalatability, and a poor one at that.

  2. Ross 2
    19 October 2018 at 8:19 am

    For the first time ever it’s a case of too many Indians and not enough chiefs in the National Party. 🙂

  3. outofbed 3
    19 October 2018 at 8:28 am

    or Too many Indians not enough thiefs

  4. greywarshark 4
    19 October 2018 at 8:55 am

    It is a disgrace to the Party and the country to have this private scoping conversation on structure and methods of the Gnats released to the public because of a scrabble for dominance and retaliation between these fatuous unpleasant irresponsible and mendacious men.

    They are in line with Paul Holmes and his derogatory comment on our Governor-General, a responsible superior position, held by a man with the qualifications and background to hold it. ‘A cheeky darkie’.

    • alwyn 4.1
      19 October 2018 at 10:45 am

      You clearly haven’t the slightest concern for accuracy in your remarks do you?
      Paul Holmes NEVER referred to our Governor-General as a “cheeky darkie”.

      As you are clearly somewhat stupid I shall repeat it.
      Paul Holmes NEVER referred to our Governor-General as a “cheeky darkie”.

      And once more to try and get through to you.
      Paul Holmes NEVER referred to our Governor-General as a “cheeky darkie”.

      Are all you comments as inaccurate as this one?

      • Muttonbird 4.1.1
        19 October 2018 at 10:51 am

        It’s easy to get the two Pauls mixed up. Both were racist, intolerant, drunken buffoons, and both are dead. One figuratively and one literally.

        • alwyn 4.1.1.1
          19 October 2018 at 11:09 am

          I am unaware of anyone called “Paul” who ever referred to our Governor-General in that manner. There are an awful lot of Pauls though.
          Perhaps, since you seem to think there was, can you enlighten me?

          The only candidate anyone has heard of who might have done it would be one of our Governor’s-General talking about himself. I can imagine Sir Paul Reeves saying something like “When I was a school I think my teachers thought of me as being a ‘cheeky darky’ because I corrected their pronunciation of Maori words”.
          I’m only saying I could imagine him saying it mind, I’m not claiming he did.

          Who do you think did it?

          • Muttonbird 4.1.1.1.1
            19 October 2018 at 11:21 am

            Paul Henry questioned whether New Zealand born and raised Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand was New Zealander enough for the position.

            https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/58486/paul-henry-apologises-to-governor-general

            • alwyn 4.1.1.1.1.1
              19 October 2018 at 1:01 pm

              Yes. Right this time.
              In fact you, JanM, Draco and Space Monkey are now all correct.
              I find errors in quoting people particularly annoying. It makes all the rest of the comment doubtful.

              For example I could claim that, in the time of the Clark administration Helen admonished Peters with the statement.
              “Winston, you are drunk.”
              And then say that Peters responded
              ‘My dear, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober, and you will still be ugly.”

              I would not, I think, be excused for claiming that it was really by Winston Churchill to a rebuke by then British Labour MP Bessie Braddock and that it was easy to get the two Winstons confused. To claim it was Peters to Clark would be quite rightly claimed as, at the minimum, rude.

              Just as I find the comments by Holmes about the UN Secretary-General and Henry about the Governor-General rude by the way.

              If we are going to quote people we should, at the minimum, credit the comment to the person who actually said it.

              • Muttonbird …
                19 October 2018 at 1:26 pm

                Um. I’ve not been wrong in this particular subthread thank you very much.

                • alwyn …
                  19 October 2018 at 3:11 pm

                  Well you were certainly implying that it was Paul Henry who had called the Governor-General a Cheeky Darkie.
                  If you didn’t mean that why would you talk about mixing up various “Pauls”, implying that it was Paul Henry who did it?
                  If you didn’t mean that your comment makes no sense at all.

                  • Dukeofurl …
                    19 October 2018 at 4:17 pm

                    Hilarious. The guy usually called alwrong takes others to task over a small error. D
                    Holmes did refer to a major public official as a cheeky darkie, just not in nz

                    • alwyn …
                      19 October 2018 at 6:26 pm

                      Quite right. So he did.
                      It wasn’t the Governor-General of New Zealand though.
                      It was the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
                      I realise you may not understand that there is a difference.

