Little slammed and slammed again

The Little payment debacle seems to have been played down here. It’s an awful look for Andrew Little and will take a lot to recover from.

The problems are detailed by David Farrar: Incompetence from Little and Labour

1. Hiring a right wing journalist to advise on your Labour Party leadership campaign in the first place
2. Not paying him promptly when invoiced on 10 November
3. Not responding to the next three e-mails from Cohen asking to be paid
4. The Leader’s Chief of Staff gets involved on 22 December and doesn’t get it paid that day or even tell the Leader
5. Two weeks later still unpaid, and COS gets e-mailed again.
6. Another three weeks goes by and it is unpaid, and the journalist (NB journalist!) has to e-mail again
7. The COS finally tells Little at the end of January and Little doesn’t get it paid that day
8. Another week and another reminder and still no action
9. Little gives a speech on how Labour wants to help small businesses, infuriating the self-employed journalist who e-mails again, now angry. Warning bells should be ringing loudly by now.
10. Two more weeks later Cohen writes an article in NBR that appears in their print edition last Friday complaining he has not been paid. The incompetence is so huge that this does not result in a payment being made by end of day, but is ignored
11. Four days later Steven Joyce raises the non payment in the House and finally it is paid
12. When confronted over the bad look for the Labour Leader to not be paying a worker the money he is owed, Little gets angry at the media and demands they call him a contractor not a worker!

Farrar also points out:

The public rate competence well ahead of ideology.

It’s not just the public who will be querying his competence (in particular the small business part of the public that Little is targeting for support).

But when the media spot incompetence they punish it. And when they get a bad reaction from their target they punish that too.

And a comment at Kiwiblog slams Little some more.

Little’s leadership campaign was a personal campaign and nothing to do with the Labour Party machine per see, so McCarten isn’t to blame at all. Thius is Andrew’s mess pure and simple as the CEO of his Leadership Campaign…..

Little should have had his campaign staff organised with a simple Accounts Payable spreadsheet recording all entities engaged, their tasks, agreed costs, whether those costs had been paid in part of in full, contact details etc.

The fact his staff weren’t organised and didn’t under take simple management of the engagements and costs indicates Little doesn’t have good organisational skills and/or good leadership skills – as obviously his campaign staff cocked it up completely and the work of his staff is a reflection of him interms of staff selection and management

He then compounds it by getting angry with the media. Why just not say yip organisational snafu by the campaign team, just found out about it and have paid up.

And then to top it off the Contractor v Worker BS. Personally as a CONTRACTOR myself I find his characterisation of a CONTRACTOR as not a WORKER bloody insulting!!!! Just because I’m not a Corporate/SME employee or a Unionised employee doesn’t mean I don’t damn well work for a living and am therefore not a WORKER.

Andrew thanks for confirming I shouldn’t listen to Labour any more – you have confirmed if I’m not an employee then I am not someone you give a damn about except as a potential source of additional taxes to fund your redistribution dreams…

Oh and great job distracting from Nationals multiple mismangaments of issues lately [Sabin/Sky City] I am sure Joyce will shout you a drink in Bellamys in thanks….

Little’s learning curve suddenly turns his public image to looking far less favourable.

And to top it off Cameron Slater gets in a payback dig:

And Cameron Slater points out of course that one of the condemnations in DIRTY POLITICS was that certain journalists did work for politicians, and lobby groups, and other interests without clearly revealing full authorship.

Rachinger previously

Following from the previous thread on Ben Rachinger I’m tracking backwards, recording this in case it disappears.

Sunday:

Standard operating procedure worldwide, attack the whistleblower & family, or set up honeypot trap.

Ben Rachinger:

Oh I know this one well.

I’m estranged from my parents since police came to the door looking for Rawshark. In October.

Well before I ever said anything publicly. Imagine senior cops at your old and conservative parents door.

As for honeypots…. I’m not a bee anymore and I know exactly what I’m doing. Estrangement radicalised me

Police thought you are Rawshark – morons.

Ahhh it’s more than that but nothing I couldn’t handle. I.e. Please report on all your friends.

Police were alright. Just the system we live in.

Monday:

It’d be amazing if Kiwis started talking about what they want in a new Political Party/System instead of giving the stagnant ones airtime.

About to school y’all why you should never play Mutually Assured Destruction with someone who doesn’t like power, money or living like you!

I first had interactions with C Slater in early 2014. I made the “Smoke and Mirrors” video series and he blogged them

I then subsequently was involved in discussions with C Slater about joining Freed Media, his new venture.

As a member of the inner circle of the Dirty Politics crew, I was privy to a lot of information. Bad quality but

I should have prefaced this with a NB. NB. Cameron Slater has been good to me at times. This dump isn’t about him. No low hanging fruit.

Anyhow, that’s just establishing my bone fides. I’m taking you down, Key. Your shit stinks and I’m not tolerating it any more

At some point I’ll tell you what the going rate for inter-party hacking and website takedowns is. Also who in MSM and Left is complicit.

This goes out to all my friends, allies and those who walk in solidarity. Im finally manning up

Farrar. Looking forward to showing New Zealanders about you, the Man who the PM thanked on election night. Sunlight is a beautiful thing

Even though the NZ Police came to my door… It was on 3rd party info. I have nothing against the Police. Unless they protect corruption.

It’s embarrassing how long NZ was prepared to let this shit go on for, don’t you have better ambitions for your children’s futures?

This is what my encrypted messaging app looks like (some redacted). Yeah. That’s right.

Embedded image permalink

And so it begins.

