Why does David Farrar hate Winston Peters so much?

Written By: - Date published: 8:37 pm, May 29th, 2014 - 205 comments
Categories: David Farrar, winston peters - Tags:

David Farrar has quite a thing for Winston Peters.

He attacks him at every opportunity.

Here’s the latest. Many other examples can be found on kiwiblog.

I’ve heard rumours that Farrar’s hatred of Winston is based on his fear that National might end up in a coalition with Winston after this election.

Why would Farrar fear that?

The story goes that Farrar may have had a bit to do with the group that stitched up Winston in the lead-up to the 2008 election.

So if Winston goes into coalition with National, he may take revenge, and only agree to a coalition if say, National dumped Farrar. That would mean the end of the snout-in-trough deal that Farrar has enjoyed as National’s pet blogger and pollster.

If something like that were true then it might explain recent events…

Lately, Brendan Horan has begun to attack Winston in parliament, somewhat out of the blue.
What is his motivation? Is this National attacking Winston through the satellite state of Brendan Horan?

Why would National do that? Have they decided, in private at least, that a coalition with Winston is intolerable? That’s seems risky because they may need his help to form a government after the election.

Are they just trying to diminish his vote, hoping that most of his supporters would vote National if they abandoned Winston? That would explain the use of Horan as a means to attack Winston without completely jeopardising a post-election deal with him.

How much of a say does David Farrar have in the National party’s election strategy?

Perhaps Farrar is by-passing National and feeding attack lines to Horan directly?

It’s all very fishy. Can anyone shed any light on this?

205 comments on “Why does David Farrar hate Winston Peters so much?”

  1. Ergo Robertina 1

    National’s preference is for Winston to be out of the mix, leaving the Conservatives to hoover up those votes.

    • Lanthanide 1.1

      It’s for NZFirst to get 4.99% of the party vote and no electorates.

    • Who says it’s just National?

      If people are going to vote for disgusting centrists, they might as well vote for Labour, or Dunne if they’re a bit right-wing, no point in voting for Winston or his other racist pals.

      That said, if they get more than 1%, they deserve to be in parliament, and I’d rather we count the votes of the centrists and the racists than leave them unrepresented.

      But if it’s a choice between honestly losing and getting rid of winston, and winning but keeping him… I’d probably rather lose the one election.

  2. TheContrarian 2

    Sounds all very conspiracy.

    “I’ve heard…”

    “The story goes…”

    “He may take revenge…”

    “How much say does Farrar have…”

    Sounds like a load of unsubstantiated nothing.

    • Lanthanide 2.1

      I’m always very very wary of these sorts of posts that go up here.

      A big conspiracy that Brendan Horan is in contact with people and doing the National party’s bidding. Or maybe Brendan is just a twat who has finally managed to scrounge enough dirt together to sling at Winston?

      As the NZ Sceptics Society says, “when you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of horses, not zebras”.

      • geoff 2.1.1

        Sorry Lanth, no big conspiracy, I’m just exploring ideas and asking if anyone else has anything to add to this.

        I personally don’t think any of the the scenarios I’ve outlined are far-fetched in the slightest. I think things like this are going on all the time in the background. What’s wrong with talking about the possibilities?

        What’s your attitude to John Key’s version of events regarding the GCSB debacle? Nothing to see, move along?

        • J Mex 2.1.1.1

          The problem I have, Geoff (et al) is that if I wrote something like this in the comments section but swapping out the players, (Mana/McCarten/Internet/Labour/Maori etc), then I would be roundly slammed by the mods with something along the lines of… “Substantiate your claims or take a two week ban”

          Even putting the hypocrisy aside, I don’t think this sort of thing is useful because there are a near infinite number of conspiracy theories on all sides of the house which people can develop that might fit with events:

          “Why does Geoff fear Farrar so much that he is trying to silence him?”,
          “Is Geoff being paid by Winston to counter-attack National?” (I’ve heard rumors)
          “Is J Mex actually David Farrar trying to shut this issue down now that the truth is out….”

          None of this stuff is particularly useful to anyone, so I am surprised that this “keyboard conspiracy interview” makes it as a Standard post.

          • geoff 2.1.1.1.1

            None of this stuff is particularly useful to anyone

            So says you, I’d say you are lacking in imagination.

            Fortunately I don’t have to adhere to whatever you construe as ‘useful’.

            If you look closely at most political posts on the internet then you’ll notice that many of them contain a portion which is speculative.

            That’s just the nature of politics, everyone is operating in an environment of imperfect information so everyone has to create hypotheses to some extent.

            Politics is contingent on imperfect information, if everyone knew what everyone else knew then politics wouldn’t exist.

            • J Mex 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Geoff, most of that is also true of the Moon Landing and 911 conspiracies. They contain portions that are speculative and operate in an environment of imperfect information so everyone has to create hypotheses to some extent. It goes without saying that Conspiracy theories are contingent on imperfect information, and if everyone knew what everyone else knew then conspiracy theories wouldn’t exist.

              Maybe you don’t get what I am saying about your post. Here are the ‘facts’ with alternative (and IMHO much more likely) conclusions.

              [edits mine]

              David Farrar has quite a thing for Winston Peters.

              He attacks him at every opportunity [, alongside all non National coalition partners]

              Here’s the latest. Many other examples can be found on kiwiblog.

              [It seems readily apparent that] that Farrar’s [attacking] of Winston is based on hi[m not wanting NZ first to reach 5% and not be in parliament].

              Why would Farrar [want] that?

              Because then National has more chance of being able to form a government

              Lately, Brendan Horan has begun to attack Winston in parliament, somewhat out of the blue.
              What is his motivation?

              Winston kicked him out of the party. Horan has no future with NZ First and probably parliament. What is his motivation for NOT attacking Winston?

              • geoff

                I completely get what you’re saying. I just don’t agree with you. And I strongly suspect that you are anti this post because you are a supporter of David Farrar and/or the Right.

                But hey, that’s just speculation on my part. Which puts it on the same level as moon landing and 911 conspiracies, right?

                I’m more than happy to say I can’t stand David Farrar. I think he and his kind are a blight on the nation, they are holding the line for a destructive, socially corrosive political economy that is on its last legs hopefully and I’ll celebrate when they are gone.

                But if you don’t think that Farrar and National are up to all sorts of shit in the background then you are either naive, stupid or disingenuous. I’m going to bet on disingenuous.

                • J Mex

                  But if you don’t think that Farrar and National are up to all sorts of shit in the background then you are either naive, stupid or disingenuous. I’m going to bet on disingenuous.

                  Well argued!

                  How would I ever counter anyone who essentially argued… “If you don’t agree with me then you are stupid or insincere” ?

                  At least you are carrying on in the comments with the same intellectual rigour that you applied to your initial post.

                  Note: I never said that National and Farrar weren’t ‘up to shit’. Of course they are. And Labour and The Standard authors. And the Greens. And Mana. And Winston.

                  I simply pointed out that there is no corroborating evidence to support your post. There are far simpler explanations, and IMHO your post is pointless because many many posts could have been written with the exact same ‘facts’ but completely different implications. Your post is the equivalent of gossip at best, and making shit up at worst.

                  And, as I pointed out before, if someone accused Labour, a Standard author, David Cunliffe or Matt McCarten of the same (on the same evidence) on this blog, they would cop a warning or a ban. Unquestionably a double standard.

                  It’s a bad post, just own it.

