An LF admirer

I don’t bother with Kiwiblog’s General Debate much these days, it mostly seems to be the same old names and same old arguments. But I had a browse last night and find a couple of gems from ‘Reid’ from Tuesday. First a vote of support for Lauda Finem:

Good old LaudaFinem strikes yet again, shedding sunlight on a topical issue where our useless, idiot, pathetic, cowardly and very very stupid moronic media, utterly, yet again, fail to, in any and every single way possible. This time, explaining the background to the aussie deportations: the vital why, not the what, but the why. The critical and crucial element to the issue that, yet again, our vapid Fourth Estate not just glosses lightly over but completely fails even to mention, let alone explicate in detail. A task that this intrepid overseas website does again and again and again and again. It’s one of the best news sites in NZ.

They might not appreciate him saying “in New Zealand”.

And then in response to this…

I know you’ve mentioned Lauda Finem for a different reason, Reid, but do you have any idea why the people behind that blog are currently at war with Pete George? I’ve checked out Pete George’s blog and, well, let’s just say that he’s under siege.

…he launches into a same old style rant.

No I don’t. But at a guess the beige badger almost always gets the wrong end of the stick and that’s fine. For example with his rape culture meme. However what’s not fine is he then gets on his high horse just like his hero and mentor Dunne. So not only is he wrong but he’s also self-righteous.

That’s similar to how Lauda Finem do things, making things up and repeating  them (this is old repeats from Reid) – it’s called deliberate lying.

Which also, I suspect with LA, would be fine too. But where he then crosses the line is that in his roaring galloping self-righteous mentalism (which is in fact, logic and all things Holy actually totally incorrect every whichway you can imagine), he then picks a personal target which in his insanity personifies his outrage over “x” and in his weak, pathetic and most importantly dishonest disengenuous proceeds to do his level best to take down his target, using whatever means at his disposal.

Of course he’s such a moron it’s like being mauled by an arthritic church mouse with cancer on their deathbed about to die that same evening but even so, because of his idiocy combined with his insanity, the target is invariably innocent, and I think that’s why LA are doing what they’re doing.

Funny. And ironic.

Of course I don’t know, I’m guessing. I don’t know them, I have no association with them apart from admiring their contribution to the NZ media fabric which is considerable and if they read this, thank you.

Reid calls most people sheeple amd morons because they don’t agree with his claims the world is about to end, but admires LF. Says a lot.

But that’s my theory on it.

FWIW I was surprised to read those posts too. I thought PG is such a profound lightweight, why bother, who cares what he does. I wouldn’t have personally, given the weight of most of the issues they target.

BTW, I know you pointed me to an article the idiot once wrote about me. I’ve never read it and I never will, for the abovementioned reasons. Life is too short to waste time on thinking about thoughts emanating from a fool like him.

He wasted quite a few words not thinking about me.

He later comments:

Cows don’t try to jump open gates nasska.

That’s why.

Compared to sheeple cows can solve quantum physics and space travel and would get every single Nobel prize for both this and the next century, compared to the collective mind-power were it all combined, of sheeple.

So naturally I don’t want to honour actual sheeple by pretending they’re as brainy as a cow.

They might misunderstimate their total and actual stupidity in the scheme of things, and start thinking things such as: Shillary would actually make a really good POTUS, and such-like.

Then where would we be.

Plus I don’t give a fuck about equality and in my personal life I try to be as evil, cruel and unequal as I can possibly be without getting arrested, just cos I can.

Perhaps that’s why he admires Lauda Finem so much.

Three year poll trends

David Farrar has posted Public Polls October 2015 at Kiwiblog, which combines all public polls over the past three years.

There’s details in Farrar’s post, but at a glance:

National have their ups and downs but are mostly staying within a 45-50% band. If this continues being on an up swing at election time will be important. After three terms they could just as easily drop below the ‘single party plus a handfuil of support seats’ zone.

Labour have recovered from last year’s election low and currently seem to have settled into a low thirties zone, with more fluctuation than any time over the last three years. They need to lift into at least the 35-40% zone to look like a lead party rather than part of an alternative bunch.

Greens are also fluctuating more apart from their post-eelction spike, but there’s signs their support has eased back a bit.

Unusually for NZ First they have maintained their election level of support and appear to be trending upwards.

Contrasting views on Cunliffe speech

David gave a speech yesterday in Parliament’s General Debate. There have been two contrasting posts on this:

‘Notices and Features’ at The Standard: David Cunliffe on the state of the media in New Zealand

Ir wasn’t exactly on the state of the media, it did mention the media a bit but was more a reflection on the state of Cunliffe feeling sorry for himself and for Labour and looking for something else to blame.

There’s some fairly mixed comments. Here is one of the more complimentary:

David Cunliffe is correct in every aspect in what he delivered in that speech.
Well done.

Where the hell is the Media in not high lighting these facts ?

Democracy , how the hell can we say that this country is still a democracy when it is obvious it is not.
We are being controlled by a slimy few from the inner National Party.

Never, ever has there been a more devious Govt.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog: The Cunliffe conspiracy theory on why he lost.

David Cunliffe gave a speech last in Parliament’s general debate which sounded more like a blog post on a left wing blog.

It didn’t take long for it to become a speech posted on a left wing blog.

Farrar points out a few errors and questionable claims.

Don’t expect a speech like that from Cunliffe at Labour’s conference.

If you want to waste five minutes of your life listen to the speech:

Failure to adequately disclose authorship

In Stuff fails disclosure test David Farrar holds Stuff to account at Kiwiblog for failing to disclose that the author of an article promoting a Forest and Bird promotion was the online communications coordinator for Forest & Bird.

There is an article at Stuff called Ten things you never knew about New Zealand’s birds.

…I then noted the author was Kimberley Collins, and I realised (as I knew Kimberley worked for Forest & Bird) that it is not an article by a journalist, but an advertorial by Forest & Bird. But nowhere is it disclosed.

…what is wrong is the Fairfax didn’t put a statement on the article saying Kimberley is the online communications coordinator for Forest & Bird. If you did not happen to know this (as I did), then you would assume it is an article written by a Fairfax journalist called Kimberley Collins.

In this case it was relatively harmless but at best it’s sloppy from Stuff.

It’s not as bad as Whale Oil attributing posts to Cameron Slater when they have been written by someone else with a political or commercial agenda.

But it doesn’t adequately inform readers of the connection an author has with topic of a promotional article.

Repeaters posing as reporters is poor practice.

Rank the flags

David Farrar is running a non-scientific online survey on flag preferences:

Rank the six possible New Zealand flags

I’m doing an unscientific web survey to gauge people’s preferences when it comes to the six possible flag options New Zealand has.

The survey is at SurveyMonkey –

You need to rank all six options.

Once concluded I will publish the results and also the preference flows from each option, so we can see people’s second and other choices.

Vote early but only vote once.

The Wellington City Council is flying the five flag options we get to vote on in the postal referendum next month.

celia and flags

Stuff reports:

Red Peak response tepid as Wellington council unfurls flag options

Red Peak has fizzled with the public in a flag-off above Wellington, as silver ferns drew delight.

Wellington City Council ran up all five contenders for New Zealand’s flag above the Town Hall on Monday to boost discussion on the options.

And Radio NZ:

Flag designs fly high over Wellington

Wellington is attempting to raise more debate and interest in the national flag referendum.

Today all five flag designs, which people will choose from, were raised in Civic Square in the capital.

Wellington mayor Celia Wade-Brown said it was important for the public to see the flag designs on display and how they worked in a practical sense.

“What I want to see is a decent turn-out, so that the one that goes up against the current flag really is the one that people want.”

The five alternative designs to replace the current flag are put to the test in Wellington.

UPDATE: Farrar has now posted his poll results – NZ Flag survey results

Beehive salaries versus total costs

A narrow and misleading article on ‘rising salaries’ in ministerial offices plus a kneejerk reaction from a supposed Government spending watchdog, Taxpayers’ Union, who was contradicted by one of their founders.

Sunday Star Times have an article on increasing staff salaries in Ministerial offices in the Beehive – More than a third of officials in the Beehive now take home six figure salaries.

Staff working in the Beehive have pocketed healthy pay increases since National took office, with more than a third now earning six figure salaries.

Official figures show that the average salary of Ministerial Services staff working in the offices of Ministers hit $93,298, an increase if more than 5 per cent over 2014.

They chart the increases:


That looks like rampant increases.

Since coming to Government, National has pledged restraint in the public sector.

However a public sector representative questioned whether the same message was being felt by those doing the bidding of National ministers.

Same message – unrestrained increases.

Jordan Williams, executive director of the Taxpayers’ Union said most of the staff in the Beehive were “of a secretarial support” nature.

“It seems extraordinary to us that [they] are remunerating so well, and that the salaries are so top heavy,” Williams said.

“With more than one third of the Beehive support staff earning more than $100,000 it appears being a spin doctor or political advisor is a surefire way to the big bucks without being responsible for the decisions.”

A right wing spending watchdog is also critical.

But David Farrar, who is closely involved with the Taxpayers’ Union, points out at Kiwiblog in Ministerial staff costs:

What I’m interested in, as a taxpayer, is how much more, if any, we are paying for the running of ministerial office. This would have been useful, even vital, information for the story. And it took around 15 minutes to find out from Treasury documents.

The 2015 budget allocated $25.842 million for ministerial support services. In 2008/09 the cost of ministerial support services was $30.375 million. So in fact spending on ministerial offices has dropped 14.9% in seven years. That is what I call restraint.

Also the cost of VIP transport has stayed constant – in fact down 0.1% from 2008/09.

And ministerial travel has gone up just 3.1% over seven years. Well under inflation.

So actually overall, pretty good spending restraint.

So while salaries have risen overall costs of ministerial offices has gone down.

This looks like poor reporting by SST, and the Taxpayers’ Union look likke they have jumped into a kneejerk reaction without considering what should be vital information when comparing cost trends of running Ministerial offices.

Philip Lyth versus Key, Slater and Farrar

I see Philip Lyth on Twitter quite often, he seems to be a prolific tweeter. He describes himself there as “Husband, politics junkie, psephologist. Standing Orders.”

Last night he retweeted to a John Key tweet and responded:

Philip Lyth retweeted John Key
Wow John. You lead the party which includes David Farrar & Cameron Slater who dogwhistle Muslims at every chance?

That’s a silly shot at Key, he can’t be held responsible for what all party members do – and I don’t think Slater is even a member of the National Party.

On the accusation Lyth made – it’s certainly easy to get the impression that Slater is a Muslim dogwhistler although his wife ‘Spanish Bride seems to have been doing more anti-Muslim posts lately.

But I’ve been a close observer of Kiwiblog for years and I don’t recall much if any Muslim dog-whsitling from David Farrar (DPF). A quick search shows that DPF doesn’t post very often about Muslim topics.

His last post was in March: Why are so many Australian muslims radicalised?

Stuff reports:

A nightclub bouncer who reportedly became a terror group leader. A man who tweeted a photo of his young son clutching a severed head. A teenager who is believed to have turned suicide bomber, and others suspected of attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State movement. All of them, Australian.

The London-based International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence reports that between 100 and 250 Australians have joined Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria. Given Australia’s vast distance from the region and its population of just 24 million, it is a remarkable number. The center estimates that about 100 fighters came from the United States, which has more than 13 times as many people as Australia.

That’s a huge number.

Experts disagree about why the Islamic State group has been so effective recruiting in Australia, which is widely regarded as a multicultural success story, with an economy in an enviable 24th year of continuous growth.

Possible explanations include that some Australian Muslims are poorly integrated with the rest of the country, and that Islamic State recruiters have given Australia particular attention. In addition, the Australian government failed to keep tabs on some citizens who had been radicalized, and moderate Muslims have been put off by some of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comments about their community.

It’s pathetic to even suggest that Tony Abbott is the reason. I’m not Abbott’s biggest fan, but the hatred and bias from many sections of the Australian media towards him is appalling.

I think the first explanation is the strongest. For well over a decade there has been a significant radical element who have not integrated. Many senior Muslim clerics in Australia have said appalling things, and use incendiary speech. We’re very fortunate that in NZ we’ve never had this problem. That doesn’t mean that there are not some extreme radicals – just that the senior leadership in NZ is not radical, and in fact very well focused on integration.

That seems like realistic comment and not dog whistling.

Sure the comments at Kiwiblog are often thick with anti-Muslim sentiment, as was the case on this post, starting with:



Don’t allow people into your country who despise your culture and don’t want to integrate.


Just ban muslims from coming to NZ.

The ones already here will eventually outbreed us all anyway so lets delay the inevitable .

It is too bad we cannot eject the more troublesome ones already here — or can we?

David Garrett:

DPF: How on earth can you say we are very fortunate not have this problem here ? How do you know what is being preached in the several mosques around the country? The little that does leak out is far from reassuring…just yesterday there was a report of some radical being trespassed from the mosque in Avondale, and that person going to the head sharing’s house and telling him “Jihad will start here”…

All that can safely be said is we have seen little outward manifestations of Islamic radicalism here…so far. I’m afraid it’s just a matter of time.

But I think it’s unfair to blame DPF for dog whistling, this is more a result of his very liberal moderation and the fact that a number of extreme right leaning commenters have made Kiwiblog their pulpit.

Muslim bashing occurs on Kiwiblog far more frequently than DPF posts anything related to Islam. There’s virtually a daily dose from Manolo, like yesterday where he posted the first comment on General Debate:

Manolo (16,656 comments) says: 

The daily dose of Islamic love and peace:

Manolo started calling me the Mullah of Dunedin a while ago because I didn’t agree with his extreme views.

But this isn’t due to DPF dog whistling, it is due to the principle of free speech exercised at Kiwiblog.

John Drinnan had responded to Lyth’s tweet:

John Drinnan retweeted Philip Lyth

“wogs” is the term du jour.

That’s correct for Whale Oil, try a search their on ‘wog’ and there’s ample evidence.

But Drinnan is not correct regarding Farrar, his last ‘Wog’ post was in 2013 – Wogistan – that was comment on Richard Proctor’s bizarre comments. And that’s it from Kiwiblog.

So I challenged Lyth on his accusation.

Philip Lyth ‏@philiplyth 11h11 hours ago

Philip Lyth retweeted Pete George

Where’s your evidence Pete George is not a troll?

That’s a lame way of avoiding responsibility for a serious accusation against Farrar and directed at Key and National by association.

It looks like Lyth is the dog whistler here.

Philip – if you can make a case that Farrar is a Muslim dog whistler I’ll post it. Otherwise I think a retraction is in order.

Herald story on poll changes

Newspaper stories aren’t always like the used to be, fixed in print once the presses roll.

David Farrar pointed out in A Labour member complains:

First let’s deal with the headline of the story:

Has the leak worked? Poll boost for Labour

The headline writer should be shot.

Labour has lifted by six points to its highest level since March 2014 in the Roy Morgan Poll.

Labour is up to 32 per cent in the poll – up six points from a fortnight ago while National was down six points to 43 per cent support.

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

So 90% of the poll was before the release. So the headline is trying to manufacture a story.

However NZ Herald currently has this headline with the story:

Poll boost for Labour

By David Fisher, Claire Trevett

Labour has lifted by six points to its highest level since March 2014 in the Roy Morgan Poll.

Labour is up to 32 per cent in the poll – up six points from a fortnight ago while National was down six points to 43 per cent support.

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

What Farrar probably doesn’t know is that the story has changed since the headline was written, and then the headline was changed.  I saw the original version, as did Keith Ng who pointed out:

Oi . I mathed it for you.

The data was released by Labour with substantial help by NZ Herald six days prior, not a week.

One of the article authors responded:

ha! I was so busy trying to find it in the fine print I didn’t look at the top bit!

Since then the headline and story have now been edited:


Has the leak worked? Poll boost for Labour

However it us unclear how much of the poll was taken before Labour released it’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate agent data, which was a week ago.


Poll boost for Labour

However, the impact of Labour’s analysis of leaked Auckland real estate data remains unclear.

The poll of 886 voters began on June 29 and ended the day after Labour released that data on July 11.

Farrar must have copy pasted after the story was edited, but before the headline was edited.

Kiwiblog commentariat on summary justice and “shoot on sight”

David Farrar tries to laugh about dwarf throwing in a Herald profile of NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell in Profile of two NZ First MPs.

But that’s minor compared to comments where  there seems more serious intent, with the applauding of chasing and beating up, and the promotion of a shoot on sight police force or army.

These aren’t Farrar’s views but they are enabled through his liberal freedom to speak policy.

The Herald article details what started the discussion:

First-term MP reveals fight with gang member after threats to his life

An MP received a suspended sentence following a fight with a gang member who attacked him after being refused entry to a bar.

First-term NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell, 43, has reluctantly spoken about the incident, which occurred 18 years ago.

“The reality is, everyone has a past and I have got one, too. I have been involved in hospitality for 25 years and so, because you run bars and you stand on the front door, you do have, and I certainly have had, over the years, a lot of situations where you get put into very perilous situations.”

Mr Mitchell was in charge of the city’s Straight Shooters Bar in 1997, when a gang member with facial tattoos was refused entry.

“It turned into a confrontation, a physical one, he was a lot bigger than me, he was a very intimidating individual. I got a black eye and swollen face out of it.”

“He picked me up above his head and tried to throw me across the front entranceway, but I held on to his belt and got myself to the ground.”

Mr Mitchell, who went on to get a black-belt in judo and has taught boxing and women’s self-defence classes, said the man then told him he was going to get a gun and would return to finish him off. He now realises he crossed a line in following the gang member, he said, but at the time was in fear for his life.

“I followed him. I told the staff that were there to call the police, which they did, the police arrived, and by the time they had arrived I’d run up and gave him a beating, basically, gave him a bit of a boxing lesson.

“Had I just repelled him at the front door and left it, then he would have been arrested and there would be no charges against me.”

It’s hard to imagine what it would be like being caught up in a violent situation like this, but Mitchell concedes in retrospect that he crossed a line.

Not so some of the Kiwiblog commentariat.

Chuck Bird:

I am impressed by Clayton Mitchell. It is an outrage he has a record albeit a suspended sentence for what he did to a gang member who attacked him when other people with better connection get discharged without conviction and permanent name suppression for much more serious offenses.

Julian spoke against the summary justice tide:

Clayton Mitchell sounds like the sort of thug who should be locked up. He chased a retreating person down the street and beat him up. Scumbag.

BananaLama wasn’t having that:

Threatening to come back with a gun and shoot you isn’t retreating the gang member is lucky he only got a smack in the head to be honest.

David Garrett (the ex-ACT three strikes MP one):

Julian: We frown on “trolling” over here almost as much as at your spiritual home…If you had read the full story you couldn’t possibly have written anything so silly…

That starts with a false assumption. Julian quoted from the Herald story but Garrett responded:

Julian: what you are missing inter alia is: 1) who began the fight; 2) that one protagandist was a gang member; 3) what threats were made (in the hearing of witnesses); and 4) the disparity of size between the two…The prick ran away only because Mitchell had martial arts training, and wasn’t the pushover he had assumed him to be…

More assumptions, plus trying to justify chasing someone and beating them up.


Really? I am just reading the story at face value. If correct the “thug” should have received a commendation.

Are you serious, or simply trolling for attention?

Is Syrlands serious or just jumping on the bashwagon?

The ticks were leaning well in favour of the right to chase and bash but Julian persisted in challenging:

I’m happy to be in the minority, but I don’t agree that this thug should be congratulated for dispensing his version of street justice.

I presume the sentencing judge was well aware of all of Mitchell’s whiny excuses, namely: ‘he started it’, ‘but but but he’s in a gaaaaanngg’, ‘he threatened [threatened being the operative word] to get a gun’, and ‘he’s bigger than me’ (seriously!).

Boris Piscina:

Good on him. Good to see an MP with balls and the willingness to use them. In all honesty I can only think of half a dozen National members who wouldn’t shy from the spineless “don’t take the law into your own hands” doctrine beloved of our pro-criminal Police force and it’s wishy washy PC liberal apologists in Government (and yes I do mean the current Government).

RRM widened the discussion to dealing with all gang members:

Patched gang members should be rounded up and exterminated by the army.
Just lifetime criminals who have declared war on civilised society.

Gangs are a major problem. So is RRM’s solution, which came in to Garrett support:

RRM: A man after my own heart! I could never say such a thing when I was an MP, but that is actually how I think…I prefer to describe them as outlaws in the true sense; people who don’t believe society’s rules apply to them…That is the reason I understood where JC was coming from when she recently disagreed with the Judge in the Nelson drugs trial case… You don’t obey Queensberry rules in a street fight…

If they introduced a “shoot on sight” policy for patched gang members they would disappear overnight…as would most of the problem: they are just gutless scum without the patch…

I joined in:

If chase and beat the crap out of and shoot on sight were allowed and encouraged as some here wish then with 3 strikes we’d probably end up with a rapidly expanding prison population and increasing collateral damage of innocent people.

The problem with sanctioned thuggery, summary justice and vigilantism is you end up with an uncivilised society that adversely affects everyone.

Escalated violence in society can’t be ring-fenced.

Garrett qualifies his advocating for ‘shoot on sight’:

PG: I am not advocating – even half seriously – “shoot on sight” for the general public…that would lead to mayhem, and war on the streets…but I quite seriously regard gangs as behind the worse things in our society, starting with P manufacture…there are no “independent” P manufacturers, they are all controlled by gangs.

If, as RRM suggests, the army was tasked with eliminating them, how long to you think they would last? A week?

Of course it’s never going to happen, but one can fantasise…Do you disagree that the country would be a much better place without organized gangs?

Allowing the army to shoot on sight to eliminate anyone deemed a gang member from a distance is as stupid a thing I have seen you support.

I agree there are some lowlife criminal scum around, far too many of them. But lowering justice to their level (that is zero judicial process) is a terrible way to deal with it.

Of course the country would be a much better place without organized gangs – but you don’t realistically think they could be eliminated without collateral damage do you?

Despite the problems we have I like New Zealand because it’s like New Zealand, and not like Syria or Mogadishu.

I asked Garrett: DG – you’ve researched justice in different parts of the world – can you give some good examples of countries where an army has been used to successfully eliminate all gangs? Where it took longer than a week would suffice.

He hasn’t responded yet, but Dave Mann joined in:

I don’t think we need shoot on sight policy for gangs. I would propose that as they put themselves outside the law all gang members should be considered fair game and there should be no legal consequences for any action against them. Not everybody has a firearm, so we need to consider other solutions to the problem, such as running them off the road on their bikes or bulldozing their properties. Of course this doesn’t preclude shooting, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

It’s hard to know how serious those suggestions are. No one has ticked it up or down yet.

Then Alan Wilkinson introduced some common sense:

The best way to eliminate gangs is to cut off their money. The best way to cut off their money is to treat drug use as a medical problem (when it is even that) instead of a crime.

That wouldn’t eliminate gangs, the criminally inclined will always find ways of selfishly shitting on society, but it would substantially limit their income opportunities and their adverse influence on society. It would also be far more likely to retain a relatively decent society and maintain reasonable standards of justice.

Conservative brand badly damaged

In response to the latest news in the ongoing Conservative Party train wreck – a dispute over who has been suspended, Colin Craig or John Stringer – David Farrar comments in Still fighting over a dead party:

So both Stringer and Craig want to be leader. I don’t think they realise how much damage the fight has caused to the Conservatve brand. Before this happened, I would have given them a reasonable chance of making 5% next time. Now I think they would struggle to get even 2%.

Conservative Party election results:

  • 2011 – 2.65% (59,237 votes)
  • 2014 – 3.97% (95,5985 votes)

Even if they eventually sort their mess out a bit looks almost certain they will fail to maintain their 2014 level of support and while there will be some loyal support remaining 2% looks generous.

Shawn Herles suggests what they need:

A conservative party that wants to be successful needs a leader who is young, photogenic, a damn good speaker, above reproach ethically, and, like John Key, comes across as a pretty normal bloke, the kind of guy (or girl) you would want at a BBQ.

Naska offers a reality check:

Quite a tall order. Finding some hip young go getter with a magnetic personality who coincidentally wants to regress NZ socially by about a 100 years is not going to be easy.

That’s harsh on the party but it reflects more on where some of the Conservative supporters want to go, backwards – Redbaiter comes to mind.

Deadrightkev remains staunchly optimistic:

Its not over yet DPF.

My money is on the Conservatives getting over 5% at the next election and with Colin Craig at the top to boot. He will be kicked around by the MSM, Slater and his dads army but Craig will climb back on top IMHO.

While Craig keeps piling money and effort into his political project it won’t be over as an attempt, but as a credible party it has gone backwards big time recently.

Peter J partially gets back to reality:

They have (or had) some good policies, but even the best policy wont carry a party through a disaster like that which we have seen unfold.

But what policies? They still has very few published policies, and those they have are sparsely detailed. Here is the whole of the Conservative Party’s published policies (‘Issues’) under the banner ‘Conservatives – Stand for Something’.


Call us crazy, but the way we see it a politician’s job is to follow the instructions voters give them.

If we’re elected it’ll be because you wanted us to give the Government a backbone, to insist they reform the justice system as you instructed. We want justice for victims of crime and harsher penalties for those who do the crime.
How loony is that?

Criminals will be made to do hard work; there’ll be no time to moan about being hard done by.

But it’s not just us calling for tougher sentencing; over 90% of you instructed the Government – via a referendum – to harden up on criminals. You were ignored.

If you’ve had enough of this arrogant and toxic behaviour from politicians – it’s time to show them the yellow card.
On our watch referendums will be binding, justice will prevail.
Anything else is just crazy talk.


In Wellington they’ve always got some hairbrained scheme in mind to spend your money. Seems like only yesterday that the honourable member for Wainuiomata thought it might be a top idea to reincarnate the Moa.

The only other reason we need to pay so much tax is to fund the Government’s vote buying programme; which clearly is proving to be more expensive than first thought. This is where they try and turn as many hardworking kiwi families as possible into beneficiaries.
It doesn’t get any more cynical.

Bit of a tip – it’d be cheaper, not to mention more transparent, to just tax us all less in the first place. If for example you were earning $20,000 per year, you’d pay no tax, and be $2520 better off. That’s nearly $50 a week in your back pocket. After that everyone pays a flat tax.
So that’s our plan.

Don’t let anyone tell you we can’t afford a tax cut. Especially if they’re from Wellington. It’s not their money. The Government just needs to stop spending our wages and salaries like drunken sailors.
We’ll put real money in the hands of those that need it and know what to do with it. Letting anyone else spend it for you is just lunacy.


At the heart of the democratic system is the principle of the citizens initiated referendum. It’s when a single issue is thought to be so important, all voters are asked to make their opinion heard.
Pure democracy.

Getting it and keeping it – it’s why wars get started.
In New Zealand since MMP started five such referendums have been held. Each and every time the wishes of the people were crystal clear. Each and every time the results were ignored by successive Labour and National Governments.

They’ve ignored what you think on anti-smacking; on tougher penalties for criminals, and asset sales.

When an overwhelming majority of us voted to have less politicians, guess what happened? That’s right. They ignored that too. Call us old fashioned, but this sort of arrogance needs to stop.

What really worries us is this: what else are they looking to ignore?
To think they won’t is madness.


The fact that in this day and age Maori are treated as 2nd class citizens and victims drives us nuts.

Since 1867 Maori have been segregated by special laws and separate seats in Parliament, and how’s that worked out do you think?
Exactly. No good has, or will come from using a race based system to govern. Nor incidentally, does it come from repeating mistakes.

Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same old thing over and over, but expecting a different result.
Our wild and crazy thought?
Try something new.

It’s time to bring closure to the claims process and look to the future.
We stand for equal rights and representation for all New Zealanders, plain and simple.
Let’s change a broken system.
Nothing loony about that.

That’s it. There’s very little to stand for, apart from a lot of looniness.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,132 other followers