Te Reo Putake, one of the most dishonest blog regulars at The Standard, has lied again in a thread on the asset sale referendum. He is a unionist from a provincial city, and active Labour Party member. His lie followed several other comments…
There is no need to vote. The assets are gone just like JK said they would during the election campaign. Jobs done. Finito. Find another cause.
Not strictly true. The result should answer the question of whether National did have a mandate for state asset sales. If the answer is no, the next election will be much more interesting.
Greens and Labour have been trying to use the referendum as an extended inter-election campaign leading in to the next election.
They did. They had the policy in their manifesto. They ran on it. They formed a government with a majority made from support parties that also publicly said they would vote for it (contrary to urban folklore, United Dunne did say they would support limited asset sales).
They had a mandate.
And you know what? When Labour + Greens have a majority in 2014 (which they probably will) campaigning on reversing the asset sales (… which I’m not sure Labour will to be honest) then they will have a mandate to take the assets back.
All this talk of mandates is just odd. The only argument for National not having a mandate was if they had sprung the policy out after the 2011 election. That would have been not having a mandate. That would have been worthy of protests, referendums and genuine anger.
That’s the reality of the situation. Opposition parties lost the last election, they failed to stop the Mixed Ownership Model bill passing through with a (slim) majority, but have continued to campaign against it using a Citizen Initiated Referendum. This is the first time parties have so blatantly hijacked the CIR process.
Disraeli Gladstone correctly said: contrary to urban folklore, United Dunne did say they would support limited asset sales but that prompted Te Reo Putake to comment.
Te Reo Putake
“(contrary to urban folklore, United Dunne did say they would support limited asset sales). ”
Yeah, the last bloke to make that claim took the best part of a week to find a single obscure occasion where Dunne kinda said he’d be voting for it. It wasn’t in the literature, it wasn’t in the ads and it appears that Dunne lucked his way through the campaign grateful that nobody pressed him on the matter.
That’s standard lying from Te Reo Putake, as he well knows. He also knows that I won’t challenge his bull at The Standard. I’m probably ‘the last bloke’ he was referring to and I was banned from The Standard for proving a Standard author ‘Zetetic’ wrong – within a few hours – despite ‘Eddie’ efforts to block me. Both also fit the unionist, Labour activist and liar categories.
It began with this post yesterday at The Standard: Dunne angry It wasn’t Dunne who was displaying anger.
Dunne was accused yet again of “voting for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support”. I challenged that and was threatened with a ban if I couldn’t prove it was wrong. So I proved it was wrong. Details are on that thread, and have been well summarised at Kiwiblog: A great own goal and also at Keeping Stock: Threatened for telling the truth.
That exposed a post writer (Zetetic) and a moderator (Eddie) as promoting a lie that I proved they knew was a lie by pointing to comments they made prior to the election.
And subsequent posts:
Zetetic, Eddie, Te Reo Putake – all Labour activists and proven liars. They are from the political school that thinks that if you repeat lies often enough people will think their claims are true.
And their lies are promoted and protected at The Standard. Labour activists can lie with impunity while challenging them risks being attack (that happens frequently) or banned. Chief censor lprent warned Richard McGrath recently:
[lprent: If you want to make an assertion of fact, then on this site it is advisable to link to a source. In this case I have no knowledge of an "explicit warning". In fact I suspect that you are simply lying or at the very least inflating something to a bullshit level.
If I see you do it again, then I'll probably simply ban you for stupid behaviour. I'd suggest you read the policy. This is your warning. In the meantime, since you don't appear to be responding to replies, you're getting moderated until I see an acknowledgement you have seen, read , and understand this note ]
That’s in stark contrast to people like Te Reo Putake who can make false claims repeatedly without limitation.
But blatant and obvious liars get reputations for being, well, liars. Lying is one of the things that most voters like least in politics.
And what seems to escape the labour activists and The Standard is that this reflects very badly on the Labour party they think they are promoting.