                  [lprent: Don’t be stupid. You are likely to pick up a ban if you accused an author or the site of ulterior motives without proof or a reasonable theory. In the latter case it would usually be after you wank on about it repetitively for some time making assertions without proof.

                  You should know – you have stupidly done most of these things in the past. We don’t (usually) ban for what people say on other sites. The one exception to that was Pete George and his rather continuous lying about why he gets banned from here.

                  However you can pick up a ban for lying about what we do with moderation and bans. So I’d suggest that you desist if you want to continue to comment. ]

                  • J Mex

                    However you can pick up a ban for lying about what we do with moderation

                    Wow. That’s new.

                    And I never mentioned other sites.

                    My point remains. The post is crap. It has zero substance. Other, regular commenters, have essentially said the same thing.

                    My first comment is fine and mild. But Geoff wants to defend the indefensible, and now lpent is here to run interference on the issue.

                    (But deep down you know Geoff’s post is a steaming pile of horseshit, dressed up as analysis too, lprent).

                  • geoff

                    It’s a bad post, just own it.

                    Judging by the response (even the astrology comments!) I’m quite pleased with the post.

                    • Markymark

                      Hey Geoff,

                      One does not need to be a supporter of the right, to see that this post is total unsubstantiated bullshit.

                      Not a single point has a shred of evidence attached to it. Funnily enough, if the post had been about Winston and not Farrar having some deep dark ulterio motive, I suspect ole Winnie would have sued you for defamation (and won)!

                • jackp

                  I have to agree. I was wondering the same thing. Horan is the right tool to get to Winston. This reeks of Key. Farrar dislikes Winston because Winston is riding higher in Farrar’s National polls than David wants him to be. This is a similar tactic in 2011 when Farrar accused Winston of being supported by white supremists (laughable since Winston is part Maori). That didn’t get mileage so Farrar went to a different tact which was Winston’s illegal campaign. TV3 kept repeating this time and again about 3 days before the election. As you recall, the press kept running a vote for Winston was a vote for instability. That brought NZ first down about 4 points. Farrar and National are going to do every dirty trick to get Winston out of the race.

      • weka 2.1.2

        “when you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of horses, not zebras”

        Unless you happen to live in Africa (i.e. thinking of zebras make sense in some contexts).

      • cricklewood 2.1.3

        Pretty much, Horan is out for revenge one way or another… the mans not a complete mug of course he would wait till prior to an election in an attempt to cause maximum damage. Nothing more nothing less. Hardly out of the blue…
        As for Farrar I would say his dislike of Winston is like a leftys dislike of say Banks, Brash or Key not really that surprising.

        • Tracey 2.1.3.1

          Banks brash and key were never in a labour govt, winston was a national minister…

      • Anne 2.1.4

        Oh come on Lanthanide. It happens all the time. Especially in politics.

        A upsets B.
        B wants revenge.
        C wants A discredited so C spills the beans to B.
        B uses the beans to get his revenge on A.

        Winston upset Brendon by dumping him.
        Brendon wants his revenge for being dumped.
        David F (or someone) spins a yarn to Brendon about Winston.
        Brendon dumps on Winston using parliamentary privilege.

        Mind you there’s plenty of NACTS who have hated Winston’s guts ever since the Winebox Affair. Any one of them could have done the spilling and… what’s the bet the story came out of Key’s top drawer in the first place!

      • Ergo Robertina 2.1.5

        Brendan’s asked National patsy supplementaries in the House, so there is collaboration on some level. The questions are to what degree, who is involved, and what National is trying to do.

        • geoff 2.1.5.1

          Yes, I’d heard something about that but i hadn’t a chance to look into it further.

          Do you have any links perchance?

        • felix 2.1.5.2

          Nah, Horan regularly tries to put ministers on the spot. I’ve never heard him ask a Nat patsy.

          • Ergo Robertina 2.1.5.2.1

            I wasn’t meaning Government policy questions, but the pointed ones re Winston and NZF. It appears National ministers had been prepared with answers for some of them. Perhaps patsy questions is not the right term, but it would have to involve some interaction/heads up.

          • Skinny 2.1.5.2.2

            Horan carried such hatred of Labour, I once had to tell him keep it to himself, but certainly not infront of me. For his ideological hatred of what Labour stand for Peters wisely used his family faux par to flicked him out before the election, so he wouldn’t be undermined when he chooses Labour over National. That is the conclusion that I’ve come to.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.6

        The NZ Skeptics society? Well you better tell them that politics is like living in a zoo somedays. And zoos have lots of zebras, but they don’t keep horses.

      • TeWhareWhero 2.1.7

        “As the NZ Sceptics Society says, “when you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of horses, not zebras”.”

        This how doctors work – look to the most obvious first – which does not always work it must be said.

    • vto 2.2

      lol, conspiring is pretty much the most common activity of manwomankind dontcha know…

      People conspire to achieve a business end
      People conspire to gain a political advantage (one of the most common forms)
      People conspire to get themselves a manwoman. Or two.
      People conspire to skip work
      People conspire to defeat others
      to win at rugby
      to catch a fish

      it’s endless …

      so the answer to this post is that there most definitely is some conspiring going on and there may even be some theories around it

      so it is all just another conspiracy theory

      therefore its most definitely not true and there is nothing going on.

  3. Hamish 3

    The penguin is wagging the dog!

  4. Fran 4

    Heard Farrar on RNZ today. Confirmed two things – he has a voice best suited to silent movies and he has nothing interesting to add to political debate. He, along with Michelle Boag and Josie Pagani (who spouted some of the most appallingly racist statements I have heard in many a long day on the panel this week) are people who are well past their use by dates. It is time we stopped giving these people any credence. Surely we can find commentators and political analysts who are actually able to think critically and then articulate those thoughts appropriately.

    • Mike the Savage One 4.1

      He also surprisingly conceded, that the MANA Dotcom or IP deal was more of a “reverse take over by Mana of IP”, which was an astonishing admission.

      Farrar knows that his Nats are screwed, but he is trying all to defend them and to reverse the downward trend, that is happening, despite of flawed “polls”.

    • karol 4.2

      Heard a bit of the Panel on RNZ today – seems to me, that like TV3 and others, Farar and his panel mates are talking up the line that Harre’s IMP role will eat into the Greens vote.

      Yet, I doubt it is very likely. The IMP is particularly going after the young, the disengaged, etc. as well as left support for workers, those on low incomes, etc.

      The Greens have a well established image and narrative, and it differs from the more anti-establishment line of the IMP. Each have their niche.

      • Gosman 4.2.1

        Which person on the right of the political spectrum would you use instead?

        • Crunchtime 4.2.1.1

          Use for what? This post makes no sense.

          I think the hope with the IMP (as stated straight-up by Harre in her first speech) is to inspire a chunk of the 800,000 who didn’t vote last election. After all, only need about an 8th of those voting IMP to secure about 5% of the party vote.

          • Gosman 4.2.1.1.1

            Use as a commentator on media discussions such as Q+A and The Panel.

            • geoff 4.2.1.1.1.1

              They should at least have someone less rabid than Richard Prebble.

              Perhaps Genghis Khan?

              • Gosman

                So far some of the left have ruled out David Farrar Richard Prebble and Michelle Boag here. On other threads I’ve read in the past some left wingers have complained about Matthew Hooten Colin Craig and Cameron Slater being asked for their opinions in the media. So who is an acceptable commentator from the right then?