                    • In Vino …
                      19 October 2018 at 8:17 pm

                      Punctilious, pin-pricking alwyn is pompous right to the very end..
                      “I realise you may not understand that there is a difference.”
                      Oh alwyn, may I add my own congratulations to those of God himself in thanking you for so often trying to make us aware that you think you have a superior intellect?

          • JanM 4.1.1.1.2
            19 October 2018 at 11:31 am

            It was Paul Holmes and the person to whom he referred was Kofi Annan who was the Secretary General of United Nations. It happened in 2003

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2
        19 October 2018 at 12:16 pm

        Correct – he referred to the UN Governor General as a ‘cheeky darky’.

        He seemed really upset that a white person wasn’t in that position.

      • McFlock 4.1.3
        19 October 2018 at 1:26 pm

        No, it was the UN Secretary General he called a “cheeky darkie”.

        Your outrage is as believable as Judith Collins’ concerns about bullying

        • alwyn 4.1.3.1
          19 October 2018 at 3:13 pm

          Are you talking to me Tiddles?
          Anyway I think “outrage” is a bit strong to describe my view.

          • McFlock 4.1.3.1.1
            19 October 2018 at 3:18 pm

            I stand corrected. It’s just that I figured most people’s use of repetition is proportionate to the degree in which they are interested in that point.

            • alwyn 4.1.3.1.1.1
              19 October 2018 at 6:31 pm

              I see what you mean. I wasn’t as outraged, or anything close to it, as that interpretation might imply though.

    • SpaceMonkey 4.2
      19 October 2018 at 11:27 am

      I think you’ll find Paul Holmes was referring to the then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a “cheeky darkie”.

  5. Ankerrawshark 5
    19 October 2018 at 9:17 am

    I have been trying to figure out the time line re jami Lee to try and hypotheses what might be going on.

    He started taping Bridges in June? Clearly Simon isn’t aware anything is up as he speaks very freely with him, so no sign of a falling out at this stage, or anything that would indicate Simon is out to get jami so jamis taping of him is justified.

    Then there is the conversation with Ross, Bennett and Bridges leading to Ross sick leave. All we know about that is the harassment issue was raised. Was this the first time Bridges knew about that? Nats had known for two years……..they claimed not to know about Ross connection to the leak at this stage…..

    Just some thoughts

  6. Dennis Frank 6
    19 October 2018 at 9:29 am

    Wonder why the rabid left aren’t calling it racism? You’d think the notion that two chinese are worth more than two indians would have them howling at the moon.

    I was bemused by this: “progressive Catholic beliefs and Labour Party values have much in common”. Would make a good thesis topic, eh? All due respect to the current pope, who seems genuinely progressive, and his predessor who retired – a genuinely revolutionary move – plus going green with the climate-change encyclical, but these can easily all be dismissed as mere shop-front reconfiguration.

    Showmanship. Has any pope yet renounced the 19th century doctrine of infallibility? Not that I’ve noticed. That would be real progress! Has any yet explained that the ancient remission of sin doctrine cannot be used to get a wrong-doer off the moral hook, to avoid accountability? Haven’t seen that happen either. Clinging to traditional practice of using confession to make sins magically disappear sends a signal of institutionalised moral corruption. The idea that an apology serves to protect someone from being held accountable for their bad behaviour became an organised bullshit exercise. A real progressive catholic belief would admit this.

    • SaveNZ 6.1
      19 October 2018 at 10:06 am

      Wonder why the rabid left aren’t calling it racism… +1 – very revealing… racism has become a term just used to further neoliberalism not actually anything to do with racism, of which the above aka valuing Chinese more than Indians, and I guess others are deemed fucking useless… in value – are prime examples but somehow being minimised???

      • alwyn 6.1.1
        19 October 2018 at 10:51 am

        “Wonder why the rabid left aren’t calling it racism”.
        How can they? When they have vowed loyalty to the New Zealand First Party Leader they wouldn’t dare.
        He, after all, considered “Two Wongs don’t make a White” to be hilariously funny.
        It is probably recorded in the “protocols of the Coalition of Losers”, also known as the New Zealand First/Labour Agreement, that nothing may be said that could possibly be seen as a slight on the great Tsar Winston the First

    • OnceWasTim 6.2
      19 October 2018 at 12:09 pm

      I find the idea of ‘progressive Catholic beliefs’ and Labour values very interesting too @ Dennis, just as I do the Sikh belief system: the 5 virtues of TRUTH, COMPASSION, CONTENTMENT, HUMILITY and LOVE. It’s hard to understand how any Sikh (or Catholic for that matter) can align themselves with what we know of the modern day National Party – unless you consider that they’re comfortable with what they identify as the 5 ‘temptations’ or thieves: LUST, RAGE, CONCEIT, GREED and ATTACHMENT.

      I’ve absolutely no doubt both Bakshi and Parmer would claim to be insulted by the above, but then you only need to search for Radio NZ’s ‘VOICES’ series to see how Bakshi handled one poor bugger he claims to represent a few years ago, and Parmer’s disposition during parliamentary debates yesterday and both can feign as much outrage as they like – both more temptation than virtue.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1
        19 October 2018 at 12:25 pm

        I consider any religion that conservatives claim is nothing but camouflage for their actual beliefs. Many people still hold on to the delusional belief that being religious = being good. It’s how all those Catholic priests got away with rape and abuse over the centuries.

        • OnceWasTim 6.2.1.1
          19 October 2018 at 3:26 pm

          Yep +1 @Draco

        • OnceWasTim 6.2.1.2
          20 October 2018 at 7:29 pm

          Btw @ Draco – check out the rather diplomatic description of one of the R Soles I mentioned (Bakshi or/and/nand/not if Parmer). I only just discovered mention of it in the public domain, but Jesus Christ/Waheguru ! why am I not surprised
          And the timeline.
          If not his contribution to totally fucked immigration policy – and all the mechanisms a Joyce/Coleman governmental structure that supported and normalised it all ……..pffft.
          It’s probably no wonder a WASP-led MoBIE (concerned with a future and career-led ambition) were totally “on-board” with what has transpired over the past ten years – even tho’ they had a CEO that was totally ‘on board with it goan forwid’.

          …….. next
          …nek minit

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3
      19 October 2018 at 12:22 pm

      Wonder why the rabid left aren’t calling it racism?

      To me it doesn’t seem like racism so much. It seems more bound up in how much money and company directorships that National can get out of it for the party and their MPs.

    • JeevesPonzi 6.4
      19 October 2018 at 1:13 pm

      Or acknowledge the non-existence of a god.

  7. SaveNZ 7
    19 October 2018 at 9:54 am

    Surprised the woke lefties were not out to condemn . Suggests maybe the woke leftie movement is yet another attempt to manipulate by the right to keep their neoliberal messages going and real questions from being answered.

    Thinking 2 Chinese are more ‘valuable’ than 2 Indians is pretty much the ultimate racist.

    As for thinking Natz are doing this to being more ethnically diverse, dream on, it’s clearly just a way to get more donations and with their Electoral fraud tactics, aka increasing the vote share of the favoured candidate by for example removing all reasonable requirements for migration such as language tests and encouraging investment in property as a category for migration purposes and people on low wages getting residency on the back of working at Burger King or being a stopper, driving up the prices of property so that the poorer folks can no longer be housed in Auckland and other main cities, increasing day to day prices of goods like power, water and petrol, while simultaneously depressing the vote share of the rival candidates aka removing right for people to vote in prison while inexplicably increasing the amount of people in prison by 30% who are in prison, or both.

    Identity politics is a joke, and the lack of left condemnation on ethnic valuing as well as the revelation that you can buy your way into politics so easily in NZ as well as gain accolades such as ” order of merit of NZ”, is sickening.