Embedded image permalink

I thought about leaking to a MSM journo but after checking the files, I could only find two that were clean. Can you imagine that problem?

People are never satisfied. Never.

Hey Mr Farrar, , got anything to say about this? Before I comment.

Embedded image permalink

Ok, I’ll comment The fuck planet are you living on dude. You think you and John rule us? State hacking on cits? Looked like it.

Parliament needs to be dissolved. This year.

Fair warning on my ambitions.

I haven’t even started on the ‘hostage’, the ‘blinded trust’ or the Left yet.

You have been lied to. Extensively. Knowingly. Fuckthatyes

Hey Trotter, you sweating yet brah?

Q: Who told Slater about a “left conspiracy” to have him suicide/anhero?

A: Chris Trotter

Solution: Fucking prove it, Trotter.

I could have called myself Rawshark or some fancy name and dumped this on you…

Or I could just be Little Old Me. No masks, no drama.

why have you chosen the whale over say, the bomber or Andrea Vance? – genuinely interested

Feb 16

Bomber is easy to pen and easier to understand. He’s essentially neutered. Vance, I cover later. She is NOT pure as snow.

haha interesting times indeed! Wouldn’t have thought of WhaleOil as a beacon of morality?

Haha he’s not. But he knows the really bad people.

Does Cam have stuff on Farrar & Key? Or just the left and MSM? Anywayz, thnx for the follow! I eagerly await whatever’s coming

On everyone. Hopefully he mans up and we clear the field.

Back to the main thread:

If its really an issue, someone else will take it up.

Goodnight, fragile and apathetic folk.

And following that: Ben Rachinger versus Cameron Slater

Slater still smearing National Northland contender

Cameron Slater has continued a smearing line of attack via Whale Oil on one of National’s nominees to stand in the Northland by-election. This can mean any of a number of things, in particular is it a paid for line of attack?

In contrast David Farrar has listed The five nominees for National in Northland

Mita Harris is the Chair of the Northland Conservation Board. A member of Ngapuhi, he stood for National in 2008. He is involved in numerous heritage, recreation and conservation projects in Northland.

Matt King is a local farmer, businessman and former police detective. He sought the nomination in 2011, and runs a private investigations company.

Grant McCallum is a local diary farmer and an elected board member on National’s Board of Directors.

Mark Osborne is the general manager of the Te Ahu Trust.

Karen Rolleston has stood for National in previous elections. She is the CEO of 3P Learning, and lives in Kumeu.

I’d say Karen and Grant are the front runners but all five candidates are credible and strong, and it will come down to the 120 local delegates, as they meet them and hear from them over the next fortnight.

That’s typical of Farrar’s insight and relative fairness with Party business.

In contrast Cameron Slater continues his dirty smears on one of them in NATIONAL’S NORTHLAND NOMINEES.

When he attacks like this one becomes curious about whether one of the other candidates is paying him to dish out the dirt or if he is just annoyed his client didn’t make the cut.

Or it could be he’s still just feeling dirty about being shunned by National and is lashing out and stiring things up.

‘Rod’ commented:

So National selects its candidates on the grounds of drinking capacity, or whether or not they have the potential to impinge on the careers of others. Silly me, I thought they would be looking for someone who would be a good representative for the people of Northland.

Slater replied:

Every electorate wants the “next PM” or at the very least someone of “cabinet material”.

Mostly they are often very disappointed when the brilliant candidate they thought they selected turns into a bit of a useless twat.

Most electorates will be realistic enough to realise they won’t get rhe “next PM”, and they will know cabinet positions take time and need to be earned.

They will initially want someone who will represent their electorate well, and see where things go from there.

It’s always a lottery choosing an MP (or a party leasder) – they are all untried so it’s difficult to know whether they will shape up or not.

Slater’s judgement on who might turn out to be a useless twat has to be taken with a grain of salt.

He’s not exactly the most useful twat in politics right now.

Ironically Slater posted on Facebook yesterday:

I’m about done with lying, thieving, disloyal scumbags.

I’ve no reason to believe he’s a thief but it’s likely many in National would readily apply the rest of his descriptions to Slater himelf.

‘We shouldn’t choose out head of state because…’

David Farrar fomented some more happy mischief yesterday with An activist King?

Our future King of New Zealand – a messianic zealot with a saviour complex. And we don’t even get a choice as to our next head of state as we have a system where the UK decides effectively decides it for us.

Let’s just have a Governor-General appointed by Parliament for a five year term.

He got a typical reaction from the elderly English demcgraphic at Kiwiblog.

Some seem to think we can bypass the nuttier options and go straight to the darlings of the celebrity circuit but that’s not how an archaic heriditary monarchy living in the past on the other side of the world works. We get no say at all on who ‘our’ queen or king is.

One of the stupidest arguments against choosing our own head of state instead of having one foisted on us is ‘We shouoldn’t choose out head of state because…’

Those deemed unacceptable to a small far right troupe of traditionalists include:

  • I’ll bet Gareth Morgan is chomping at the bit right now.
  • King Helen or Queen Little Andrew would soon eventuate if we did
  • And who do you have in mind as that parliamentary appointed Governor General? Helen Clark? Jim Bolger? Richie McCaw?
  • Remember those who want a republic will have to endure Helen Clark as President. A vote for a republic is a vote for Helen Clark as President of Aotearoa New Zealand
  • Torn between Jim Bolger (too old) and Helen Clark (too militant), so at the end he will end supporting the pompous Geoffrey Palmer
  • Helen Clarke (the most common bogey head of state suggestion)

Warning of a dire head of state if we got to choose our own is as stupid as demonising democracy because we might get a Helen Clark or John Key as Prime Minister (a position with far more power than our symbolic head of state).