                • geoff

                  yeah well they are all complete arseholes and we’ve all seen far, far too much of those hagged, wrinkled tory scumbags over the years so it’s entirely understandable we’ve ruled them out.
                  The problem with tories is they’re all psychopaths that hate the idea of people working together. Why would any sane person really care to listen to their stupid opinions??

                  • Gosman

                    Thank you for providing a practical illustration of my big issue with people on the left being intolerant and anti freedom of expression. It isn’t David Farrar that people dislike. It is pretty much anyone who expresses a view that isn’t left of center left.

                    • felix

                      “It isn’t David Farrar that people dislike. It is pretty much anyone who expresses a view that isn’t left of center left.”

                      Nah, it’s David Farrar. He’s a bad person. He’s working hard to make most peoples’ lives worse.

                      Try this: It is pretty much anyone who expresses a view that isn’t empathic, egalitarian, and compassionate.

                    • Gosman

                      I presume you use your own definitions for those terms or at least your own interpretation of if someone meets the definition.

                    • felix

                      I’ll stick with the commonly accepted, thanks. Not here to play silly games.

                • georgecom

                  Colin Craig. He comes across as sooooooooo credible and smooth that he should front every question for the right wing. Who killed JFK, where is Elvis living, how do tin foil hats block mind probes from space…

                • felix

                  Kyle Chapman.

                  John Tamihere.

                  Alan Gibb.

              • Tracey

                Yes, but has genghis khan been thinking.

                • geoff

                  arf, thanks tracey reminding me of one of the shittest books ever to see the light of day.

              • Stuart Munro

                Genghis is much maligned because, like Macchiavelli, he had democratic tendencies. When he went to war his enemy’s kings were going to die, but the commoners were spared – the opposite of standard practice at the time and part of the reason he could conquer so rapidly. Comtemporary Europeans (Chaucer) admired him, the barbarian line of criticism was popularised during the 1800s as European aristocracy was feeling the end of its death grip on political control.

                Prebble has more in common with Tamerlane – except of course that Tamerlane had some greatness to balance his inhumanity.

                • geoff

                  Yes no doubt, Stu. My apologies to Genghis and his descendants for associating him with Prebble.

                  Actually the reason I used Genghis was that my dad has a saying when describing a right wing politician… ‘he’s just to the right of Genghis Khan’. Always made me laugh.

  5. Mike the Savage One 5

    It is very, very simple and understandable, that David Farrar dislikes Winston and NZ First. They are the most unpredictable factor in the coming election. David Farrar is a Virgo by star sign, that means he likes order, control and such, and that is what leaves him in a situation, where “disorder’ and “unpredictable situations” just cause too much distress to him, he simply cannot cope with that.

    So here we go, Winston is anyway the total “enfant terrible” in NZ politics, he may be in the game, he may not be, but for the fact nobody, least Fart(arse) aka Farrar can predict anything, it is an element that causes irritation and disturbance. Farrar better book another trip to climb another mountain, if he cannot bear the unpredictable and insecure situation.

    How entertaining.

    • TheContrarian 5.1

      Wow, really? Star-signs? Seriously?

      • Mike the Savage One 5.1.1

        I added this to simply give more info on what is very apparent, as Farrar is all for laissez faire stuff, and Winston the opposite, I thought it would not need to be mentioned, for those informed. But that extra bit of info gives more insight into the psyche of Farrar, which few know.

        • TheContrarian 5.1.1.1

          Seriously, star-signs? You know astrology isn’t real right?

          I think Farrar feeding info to Horan on behalf of National is more believable than “because he is a Virgo”

      • vto 5.1.2

        The Chinese certainly think so

        And so do the tides

        • TheContrarian 5.1.2.1

          What do the tides have to do with anything?

          • vto 5.1.2.1.1

            The tides, like everything else on the planet, respond to the gravitational pull of the objects out in space.

            If you don’t believe me go ask Newton …. its not rocket science

            [lprent: That is rather hard. He is dead. Oh dear why did I say that? Someone is going to start tugging the tablecloth. ]

            • TheContrarian 5.1.2.1.1.1

              Which has what to do with anything? How does this relate to star-signs or peoples behaviour?

              • vto

                You were questioning what star signs have to do with people’s behaviour. Star signs are just a physical thing (not some gooey quasi-spiritual thing) concerning the spin of objects through space and their gravitational effect on things on earth. The tides are exactly the same, just easier for most people to understand because they can see the effects much more easily than, say, the gravitational effects on a newborn on a super-king tide. Capiche?

                • TheContrarian

                  Well no because there completely zero science to back astrology in any way whatsoever. Why would the moon effect a newborn?

                  “Because gravity” isn’t an answer.

                  • vto

                    Its ok contrarian, science isn’t the bees knees always, often times it is a million miles behind….

                    example – newton (fancy that)
                    example – flat-earthers
                    example – continental drift

                    just go with it otherwise you are always behind the 8-ball

                    • TheContrarian

                      What? In what way was science a million miles behind Newton? Continental drift? Huh? These discoveries were a product of science, not in spite of.

                      Why would the moon effect a newborn?

                    • weka

                      Because the lunar phase affects human physiology in multiple ways. That’s not an argument for science supporting astrology, but perhaps you should be more careful with your questions.

                    • TheContrarian

                      Physiology in respect of ones circadian rhythm but not in the physiological nor physiological make-up of a new-born human.

                    • vto

                      sheesh man keep up . … . (or maybe I’m not clear…)

                      the point was that gravity clearly existed before the scientists realised it and described it …. maybe it is the same with astrology … i.e. one day they will realise it, measure it and describe it…

                      just because the scientists have not done this yet with astrology does not mean it is not physical reality … just like gravity before newton

                      just like a round earth

                      just like drifting continents

                      methinks you rely on science too much for your understanding of the world – like the flat-earthers did.

                    • TheContrarian

                      “the point was that gravity clearly existed before the scientists realised it and described it …. maybe it is the same with astrology … i.e. one day they will realise it, measure it and describe it…”

                      Your analogy fails and here is why –

                      Yes gravity clearly existed but we did realise it – it was plain to see. Objects attract objects and we didn’t know why but there was clearly some force that needed explanation – which Newton explained (and Einstein built on).

                      Unlike astrology because the is no discernible effect to draw any conclusions on whatsoever. People have repeatedly looked into the claims and found no evidence of any effect on any person. No statistical variance, no repeatable results, no clear hypothesis to study. Nothing.

                      The phases of the moon have a noticeable effect but that isn’t to do with gravity and has everything to do with circadian rhythm.

                      (“like the flat-earthers did” The earth was known to be round some thousand years before Christ)

                    • weka

                      “Physiology in respect of ones circadian rhythm but not in the physiological nor physiological make-up of a new-born human.”

                      Not sure what you mean there. We (via science) don’t know much about the lunar influences and how those mechanisms work. But we do know that things like hormonal pathways are affected. Why would that not be affecting newborns?

                    • TheContrarian

                      “just because the scientists have not done this yet with astrology does not mean it is not physical reality … just like gravity before newton”

                      Gravity was thought about and hypothesised on long before Newton. It wasn’t as if it didn’t exist in the minds of thinkers until Newton came along

                    • vto

                      and your last sentence is where you fail…

                      hence my original reference to the Chinese and the tides. People clearly see a discernible effect. Some may not see any discernible effect but that does not mean all people don’t.