    Like with Rogernomics they had to destroy the idea that Kiwi workers were great employees, which they have effectively achieved over 30 years in this country, and under neoliberalism they need to destroy the idea that people born in NZ has any extra rights than anyone else in the world with a few $$$ they can fly in become a Kiwi with a bit of paper work and an immigration lawyer or middleman, that way you can get the ‘right’ people in, or just a warm body to vote for you and cheaply work in your business, while buying consumer goods, from a government or business perspective .

    Coincidentally this approach also dilutes other voters, so in a slim margin, it changes the course of elections and long term will radically change NZ’s direction, not through democracy but through political tactics to engineer another future into this low wage economy owed and run by offshore interests and become part of Asia instead of an independent nation.

    • KJT 7.1
      19 October 2018 at 10:03 am

      Don’t know if it is any racism involved. Just a cynical exploitation of the fact, that Chinese in New Zealand, have more money to give to National to buy candidates.

      Neo-liberals don’t care what race the money comes from. They are too greedy for money and power, for that.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 7.1.1
        19 October 2018 at 11:23 am

        So neo-libs are less racist than non-neo-libs.

        Always knew neo-libs were less racist than lefties who label them neo-libs.

        • KJT 7.1.1.1
          19 October 2018 at 11:57 am

          Of course many, if not all, neo-libs are racist.

          They are, of course, prepared to ignore race when it gets in the way of their greed.

        • Sans Cle 7.1.1.2
          19 October 2018 at 10:46 pm

          You may be onto something there. Funny how neo liberal globalists/free traders let financial capital flow freely across borders, but not human capital (visa restrictions).

      • Chuck 7.1.2
        19 October 2018 at 11:29 am

        There is a larger Chinese population then Indian in NZ. They all, of course, come under “Asian ethnic groups”

        Therefore having a higher % of Chinese as MP’s makes logical sense.

  8. Bob 8
    19 October 2018 at 10:01 am

    Mickysavage, “two chinese are more valuable than two indians” was a statement made by Ross in the first conversation he taped involving Bridges. The fact that Ross has said that he started recording conversations because he though he was being maneuvered out, and he has now been labelled as manipulative by multiple sources, suggests this was nothing more than Ross trying to be provocative on tape (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107939737/two-chinese-more-valuable-than-two-indians-im-satisfied-with-explanation-says-bakshi)

    I think Bridges is a self-absorbed, narcissistic prat that shouldn’t be on the National front bench, let alone leader, but trying to pin Ross’ actions on Bridges… stick to Bridges weak, ineffective leadership, reality tends to stick to a persons reputation better than exaggeration (unless you are Donald Trump).

    • SaveNZ 8.1
      19 October 2018 at 10:10 am

      Bridges agreed with him! They are both as bad as each other! Lets not let Bridges wriggle out of agreeing with Ross about whose worth what and why based not on individual merits, but purely on race.

      • Muttonbird 8.1.1
        19 October 2018 at 10:54 am

        Yep. These were two good friends and like minded individuals. You can claim with certainty that their thoughts and values line up perfectly.

      • Bob 8.1.2
        19 October 2018 at 10:57 am

        See my response below (8.2.2), he didn’t agree with him, he just refused to shoot down a guy who had just brought $100,000 donation into the party and agreed that they currently have 2 Indian MP’s.

    • Dennis Frank 8.2
      19 October 2018 at 10:13 am

      Ah, but you haven’t included the response of Bridges to Ross saying that: “Yeah, …” The historical fact is that the tape proves Bridges agreed with that evaluation.

      I agree that what we have is a pot calling the kettle black battle between Ross & Bridges: “you’re blacker!”, “no, you’re blacker”. Leaves the rest of us rolling our eyes thinking “who cares? they’re both black.”

      • Ross 8.2.1
        19 October 2018 at 10:42 am

        I don’t agree they’re both black. Ross may have been wanting to get a rise or response out of Bridges and was prepared to say anything to get the response he wanted. If so, it worked!

      • Bob 8.2.2
        19 October 2018 at 10:54 am

        “Yeah, …”

        I notice you didn’t finish that, he said: “Yeah, which is what we have got now at the moment”
        Bridges agreed that they had 2 Indian MP’s at the moment, he never agreed to the value of them against the value of 2 Chinese MP’s which Ross was inferring. In fact, Bridges said: “I mean it’s…it’s like all these things are, it’s bloody hard because you’ve only got so much space, it depends where we’re polling”, he was basically placating Ross who had just brought in a $100,000 donation. Again, this is all Ross, now stop making me fell like I have to stick up for a man I can’t stand!

        • Dennis Frank 8.2.2.1
          19 October 2018 at 11:24 am

          Okay, fair enough, Bridges could indeed have just been acknowledging the status quo rather than agreeing with Ross on the valuation.

  9. patricia bremner 9
    19 October 2018 at 10:14 am

    Micky is on the Left, and he is commenting. Jacinda Ardern when confronted with the conversation said ‘it is for National to resolve not the Government’.

  10. marty mars 10
    19 October 2018 at 10:54 am

    I struggle with this post. You seem to want to fan the flames micky. Playing with the jihad jami-lee line from a rwnj for instance and the whole Indian verses Chinese.

    • Muttonbird 10.1
      19 October 2018 at 10:57 am

      I don’t like the appropriation of ‘jihad’ either.

      It was coined by Bryce Edwards, Pagani, and then Hosking during the week and I would have thought you don’t want to be borrowing from the likes of them!

      It also help the Nats in their drive to separate Bridges and Ross as obviously two men of identical values and motivations.

      Not helpful at all.

    • mickysavage 10.2
      19 October 2018 at 12:03 pm

      I believe it is a topic of relevance. I have watched and admired National’s ethnic representation policy over the past decade. This particular episode is going to cause a lot of damage to that policy and I thought it worth covering.

  11. Ad 11
    19 October 2018 at 11:09 am

    Labour candidate selection has weightings for women and Maori.

    If Labour were honest they’d admit weightings to Pacific Islanders as well.

    Personally can’t see the fuss. It’s just more sausage being made.

    • Muttonbird 11.1
      19 October 2018 at 11:53 am

      Bro. If you want to deflect from the National Party scandals (which actually impact NZ democracy) in favour of talking about children in poverty etc, then talk about children in poverty. Here’s a chance to show the electorate what venal and corrupt politics really looks like and a chance to keep the Nats out of the way for many years. A chance for the government to make meaningful but controlled and permanent change for children instead of being rushed.

      Your call is totally undone by your writing of the post ‘Saudi Arabia and the United States’ two days ago. Now that is a massive irrelevancy to the working poor of New Zealand and their children.

      If you want to talk priorities then you’d better get yours straight first.

      • Ad 11.1.1
        19 October 2018 at 12:27 pm

        The policy relevance to NZ of that post was clear. And was one of a pair from the week on petroleum to NZ.

        The schadenfreude of the left to National is wearing thin.

        Bro? Go gender yourself.

        • Muttonbird 11.1.1.1
          19 October 2018 at 12:30 pm

          Really? I didn’t bother reading it actually.

          • Ad 11.1.1.1.1
            19 October 2018 at 12:34 pm

            It shows.

          • RedLogix 11.1.1.1.2
            19 October 2018 at 12:39 pm

            “I didn’t read it, but I know it was wrong”.

            Labour and National certainly represent divergent poles of value and interests; this is necessary and enduring. It will never change.

            But this idea that the right is always wrong and evil, and the left is always correct and good is both absurd and dangerous.

            • Muttonbird 11.1.1.1.2.1
              19 October 2018 at 12:47 pm

              I didn’t say it was wrong. I have read it now and it didn’t say much of anything, imo. And the NZ link was peripheral.

              Ad has been complaining that we are talking about corruption and cover-ups in the National Party. Basically telling us off for doing so and wanting to redirect the conversation to “child poverty”.

              I pointed out his last post which was all about global oil economics and that he might try to concentrate on NZ specific issues if he’s like the rest of us to.

              And I apologise if I have Ad’s gender wrong – it’s just that Ad writes like a man.

              • Ad …
                19 October 2018 at 12:58 pm

                If you can show NZ petroleum transition is peripheral to the Saudi-US relationship you could set that out.

                Until then you’re wrong.

                You didn’t read what you’re complaining about.

                And right now the left are in a fever of undeserved and fruitless righteousness.

                We’ve had a week of it. Nothing in this country changed for the better.

                • Dennis Frank …
                  19 October 2018 at 1:18 pm

                  Hmm. As someone who has been critical of the left here in the past for inappropriate moral righteousness, I feel more solidarity with them than with you in regard to this controversy.

                  Corruption of the fabric of our democracy is an issue so serious that few policy issues are ever likely to compete with it as a political priority. Then there’s the fact that moral leadership is essential to provide a way for ethical conduct in politics to achieve a consensual basis. Moral guidance of the young is an even more vital component of a healthy society.

                  It’s all about role models. The Nats are currently dramatising their natural tendency to provide the wrong ones. Labour are using the old `lay low, say nuffin’ tactic to mask their inability to provide a positive alternative to corruption. The Greens have called for better electoral law, in order to demonstrate that grandstanding is better than actually providing a solution to the loophole problem. So we wait to see if Winston can do what the situation requires.

                • marty mars …
                  19 October 2018 at 4:19 pm

                  “… a fever of undeserved and fruitless righteousness.”

                  It is not undeserved. The left take heaps from the right including dirty politics and often a lot from ‘other’ lefties too. The gnats are hurting each other politically and that is good for the left. They lie ad, they lie through their teeth and in no way shape or form is the left as bad as that. Anyone pushing the ‘both the same’ lines just doesn’t get it and they know it.

                  Today we rejoice because tomorrow we may be dead.

              • RedLogix …
                19 October 2018 at 1:00 pm

                Fair enough; we’re all have different interests and I’ve no quibble if you didn’t find it compelling. That’s why TS has a diversity of authors.

                Absolutely it makes sense that nine years of National fiddling in the dark has hit the poorest in this country hard. And finally getting to see the scab ripped off makes for compelling politics. But there is no reason to think the left is any more immune to the same dysfunction than the right; they just get to do it with bigger cheques.

                Whenever I see someone in deep shit, no matter how well-deserved, I always come back to ‘there but for the grace of …”.

        • Ankerrawshark 11.1.1.2
          19 October 2018 at 7:25 pm

          Will total respect Ad, cause I do respect your comments, my schdenfraude is not wearing thin at all. Revelling in it………these b…..tards have got away with so much lying and corruption and now one of their own is bringing them down. I reserve the right to rejoice, and of course you are entitled to see it as making sausages…………

    • AB 11.2
      19 October 2018 at 11:59 am

      Ad – I think the point is that National has only one weighting, and that’s money.
      There is no genuine interest in diversity at all – rather there’s a cynical appropriation of the language of diversity for the purposes of getting the most money.
      Why this would surprise anyone, or anyone would regard it as racist, is beyond me.

      The action that should result from this sordid little affair is a radical reform of campaign finance. But it probably won’t happen because Labour are supplicants at the same money-pot as well.

      • Ad 11.2.1
        19 October 2018 at 12:34 pm

        Labour used to have a lock on the immigrant vote especially Indian subcontinent. But many have just drifted off to National. Same less so with Chinese.

        They took them for granted.

        I do get your point about campaign finance reform – even after endless tinkering with the act under previous government.

        But I wouldn’t want the left to end up like Beto O’Rourke having a great shot but taking no Superpac help and losing. Generally I’d rather win dirty than be virtuous in Opposition. Thankfully I’m not a bundler or megadonor.

    • Anne 11.3
      19 October 2018 at 4:16 pm

      The difference Ad @ 11, is that Labour’s ‘selective’ representation doesn’t come with a price tag.

  12. Rosemary McDonald 12
    19 October 2018 at 12:10 pm

    “Putting aside whether Mr Zhang (MNZM, gonged by Labour) himself has any links to the Chinese Communist Party, there is no reason anyone who actually is overly close to the Chinese Government would think it wrong to hand over bulky donations to New Zealand politicians, given the embrace of CCP-linked cash by senior figures on both sides of the House for years.”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144581

    Or we could read drivel….https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12144655

    • Dennis Frank 12.1
      19 October 2018 at 4:37 pm

      Further to that Rosmary, there’s this: “According to experts Anne-Marie Brady and Geoff Wade, the Chinese businessman at the centre of the donation furore that’s engulfed Simon Bridges is a leader in the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front activities. Researcher Jichang Lulu has documented at length Zhang Yikun’s links to United Front and Communist Party officials. According to a page on the Zhuhai Puning Chamber of Commerce, as of 2015, Zhang was on the Standing Committee of the Hainan Provincial Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a governmental advisory body, a fact confirmed by an official government web page dated October 2016 and dug up by Lulu.”

      “What is the United Front? Originally a strategy for winning over smaller parties and marginalised social groups, the United Front has morphed into a global influence operation that, as the Financial Times put it in a 2017 investigation into UF activities, aims “to win support for China’s political agenda, accumulate influence overseas and gather key information”. Chinese premier Xi Jinping has put special emphasis on UF activities, expanding its operations, absorbing government operations under its auspices and reportedly personally taking a leading role in its activities.”

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/19-10-2018/the-ross-v-bridges-affair-is-a-kick-up-the-arse-on-chinese-state-influence-in-nz/

  13. Brutus Iscariot 13
    19 October 2018 at 12:12 pm

    It’s downright cynical, that’s what politics is at its core. Certainly not racist.

    Bridges wasn’t saying that Chinese are more competent than Indians, he was talking about targeted appeals to that demographic via the National List composition.

    No different to Labour planning a strategy around grabbing the Maori/Pasifika vote.

    • RedLogix 13.1
      19 October 2018 at 12:25 pm

      I can see where your coming from there; an especially virulent cynicism is definitely at the core of it.

      Racist … maybe that’s more a consequence of our unpleasant post-modern habit of treating people only as members of nothing more than an identity group. It’s off-hand lumping everyone who happens to be Indian or Chinese into one catchall group, erasing their individuality which I find the most distasteful aspect.

  14. Muttonbird 14
    19 October 2018 at 12:35 pm

    Here’s a quote for all the retards who compare Zhang’s donation to union influence.

    What reads like cold calculations about the political and commercial value of one ethnicity over another might have just been the political equivalent of locker room banter between two men who used to be friends. Some might compare it to Labour’s backing by unions and its promotion of union-linked candidates. But unions are accountable New Zealand institutions whereas the donation was allegedly made by a businessman connected to China’s “soft power” strategies.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/107932648/can-national-drain-the-swamp

  15. Fireblade 15
    19 October 2018 at 12:36 pm

    If the conversation around donations was:

    “Two Pakeha are more valuable than two Maori”.

    Would that be considered racist?

  16. WeTheBleeple 16
    19 October 2018 at 2:36 pm

    I’m allowed to say ‘retard’ cos I’m an Aspie.

    Retard – It’s the n-word for special needs.

    You can’t say it, bad Muttonbird!

    BAHAAA! Identity politics. Bring it.

  19. Dennis Frank 19
    19 October 2018 at 5:47 pm

    An excellent perspective on the situation! “Tze Ming Mok is a writer and social researcher specialising in race and ethnicity, whose parents are from Singapore and Malaysia.” https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144581

    “This chilling effect is harming Chinese people in New Zealand. Many people cannot differentiate Chinese people from the actions of the CCP (I mean hey, many people can’t tell a Chinese from a Korean), but this is made worse when hardly any authorities on the topic will address the issue openly. Concerns can only erupt as xenophobia against the Chinese and “Asian” population.”