‘Labour West’ promoting Little and Mahuta leadership

An apparently authorised Labour group (Labour West) is promoting a ‘Meet Andrew Little and Nanaia Mahuta’ event in West Auckland that currently appears to exclude the other two leadership contenders. The group has strong connections with ex leader David Cunliffe.

‘Labour West’ on Facebook states:

This is the page for the New Zealand Labour Party in West Auckland. Have a look at our posts, check out what our leaders are up to, and visit events.

It has a photo of Labour MPs including David Cunliffe (MP for New Lynn) – the Facebook page seems to have mainly been a promotion for Cunliffe’s leadership and Labour’s election campaign.

LabourWest

Note also the promotion of an event this Saturday – an opportunity to meet leadership contenders Andrew Little and Nanaia Mahuta. Despite the photo including all four contenders it seems that Grant Robertson and David Parker are not included. This seems very odd for a Labour Party promoted event.

The Facebook page ‘Description':

This is a page for West Auckland Labour members and supporters. No parliamentary services money has been used in the construction of this website and if it needs authorisation (which is denied) it is authorised by Greg Presland of 512 South Titirangi Road, Titirangi. Go Labour!

Authorised by Greg Presland, a well known supporter and associate of Cunliffe.

There is also an event page on Facebook promoting this meet half the candidates event – Meet Andrew Little and Nanaia Mahuta:

An invite for westies to meet with Andrew Little and Nanaia Mahuta and chat with them about their aspirations for the Labour Party and what they want to achieve if they become leader.

“If they become leader” is an interesting phrase.

Labour West leaders edit

It’s easy to guess who might be behind this promotion.

There have been obvious signs of some angling towards favouring a Little/Mahuta leadership team at The Standard, where Presland happens to be an author and sometimes posts under the pseudonym ‘mickysavage’.

Although it is under the generic name of ‘Notices and Features’ this event is also being promoted at The Standard.

Meet Nanaia and Andrew in West Auckland this weekend

By: Date published: 11:44 pm, October 29th, 2014 – 5 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour, Nanaia Mahuta – Tags: , ,

Labour West are hosting an event this weekend where you can meet two of the Labour leadership candidates:

Meet Nanaia Mahuta and Andrew Little

5pm to 7pm Saturday 1 November

Ghazal restaurant, Glen Eden

An invite for westies to meet with Andrew Little and Nanaia Mahuta and chat with them about their aspirations for the Labour Party and what they want to achieve if they become leader.

Facebook event details here.

The West Auckland husting is a week and a half later, on 10 November at the Massey High School Performing Arts Centre. Facebook event here.

One can presume who is responsible for that post.

While it is not unusual for The Standard to be taking sides in leadership contests or attempted coups it seems odd that an apparently authorised Labour organisation is promoting two contenders – and excluding the other two from an event that is obviously leadership contest related.

John Key on ‘Rawshark’

The biography John Key: Portrait of a Prime Minister has been updated with a new chapter. In it Key claims to know the identity of ‘Rawshark’, the hacker who illegally obtained data from Cameron Slater.

John Armstrong at NZ Herald reports John Key ‘given Rawshark’s name’.

The Prime Minister believes he knows who hacked Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater’s computer and produced the source material for Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics, according to a new edition of a recently published biography of John Key.

In a new chapter in John Key: Portrait of a Prime Minister devoted to this year’s election campaign, Mr Key is quoted as saying: “Someone phoned and told me who the hacker was, but other than having a look at this person, I thought, ‘Oh well … nothing will come of it. Life goes on’.”

Mr Key did not divulge the name of the person to the biography’s author, senior Herald editorial writer John Roughan.

Asked yesterday whether the PM had referred the name to the police investigation into the stolen emails, a spokeswoman for Mr Key said that though he believed he knew who the hacker was, “he cannot be certain”.

The spokeswoman said the PM had had no involvement in the police inquiry, which has included a lengthy search of Hager’s Wellington home.

If Key has been advised of the identity of “Rawshark’ it would be surprising if the police haven’t been given the same information.

“Someone phoned and told me” is sure to raise questions and accusations about who phoned Key, with Cameron Slater being an obvious candidate.

However a lot of people will have some sort of contact with Key so it could be any of many.

And with an apparent identity in circulation it seems likely the police will know about it, there have been rumours for weeks that they know who it was.

Open forum – Thursday

Thursday 30 October 2014

This is open to anyone with any topic. It’s a mostly political blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome.

Some basic ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised.

Chris Hipkins on the election result and Labour’s future

Chris Hipkins, MP for Rimutaka and Labour’s Chief Whip, gave a speech in today’s Address In Reply – he congratulated National on an election win that gave them a clear mandate, he acknowledged Labour’s poor result and some of their poor efforts over the past few years, and he detailed what he thought Labour needed to be and needed to do do.

Speech – CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)

Draft transcript – Wednesday, 29 October 2014 – Address in Reply debate

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. Can I congratulate you on your elevation to your new role, and can I congratulate the National Party members on their re-election as the Government. It is not the election result that I was out there campaigning for, but I do want to acknowledge that it was a clear election result and congratulate them on that.

I would also like to thank the people of Rimutaka for once again investing their trust and confidence in me to be their elected representative in Parliament. It is a tremendous privilege and an honour to represent the people of my home town, and I look forward to doing so again over the next 3 years.

As I mentioned, it was a disappointing election result for the Labour Party, and I want to acknowledge that, and I say to the New Zealand public “message received”.

Clearly, the Labour Party in recent times has not been speaking to the hopes and aspirations of a wide enough section of New Zealand society, and that is a challenge that we need to take on board as we head through the rest of this parliamentary term.

New Zealanders want to hear us talking about the issues that matter to them, but New Zealanders also want to know that if they work hard they will be able to get ahead, and that there is a Government in place that rewards the hard work and effort of all New Zealanders, not just those at the top.

New Zealanders want to see the Labour Party being a voice for the people who are struggling at the moment and working hard but not able to get ahead to create a better life for themselves and their families.

That is what the Labour Party has always stood for, and that is one of the challenges that we face in this Parliament—to return back to some of those basic principles upon which the Labour Party was founded, and to speak to the hopes and aspirations of a much broader range of New Zealanders.

I said that we should be celebrating success and we should be ensuring that those who work hard are able to get ahead. I want to quote, rather unusually perhaps, or rather controversially, Frank Underwood, the chief whip in the American television series House of Cards.

Hon Maggie Barry: Now you’ve got our attention.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right—he is a great role model. Frank Underwood said that those of us who have done well in life have a responsibility to send the elevator back down. I think that that summarises a lot about what the Labour Party does stand for and what we should stand for.

Yes, we should be celebrating the success of those who have done well in life, but having done well in life we then have responsibilities to others around us to ensure that they have those same opportunities that we have enjoyed.

I have little time for people who boast about being born in a State house and then seek to sell off State houses and remove those vital social services from future generations.

I have little time for people who talk about how they dragged themselves up by their bootstraps, raised themselves, and relied on the State support that was available to them, and then seek to limit those same State supports to future generations of New Zealanders. That is pulling up the ladder behind them and it is blatantly unfair.

There is nothing wrong with them being proud of their success—they have every right to be. My challenge to them and my challenge to everybody else is to ask what they are doing to share opportunity around so that others have that same opportunity. That is the challenge for this Government.

I similarly congratulate people who have done well in business. I think that creating a business, building a business, and being successful in business is a fantastic thing, and it is something we should encourage and reward New Zealanders for doing. But we should also recognise that businesses exist within communities.

Yes, it is great that somebody has built a business and has made him or herself into a successful business person, but we should never forget the fact that they are using a workforce that was educated by the rest of us. The education of their workforce was paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. They transport their goods on roads paid for by everybody. They have their property rights protected by law enforcement agencies paid for by all of us.

So, yes, it is great that we celebrate the success of businesses, but businesses exist within communities and businesses and those who create them and run them have responsibilities back to those communities as well. We should be looking at both sides of that equation.