                      And no, people pre-newton did not realise objects attracted objects – why would you think that? What evidence was there, other than apples falling to the ground, that objects attracted objects?

                      Try flat-round earth for a better analogy – betcha it was considered then as astrology is by you now …

                      edit: hey you can’t keep changing your post in the middle of my reply to you, that’s cheating

                    • TheContrarian

                      “And no, people pre-newton did not realise objects attracted objects – why would you think that? What evidence was there, other than apples falling to the ground, that objects attracted objects?”

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory

                      I’m glad it is almost time for bed.

                    • McFlock

                      People clearly see a discernible effect.

                      They might think they see it, but it isn’t there. “Confirmation bias” springs to mind…

                    • vto

                      Yes it is time for (finishing this paperwork – you’re holding me up)

                      My point is … science keeps making new discoveries all the time about things that have existed since day dot.

                      Gravity was one.
                      A round earth was another
                      Continental drift was another

                      Just because science has not realised, measured and described something, does not mean that it currently does not exist (nor that some people in earth ‘see’ it, also before the scientists).

                      Astrology may be another.

                      Surely this is a base premise of science. Otherwise science must right now be at an end because all else not currently realised, measured and described is just hocus-pocus, like astrology. And maybe also like life elsewhere in the cosmos …. and aren’t our scientists honing in on that fast now ……
                      ……. anyone seen any discernible effect of life elsewhere in the cosmos contrarian?….

                      edit: you’re not very contrarian for a contrarian

                    • TheContrarian

                      There is an incorporeal floating dragon in my garage. Just because science has not realised, measured and described it, does not mean that it currently does not exist.

                      In other words, you should probably read more:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

                    • vto

                      Sure of course. Spectrums of wisdom and idiocy and all that. You see the point though I’m sure ….

                      Lets lay a bet – odds on that some form of ‘astrology’ (of which I am not actually a follower anyway) will be realised, measured and described by science in our lifetimes ….

                      oh, and evidence of life elsewhere in the cosmos ……

                      $2

                    • TheContrarian

                      You can’t just say “…some form of ‘astrology’”, that is completely meaningless.

                      You need to actually specify what it is would prove some form of astrology.

                  • Lanthanide

                    vto, that’s an unfair bet because you’re just saying “any sort of thing that can count as astrology”, and you’ll use whatever weasel words possible to extend any new revelation as fitting under the banner of “astrology”.

                    Also you might want to consider my comment below about aeroplanes.

                    • vto

                      No. I’m trying to circumvent the claim, if it does happen, that “well that actually isn’t astrology”

                      And yes I see your point about aeroplanes. Then of course there are dams and trains and big buildings (which generally make a location lighter due to the bulk of ground dug out for basement). I understand all of that but if you don’t mind I’m going to leave the door open because science is quite clearly constantly discovering new things we thought unimagineable in the past. And astrology for some like yourself is clearly unimagineable.

                    • TheContrarian

                      “And astrology for some like yourself is clearly unimagineable.”

                      Define what you mean by ‘astrology’

                    • Lanthanide

                      No, astrology is not unimaginable for me, but if the only mechanism of action you’re proposing is gravity, and nothing else, then logically any other potential/stronger form of gravity will have a greater effect.

                      If you’re proposing something ‘other’ than gravity, then you need to specify what it is. If you’re not willing to do that, then you’re effectively waiving your hands in the air about nothing and are not making any claims that a testable or falsifiable.

                      Yes, it’s perfectly possible that something “like astrology” might be discovered, but as of right now, there is no unbiased scientific evidence that suggests such a thing may be true.

                    • vto

                      I fear we are going round in circles. Contrarian I am not going to define astrology – I;m sure there are a few versions on Wikipedia.

                      And lanthanide, I limited it to gravity although clearly there could be other forces at play as well, some of which we may not even know of yet. I limited it to gravity because there was easily understandable tie-up between the moon and the tidal effect of that. Of course electromagnetic forces were unknown to science until science ‘found’ it. And a combo of gravity and electromagnetic and magnetic may well result in other forces. Then sound. And light. And maybe others. We didn’t all of these in the dark pasts – why would we assume we are at the peak of our knowledge now? That would just be foolish.

                      Please see all of my points above for further argument to your points.

                    • TheContrarian

                      So you want to have a bet with me that something is going to be discovered that you are unwilling or unable to define?

                      Electromagnetic forces were not unknown, just as gravity was not unknown.
                      Not understood =/= not known.

                      As with gravity – electromagnetism was known since antiquity:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_electromagnetic_theory

                    • vto

                      sheesh man, circles round and round ….. see all other points made above in response…

                      and then check this eighties numbers for some light relief ….

                      gotta go … got a city to rebuild …. later

                      edit: and you are defeating yourself by expanding your point from scientific understanding to wider antiquity knowledge, which in fact supports my contention above about people ‘seeing’ various things long before science understands it . . . . . like astrology . . . check Wikipedia timeline on astrology in some decades in the future . . .

                    • TheContrarian

                      “which in fact supports my contention above about people ‘seeing’ various things long before science understands it . . . . . like astrology”

                      Gravity and electromagnetism were forces observed in antiquity without adequate explanation. Astrology has no observable effects (outside cognitive bias) therefore there is nothing to explain – particularly considering you have yet to even define ‘astrology’.

                      This is very simple and has been explained to you several times now.

                    • vto

                      You are too sure of yourself young man. Just because some don’t see it doesn’t mean others don’t see it……. as per above …. said several times now ….. round and round ….

                    • TheContrarian

                      I’m sorry but personal anecdote and cognitive bias is not evidence of anything.

                      Time and time again the effects people ascribe to astrology have not been shown to have an validity whatsoever. There is no method of action, no repeatable experiments, no statistical variance, not one piece of evidence for any effect of astrology whatsoever. It is totally incomparable with gravity or any other force as shown to you several times.

                      Your failure to understand the differences between the discovery of gravity and the proposed effect astrology not withstanding, you have nothing. You have proposed no testable examples, no definitions, no method of action, given no evidence in support of your position and have failed to explain why astrology does not show any accuracy in predicting behaviors

                      In short, you have provided nothing at all which merits any inquiry. Up until you actually define terms and propose a method of action you are basically saying that we should, on your say so, keep an open mind on something that has no determinable effect on anything at all.

                    • vto

                      you simply don’t get it do you contrarian. the point is flying miles over your head

                      out

                    • TheContrarian

                      Because you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support anything you have said there is nothing to get.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Contrarian if birthdays are so unimportant how come there’s always cake?

                    • TheContrarian

                      I’d prefer scotch to cake

                    • weizguy

                      Hey vto – this might help:

                      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The position of the stars is therefore in harmony with the likelihood of scotch and cake. Are you going to deny the personality-shaping properties of scotch and cake?

                      QED.

                    • vto

                      So according to contrarian, unless something has observable or discernible effects today (and somebody has seen them and discerned them in a way acceptable to contrarian) then it is simply hocu-pocus and will never be scientifically proved.

                      Tell me contrarian, did humans when they marched up the Nile and out of Africa see observable effects of the Pacific Ocean?

                      Did humans 50 years ago see observable effects of life elsewhere in the cosmos? Did they? (And don’t give me that mumbo-jumbo about statistical likelihood that pops did down below because that applies to everything, and is different from what you have been saying)

                      But then I guess maybe you are right and we have seen and observed and discerned everything there is to see ….. There is no more to see and observe and discern …. it is all done and dusted…..

                      You need to try a different set of glasses. I can understand your point (having an undergraduate deg in various sciences, probably like you), but you are refusing, imo, to acknowledge my point. Your frame is singular.

                      And your point here “Because you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support anything you have said there is nothing to get.” Ffs man, that is the entire point I have been trying to make. In the past in a whole bunch of arenas there has been no evidence whatsoever to support things, AND guess what …. it has later transpired that there has been something to get.

                      now pass me some cake and scotch

                    • Lanthanide

                      vto, your argument appears to be “science might one day prove some thing which I’m going to label “astrology”, and therefore because it’s possible it might happen in the future, it means we should accept it as fact now”.

                      We don’t have to accept anything as fact if there’s no proof for it. To do otherwise is faith.

                      Or to give you an analogy, it’s like saying “sometime in the future, science might be able to prove that a particular type of fusion reactor can create a wormhole that will let us travel lightyear distances in less than a second, so to say that “faster than light travel” is impossible is wrong, because science might prove it is possible in the future”.

                      Science deals with facts and observed evidence. There is no evidence to support astrology, the closest there is are psychological wishings of some individuals.

                    • northshoredoc

                      “In the past in a whole bunch of arenas there has been no evidence whatsoever to support things, AND guess what …. it has later transpired that there has been something to get.”

                      Yes quite, however, in relation to astrology it has been practised in various forms for millennia with no proof that it has any validity whatsoever. Testing of astrology has been undertaken, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.

                      There’s also no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not completely contradict well understood, basic and proven aspects of biology and physics

                      ‘…now pass me some cake and scotch”

                      I think that’s something we can all agree on.

                    • TheContrarian

                      If he shown you twice why your ‘whole point’ fails but you seem to have not read or understood anything I have actually said.

                      You have failed to define astrology, failed to back up anything you have said, have provided no evidence nor any method of action.

                      What you seem to be saying is that we should believe astrology because science has failed to prove it wrong, shifting the burden of proof and asserting with anecdotes that it exists.

                      Your points about gravity and electromagnetism are not analogous to astrology. That ““In the past in a whole bunch of arenas there has been no evidence whatsoever to support things” is incorrect in relation to gravity and electromagnetism because there were real world evidence to study – which astrology doesn’t have.

                      Give me something, anything – some piece of evidence, something we can study because so far you have nothing.

                    • vto

                      Lanthanide, it seems oft-times I struggle to communicate my argument. But you suggest this…

                      “vto, your argument appears to be “science might one day prove some thing which I’m going to label “astrology”, and therefore because it’s possible it might happen in the future, it means we should accept it as fact now”.
                      We don’t have to accept anything as fact if there’s no proof for it. To do otherwise is faith.”

                      No, not quite. I am not saying we have to accept it as fact today at all. But there is perhaps an element of what you call “faith” which I am suggesting may in fact be an “observation”. Or also, it appears to me that many many things which have been dismissed as lunacy over the milleniums (a round earth, the earth going around the sun, life in space, continental drift, even evolution, and even soon maybe a form of God) have turned out to be not lunacy at all.

                      I will predict that soon a form of God will be scientifically proved (and probably before astrology).

                      I also rest a small part of my musings on an inherent trust in human instinct, which is also a form of what you call ‘faith’ I guess. We sense things which cannot be scientifically measured. Yet. But science is catching up fast ….. as it has been doing for a while.

                    • vto

                      Unfortunately I have to go again – the wild nowhere beckons for a few daze ….

                      One final thing: do you think the world that you are measuring these items of evidence from has the correct ruler and measuring tape for measuring that evidence? If your ruler is Euclidean then it can only measure in a Euclidean manner ….

                      thanks for the views

                    • TheContrarian

                      “Or also, it appears to me that many many things which have been dismissed as lunacy over the milleniums (a round earth, the earth going around the sun, life in space, continental drift, even evolution, and even soon maybe a form of God) have turned out to be not lunacy at all.”

                      Again, you making false analogies which i have shown three times to be false.

                      All of the above – a round earth, the earth going around the sun, life in space, continental drift, even evolution, and even soon maybe a form of God (expect God) can be studied. we can measure the earth, the drift on continents, speciation and make models regarding the likelihood of alien life but there nothing about astrology which can be studied so it is not the equivalent of the above examples.

                      This has been explained to you already.

                      So once again, give us some evidence of astrology which can be studied.

                    • vto

                      Ok I will say it one more time contrarian and try and make it as particular as I can for you by way of example

                      contrarian: ” a round earth, the earth going around the sun, life in space, continental drift, even evolution, and even soon maybe a form of God (expect God) can be studied. we can measure the earth, the drift on continents, speciation and make models regarding the likelihood of alien life”

                      Which Africans marching up the Nile and out of Africa studied, measured and made models of a round earth, life in space, the drift on continents?

                      Were they using Euclidean geometry or something else? Did they believe the cosmos was form of physical reality, or did they believe it was hocus-pocus and that the sun was a god?

                      Or do you simply believe that we have observed and measured everything already and that is it…. all remaining hocus-pocus will forever now be hocus-pocus. We are at the peak of observation.

                      logging off … really this time …

                    • TheContrarian

                      And once again you misunderstand everything, raise objections that have been answered several times, fail to provide any supporting evidence for your position and end with a straw-man.

                    • McFlock

                      vto,
                      this debate started because someone claimed that Farrar’s star sign meant Farrar had certain explicitly-specified personality traits.

                      That claim is bunk and was shown to be bunk decades ago.

                      This isn’t looking for some unknown force or effect, like xrays in medieval times. This is examining any correlation between specific observations within well-known and well-described criteria (birthdates and orbits), and other equally well-known and well-described criteria (exhibited personality traits). No correlation. If there is an effect, it is trivial compared to things like upbringing, society, genes and even the weather.

            • Lanthanide 5.1.2.1.1.2

              vto, you know that the thousands of airplanes flying around in the sky exert a greater gravitational pull on humans living on earth than any other planet in the solar system, and certainly any distant stars?

              Why then do we not have aerospace charts, that plot the relative distances of all of the planes in the world at the instant of someone’s birth, so that we can plot that person’s trajectory in life based on the gravitational effects of those planes?

              Because it would be completely insane. It’s also not romantic or mystical.

              • wonderpup

                So are you saying that when the 11:20 Auckland to Christchurch is rising in the east, I have a better chance of having an improvement in personal and work relationships? Man, you might be on to something. Does it matter if if its an ATR?

          • Populuxe1 5.1.2.1.2

            Apparently the tides think something astrology.

      • Mike the Savage One 5.1.3

        I cannot speak for the “contraversial nebulae” though, dear Contrarian, you may have some info about the planet wher e you come from, and I invite you to share.

        • Populuxe1 5.1.3.1

          I believe he’s from Planet Sane. Where, pray sir, are you from?

          • vto 5.1.3.1.1

            Planet Sane? Where the official story was always that the earth was flat because science hadn’t realised yet that it was in fact round?

            the official story

            we go full circle

            always believe the official story

            • Gosman 5.1.3.1.1.1

              It is a fallacy that people thought the world was flat till science came along. The concept of a round earth predated the development of the scientific method by many thousands of years,

            • Populuxe1 5.1.3.1.1.2

              The “official story” in this case is called “science”.
              http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8313026
              Statistically it’s crap and the weakarse gravitational influence of a planet hundreds or millions of miles away measured against arbitrary groups of stars each varying numbers of light years away has diddly-squat impact at the birth of a baby which has been developing since very roughly nine months previously.
              Although if it’s any consolation, you appear to be talking out Uranus.

              • vto

                Sure. And there is no life elsewhere in the cosmos because science hasn’t found evidence of any yet ………

                eh

                just keep believing the official story pops – that’s the way that humans have advanced. Sure. You’re onto it.

                • Populuxe1

                  Um, no – extraterrestrial life is a statistical probability based on scientific observation and deductive logic.
                  Astrology is a steaming sack of horseshit.
                  There is no relationship between the two except that stars may be involved.

          • felix 5.1.3.1.2

            TC may be from Sane but he sure ain’t from Observant.

            He doesn’t even know that the lunar cycle has physiological effects on humans. Sheesh.

            • Populuxe1 5.1.3.1.2.1

              Farrar is prone to menstrual cycles?

            • TheContrarian 5.1.3.1.2.2

              “He doesn’t even know that the lunar cycle has physiological effects on humans.”

              Apart from where I said the lunar cycle has a physiological effect on humans. But hey, so does the sun. And the weather. But I don’t see anyone rushing to try predict ones personality based upon the weather at their time of birth.

        • weka 5.1.3.2

          Mike, you ommitted to share that Peters is an Aries, and we all know what that means.

  6. dimebag russell 6

    Because winston is dashing and debonaire and is a hit with chicks while he farrar is a snivelling little tory kiss ass suckup with zits.

  7. Disraeli Gladstone 7

    The amount of conspiracy theory building on both sides is getting insane.

    We’ve hit peak conspiracy.

    • wonderpup 7.1

      I would like to suggest “trough conspiracy” as more appropriate. I would also like to suggest the influence of the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion.

  8. peterlepaysan 8

    Actually Farrar was remarkably polite about Winston Peters today on Nat Rad Jim Moragh Panel session.

    It would be interesting to see what Matthew Hooten thinks of it all , given his admiration ogf Winston.
    methinks the Nats are seriouslt thinking about being nice to Winston

  9. SPC 9

    This goes back to the 1990’s when NZF campaigned as an opposition party in 1996 and then went into coalition with Bolger’s National.

    Farrar became linked to the post coalition Shipley crew, that included NZF waka jumpers, thus the Horan’s of this world are his bread and butter.

    The Horan whispers are supposed to be a reminder of past issues that cut NZF support to below 5% (use of party leader funds etc)

    • SPC 9.1

      His 1990’s political background.

      staff in Ministerial Services under Jim Bolger (1996–1997)

      Prime Minister’s Office under Jenny Shipley (1997–1999).

      At National Party Head Office (1999) – election presumably.

      Two of the issues of the day were the break-up with NZF in 1998 and the new Shipley policy of increasing super by the CPI rather than keeping the connection to net average wage.

    • Tracey 9.2

      Dont under estimate the lingering hatred over the winebox,labour and nat fingerprints were all over that hence the collusion to shut winston down.

  10. ianmac 10

    Farrar is not so obvious in his obsession of Peters but certainly Garner is passionately obsessive.

  11. finbar 11

    Fear.

  12. Paul 12

    This post could easily be re titled why do right wingers hate so much?

  13. great article Geoff old WP is a bit of a worry…anything could happen

  14. Gosman 14

    Why isn’t it possible that David Farrar dislikes Winston’s politics and political style so he writes about him in a negative manner occasionally? There doesn’t have to be any conspiracy behind it. I see this as the left wing equivalent as right leaning people claiming the Standard is the mouth piece for the Labour party (or at least certain parts of it).

  15. Tracey 15

    presumably horan is job hunting right now? Nationals list is out isnt it? So he presumably isnt doing a Tau.

    But he is making himself attractive to the plethora of people in nz who hate winston.

    • geoff 15.1

      Before the election might be a tad obvious, but ol Brendan has got to protect his fat salary so maybe 2015 he’ll jump ship. depends on whether he’s been a good little boy for Johnny.

  16. Sanctuary 16

    Farrar is a grossly over-entitled political parasite, a Wellington courtesan who loves being near power and exercising power and imaging he can manipulate the powerful. As an unelected player, he joins the Gowers and the Garners and the rest of the incestuous parasites on the democratic establishment who are drunk on the idea of being able to exercise their power without fear of any responsibility or of being held accountable by democratic means.

    The trouble is though is that by being mere unelected parasites they all have no meaningful mandate. They exist in the game they are addicted to by the merest of threads – threads of influence and patronage and employment. Lose their job, fall out of favour, see your patron lose the election and suddenly they are nothing.

    So like all of the staggering drunks at that particular power party, the thing they hate and fear the most is an outsider who might call time on them and shut their cosy little gathering down. Hence the loathing of Winston, the insider-outsider.Hence the scorn and ridicule thrown at the IMP.

    When the courtesans and jesters and parasites to power hate and fear you, you just know you are onto something good for the country.

    • Gosman 16.1

      Kiwiblog and Curia did just fine prior to the 2008 election. David Farrar doesn’t seem to need political patronage as you imply.

  17. Chooky 17

    David Farrar is John Key’s Mini – Me !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me

    ….and of course Farrar hates Winston because his boss hates Winston!

    ….and John Key hates Winston because he knows Winston despises him and will NOT form a coalition with NACT and will go with Labour if given the chance!

    Quite apart from this, David Farrar is a poseur ( his latest persona is that of a widely travelled urbane mountain climbing trekker…i kid you not!) and he hates Winston because he is authentic!

  18. Marius 18

    Deeper than deep. Deeper than the ocean, deeper than the notion that the world was flat when it was round.

  19. Gosman 19

    Thie title of this post could equally be turned around to read “Why do some contributors to
    The Standard obsess about David Farrar so much?”. It is as if you can’t stand any person expressing a political viewpoint other than a left leaning one.

    I’ve stated this before but it deserves another airing, There is an intolerance streak in leftist politics which is quite ugly and potentially dangerous.

    • geoff 19.1

      There is an intolerance streak in leftist politics which is quite ugly and potentially dangerous.

      Classic!

      • Gosman 19.1.1

        Is it not intolerant of opposing views to express the opinion that people like David Farrar should not get time to express their views on media such as Radio NZ National?

      • wonderpup 19.1.2

        This mirroring of criticism of right wing politics back to the left really grinds my gears. The right accusing the left of intolerance, like the implications of labour party racism over immigration this week, just demonstrated for me how little the right actually understand the issue.

    • And yet, your comments are regularly allowed to stand, right here, on the insular, intolerant, censorship-ridden Standard. Ain’t that a thing?

      • The Real Matthew 19.2.1

        From what I’ve seen Gosman is the most heavily moderated contributor to this site.

        Whilst others make all sorts of threats and wish hatful things upon John Key with no moderation whatsoever.

        • Tracey 19.2.1.1

          More than pete george?

        • Murray Olsen 19.2.1.2

          What threats? You have a vivid imagination, or are you just copying Key in thinking that it’s true because you say it?

        • phillip ure 19.2.1.3

          “..others make all sorts of threats and wish hatful things upon John Key ..

          well..y’see matthew..key is the douchebag who has been asset-stripping our country..

          ..and selling us out to the american spooks..

          ..(as just two of his litany..)

          ..are you insisting we also say nice things about him..?

          ..and not ‘wish hateful things’ on him..?

          ..good luck with that..eh..?..

        • Tracey 19.2.1.4

          Can you point to the threats against mr key and the wishing of hateful things on him by

          “others” “with no moderation”

      • Tracey 19.2.2

        Plus 1

  20. dimebag russell 20

    yeah but its not fair and balanced. Radio New Zealand has fallen into the hands of a sad little gang of righties scared of their own shadows. They know all the words but they dont know the truth about anything and dont want to.

    • srylands 20.1

      “Radio New Zealand has fallen into the hands of a sad little gang of righties ”

      Seriously?

      • Gosman 20.1.1

        Yeah many lefties here seriously think that srylands. They don’t really give much thought about how the right has achieved this dominance over a supposedly independent government agency and especially in the editorial team of the News section. They do think it has something to do with Richard Griffin but don’t really expand how he can have direct or even indirect influence over operational appointments.

        • J Mex 20.1.1.1

          If you line up 2000 people who are passionately left and 2000 people who are passionately right, and run a survey about whether they think TVNZ/National Radio/Herald are left leaning or right leaning, I suspect you would get close to 2000 people saying one thing, and 2000 people saying the other.

          It isn’t useful.

          We all tend to subconsciously think that when the media are ‘having a go’ at ‘our team’ they are being biased, but when they are ‘having a go’ at the ‘other team’ they are, well, – reporting the news.

          Go to Kiwiblog, and they will be banging on about ‘Communist National Radio’ and ‘Red TVNZ’.

          Here, there’s been a ‘Right wing takeover’ at both

          It’s facile and boring.

          • Gosman 20.1.1.1.1

            Yep. That to me suggests the balance in the media is about equal. The fact both sides bitch and moan about supposed bias.

            • J Mex 20.1.1.1.1.1

              Pretty much. But what I actually can’t work out is whether people say what they say about media bias because of a lack of self awareness/objectivity, or whether they say it to make themselves and others feel better about ‘their team’. Or – more likely, a combination of the two

              My view is that ‘the Media’ are in the business of selling advertising, and attracting/keeping viewers/listeners so will publish/broadcast stuff that achieves those things, and will have people in their organisation who are left/right/central/indifferent.

              It’s just absurd to have people passionate and vehement about how biased THE SAME media organisations are, on both sides of the divide.

              • Gosman

                What I find absurd is people on the left complain about supposed bias in the MSM yet their solution is to have the government intervene to try and remove it instead of setting up an alternative media source on their own (this and some other websites excepted of course).

                • Blue

                  It’ll never happen, it would mean some sort of effort would need to be made. Its much easier to throw tantrums and say “BIAS”.

  21. Brokenback 21

    Farrar pushes the brandkey line 24/7.

    Brandkey exists because of the slagging/character assassination they did on Winston in 2008 .

    They would not have got the seamless silent press treatment on their legislative program 1st term with Winston in the house .

    Brandkey has an abiding and valid fear that Winston will gobble massive amounts of their conservative regional/rural support , where life is no where near as wonderful as they claim.
    The result of which will be be not only loss of the treasury benches[ which is looking increasingly likely] but a rout of the magnitude of ’99.

    They’ve got nothing to sell to the electorate and a well funded campaign by Mana/Internet to mobilise the 2008/11 Non-voting block will see them gone .
    When they can’t massage/fabricate the Poll results in their favour because the shift against them is too great their blind support by the 6pm news consumers will evaporate.

    • Gosman 21.1

      In your world National won’t just lose this election but also lose massively. Is that correct? If so it is a very strange world you live in.

      • Brokenback 21.1.1

        I live in regional nz and times are tough.
        Drystock farming continues to yield poorly , Raw log prices are declining rapidly and our absurdly overvalued dollar reduces returns significantly on all primary produce, the young have fled en masse.
        The rural rump has very little in common with the auckland national cabal and are genuinely alarmed at the rate at which rural land is being gobbled up by the Chinese , fertile ground for winston
        Its a real & distinct possibility that they will desert in droves and very much at the core of Brandkey’s ‘Play the man, not the ball’ strategy.

        • geoff 21.1.1.1

          That’s why an urban money trader like Key is completely out of touch with his party’s traditional, rural base. He can’t relate to the rural experience.

    • seeker 21.2

      And Broken back-
      I was so stunned at the onslaught in full view on TV that I began recording. I recorded every attack and spin from all political reporters aided by Rodney Hide, and eventually every pas de deux key performed with guyon espiner until the day after the election Espiner stood outside the gallery and actually said “we did it” ! “we” . I had never realised Espiner was a national party member of parliament although he might just as well have been!
      I had begun to have my suspicions that he was a member of the national party in fact by the time key got into parliament I had begun to believe that unless you voted National you would not get or keep a job at TVNZ, you HAD to be on the same page and spin the same lines. Only Fran Mold and Kris Faafoi seemed slightly untainted. Scott Campbell along with the obvious Garner on TV3 I had gleaned was out for Key and he eventually went to staff for Banks in his mayoralty bid.
      Everyone else, starting with the inaccurate and unwarranted attack on Peters from his McCain interview by Espiner and Barry Soper followed and morphed from there.
      Suddenly I was very aware of ‘nz politics’. I had been familiar with spinning and stinging attacks on anyone but thatcher and her acolytes by the many Murdoch owned papers in Britain but I had never seen TV political journalists go after a political party before and be so obviously more and more in cahoots with an opposition party trying to get into power . Even Espiner’s friend Therese Arseneau was wheeled out for extra ammo!
      How these people have got away with it I don’t know and are now still in positions of real access to the mind of new zealanders and able to spin and “”propagate as Tony Benn once said of thatcher “rotten values”.

      Oh yes – it’s probably to do with the people in power at the moment………..

      Thank God for MMP because that can play havoc with electoral outcomes and even the Nacts can’t control it completely ,although they did try by using Peters and their spin to tarnish it.

      PS I had known nothing of these people when I started observing their behaviours in late 2007 or thereabouts, but by the time Owen Glenn was also wheeled out, I said, having heard and watched his “testimony” at the special privileges committee and seen a ghastly documentary on him, that he was out for himself and if National came to power he would get a knighthood out of this (instead of Monaco). And as we know, he did.

  22. Well Goseman the gallop polls tell us that the Nats are home and dried .Having spent the biggest part of my working life in the horse racing industry I can assure you more “dead certs”have been beaten than havew won.
    I find the polls mind boggling because I ask the people of the Waikato their views on this government and the answers are not in favour of National , This from the Waikato so what would it be like in the real poor areas.Im not expecting a land slid ut I would not be surprised,

    • Gosman 22.1

      Seems to me you are trying to have a bob each way.

    • Brokenback 22.2

      My experience exactly.

      There was a “spike” in local/general political conversation when Parker released the policy on RBA and there’s no doubt that the doublespeak on housing policy contained in Budget 2014 was squarely aimed at limiting policy debate of any kind.

  23. dimebag russell 23

    so national will lose and davey the fatboy will be really pissed off an winston singin’ maghty lak a rose!
    tee hee.

  24. reason 24

    Thanks to this thread I now have a disturbing image of Farrar being the court eunuch ‘ Varys’ aka ‘ the spider’, from the Game of Thrones ……….. just out of interest does he get around in silk robes ?

  25. Awww 25

    I think I saw DF on FindSomeone(?)

  26. Clean_power 26

    Enough to say that Farrar hates Peters and NZF as much as he hates Labour.

  27. dimebag russell 27

    farrar hates everyone. thats the nub.