Dirty politics Standard style

A claim that John Key, NZ Herald and David Farrar have all been involved in the ‘dirty politics’ promotion of the meme ‘Angry Andy” has backfired after a failure to provide any proof. Lies, more lies and then resorting to abuse.

A post on Little’s leadership at The Standard quoted a ‘Rodney Hide penned the second piece’ and commented:

Now I know some are reading some Machiavellian “reverse psychology” intentions into Hide’s support, but I think they overestimate both his complexity and his influence. I take the comments at face value, that Andrew Little’s leadership is receiving broad-based support. And that’s good news, because that’s what we need for the Left (as a whole!) to win.

I agree with Anthony (Robins) here (except for ‘we need for the Left to win) but others took to the Machiavellian approach.

This led to a claim by ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ about the promotion of the meme ‘Angry Andy” by John Key, NZ Herald and David Farrar.

As I’ve researched the use of ‘Angry Andy’ it looked to me OAB was making things up so I challenged him to prove his claims. He made lame excuses, diverted, got more lame and ended up resorting to abuse, all common tactics of OAB.

It clearly looks like he lied and kept lying.

Here’s the thread (as it is at the moment):

Incognito 7.3

The way I interpreted Hide’s opinion piece was that he’s trying hard to build a (new) narrative to box in Little. Perhaps the “Angry Andy” narrative wasn’t powerful enough.

  • Pete George 7.3.1

    It was a stupid narrative and only Slater seemed to be trying to push it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1.1

      And John Key.

      And the New Zealand Herald.

      And David Farrar.

      Only they didn’t “seem” to be doing it – I’ll leave the weasel words to you.

      • Sacha 7.3.1.1.1

        Just a beige coincidence, surely. Oh, you mean someone wrote a book last year about similar conniving?

      • Pete George 7.3.1.1.2

        Are you making that up or do you have evidence?

        I don’t remember seeing Farrar use it. Nor Key. Only once by Steven Joyce in Parliament on 26 November (the “cut the crap” day which I thought was good from Little).

        Searching NZ Herald they reported that from Parliament but that’s the only hit on ‘Angry Andy”.

        And only from Slater (frequently) since.

        If you have other evidence I’ll add it to my post.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1.1.2.1

          Yes, I have evidence, gained from one simple Google search using the terms “Andrew Little angry”.

          Google tailors its results though, so I expect you’ll just end up reading interesting facts about beige.

          • Pete George

            Well it will be simple for you to prove it with your evidence.

            And if you don’t I’ll presume you’re buillshitting again.

            • Incognito

              A Google Advanced search on “Angry Andy” on the Kiwiblog site or domain gave me 50 hits. Do you want me to list all 50 links for you?

              • Pete George

                Just the ones made in posts by David Farrar will do.

                I’m well aware of the term being used in comments, sometimes that’s been directed at me.

            • One Anonymous Bloke

              :roll:

              No-one cares what the chief fact-checker presumes. Sad and true.

              Can you do something for me, Pete? Every time you plagiarise my remarks at Yawns, include the following disclaimer, there’s a dear.

              OAB says: get your petty unoriginal shite, right here at Yawns, with Petty George, the beige parrot.

              • Pete George

                So you must have bullshitted again. And have switched to your usual diversion and evasion.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Or, I’m not providing you with links on principle. I told you how to find them, and that was more than you deserve.

                  No wonder your fact checking website was such a complete embarrassing failure, just as everyone said it would be.

                  I’ll post the links if you’ll give me your word that you won’t use them, or any material they contain, at Yawns.

                  Edit: and 3News.

                • Pete George

                  You’re digging yourself deeper. Caught out lying? Unless you can prove you weren’t.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Key, Joyce, Farrar, 3News, The Herald, even Jamie Mackay has no trouble finding the facts.

                  Either find the links yourself, or commit to not using them at Yawns. Your choice.

                • Pete George

                  It seems clear “you are unable to substantiate with some proof”. Hard to see that as anything but a lying smear followed by lame excuses diversions.

                  Thanks, you’ve been helpful.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  What you find hard is none of my concern. What you find credible loses credibility thereby, as a result of your persistent banal unoriginal mendacity, as has been demonstrated here many many times.

                  You’re a liar, your website is a vehicle for lies. My contempt for it is matched by my contempt for you, and what’s more, it’s widely shared. The contempt, that is, not your website.

                  This website’s boring, mindless, mean.
                  Full of pornography.
                  The kind that’s clean…”

                  Apologies to Johnny Clarke

I’ve searched Google and know that OAB doesn’t have some magic version that gives him results no one else can get. I’ve also searched NZ Herald and Kiwiblog, and have found nothing backs up OAB’s claim.

And neither has he found anything obviously. Nor has Incognito come back with anything.

OAB often plays dirty, lies and smears like this. And claims that the left don’t do dirty politics. OAB is worse than Cameron Slater in some ways, although shares his vindictiveness if caught out..

OAB claims to not belong to a party and there’s nothing to suggest he (if it’s a he) is acting for any party.

But OAB is allowed to act like this at The Standard, Lynn Prentice has defended and made excuses for what he does in the past, and let’s him lie and abuse with impunity, as do the other moderators.

This is typical of the worst of The Standard, and commonplace.

Normal blog etiquette is to back up claims with evidence. Standard Rules state this too:

We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so.

They’re only intolerant when it suits them.

Dirty politics is common like this on the left, and they are either blind to it – it’s only dirty if the other lot do it – or they are being deliberately malicious and hypocritical.

UPDATE: Here’s an ironic comment from OAB:

As an author you have more power than the rest of us. I like Lprent’s strategy of re-posing unanswered questions and giving the tr*ll the option of a citation, a retraction, or a ban.

I didn’t see lprent do that with unanswered questions from OAB today. Which is not surprising given lprent’s support of how OAB operates, like here:

OAB is a determined stirrer. It is often a bit like getting a accidental look into a mirror when I read their comments.

Except over the years OAB has been steadily paring down the number of words required to perform their effect.

And considering OAB’s efforts todazy this one from lprent is very ironic:

OAB expresses opinion, links to facts, and I can’t recall them ever putting a quote out of context. That you don’t like what he says doesn’t make it “dirty”. It just means that you don’t like it and rather than arguing (and having to work for an argu!entire), you prefer smearing. To me that is just lazy.

No links to facts and when called on it he went dirty. And for lprent to accuse me of preferring smearing when he allows OAB to smear at wil and he brags about smearing himself is extreme chutzpah.

A follow-up post here: OAB follow-up

An accurate pollster on the payroll

David Farrar posted Is Key on drugs ask du Fresne? at Kiwiblog. He quoted from a column by Karl Du Fresne: John Key: Mr Nice Guy’s unbelievable aura of serenity:

I have never met John Key, but like anyone who follows politics I’ve been able to observe him via the media. And after studying him carefully, I think I now realise the explanation for much of his behaviour. He’s on drugs.

Not the illegal kind, I should stress, but the mood-calming type that doctors prescribe. This may sound flippant, but consider the following.

In the 2014 election campaign, Key was subjected to possibly the most sustained media offensive faced by any prime minister in New Zealand history. Day after day he was tackled by an aggressive media pack trying to trap him on dirty politics, illicit surveillance and other touchy issues.

His answers were often unsatisfactory, which served only to ramp up the media frenzy. But through it all, he appeared supernaturally imperturbable. He patiently batted away reporters’ questions and accusations with his familiar bland inscrutability. There were no meltdowns, no hissy fits, no petulant walkouts.

This was downright unnatural. No politician should be that unflappable. He can have achieved it only by the ingestion of large amounts – indeed, industrial quantities – of tranquillisers.

Cameron Slater explains at Whale Oil that the serenity is based on accurate polling.

No Karl, the serenity comes from having an accurate pollster on the payroll.

That way you know that, despite the baying pack of dogs that is the press gallery, your policy platform is being well received, your party is performing well and that Twitter and Facebook aren’t the real world.

This is why John Key thanked David Farrar on election night, he was the one who provided the information daily to John Key to let him know that Dirty Politics, the plot of the left-wing to unseat his government, wasn’t working as they expected.

I agree. Knowledge may not be power but it can help a lot, if it’s accurate knowledge.

Contrast that with the inept polling and claims by people who should know better like Rob Salmond and David Talbot. Salmond constantly inflated Labour’s real poll results, sometimes by up to 10%, giving his small band of readers and assorted hangers on, including the leadership of Labour at the time false hope.

Inaccurate knowledge can be worse than none.

Serenity comes from accuracy, panic comes from idiocy and losing your head.

Slater can still write insightful posts (if he wrote it).

It is said that Key relies heavily on his monitoring of public opinion as provided by Farrar’s Curia polling. It is certainly going to be more useful than reading blog opinions, which are slanted towards the vocal fringes (except here of course!)

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, 22 January 1820:

…my hopes however are kept in check by the ordinary character of our state legislatures, the members of which do not generally possess information enough to percieve the important truths, that knolege is power, that knolege is safety, and that knolege is happiness.

Key may not always be happy with what happens but he is safely in power for now.

Ugly reactions at Kiwiblog

Comments at Kiwiblog are dominated by intolerance of 1.6 biliion people because of abhorrent actions of a small number of supposed Muslims.

The posts are fine. David Farrar has two posts on the Charlie Hebdo murders. This morning he posted some of the controversial cartoons – The cartoons that 12 were killed for -and commented:

It is important not to reward the terrorists by self-censorship. Only if their actions lead to the cartoons getting more widely published, might they stop.

Huffington Post has the full set.

I don’t like derogatory and deliberately offensive cartoons and don’t fully understand the French cartoons and their context so won’t post them here.

Yesterday Farrar posted A murderous attack on free speech where he links to an early report on the atrocity and comments:

This is basically religious fascism – killing people who do not subscribe to their religious tenets. These killings will have a chilling impact on media around the world – who will self-censor in fear of similar executions.

What would be a great response is for every media outlet in the western world to publish images of Mohammad, to send a signal that the more you use terror to try and create censorship, the more it will backfire.

So he has followed up on that. Reasonable posts. But there is a large and ugly reaction to Muslims in the comments. Farrar suports free speech as a basic principle so allows people to express whatever they like, but a lot of it isn’t pretty.

A typcial comment from EAD

@ DPF – publishing cartoons is not going to cut the mustard and our PC media hasn’t got the balls to do such a thing anyway less they “cause offence”.

This is what years of PC culture does – instead of fighting these bastards and kicking them out of OUR countries, we make excuses for their bad behavior and keep letting them in.

Instead of expressing disgust in this barbaric behavior, we launch “twitter campaigns” to express sorrow or make sure Muslims feel safe #I’llridewithyou.

Currently 40 likes, 4 dislikes.

Unity:

We should take very serious note. We certainly won’t be immune to these ‘people?’. They should be confined to Muslim countries as they not only don’t fit in with our culture but they easily take offence which leads to tragic consequences in all too many cases. As far as I’m concerned I don’t want them in our country as they are not all peaceful as they try to make us believe.

25 likes, 4 dislikes

I posted a media link and said:

The France attacks won’t help the tensions and growing intolrance thoughout Europe.

Attacking and ostracising innocent Muslims is not dissimilar to terrorists attacking people. Both show a lack of tolerance of others.

6 likes, 45 dislikes

A response from EAD included:

You can take your tolerance and shove it where the sun don’t shine. While you’re at it, I suggest you read Classics and in particular Aristotle who had this to say on tolerance:

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society”

39 likes, 4 dislikes

A response from IGM:

PG: Get your head out of your arse . . . you are the type these scumbags gain their support from.

24 likes, 5 dislikes

They are more likely to react against the likes of IGM than get any support from me – I don’t support terrorists at all.

MT_Tinman:

Maybe it’s time for the West to take some drastic measures:

Ban ALL immigration of muslims.
Export ALL non-citizen muslims, be they tourists, refugees, visitors or immigrants.
License ALL practicing muslim citizens.
Ban preaching of religious seperatism (of any kind).
Start treating anyone convicted of terrorism-type offenses the way they treat their victims (public death and dismemberment).
Ban ALL trade with any country overtly (or proven to be covertly) supporting islam in any form.

Now that ME oil is no longer able to hold the world to ransom, if the West as a group plus China take these measures I suspect the actual threat of islam will rather quickly fade.

16 likes, 7 dislikes

Dave Mann:

What would be a great response is for every media outlet in the western world to publish images of Mohammad, to send a signal that the more you use terror to try and create censorship, the more it will backfire.

Yes, that would indeed be a good prong to use in a two-pronged response. The other prong should be for the West, led by France, to nuke the whole area of Iraq and Syria which is currently held by these animals. Pour encourager les autres.

11 likes, 5 dislikes

mikenmild responded to that:

Ah, the first call for millions of deaths as an appropriate response. How about tracking down the actual killers and their supporters and financiers?

10 likes, 21 dislikes

That’s just some examples from the first couple of hours in a long thread.

It’s not all ugly reactive and intolerant.

Nigel Kearney shows some decency and commonsense and gets some support for it:

Splitting people into groups and setting them against each other is a leftist strategy. I prefer to judge people as individuals, irrespective of good or bad acts that have been done by others of the same race, gender, religion or whatever.

We aren’t going to protect ourselves from this kind of thuggery by deporting the guy who runs my local dairy.

14 likes, 3 dislikes

Late in the thread UrbanNeocolonialist commented:

To all those who would recommend war on Islam as the answer; would this be strictly an enlightened bomb them from afar war? Kill all the children babies and other non combatants and let Allah sort them out? Or would you be putting your life on the front line? would you be pushing your families and friends to be on the front lines? You know, a money-where-your-mouth is approach rather than frivolously spending other people’s lives.

War is not a toy you play with. Innocent people die both directly and indirectly from impoverishment, it creates injustices and animosities that are passed on for 50-100 years (during which time some of those aggrieved will get nukes) and lets the worst of humanity – the thugs and psychos – off the leash to wreck havoc (eg see Balkans, Rwanda, Taliban, Iraq …). It costs insane amounts of money both immediately and for the next generation or two as the human and material wreckage is managed, and is in sum the deadly fucking serious use-as-a-last-resort-only stick.

I know this is mostly internet chest beating and you are probably not serious, but for any that are: don’t be fucking idiotic.

Scott Hamilton:

‘I gave a definition of integrate I gave a definition of integrate and spelled out the reasons why it was impossible for
muslims to integrate into any western society’

I can’t find that definition in this thread, cricko. You’ve simply repeated that Muslims are awful for NZ and always will be, and that we should boot the devils out. As Kimbo pointed out, you’re recycling the same sort of generalisations we used to hear about Irish and Chinese.

Nor do I get a sense that you are familiar with any of the various quite different ideological currents and ethnic and linguistic groups that make up the Muslim community in NZ. How on earth can NZ’s sizeable community of Ahmadiyya Muslims, for example, which is outspoken in its rejection of jihadism and active in inter-faith activities, be considered a terrorist threat?

‘My points are self evident to most people Scott’

I think your grasp of NZ public opinion is about as sure as your grasp of Muslim opinion.

So it’s not all awful. And the anti-Muslim segment of Kiwiblog represents only a small part of New Zealand society. But it’s a window into an ugly and intolerant segment of our socety.

David Farrar supports the right of cartoons to offend. He also supports the right of commenters to offend. That’s fine. It doesn’t hurt to see that we we do ugly in New Zealand.

Fortunately in the main New Zealand is one of the most tolerant societies in the world.

‘Dirty Politics’ not defined by Hager

I’ve had a few discussions at The Standard on ‘Dirty Politics’ where like elsewhere some are keen to stricly define what dirty politics is and what should be excluded from any discussions.

Ironically and typically a lot of dirt was thrown my way, after this cartoon was linked and likened to Whale Oil.

I pointed out there was a difference between hacker and blogger the usual sort of attacks were started by ‘weka':

Irrespective of whether Slater fits a techinical definition of ‘hacker’, he doxes people, which puts him in the ‘wreck innocent lives’ box (and yeah, he uses a double sided coin). He also is eyebrow deep in Dirty Pollitics, so ditto.

You, PG, are a dirty politics apologist. Which puts you in Slater’s camp by choice and intent.

Weka then started to try and define ‘Dirty Politics”:

Accusing me of playing dirty? Oh dear, you really are digging yourself a big hole here. You still don’t have a grasp of what DP is do you. Or maybe it’s just that it suits your agenda to muddy the waters and make DP mean something that everyone does, instead of the very specific actions that Slater, Key and co engage in. Which would be another tick on the list of why you’re in their camp.

I said that Hager doesn’t own ‘dirty politics’ and doesn’t get to dictate what applies to it and what doesn’t just because that’s what he named his book. Neither does his fan base.

Sacha:

Pete, there’s a whole book about it. If you don’t understand the difference, best stop talking about it eh.

Dude, Hager invented the term in the NZ context.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with Hager or not, he did get to define what DP means. You on the other hand want to redefine it to suit your own agenda, which makes you a hypocrite as well as a DP apologist and trole.

“I’d prefer to address wider issues of dirty politics”

I don’t believe you. If you did actually want to do that, you would differentiate between DP and the wider issues of how politics is conducted in NZ. Instead you just want to mix it all up and pretend that everyone behaves badly just because they’re rude.

Sacha:

The right deiberately set about applying the term ‘dirty politics’ to anything they could after the election, to neutralise its meaning (another Crosby/Textor ploy?). ‘Miss, she pulled my hair’. Opinion polls suggest they got away with it.

Pete, you’re being a tool of miscreants if you undermine a specific term just like they have done. Find another one if you want to talk more broadly. Better still, create a new one.

From what I’ve seen there’s been more of a campaign to try and restrict ‘Dirty Politics’ to the hacker/Hager election campaign and to attack anyone who points out it’s a much wider issue.

Tracey:

many in the media also seek to redefine it or deliberately misunderstand it. they had many many years to write about it and define it but it is mainly a phrase only in the consciousness of kiwis cos of hagers book.

This is all nonsense. The term ‘dirty politics’ has been around probably about as long as politics.

Duncan Garner wrote Politics is a sleazy business – regardless of who is in power in August just after Nicky Hager launched his book.

It’s worth noting this shadowy attack-politics stuff is not new and not the sole domain of National.

The then Labour Party president Mike Williams took a well-publicised trip to Melbourne to dig dirt on Key ahead of the 2008 election. It backfired: Labour found nothing and subsequently dropped in the polls.

Helen Clark was probably the biggest gossip of them all when she led the country. She leaked and spread rumours about people and even those in her own team – I wonder how her private communications and those of her senior ministers would look splashed across a book. I bet it wouldn’t be pretty.

Her Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels was sacked for allegations ‘‘swirling’’ over allegedly having sex with someone under the age of consent decades previously – it was Clark and her team making them swirl.

Samuels, later exonerated by a police investigation, never got a fair hearing – the ninth floor of the Beehive killed him off. I was with him at his house the night he was sacked – he was devastated and blamed Clark for the dirty tricks.

The murky Left infiltrated a National Party cocktail function in 2008, secretly recorded MPs and leaked them (to me).

I was also involved in a series of stories about former Cabinet minister John Tamihere over financial irregularities at his previous job at the Waipareira Trust which saw him sacked as a minister. When I got home, my house had been broken into. Nothing was taken but all the windows and doors had been left open. TV3 hired a security firm to change the locks, watch my kids at school and investigate the break-in. The firm concluded that someone wanted to frighten me – and we left it there.

I also remember doing business with Labour’s chief of staff Matt McCarten in the 1990s, when he ran the Alliance. Matt was fun and charming – but let’s not kid ourselves, if anyone knew how to run a black ops sting it was him.

Senior Labour ministers and press secretaries rang to point me toward The Standard, a Left-wing blog, to read its vitriol on certain days. Who had written those posts? I’m told many were written under fake names by Labour staffers paid by the taxpayer.

My point is politics is dirty, no matter who is in power. Hager seems genuinely surprised at this. Frankly I’m surprised at his naivety.

Bryce Edwards wrote last year: Political roundup: Dirty politics means we all suffer

When dirt gets thrown around in politics, everyone involved emerges looking grubby.

That was about the Cameron Slater attacks on Len Brown just after the local body elections. Brown didn’t come olut looking very clean either.

In 2012 I posted Repeat of Labour’s dirty politics which amongst other things quoted Scott GN at The Standard:

Nice try Matthew. But you’re wrong. There doesn’t have to be a video. There simply needs to be an ‘idea’ planted into the public mindset. And that has happened. Dotcom has become toxic for this government. Key’s numbers are falling all over the place and that, sir, is the name of the game.

And if you keep going back and back there is more and more dirty politics to find. The Sunday Star Times published Dirty politics and the world wide web just before the 2008 election.

ROCHELLE REES threw some cyber-mud at John Key on the internet “as a joke”. The Auckland computer programmer was astounded at the fuss she caused. Her “harmless little prank” got a lot of publicity and raised hard questions. Was this a case of dirty tricks in cyber-space? After all, wasn’t Rees a former Labour Party activist?

The trouble started when, she says, a newspaper journalist misquoted her as saying she had no party affiliations.

Actually, she had been on the executive of Young Labour for some months last year. “One simple Google search would be enough to bring up my party affiliations. It would be ridiculous to claim otherwise. I’m just not that dumb,” she says.

She can’t remember exactly when she quit her post on the executive, and says it’s possible she still held the post when she planted the bomb (now disabled). But she says it was all her idea and not Labour’s.

Wanganui mayor and former National MP Michael Laws:

Michael Laws says dirty tricks – false rumours, character assassination – have been common in New Zealand politics. “When I stood for National in 1990, anonymous faxes were sent to Hawke’s Bay newspapers [saying] that I’d had affairs – an affair in particular with a journalist, had made her pregnant and then left her. These were sent from post office faxes and were absolutely aimed at white-anting my campaign.”

When he worked as a researcher for National Party leader Jim Bolger he was sent to Wanganui to check out a rumour – spread by Labour as well as by disgruntled Nats – that the local National candidate, the late Cam Campion, was functionally illiterate. Both parties actively promoted rumours about the private lives of MPs on the other side. National had helped spread a rumour that Labour leader David Lange had had an affair with a woman television presenter. Labour had spread rumours about the sexual orientation of a senior National figure. “I was at a cocktail party where a Labour MP was promoting that rumour.”

He was sent to interview a prostitute in Hawke’s Bay who had allegedly claimed that three Labourites had used her services without paying.

A dirty trick is a covert act “that you would be embarrassed about if you were exposed”. When he was a National candidate, he was the target of malicious faxes sent anonymously to newspapers. And when he worked for the National Party research unit, he was involved in gathering dirt on Labour MPs. This was part of a system of deterrence and mutually assured destruction practised by both main parties, he says.

Dirty tricks – the spreading of false rumours, the destruction of rivals’ hoardings – will certainly be part of this election campaign. What is newer, however, is the use of cyberspace – and it is here that allegations of dirty tricks are freely aired.

So dirty politics goes way back with both National and Labour involved in various ways (Winston Peters is a long time pro at dirty politics too).

And bloggers have been involved for years.

The owner of The Standard website, Lynn Prentice, a Labour Party activist, computer programmer for a small Auckland company, and Rochelle Rees’s uncle, says his name has always been on the blog. But other names were kept secret partly to protect them from personal attacks. These attacks – familiar to him from other blogs – became very personal and even involved attacks on the person’s family.

The Standard was outraged in January this year when a photo of the house of John Minto – described on the site as a “socialist lickspittle” – was posted on Whaleoil. “Steady Eddy”, who posted the photo, had been stalking Minto, The Standard said. “People often ask us at The Standard why we don’t post under our real names. Tonight Whaleoil has provided a damn good answer to that question,” the site said.

There were no formal links with Labour, nor was it a front organisation for Labour, Prentice said. “I would say over half the writers are more Green than Labour. There’s a few that are obviously out of the unions. And I’m not really that interested in that. What we’re interested in is going off and writing stuff from a left perspective.”

It was possible some people in the Beehive sent material to the blog. Anyone with a public email address would find “people send you stuff if you can get it out”. What mattered with a blog, he says, is not the name of those who ran it but the quality of the material.

Prentice and Slater are still attacking each other, and their blogs are still attacking opposing parties and politicians.

Both left and right-wing bloggers accuse one another of hiding their real affiliations, and of malice. Slater’s Whaleoil blog specialises in attack videos against Labour and Helen Clark, with images of her manipulated to look ridiculous and with wounding soundtracks added, often with accusations of lying.

“I don’t think my videos are malicious,” he told the Sunday Star-Times. “For a start, I put my name to it, so everyone knows who I am, and I’m not lying about my affiliations… Yes, you could say they’re malicious in that I don’t pull any punches. I call them liars, but that’s my persona online, it’s in-your-face. I don’t see that as being malicious. If I catch out anybody as being a liar, they’re going to cop it.”

Slater has a big reputation of doing much maliciousness as well as building Whale Oil to being the biggest blog in New Zealand.

He and the well-known right-wing blogger David Farrar accuse The Standard of having undeclared links with the prime minister’s department, trade unions and Labour. They also attack a newish left-wing blog, No8Wire, on similar grounds. He and Farrar make no secret of their affiliations, he says.

Slater and Farrar have close connections with National. But the other lot are in on it too.

No8Wire was set up this year by a former employee of the prime minister’s department, Rob Salmond.

Salmond has more recently been blogging at Polity where he is open about his identity.

Dirty politics was not invented by Nickey Hager this year. I’ve been speaking and writing against dirty politics since I have been involved in politics.

And back at The Standard where they claim that John Key using a very limited range of tactics is the solely responsible for dirty politics this is the sort of response you get if you argue against them

You, PG, are a dirty politics apologist.

I’m going with PG as a DP apologist at the least, and probably a major contributor to the problem.

Pete, you’re being a tool of miscreants if you undermine a specific term just like they have done.

Liar. You don’t even understand what Dirty Politics is. Or you dissemble, because it suits your muddle of the road agenda to try and play both sides

Sorry, Sacha, I expect the tiresome lying sycophant will continue to disappoint until banned again.
(that’s from ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ one of the dirtiest regulars at The Standard)

The dirt-mongers don’t react well when their hypocracy and dirtiness is pointed out.

Dirt is still a common fall back position in political blogs.

And ‘Dirty Politics’ was not defined by Hager – to an extent he threw some dirt of his own into the election campaign. Some call him an investigative journalist while others think he is more inclined towards being a one sided and partisan hit man.

Goff to write for Sunday Star Times

Last week Judith Collins started a weekly column for Sunday Star Times. It was promised that someone from ther left would also have a column, and today they announced that it would be Phil Goff.

New columnist Phil Goff goes toe-to-toe with Judith Collins

When we announced last week that Judith Collins would be writing a column for the Sunday Star-Times, it excited comment across the broadcast and digital media.

1) Love her or hate her, Judith Collins is without doubt one of the most uncompromising, no-holds-barred personalities in New Zealand.

We think it’s time to respect our readers’ intelligence and let them make up their own minds on what she has to say for herself.

2) This is not new and shocking. Indeed, there is plenty of healthy precedent for senior MPs writing columns for the country’s big papers – among them, David Lange, Simon Upton, Deborah Coddington, John Tamihere, Jim Anderton and George Hawkins.

3) Finally, for those who believe commissioning Judith Collins was an outrage, I have more bad news … as foreshadowed, I’ve taken on a second MP, too. Phil Goff will go toe-to-toe with Collins in the Sunday Star-Times every week. Goff, once the leader of the Labour Party, has now been moved off new leader Andrew Little’s front benches. Like Judith Collins, he is freed of the constraints of collective responsibility – both of them can call it like they see it. If that means they sometimes criticise their own leaders, so be it. This weekend, the former foreign affairs minister will examine whether Kiwis should be allowed to go take up arms in foreign wars like those in Syria and Iraq.

David Farrar posted on this, saying that after Collins’ first column was published “The outrage on Twitter was hilarious.” It was.

And on this announcement he said “This is hilarious as many on the left regard Goff as a right wing sell out. I look forward to more howls of outrage.”

And sure enough the far left aren’t happy, or still aren’t happy (are they ever?)

At The Standard Phil Ure:

but..but..two rightwing neo-lib/fuck-the-poor warmongers..

..what will they find to disagree about..?

And Mark:

What – Two right wingers having a column in a Sunday paper. You would have thought that they would have gone for someone from the left for balance but why break the habits of a lifetime.

And I checked out one who spluttered the most on Twitter, Giovanni Tiso. But he seems to have taken offence at me posting Giovanni Tiso et al versus Judith Collins a few days ago, when I tried to view his Twitter account I got “You are blocked from following @gtiso and viewing @gtiso’s Tweets.”

Many on the hard left are intolerant of different opinions and especially of criticism. Tiso would probably shut down most of the media and most of the Internet if he could. He tries – after the Collins column last weekend he started a campaign against the Sunday Star Times.

But it’s not hard to find out what his response to the Goff news was.

@gtiso responds predictably:

HAHAHAHAHAHA! oh my God.

Milne must have been on the phone for like six days straight until they got to Goff. Fuck me.

A hard-hitting left wing politician! HAHAHAHAHAH!!! I swear they are trying to kill me. They’ll find my corpse under my desk. HAHAHAHA!!!

I’m dying over here. Goff. Christ. Mr TPP! Hehehehe… [wipes tear] Okay I’m good now.

He might have fancied his own chances of being a left enough balance, but having tried to organise a subscription cancelling campaign against the SST I doubt he would be considered favourably. They are unlikely to pander to the perpetually pissed off.

I doubt whether Tiso and others will be happy until and the government conform to their ideals. Which will be never.

Mike Smith does a dirty on David Farrar

You might wonder if Mike Smith is being paid by the Labour Party to attack David Farrar through The Standard.

Smith is ex general secretary of the Labour Party and has worked in the Labour leader’s office during the last term. Is he still a paid advisor?

He is a trustee of The Standard, and has posted there:

Blowing smoke

You have to wonder if David Farrar is also being paid by the smoking lobby to attack plain packaging – he posts on it frequently. His latest quotes Australian research which the Melbourne Age describes as pushed by the smoking lobby. The post also  links to and misrepresents the views of New Zealand researchers.

“He posts on it frequently” looks a bit of an exaggeration. Smiths search link shows that Farrar has posted ten times on ‘Plain Packaging’ over the past two years, but four of those posts were on food and drink, not tobacco.

I have no evidence suggesting Smith is paid to post this, or has been fed this information from the Labour leader’s office or somewhere in the party.

But Smith has made an unsubstantiated smear suggesting Farrar might have been paid to post by the smoking lobby. That looks like dirty politics to me.

I’ve read a few of Farrar’s plain packaging posts and they seemed like personal comment to me.

And Smith is taken to task by Psycho Milt on his claim that the post “misrepresents the views of New Zealand researchers”.

You have to wonder if David Farrar is also being paid by the smoking lobby to attack plain packaging…

Dunno about him, but they’re certainly not paying me, and my reading of this is that the study he points to is as useful as anyone else’s study on this subject, all funded as they are by lobby groups with agendas, and that the Uni of Otago blog post he links to does indeed categorise plain packaging as “uncertain but possible” in terms of its likely effect.

Big tobacco companies are easy to hate, but that doesn’t mean any bunch of wowsers with an anti-recreational-drug-use agenda is automatically the good guys if theyr’e opposing ‘big tobacco.’ This ‘smokefree by 2025′ bullshit is a huge waste of taxpayers’ money, being doomed as it so obviously is to utter and abject failure – not that any of these wowsers ever accepts that any of their prescriptions for our betterment haven’t worked.

Just have a look at that Uni of Otago post – once plain packaging’s failed, they’re already cueing up measures designed to restrict supply of an addictive product, just as though it had worked for any other addictive drug in the history of the planet.

Smith’s co-trustee at The Standard has been deleting comments that don’t provide evidence for claims:

[deleted]

[lprent: I can’t see any evidence one way or another. That topic is off-limits unless I see a credible link. ]

I don’t expect Prentice to demand a credible link from Smith though. Many attacks and smears are made on The Standard without credible links being demanded.

Whether paid or not Smith’s unsubstantiated smear attempt on Farrar looks like a dirty deed from the Labour camp.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,591 other followers