It is great to celebrate success and we should do that more often, and I have no hesitation in saying so, but we should also talk about the reciprocal responsibilities that come with that. We should do that as well. There is no doubt that New Zealand faces some big challenges, and we are going to have to address some of those over the life of this Parliament and beyond.

We have a significant change in the demographics of our population, as our population gets older. Our older New Zealanders have the right to security in retirement, and dignity in retirement, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that our settings around that are sustainable into the future.

As we have more and more New Zealanders leaving the workforce and into retirement, and as we have more and more New Zealanders living longer, with the pressure that brings on the health care system , we need to make sure we can continue to pay for that, so that it is not a hollow promise.

And yes, it might be politically convenient to push those debates aside in the short term , but in the longer term we are going to have to address those, and it is better to have an honest and open discussion about that now rather than pushing that away for future generations to have to confront.

We do need to talk about how we lift New Zealand’s economy up the value chain so that we are creating higher-value jobs.

I have lost count of the number of people whom I have spoken to in my electorate who say: “We are willing to do the heavy lifting. We do not mind getting out there and working hard, because we want a better life for ourselves and our families, but no matter how hard we work at the moment we cannot get ahead. We cannot get a foot on the property ladder. We cannot provide all of the things that we want to be able to provide for our kids.”

Those are ordinary, everyday New Zealanders who are happy to do the hard work, they are happy to get out there. They just want a Government that makes sure they have the opportunities. And that is what the Labour Party stands for. We want to say to those New Zealanders: “We stand beside you.”

In the Labour Party we want to make sure that the opportunities are there so that those who work hard can be rewarded and can get ahead.

In the Public Service we have a challenge here with a Government that is overly focused on measurement and is only focusing on the things that can be easily measured, rather than on many of the things that are important. In education, for example, it is easy to focus on what can be measured.

So we can have a measurement that says that every child has to achieve national standards and get National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 . What happens if they leave school and still end up going on the unemployment benefit at the end of it? Surely the thing that we should be focused on is the outcomes, and the outcomes are more difficult to measure, and therefore manage, than the outputs, if you like, in the form of qualifications.

These are the honest and real debates that we should be having. We in the Labour Party will be holding the Government to account in this term of Parliament.

We recognise the election result that has delivered the National Party a clear mandate to be the Government, but we have a responsibility to hold the Government to account, and we will do that.

We will hold it to account when it sells off State housing, as National has done in the past.

We will hold the Government to account when it tries to inflict employment law changes on the vast bulk of the working population that benefit the few and penalise the many.

We will certainly hold them to account on issues around foreign policy and stay fast and true to the principle of New Zealand being a proud independent country that makes its decisions on foreign policy independently.

We will hold the Government to account on issues around child poverty, because in a country that is as rich as New Zealand—and although we might not always feel it, we are a rich country—there is simply no excuse for children to be growing up in this country living in poverty. I want to acknowledge over the last few years that the Labour Party has not always put its best foot forward.

We have sometimes struggled with the challenges of balancing Opposition with proposition.

We have two roles here. One is to point out where the Government is going wrong and hold it to account, but the other is to be proposing alternatives, and we need to make sure that we do that in a positive way.

I also want to acknowledge that it has been difficult to provide space for robust internal democracy whilst also presenting a unified and coherent vision to New Zealanders, and I think we will need to redouble our efforts there.

We need to make sure we look outwards to the half a million New Zealanders who used to vote for the Labour Party and now vote for someone else.

My message to all of them is: the Labour Party is back, we want to talk to you, we want to engage with you, and we want to know, quite frankly, what it is going to take to get you to reinvest your vote in the Labour Party. I think that is the discussion that we will have over the next 3 years.

To conclude—it is a fantastic honour and a privilege to be back in the House representing the people of the Rimutaka electorate. I thank them once again for the opportunity to serve and represent them.

I would be dishonest if I said I was not disappointed with the election outcome. I would far rather be sitting on the Government side of the House than on this side of the House, but I have received, like all of my colleagues, the message that the voters of New Zealand have sent to us, and I can tell this Government that it is in for a tough 3 years.

We will be rigorous in holding it to account, and we are absolutely resolved and determined that in 3 years’ time we will be over there on the Government side, and they will be over here.

That is the challenge that is ahead of all of us. We will certainly be focused on that because I believe that New Zealanders deserve better. John Key has failed to deliver them the brighter future that he promised them, and the Labour Party will be holding him to account for that.

Air shot #3 – Peters versus Key

Winston Peters was the third in line to take a swipe at John Key over “Dirty Politics” yesterday and he was the third to miss the mark. He sounded more like Mr Cranky than the leader of the opposition he claims to be.

4. Government—Transparency

[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:4. Text is subject to correction.]

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader – NZ First) to the Prime Minister : Is he committed to an open and transparent Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Consistent with an open and transparent Government, when will the Prime Minister assure the public that at no time did his staff provide inappropriate services to the National Party whilst employed at the public expense?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : That would be a matter for the party, but I do not have any advice or any evidence to support the idea that they have done anything other than act totally professionally.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister about his staff. That is not a matter for the National Party. It is to do with his staff, for whom he is responsible.

Mr SPEAKER : The difficulty I have with the question that has been asked and the answer that has been given is that it is asking now for a level of specificity that cannot be expected to be given by the Prime Minister in light of the very open and general question that was asked in the first place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked whether, consistent with open and transparent Government—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I have heard the question. [Interruption] Order! Resume your seat. I have already ruled, in respect of the first supplementary question, that in light of the generality of the primary question that the question has been addressed by the Prime Minister. The way forward is to continue to ask further supplementary questions but not to question the Speaker on the adequacy of the answer that has been given. I invite the member, if he wishes to, to ask further supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling on the adequacy—

Mr SPEAKER : Then I will hear the fresh point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : My point was that the Prime Minister’s answer was that it was a National Party matter. In my supplementary question, if you look at it, I am asking for an assurance about his staff, so it cannot be a National Party matter—or is he condemned by his own statement?

Hon Gerry Brownlee : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have to consider the entire answer, in which the Prime Minister said that he expected them to maintain professional standards at all times.

Mr SPEAKER : The way forward is the advice that I have given to the member. If he has further supplementary questions, he should ask them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Consistent with an open and transparent Government, when will the Prime Minister advise the public of all the facts pertaining to Mr Jason Ede’s services to the National Party whilst employed at the public’s expense?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : When questions are appropriately asked, they will be appropriately answered.

Peters must know this sort of question is easily avoided.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Consistent with an open and transparent Government, when will the Prime Minister give the public all the facts about—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The difficulty I have is that it was only during about question No. 3 when a Government member again asked a supplementary question without leading with a question word. We cannot have one rule for Mr Peters—

Hon Gerry Brownlee : Yes, but he knows better. He’s been here a long time.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I accept the right honourable gentleman should know better, but equally Mr David Bennett has been a member of this House for some time as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Consistent with an open and transparent Government, when will the Prime Minister give the public all the facts about his staff’s services to the National Party’s Jo de Joux whilst employed at the public’s expense?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I have not seen any advice that would confirm that the National Party has done anything other than spend taxpayers’ money appropriately and legally.

Hon Dr Nick Smith : What did Brendan Horan say? Look at your own house.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Is it not a fact—well, actually, we were exonerated, turkey.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! That is a good lesson to that quarter of the House of what happens when you get an interjection through a question. Would the right honourable gentleman simply ask his supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Is Jo de Joux, a National Party campaign manager, deeply implicated in improperly acquiring services from his office’s staff?

Mr SPEAKER : I invite the Prime Minister, if he wishes, to answer, but I cannot see any prime ministerial responsibility in that question. I will leave it for the Prime Minister to answer it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I have no authority for that, and I refute the proposition.

Maybe Peters is playing a longer game, or he is not as sharp as he once was, that didn’t seem to get anywhere.

He looks cantankerous and toothless. So far he has failed to step up into the opposition leadership vacuum.

Key had little difficulty batting away the third air shot at him of the day.

Air shot #2 – King versus Key

Annette King was the second to try and hit John Key over “Dirty Politics” in Parliament yesterday but she also missed the mark.

King is currently Labour’s interim deputy leader and is acting leader in the House.

2. Prime Minister—Communication with Blogger

[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:2. Text is subject to correction.]

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister : Did Cameron Slater provide him with the information that led him to say on 12 February 2014 in Parliament regarding the Rt Hon Winston Peters that “I will accept that member’s word that he did not discuss untoward things when he went to the Dotcom mansion three times.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No. As I said at the time, I can read. I believe the reference came from an item I read in the New Zealand Herald on 7 February 2014.

This refers to Rachel Glucina’s The Diary which asked:

Questions of the week

1. Did Winston Peters visit the Dotcom mansion for secret meetings? Don Brash and Russel Norman have confessed to get-togethers in Coatesville, but Peters was playing coy yesterday when The Diary phoned. Rumours that he went there three times are “false”, he says, but he refused to specify if he’d been there at all.

Hon Annette King : When he said on 14 February at a press conference regarding the specific details of calls he made to Cameron Slater that he would “have to go and look at my files”, were those files ministerial files or does he hold files regarding his interaction with Cameron Slater in his capacity as a husband?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I can certainly confirm that I am not married to him and I do not have any files.

The flippant husband comment made it easy for Key to parry this question off.

Both Peters and Dotcom claimed that they had been spied on. NZ Herald report on this and Key’s media conference in PM hints tip-off came from Cameron Slater

Mr Key has earlier denied it was a spy agency, but would not say who told him, although he said it was not someone in the National Party. He said somebody had contacted him about it, and there were reports of the visits in the Herald by Rachel Glucina and on Cameron Slater’s Whaleoil blog a week ago.

“Contrary to what [Peters] might want to believe, I can read. A member of the public, for want of a better term rang me up and said what was the case. I assumed it was right. I said it, it turned out to be right. I didn’t think it was that controversial, to be honest.”

He would not confirm it was Mr Slater, but said he did speak to Mr Slater “every so often,” and had called him earlier this week during which they briefly discussed Kim Dotcom. He said that did not mean he agreed with everything Mr Slater wrote on his blog. “I speak to lots of blogsters [sic].”

He said no public agency was involved. “And if there was, it would be an immensely serious thing. It would see the end of myself as Prime Minister and the end of the Government.” The NZ SIS are not supposed to spy on or have files on sitting members of Parliament.

Mr Key said he would be happy to see any evidence Mr Peters had that it was a spy agency and was happy to comply with any inquiry into it. However, he did not believe Peters’ genuinely thought he had been spied on.

“It might suit Mr Peters to try and set some little squirrel off to ensure nobody looks at the issue of why he misled the NZ Herald or why he wouldn’t answer the questions.” On February 7, Mr Peters had dismissed Glucina’s questions about three visits as “false”.

Mr Peters has said that surveillance was the only way Key could have found out about all three visits.

Slater claimed to have informants from Dotcom’s staff. I don’t think has pursued his spying claims.

Hon Annette King : Was Cameron Salter correct when he wrote last week that the Prime Minister is always the Prime Minister or he has double standards; if not, does he explain to Mr Slater when he texts and calls him that he only talks to him as a private citizen?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Actually, Mr Slater is correct about one thing: I am always the Prime Minister for areas where I have prime ministerial responsibility. I am also always the leader of the National Party. I am surprised that the member does not know that, because Helen Clark used to lecture this House about that difference all the time. But maybe the member does not remember that, or maybe this is the reason why Labour is polling so badly—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! That answer will not help.

Hon Annette King : That’s right, get stuck in.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I have not called the member yet. Supplementary question—Hon Annette King.

Hon Annette King : Well, has he ever called or texted Cameron Slater in his capacity as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, I do not believe so.

Hon Annette King : Well, try this one, Prime Minister. Did he give instructions to his ministerial colleagues to avoid ministerial responsibility when asked embarrassing questions about contact with Cameron Slater; if not, is he aware that Judith Collins in July this year denied texts, phone calls, and correspondence with Mr Slater in her ministerial capacity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : In answer to the first part, no. The only embarrassing thing is the way that Labour performed in the election campaign.

It has been claimed by a number of people and implied by Slater that National MPs have been advised to avoid association with Slater. Most shouldn’t need the risks pointed out.

But King’s question was more snarky than probing and was again easily dismissed.

Hon Annette King : In light of the review that is now under way into Judith Collins and the release of information to Cameron Slater, will she be excused if she uses the Prime Minister’s excuse that she was not acting as a Minister when she passed on information but she was acting as a private citizen?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : That is not what the review is in relation to.

Again King seems to be trying to make a political point rather than probe Key with questions.

King swung and missed.

Air shot #1 – Norman versus Key

Three questions in Parliament yesterday tried to hit John Key over “Dirty Politics” but they all missed the mark.

The first was by Russel Norman, who was primed by a Speaker ruling last week that described what sort of questions should get a response from Key rather than avoidance.

Norman sharpened his spear and was careful to relate the question to Key’s job as Prime Minister, but a well prepared Key parried it off easily.

1. Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger

[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:1. Text is subject to correction.]

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader – Green) to the Prime Minister : Did he tell Cameron Slater that he recognised the mother of a car crash victim—a young man described by Mr Slater as “a feral”—from his Pike River meetings?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, as I stated publicly when this matter came up during the election campaign. I would note that I did not use the language paraphrased in Mr Slater’s stolen emails.

Dr Russel Norman : Was Cameron Slater correct to tell Television New Zealand that the Prime Minister texted Mr Slater to say that the Prime Minister recognised the mother of the dead car crash victim Judd Hall as being the same person he had encountered at Pike River meetings?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I do not believe that to be correct. I believe that the only conversation I had with him in my capacity as leader of the National Party was one on the telephone.

Dr Russel Norman : Why did the Prime Minister text Mr Slater to say that he recognised the mother of the Greymouth crash victim Judd Hall, described by Mr Slater as “a feral” who did the world a favour by dying? Why did the Prime Minister give that information to Mr Slater?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I do not believe I did. As I said, I had a phone conversation in my capacity as leader of the National Party and as part of that phone conversation the particular woman in question was raised. From memory, I said to him that I recognised her from Pike River. That was the extent of it, as I recall it. I do not have a copy of my text messages.

Dr Russel Norman : Is this the correct sequence of events: he was notified that Whale Oil had posted an answerphone recording of Mrs Hall on Slater’s blog, he listened to the recording and recognised Mrs Hall’s voice from the Pike River meetings, then he contacted Cameron Slater to tell him he recognised her?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No.

Dr Russel Norman : Given that he recognised Joe Hall as a mother from Pike River who had lost a son in a mining tragedy, why did he not put on his prime ministerial hat and offer his condolences over the death of another son rather than contacting his friend Cameron Slater to gossip about her instead?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I made it quite clear at the time that I did not know the particular details of this story. I just simply said in passing that I recognised her.

Dr Russel Norman : Will he now admit that he was the Prime Minister when he texted or phoned Cameron Slater to talk about a women who had lost all four of her sons; and will he say sorry to Mrs Hall?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No; I was leader of the National Party. What I said was that I recognised her, and that does not deserve an apology, just as the member himself was the leader of the Green Party when he went grovelling up to the Dotcom mansion.

Dr Russel Norman : Why did the Prime Minister not behave like a Prime Minister on hearing that this was the mother who had lost four sons and actually offer condolences to that women, instead of contacting the attack blogger Cameron Slater to offer him information about this woman—instead of behaving like a Prime Minister who should have offered condolences?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : The member should stop making things up.