  28. Best ever thread on The Standard. I love the side-track into astrology.

    I guess it would be far too simple to ask me directly why I dislike Winston as a politician.

    It goes back to the early 1990s when he defamed numerous people under parliamentary privilege, including several neutral public servants. He once made the mistake of repeating his lie outside Parliament and got done by Selwyn Cushing for defamation.

    I was a member of the Young Nationals Executive that in 1992 (off memory) asked the Party’s National Executive to expel Peters from the party. So the conspiracy theories about Brendan Horan and the like are amusing, but rather off the planet.

    I could also add on half a dozen other reasons for my dislike of Peters (which is rare – I like most MPs) such as his splitting up the Coalition in 1998, his lies over the Owen Glenn donations, his racist scaremongering against Asians etc. But we don’t have all day. Suffice to say my position on Peters has been rather consistent for 20 years or so.

  29. Just to clarify – did readers here find Peters comparing Brendan Horan to an alleged serial paedophile but being unwilling to repeat those allegations outside the House acceptable?

    • Mike the Savage One 29.1

      KS – you express a lack of insight, as this is NOT a New Zealand or Winston First forum. What a stupid question to ask. Such low level stuff may be considered more common and “acceptable” where some sudden visitors to this blog forum and thread seem to come from.

      Rest assured, Peters’ comparison of that sort did not go down well here.

  30. Charlieboy 30

    I thought those comments unacceptable. Just as I found David Farrar dressing up as Jimmy Saville for a party unacceptable,and put the image on line.But nobody said boo about that. National Radio even keeps him on as a commentator.Its not bloody funny.

    • srylands 30.1

      “National Radio even keeps him on as a commentator.Its not bloody funny.”

      Maybe because he says sensible stuff that resonates with listeners. Go figure.

  31. Radio New Zealand has fallen into the hands of a sad little gang of righties scared of their own shadows

    “Righties” don’t work for govt owned radio stations.

    Nor are they afraid.

    • srylands 31.1

      I simply don’t think of Radio NZ (or most NZ media) in “left” or “right” terms. My complaint with Radio NZ journalism, and their stories, is that they are irrelevant and just plain BAD. Like The Womens Weekly on radio (and the DOM Post has defintely reached those depths).

      I do read international left leaning media if it is decent quality.

    • dimebag russell 31.2

      oh yes they do and thats what really pisses them off. the fact that that it isn’t laid on for them and their sense of entitlement still does not mean that they dont have to work.
      they are not plutocrats.
      i.e they have no money.
      ha ha ha fucking ha.
      after all they are just hired hands.
      and of course they are afraid.
      in their heart of hearts they know they are egregiously wrong for being so greedy and if the revolution comes it will be up against the wall muthafucka for them!
      suck on that.

      • Redbaiter 31.2.1

        “it will be up against the wall muthafucka for them!”

        I repeat, only communists would work for a state broadcaster.

        That communists commonly disagree among themselves on matters of ideological purity is not news.

        However, its a bit of a smack in the eye for all of the “socialists” who say they’ve changed their spots to see you advocating for the same course of action towards disbelievers as led to the deaths of around 100 million citizens last century. Really quite damaging to their claims to have learnt from their mistakes.

        I have always said that scratch a modern day Progressive and underneath is the same old mass murdering commie totalitarian.

        Idiots like you make it pretty hard to avoid that conclusion.

        • dimebag russell 31.2.1.1

          that is not a conclusion.
          it is mere assertion after a long list of assertions.
          having a different opinion or better still a complete analysis and profile of any other is not to say that idiots in general make it hard to avoid this that or any other conclusion.
          radio new zealand is staffed by a cadre of sad little right wing tory journalists who are simply shilling for their side for money.
          it wouldnt be so bad but they are all whingers to boot like gluon spineless and suzy fungus.

  32. Charlieboy 32

    So is dressing up as Jimmy Saville sensible? Does it resonate with you? Should RNZ keep on a commentator who thinks such behaviour is a joke?

  33. Mike the Savage One 33

    Behold, oh shock, oh horror, a space ship of aliens has invaded, are they from the constellation of Virgo or from Serpens?

    I fear the latter, a hydra spitting venom, insult and abuse.

    Let’s get the anti venom out and deal to them!

    One David Farrar is shit scared now, as Winston Peters is likely to become not only difficult to fathom and predict, he is becoming much less relevant now, as the new contender on the block, a Internet Mana Party (IMP) is going to stir up the political landscape, and likely bring a surprise of over 5 percent of the vote on 20 September.

    With that Labour and Greens may not even need Winston First, and take over the helm from Key and gang without him. I hear that John Key is on the phone, desperately chatting up one Colon Craig, to jump in and rescue the sinking Titanic.

    He sent his loyal “messenger” and ground tester here, to investigate the more enlightened forum, desperately trying to find out more, and feel the pulse, of forces to reckon with.

  34. Paul 34

    Do the Herald ask David Farrar what headlines they should write and what stories they should feature?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11265426

  35. Brendan Horan 35

    Hi all,
    1)I’ve had no contact with David Farrer.
    2) All questions I’ve asked have been on behalf of people bullied by the leader of NZ First.
    3)I was challenged by media to supply evidence and I did.
    4) My sources are Past employees, past and current party members and former NZ First Party MP’s.
    5)The speaker is investigating the Leader of NZ First and I’m happy for due process and natural justice to run its course.
    Regards,
    Brendan

    • mickysavage 35.1

      Thanks Brendan.

    • Paul 35.2

      Seems pretty petty what you are doing.
      Don’t you think that prioritising getting rid of this government should come above your personal vendetta?
      285 000 kids in poverty and climate change come first, don’t you think?
      Or your personal needs?

      • bad12 35.2.1

        Paul, that’s not nice, Brendan is doing an excellent, albeit rather insipid, job of trying to leverage some of Winston’s voter support base away from Him,

        There’s no gain from undertaking such a thankless task on Brendan’s part,(except utu), should He tho destabilize enough of the NZFirst %,(which i doubt), all those Parties that do enter the next Parliament might dine out on their share of it if NZFirst fails to reach 5%…

        (National i would suggest will NOT be able to form the next Government without NZFirst, Labour/Green/Internet/Mana, now that’s another story)…

    • bad12 35.3

      Brendan, perhaps you could have a dig in your tool-box and come up with a more robust angle of attack on Winston, every little bit helps…

    • are you doing a shane jones..?

      ..making sure you spray/piss on as many people as possible as you exit..?

      ..and for why..?

      ..you’re an ex-weatherman..

      ..you should be able to tell which way the wind is blowing..eh..?

      ..and it’s currently not beneath yr wings..eh..?

      ..in fact..you could be deemed to be pissing into a serious southerly..

      ..eh..?

      • bad12 35.4.1

        Do you have a use for Winston Peters to be in the Parliament after this election Phillip???, he was of political use in the last one but His dishonest ”inscrutable” i am not telling who i will go into coalition with till after the election makes Him the major potential obstacle to the formation of a left wing Government,

        (An unkind person might add Labour into that category as well)…

      • felix 35.4.2

        I have been reliably informed that one does not require the attendance of a meteorologist in order to ascertain the trajectory of a shift in barometric pressure.

    • Anne 35.5

      4) My sources are Past employees, past and current party members and former NZ First Party MP’s.

      Well, if one of those past NZ First employees is Michael Laws, I’d have some doubt about its veracity.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts