Hide: “Niue deal squeaky clean”

Rodney Hide writes in the Herald that Niue deal squeaky clean.

He acknowledges that he has known the Hagamans for two decades.

I should say at the outset that I have known Earl Hagaman and his wife Lani for 20 years, that I greatly admire them for their business success, what they provide New Zealand, their philanthropy and their integrity.

The Electoral Commission shows that Lani Hagaman donated $35,000 to the Act Party in the year leading up to the 2014 election.

Hide points out that the donation to National (as for the ACT donation):

…the Hagaman donation was correctly registered and made public, as the law requires. There was nothing underhand or secret.

And Hide blasts Andrew Little.

Labour Leader Andrew Little this week got the political blunderbuss out and blew off both feet and then his arms. He never grazed his target.

In my view, his was a disgraceful display of nastiness and political incompetence not expected of a rookie opposition MP and gobsmackingly awful for a would-be Prime Minister.

He summarises the Niue deal:

The Government did the resort’s development to boost tourism to Niue, which has doubled. The project is regarded as a success. The development benefits the Niue Government and people, not Scenic Hotel or the Hagamans.

In 2013 Auckland firm Horwath HTL did an independent review for the board and, among other things, recommended the appointment of a hotel management company.

The following year, on behalf of the board, Horwath ran an Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals process that culminated in the consideration of two proposals with the recommendation of Scenic Hotels. The board agreed.

Hide names the board members: Ian Fitzgerald (chair), Bill Wilkinson, Toke Talagi (Premier of Niue) and John Ingram.

So the Premier of Niue is implicated, along with three others.

The transaction was not just arm’s length, several oceans of separation lay between the political donation and the management contract. There is no evidence of impropriety. The process would appear a model of probity.

Hide thinks Little is not the same model of probity.

Meanwhile, Little has besmirched a successful and highly regarded business couple, a New Zealand business success story, senior government officials, his own MP’s dad, and the Premier of Niue.

Politics can be nasty. It’s often incompetent. Somehow Little has managed to plumb new depths.

Time will tell whether this latest strategy of leading attacks is going to turn around Little’s and Labour’s political fortunes or not.

Will Little score a hit by firing a blunderbuss of nails at the National Government’s coffin hoping one might find a target and stick? Or has he nailed his own?

Leave a comment

109 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  24th April 2016

    Rodney Hide wrote that the Niue deal is squeaky clean. He blasted Andrew Little and thinks Little is not a model of probity.

    I did not spill my morning coffee in surprise at those revelations.
    You see, I have learned that Rodney has finally found his place and firmed in his role and place in our landscape. Rodney has become an “Authority.”

    On all things great and small we turn to Rodney for the real oil. He may not have been needed here and there, and there again or on the dance floor but we need him to tell it as it is.

    Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  24th April 2016

      You’re probably used to associating with grain fed retards from the left who don’t think quite as clearly as Hide.

      What is it that you think he’s got wrong? Perhaps spare us the bollocks about “perception”.

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  24th April 2016

        What was the bollocks about perception you refer to?

        Further on you say in reference to Rodney Hide having a Herald opinion column, “There’s not much of a market for disaffected, sniveling[sic], cowardly comments from dropkicks.”

        There is a perception that the Herald is garbage, not fit for wrapping fish and chips in. My perception is that some who think and say such praise the quality of its content when they find something they like, like Mr Hide’s column.

        My perception is that some think Rodney Hide is something of an oracle. Given the status he is now commonly accorded it is surprising he is an ousted oracle. Next alongside the “Bring Back Buck” banners can we look forward to “Unoust the Oracle”?

        And if I associated with grain fed retards from the left they would probably agree with what I said elsewhere about perception. Politics is about perception, start and finish, whether it’s from Andrew Little or Rodney Hide or Murray McCully.

        Your perception is that Andrew Little got everything wrong and Rodney Hide got everything right. I haven’t said Hide got it wrong. Little definitely got something wrong. He had the sheer effrontery to ask some questions. Questions should not be asked especially if they seek the transparency, openness and accountability we keep hearing are so important.

        SkyCity Convention Centre.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  24th April 2016

          By saying it ‘stinks to high heaven’ Andrew Little has accused a whole lot of people of being corrupt without any evidence of wrongdoing and before anybody can investigate his claims.

          That’s not a question, that is an unfounded accusation or smear.

          Reply
    • Rodney Hide

       /  24th April 2016

      Actually the headline said squeaky clean.

      I just reported the readily available facts and drew the obvious conclusion.

      Where’s the evidence suggesting otherwise?

      Rodney Hide

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th April 2016

        the obvious conclusion….Hagaman donated alot of money to ACT,I will defend and deflect where donors to ACT become involved in anything that even hints of impropriety.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th April 2016

          Play the man – the only Lefty game plan in town.

          Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  24th April 2016

          There is a very strong ‘perception’ that you are paid by the Labour Party to comment here. The evidence is circumstantial but strong. Lack of grammatical ability, inane content and drug addled sentence structure all point to the “obvious conclusion”. It’s now up to you prove you are not.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  24th April 2016

            thats a laughable allegation Iceberg.I do not need to prove anything to you and find your obsession with grammar and spelling amusing as well.Your penchant for nitpicking does not excuse your narrow minded view of the world nor the double standards you employ.

            Reply
          • Conspiratoor

             /  24th April 2016

            There could be a ring of truth to that ‘perception’ of yours ice. With one exception. They are basically broke, so blazer’s uplifting contribution is all done for love and the spirit of comradeship and of course key derangement

            Reply
        • Corky

           /  24th April 2016

          All you have to do to prove Rodney wrong, and prove you aren’t a vacuous troll is counter what Rodney has posted.: Here are the salient points again in case his original post was too long for you, Blazer:

          “I just reported the readily available facts and drew the obvious conclusion.”

          “Where’s the evidence suggesting otherwise?”

          Good question. Away you go,Blazer.

          Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  24th April 2016

        I never believed that there was corruption going on. Even if I had believed the National Party to be capable of it, which I don’t, I would have been sceptical about the small amount involved-Andrew Little should have thought of that, if it was obvious to me, even.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th April 2016

      The Left certainly need him to tell them how it is. Otherwise they just have drivel from Little faithfully cut and pasted by their tame and clueless journalists whose analytical powers are exactly zero.

      Reply
  2. Corky

     /  24th April 2016

    The Hydster duped Duperez.

    Reply
  3. jamie

     /  24th April 2016

    I don’t really think it’s any better that the donation was recorded. All donations should be recorded.

    For me it’s quite simple. The government shouldn’t be doing favours for donors.

    If you want to tender for government contracts, I don’t think you should be donating to the people who award those contracts.

    This is the very definition of a perception of a conflict of interest.

    Reply
    • Do you see any perception of a conflict of interest with large union donations to Labour, including from the union that Little headed, and then those same unions being the deciding vote in Little’s leadership bid?

      Would any Labour policy or proposal that could favour unions be meet any suspicion threshold?

      Reply
      • jamie

         /  24th April 2016

        That’s not a conflict, it’s just an interest. Labour is supposed to be the party representing unions. The party is deliberately and consciously structured to represent those interests, for better or worse.

        I don’t think you could say that National is deliberately structured to represent the interests of certain businesses or people who donate to them, could you?

        Now if a particular union made a large donation to Labour, and then when in government (hypothetical, obviously 😀 ) Labour gave special treatment to that particular union over other unions, then that would certainly give me cause to question what was going on.

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  24th April 2016

          You’re right, no conflict. Unions fund the Labour Party. Unions force a rule change so they choose the leader. Leader is thereafter never seen as electable by the public. New Zealand wins.

          Reply
          • jamie

             /  24th April 2016

            And the conflict of interest is…

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  24th April 2016

              No argument from me. It’s all good.

            • And the conflict of interest promoting tourism in Niue as per public policy is….

            • Clemgeopin

               /  24th April 2016

              “promoting tourism in Niue as per public policy is….”

              That is not the issue at all! Are you being dumb or naive?

            • jamie

               /  24th April 2016

              I haven’t seen anyone complain about promoting tourism in Niue.

              Disingenuous, Pete.

            • Little said that the awarding of a contract to assist Niue with tourism “stinks to high heaven”.

            • jamie

               /  24th April 2016

              Wow. I guess Andrew Little must be opposed to contracts.

              Either that or he hates Niue.

              Come on Pete, you’re better than that.

    • Jamie you are basically running down the whole Public Service

      “For me it’s quite simple. The government shouldn’t be doing favours for donors.

      If you want to tender for government contracts, I don’t think you should be donating to the people who award those contracts.”

      All government contracts over a certain thresh hold have to go through GETS and public tender. Your statement implies that Politicians run this process when they do not. Its run by career Public Servants who should be politically neutral and the process is run according to published rules… Politicians interfering in that should lose their jobs

      Political parties are the vehicles for ideas….. and there is no problem with an individual, group or organisation supporting a party via donations if that party promotes ideas that that individual, group or organisation believe in, like compulsory unionism or individual contracts in the employment area as examples. The key is the donations are disclosed and the process is transparent

      Little has cocked up big time and made an accusation with, based on published material to date, statements seem defamatory… time will tell.

      Reply
      • jamie

         /  24th April 2016

        “Its run by career Public Servants who should be politically neutral and the process is run according to published rules… Politicians interfering in that should lose their jobs”

        I agree 100%

        Reply
  4. Pantsdownbrown

     /  24th April 2016

    The real story here is that Labour are dead-broke and so Little attacks National donors in an effort to promote what Labour really wants: taxpayer funded general election campaigns.

    Hide comes to the obvious conclusion that the National govt and Hagaman are so far removed from each other in terms of the process in how the management contract was awarded and by whom (including Jacinda’s old man and the Premier of Niue) that the dirty smear is that and nothing more – hoping that if you fling enough shit some might eventually stick.

    It also shows the depths Labour will plumb in order to gain any political traction – attacking successful New Zealand businesses, attack how New Zealand is helping Niue economically, attack International trade deals, attack New Zealand taxpayer share value with the NZ Power threat.

    Reply
  5. Pantsdownbrown

     /  24th April 2016

    As an aside I’d LOVE to see a Rodney Hide special guest post on here explaining the Auckland super-city abomination………

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  24th April 2016

      LoL.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  24th April 2016

        Even just a ‘question & answer’ on the super city…..

        Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  24th April 2016

      “The result of the Rodney Hide experiment has been a failure of elected members to manage a local authority of this size”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/aucklander/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503378&objectid=11624916

      Reply
      • @ Pantsdown – Or perhaps a failure in creating a local authority of this size? A local authority that could in very few ways be called “local”?

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th April 2016

      I’ve had a bit of that discussion with Rodney before on NBR. He says the Nats were going to do it and it was either make the best of it or quit. Didn’t have the numbers to block it.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  24th April 2016

        It could be National’s way of showing the country first-hand what happens when the left-wing get into a position of power and abuse that privilege….

        Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  24th April 2016

        ” it was either make the best of it or quit.”

        He should gave taken some lessons from Jim Anderton on what guts, honour, integrity and courage of one’s conviction really mean.

        Reply
        • Clemgeopin

           /  24th April 2016

          have

          Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  24th April 2016

          The only thing anyone can learn from Jim Anderton is how to stay at the trough for most of your life………

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  24th April 2016

            “how to stay at the trough for most of your life………”

            If that were true, he would not have quit from the Labour party giving up his eminent highest leadership potential in the party in protest against the RW shit by the well known notorious future ACT Labour traitors. You may not like Mr Anderson, but do not doubt his integrity, courage and courage of his conviction and completely lose your moral compass in pursuit of your pro-RW agenda and spin.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  24th April 2016

              He quit the Labour party??? Could have sworn he started up another party to prop up his Labour mates?

            • Iceberg

               /  24th April 2016

              Rewriting history again Clemster. We should ask Laila Harre and Matt McCarten about what they think of Jim Anderton, after he shafted the Alliance and formed the Pregressives.

      • jamie

         /  25th April 2016

        “He says the Nats were going to do it and it was either make the best of it or quit.”

        Then perhaps a Q&A with both Hide and a Nat simultaneously would be good. I’m not a fan of the tag-team relationship between those two parties where they both get to avoid responsibility by blaming each other for things they did together.

        Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  24th April 2016

      @pants, Rodney had the theory right. The problem was they handed the implementation over to bureaucrats and town criers. Doomed to failure from the start

      Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  24th April 2016

        clerks not criers

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th April 2016

          I like criers better 🙂

          It wasn’t Rodney’s fault that the concept was watered down and interfered with. It was a good enough concept, until it was messed about.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  25th April 2016

            Hide knew exactly what he was doing…creating sinecures for the old boy network…..of course in 20 years ,it will be broken up and revert to smaller ,de centralised administrations.Again creating new contracts and plunder for the established charlatans.

            Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  24th April 2016

        I’m not convinced – all that has happened is that the outer areas of the super city are subsidising ‘pet projects’ within the more central city areas. The level of service & voice in these outer regions is now virtually non-existent.

        A more common sense approach would have been to have Northern (Rodney & North Shore), Central (Central City, Waitakere, the islands) & Southern (Manukau, Papakura & Franklin) councils with those three mayors comprising a form of ‘super-council’ with a over-riding view across issues that affect the whole of Auckland – majority rules.

        Reply
      • Doomed to failure from the beginning is right, starting with the theory itself …

        If not “bureaucrats”, who implements changes like this to local government? Businessmen? Private contractors? Consultants?

        @ Pantsdown – A super-council!? Majority rule among three super-city mayors!!!??? I guess its an improvement over “one man band”? However, they could have done that just as ‘easily’ with the previous five mayors. I’d much rather have ‘executive’ decisions made by a 3/5 majority than by a 2/3 one, although ultimately I have a whole different concept of democracy incorporating much larger numbers of people, namely residents and ratepayers.

        I reckon the results of a super-city referendum among Auckland voters would be fascinating?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th April 2016

          There’s no evidence that big local governments are more efficient than small, but there is plenty of evidence that they are less accountable and more political. The white elephants are a lot bigger.

          Reply
        • jamie

           /  25th April 2016

          Silly PZ, we don’t have referenda for things that might make a material difference.

          Alan, yes very true.

          Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  25th April 2016

          PZ: However, they could have done that just as ‘easily’ with the previous five mayors.

          But with the costs of having seven (was not five as you state) mayors you wouldn’t have been saving anything in cutting back all the costs associated with those mayors & their entourages.

          Three is the natural fit for the city, a fine balance of saving money from efficiencies, geographical common-sense, and still retaining a strong voice for those areas.

          Reply
          • Conspiratoor

             /  25th April 2016

            all good points and well argued pants, you’ve won me over. Cheers c

            Reply
  6. Kevin

     /  24th April 2016

    Little needs to go. He’s clearly shown his political incompetence. The only thing that can save him is if he manages to dredge up evidence proving what he said was correct and that it was a corrupt deal. And like that’s going to happen…

    Realistically though, Little won’t step now. In all seriousness if Labour is going to avoid oblivion there has to be a centre-left coup.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  24th April 2016

      I agree. I wonder how long an Auditor General investigation would take. If it proves corruption he might pick up a few points in the polls but he still doesn’t otherwise impress as a future PM nor the Labour team as a future government. If an investigation doesn’t prove impropriety I don’t see how Little can recover from this.

      Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  24th April 2016

      I think the Robertson-Ardern faction will bide their time. Let Little lose to Key at the next election, flick Little and let Key retire, stick Ardern up as the face of a ‘new’ Labour party with Robertson pulling all the strings as deputy & finance minister against whoever National puts up.

      Ardern would be out of her depth and slaughtered by Key in any election debate if she made the move now – best to wait and face someone else from National where her economic naivety may not be so exposed.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  24th April 2016

        That sounds like a pretty good strategy. Further, after another humiliating defeat, even some hard-lefters might join a centre-left coup, for reasons of self-preservation.

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  24th April 2016

        It’d be a tough battle to get Robertson to accept the number 2 slot wouldn’t it?

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  24th April 2016

          He is unelectable as leader so he may have to……..

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  24th April 2016

            You’re right PDB. I totally forgot this:
            Mr Robertson offered his congratulations to Mr Little and said he remained committed to the Labour party, but never in a leadership sense.
            “I want to make clear that having put myself forward for the leadership on two occasions now that I will not do so again,” Mr Robertson said.
            “I will do whatever is asked of me to see that [Labour] government elected”.

            Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  24th April 2016

        Key would have to be very careful how he behaved himself in a one on one debate with ardern. Otherwise she could hoover up a very sizeable sympathy vote

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  24th April 2016

          I don’t think anyone would care if he beat her down in a debate. Just as long as he didn’t pull her hair. That wouldn’t be at all good for him.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  24th April 2016

            It’s seriously strange that an intelligent, articulate man like AL should be so lacking in political nous-even I’d do better than him.My dog would.

            Reply
  7. Clemgeopin

     /  24th April 2016

    Rodney Hide, the perk buster while in parliament and a man of high integrity and honesty who was absolutely squeaky clean, truthful and non corrupt himself in his affairs and dealings as an ACT MP. His views on this Island shenanigan matters surely hold a lot of water. Who needs a potential corruption probe and the Auditor General when we have our Hide, the no shit Sherlock! Let our parliament and our brilliant non partisan fourth estate media and our amazing investigative journalists take a happy holiday. Who needs them? All is well, cool and dandy in this Godz-own grey land of the once clean green long long white clouds. Cool story, bro.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th April 2016

      Play the man – the only Lefty game plan in town. Again.

      Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  24th April 2016

      Hide would have more credibility in his little toe than you have in all your mad rantings on here Clem……..

      Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  24th April 2016

        “Hide would have more credibility in his little toe”

        Glad you haven’t sucked on mine.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th April 2016

        Are you another ‘good friend’ of Hides?…hes had a few over the years!

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th April 2016

          The ‘perk’ that he was accused of underhandedly taking was the travel ‘perk’ that all MPs have-to take someone with them on their travels. Many companies have this, a friend who worked for the railways had it.

          Reply
  8. Blazer

     /  24th April 2016

    Rodney ‘Pot’ Hide from the archives…’But it is curiously unsurprising for ACT, a collection of intellectual thugs led by a man whom I once described as ‘venomous and gutless’. That was after Rodney Hide had defamed my wife, Judy Callingham, then Deputy Chair of New Zealand on Air, by implying in parliament that she had used improper influence to get me a talk show on TVNZ. Challenged by me to repeat the allegation without the protection of parliamentary privilege, he naturally declined. He had his facts wrong’……..Brian Edwards.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  24th April 2016

      I’d rather have intellectual thugs than thick, ill-educated ones.

      Reply
    • Blazer – I don’t see what relevance that has to this issue.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th April 2016

        you do not need to be hit with a sledgehammer to see the relevance…..’Politics can be nasty. It’s often incompetent. Somehow Little has managed to plumb new depths.’
        ‘….Hide has exhibited the very behaviour he accuses Little of.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  24th April 2016

          Blazer yesterday: “attack the message, not the messenger” – so rather than continue to be a hypocrite, how about telling us where Hide’s conclusions are incorrect in his opinion piece?

          Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  24th April 2016

      You’ve had all day to pull Hides argument to bits. You’ve spent it tralling Google for bad press. That’s the reason that its his opinion piece in the Herald and not yours. There’s not much of a market for disaffected, sniveling, cowardly comments from dropkicks.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th April 2016

        Iceberg,iceberg,iceberg……’trawling’….’it’s’….you clearly suffer the same condition as Hide…selective double standards…tut,tut.

        Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  24th April 2016

      Blazer is like Andrew Little on this very same issue – all smoke and mirrors and avoiding answering the question.

      Reply
      • You’ve got to feel for tribal Labour.

        How reality bites. Sitting at 30% on the very best of days, but nearer 25% most of the time. Labour stalwarts must despair at these relentless, mostly baseless attacks Labour mount weekly, but feel duty bound to endorse them. Trawling Google for something in Hide’s history that would render his opinion on the latest Little lunacy shows their desperation.

        Come to the bright light, the right light. 😉

        Reply
        • Clemgeopin

           /  24th April 2016

          “Come to the bright light, the right light”

          Did you write that with an honest straight face?

          Reply
    • Missy

       /  24th April 2016

      I had a quick skim of these Clem, I saw nothing that shows Hide is incorrect, and on the second link the only ‘proof’ anyone seems to offer up against Hide are personal attacks. I am not sure what your point is of linking to TS (except to promote it), or the NZ Herald comments – which appear to be spread as expected between support for Little and criticism of Little.

      Your links are pointless.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  24th April 2016

        “Your posts are pointless”

        Here, fixed it for you.

        Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  24th April 2016

        “Your links are pointless”

        Then don’t click on them Missy.

        Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  24th April 2016

      Why? What is your point?

      We could also read the comments here http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/hide_on_niue_deal.html or here http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/04/rodney-hide-analyses-labours-hagaman-hit/

      ….or we could simply look at Blazer, Jamie and your own posts in this actual thread to see what people grasping for straws looks like.

      Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  24th April 2016

        “people grasping for straws looks like”

        The only peeps grasping, hyper venting and protesting away too much like a scorned entity are the RW spinning sycophant agents who appear to be unleashed all over the media and the blogs protesting ‘Nothing to see here, no, no, everything is cool, innocent and dandy. Honest!’ Something must be up, Mr pants down Brown. Wonder what!

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  24th April 2016

          Still waiting for any evidence of wrongdoing Clem? Where is it? Or do we just assume corruption because you have an anti-Key/ National bent?

          Your ‘theory’ that it must be corruption because there appears to be ‘nothing to see here’ only highlights how delusional you are.

          Obviously you think it is ok for Andrew Little to condemn a whole lot of people as corrupt without any evidence whatsoever, and before any form of investigation, by saying it all ‘stinks to high heaven’?

          Another day, another unfounded corruption conspiracy from Labour *yawn*

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  24th April 2016

            “by saying it all ‘stinks to high heaven’?”

            Doesn’t it? Tell me more!

            Reply
          • Blazer

             /  24th April 2016

            wheres Jason Ede ,that pillar of Nats morality and ethics these days…?

            Reply
            • Pickled Possum

               /  24th April 2016

              @ Blazer
              Morality and Ethics … Haha You Jest of course!

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th April 2016

          Of course there is something to see – it just isn’t new: Lefties making personal attacks because that is all they ever have. So sad. So silly. So futile.

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  24th April 2016

            “Lefties making personal attacks”

            Yeah? Personal attacks, you mean like these dozen I quickly found on some comments in this one thread alone for example? (Of course some are marginally personal. Some more so.)

            [1] Rodney Hide: “Andrew Little this week got the political blunderbuss out and blew off both feet and then his arms. He never grazed his target”

            [2] Rodney Hide: “Politics can be nasty. It’s often incompetent. Somehow Little has managed to plumb new depths”

            [3] Rodney Hide: “his was a disgraceful display of nastiness”

            [4] Rodney Hide: “Politics can be nasty. It’s often incompetent. Somehow Little has managed to plumb new depths”

            [5] Iceberg: “You’re probably used to associating with grain fed retards from the left”

            [6] Iceberg: “There is a very strong ‘perception’ that you are paid by the Labour Party to comment here”

            [7] Pantsdownbrown: “The only thing anyone can learn from Jim Anderton is how to stay at the trough for most of your life………”

            [8] Kitty Catkin: “AL should be so lacking in political nous-even I’d do better than him.My dog would.”

            [9] Pantsdownbrown:” Hide would have more credibility in his little toe than you have”

            [10] Iceberg: “There’s not much of a market for disaffected, sniveling, cowardly comments from dropkicks”

            [11]K.Catkin & PDB : “Your links are pointless”, “Your posts are pointless”

            [12] Pantsdownbrown: ” we could simply look at Blazer, Jamie and your own posts in this actual thread to see what people grasping for straws looks like”

            Surprise, surprise! They are all your beloved righties! Who would have thought that!
            I don’t see many lefties making such personal comments. Do you?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2016

              Not fair putting no 2 in again at no 4 Clem. Only 5 7 8 10 & 12 could really be called personal attacks IMO.

            • Iceberg

               /  24th April 2016

              13. Cutting and pasting all of those must have been like drinking cold sick.

              I guess having to come on here day after day, putting up valiant (if non sensical) arguments in support of a lost cause, has given you lots of practice?

              14. What sort of toerag doesn’t even repost my best insults?

            • Gezza

               /  24th April 2016

              “comments” not attacks – soz. Not too bad for a political blog really.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th April 2016

              Because that is all this thread is – a Lefty personal attack with no content to respond to so simply tit for tat. Which is why I have said so litle about Litle here.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  25th April 2016

              @ Alan Wilkinson:”Because that is all this thread is – a Lefty personal attack with no content to respond to so simply tit for tat.”

              Really Alan? Ok, the examples of RW personal attacks I gave were not from all the posts today, but just from this single thread.

              So, give us at least a dozen personal attacks from the ‘left’ from this or even from all the threads today.

              I am hoping that what you said above about ‘lefty personal attacks’ is really true. Demonstrate that it is. Is it?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  25th April 2016

              “He should gave taken some lessons from Jim Anderton on what guts, honour, integrity and courage of one’s conviction really mean.”

              Etc and as noted above. I have no interest in recording and repeating your insults. Almost every comment by Blazer and yourself is an insult in various forms of packaging.

          • Clemgeopin

             /  24th April 2016

            @Gezza: “Not fair putting no 2 in again at no 4 Clem”
            You are right. Don’t know how that mistake happened. It was not deliberate.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  25th April 2016

              I know, just having a little tease Clem. I read & enjoy your posts. When I agree I give you an uptick.

  9. Blazer

     /  24th April 2016

    my new punching bag..I love this guy…’and formed the Pregressives’….too funny ..the irony of RWNJ…Iceberg…posting when he’s pissed!…thats a charitable…conclusion.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  25th April 2016

      Could’ve been worse. He could’ve called them the regressives.

      Reply
  10. duperez

     /  25th April 2016

    An aspect highlighted by the Niue deal issue is about attracting media attention.

    If you want words, space, microphones and cameras you need to say something controversial and contentious. Mundane doesn’t cut it. Suggestive and inflammatory language attention grabbing is where it is at.

    Two instances mentioned in here (one by me), the SkyCity Convention deal and Jason Ede, were situations which were boring, behind the matters but which posed serious questions and serious ramifications. The combined media attention of those hardly garnered as much media space as a hair’s breadth compared to the incidents of Prime Minister and the waitress with the pony tail.

    Andrew Little says something stinks while Rodney Hide says things are squeaky clean. Perfect, let’s dine out on that like four and five year olds at a birthday party.

    Meanwhile the serious stuff continues and what is it the adults up to out in the kitchen?
    They could be conspiring and plotting but the only way you’re going to hear about it is if someone suggests there’s someone dancing naked on a table with the local priest. (Hopefully the Palmolive is handy so the scene can be fairly described as being squeaky clean.)

    Reply
  11. Kevin

     /  25th April 2016

    I see over on TS Prentice has let this clearly defamatory comment stand:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/rodney-hide-stupid-corrupt-or-both/#comment-1164537

    (Not copy and pasted here for obvious reasons)

    Yet I get banned for merely saying that megaupload uploaded copyrighted files because doing so supposedly put TS “in danger”.

    Go figure.

    The hypocrisy of the looney left.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s