Norman’s problem, as was Nicky Hager’s, is that he doesn’t have damning evidence that directly links Key to specific actions.

So he has resorted to trying to guess what might have happened and hope that Key might admit to something.

Key will be confident that Hager used the worst of the illegally hacked communications and there is no whammy waiting to wallop him.

With a lack of success so far it will be interesting to see if Norman keeps trying on this. Without coming up with anything new it is starting to look like futile flailing.

Whatever Key may or may not have done there is just not enough evidence to nail him.

Open Forum – Wednesday

Wednesday 29 October 2014

This is open to anyone with any topic. It’s a mostly political blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome.

Some basic ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised.

Berners-Lee on staggering hate on the web

Tim Berners-Lee played a major role in establishing the Internet as we now know it. He has expressed dismay at how hateful some people are in their use of the world wide web. I feel a bit the same way.

The Guardian reports in Tim Berners-Lee: hateful people on the web are ‘staggering':

Speaking to BBC News, Berners-Lee said that it was “staggering” that people “who clearly must have been brought up like anybody else will suddenly become very polarised in their opinions, will suddenly become very hateful rather than very loving.”

I don’t expect people to be “loving” on political blogs but the degree of apparent hate and open nastiness does stagger me.

The Internet seems to bring out the worst of some people, and this is sadly prevalent in politics in social media.

Nastiness is all to common at blogger level and commenter level. At times it is flaunted.

Two of New Zealand’s most prominent blogs promote their nastiness, with Cameron Slater (Whale Oil) and Lyn Prentice (The Standard) often boasting about and promoting their nastiness.

That’s a very sad look for the New Zealand political blogosphere and it sets a very poor example which is followed by others.

Our political leaders should set good examples. We would be far better served by or political social media if they led by good example and cut the hatefulness.

There will always be political polarisation (most pronounced amongst a small minority of activists) but it serves us very poorly.

Clare Curran survey: 1 = not at all related

Clare Curran has a 2014 Post-Election Survey on Survey Monkey that suggests a failure to understand what when wrong for Labour in the last election, but is an inadvertent indicator of why Labour has lost touch and lost support.

It has four questions repeated:

1. From your perspective, which core theme or policy area was the most central to Labour’s campaign this past election? (you will have the opportunity to list up to three other core themes or policy areas later in the survey)

4. From your perspective, what was another core theme or policy area that was central to Labour’s campaign this past election? (you will have the opportunity to list up to two other core themes or policy areas later in the survey).

7. From your perspective, what was another core theme or policy area that was central to Labour’s campaign this past election? (you will have the opportunity to list up to one other core theme or policy area later in the survey).

10. From your perspective, what was another core theme or policy area that was most central to Labour’s campaign this past election?

My guess is  that the number of ordinary voters interested in responding to any of these questions would be close to 0% – but what is her target market for this survey?

There is no sign of it on her web page, nor on her Facebook page. Nor on her Twitter, which has this profile:

Dunedin South Labour, communications and IT, regional & economic development. Never gives up on impt stuff.

For someone into communications her activity on line has been very sparse lately. Her last tweet was on October 8, her last post on Facebook on October 18.

Each of her survey questions asked for this feedback:

How well did this theme or policy area relate to issues that matter to you, with 1 = not at all related, and 5 = extremely related?

How well did this theme and policy area relate to issues that matter to your neighbours, with 1 = not at all related, and 5 = extremely related?

The survey is probably 1 = not at all related to me but I don’t think “themes or policy areas” were Labours main problems – failing  present themselves as a credible potential leader of Government and failing to relate to voters were far bigger issues, and if this survey is any indicator then 1 = not at all related continues.

When I first decided to get involved in politics I approached Clare to see if she was interested in fresh ideas and input – this was just after Labour’s loss in 2008 and I thought they would be keen on re-establishing relevance with voters and rebuilding.

That offer stills stands, but this survey doesn’t look promising, it appears to be 1 = not at all related to what Labour need to be doing.

(This survey was brought to my attention by two journalists on Twitter who were far from complimentary about the survey).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers