Irony on coup claim

I think there’s a real possibility that there is a coup attempt unfolding inside and against National, blue on blue. The gradual drip feeding and attempted entrapment of Bill English looks like someone or some people have a serious political agenda. I suggested this last week.

Someone else is also suggesting a possible coup: Are we witnessing a very Kiwi Coup?

I think we are witnessing a slow motion coup.

Middle NZ rewards convincing political liars & punishes incompetent ones.

Bill English is being destabilised in front of our eyes because someone has reaped a heavy political price from deep personal pain. Todd has been sacrificed and Bill destabilised right when a totally fabricated Labour student slave story suddenly erupts via a right wing political news blog.

Who has fed this information to the NewsRoom?

Watch how nasty this now turns. Blood is in the water.

Someone is drip feeding this.

I think there could be some validity to these suggestions. More specifics with names were already mentioned but I think that may be guesswork perhaps with utu in mind.

But these claims are highly ironic given who wrote it – Martyn Bradbury.

I’ve also already written about how it looks like Bradbury may have had some involvement, at least on the periphery, of a type of coup attempt in Labour.

Matt McCarten was certainly involved, as was Mike Treen, and Bradbury may have revealed more than he should have (as usual). Ex unionist and ex campaign manager for Jacinda Ardern, Paul Chalmers, has also been involved and has now stepped down as Auckland representative on Labour’s NZ Council.

Bradbury posted about ten far left policies designed to Corbynise their campaign that Labour’s head office refused to adopt.

It appears Auckland’s Labour left tried to drive the Labour bus in their own direction, and crashed.

So while Bradbury may have a valid point or two about National’s mess it is very ironic for him to talk about party coups.

Leave a comment


  1. PDB

     /  27th June 2017

    It is obvious who is leaking this stuff in a vindictive pay-back – the pissed of ex-staffers. Probably got it in for English as well for not backing them at the time.

  2. Patzcuaro

     /  27th June 2017

    Both major parties, well one major party and the shadow of a once major party, seemed to be bent on self destruction.

    Todd Barclay should never have been reselected based on what has since come out, where is the National Party organisation in all this. They seem to be hell bent on squashing any internal dissent while ignoring a gapping wound. Makes you wonder how he got selected in the first place? Do the Barclay family have some dirt up their sleeve on somebody in the National Party? How did an apologist for the tobacco industry end up with one of the safest seats in the country.

    What is the National government up to, one minute we are co-sponsoring an UN resolution condemning the Israeli settlements and the next minute we are apologising to the Israelis.

    The shadow of the Labour Party seems to lurch from one disaster to another, can’t they find New Zealanders to do their door knocking? How do they expect to govern if they can’t energise their own electorate. Instead they import mercenaries from abroad.

    • PDB

       /  27th June 2017

      “What is the National government up to, one minute we are co-sponsoring an UN resolution condemning the Israeli settlements and the next minute we are apologising to the Israelis.”

      Isn’t that just the way Israel/the MSM spun it? Didn’t we just say we were sorry that a long-time relationship had broken down over the matter, not that we now think the settlements are legit?

  3. Mr Bradbury is very good at projection – it seems to be the only skill he has. He has a very inflated opinion of his own political abilities, even though time and time again, they are proved to be non-existent.
    It is obvious that the cabal of which he is part want to turn Labour to the left – the Sanders/ Corbyn line. It is irrelevant that that was a failure. It is a victory in the eyes of the faithful. As things coming crashing around them from their own incompetence, they want a distraction. I suspect there is a lot of real skeletons under the MfC carpet. The first one is where has the money come from.
    The southland electorate fiasco is just vicious office politics, with it pretty obvious someone close to Ms Dickson still holding a grudge against Mr Barclay. The interest should be on who is the new candidate there and who supports them. That will show the power of the factions .

    • There’s nothing Bradbury has ever got right in politics. Nobody or nothing he’s ever backed has proved advantageous to the left. As far as any political nose goes, the man has chronic obstructive nasal polyps.

      Where’s their Corbyn? HE/SHE actually does not exist. One needs a central figure to base a campaign for change on. They’re simply not there, there’s nobody within Labour with the history of constant rebellion or the “integrity” of Corbyn

      They must have had someone in mind, otherwise they were even bigger tools than we think. Who is it is the interesting thing.


  4. duperez

     /  27th June 2017

    So if I read this right, Bradbury, for whatever motivation, has postulated that there is a coup happening in National and you, for whatever motivation, have postulated that there is/has been a coup attempt in Labour?

    Are the pistols at dawn to be between the factions in each political party or the postulators? 😊

  5. Gezza

     /  27th June 2017

    What was that question in the house about today – about Barclay & sex & drugs?

    • MaureenW

       /  27th June 2017

      Ears pricked up .. what was the smear / accusation?

      • Gezza

         /  27th June 2017

        Bolded in Hansard report below:

        Prime Minister—Statements

        3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Have all the answers given by him and given on his behalf to questions in this House regarding Todd Barclay been fully accurate and complete?

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, to the best of my knowledge and in the context they were given.

        Andrew Little: Why did he tell the House last Wednesday that he reported the matter to the police, when he knew that that answer was not truthful?

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That particular use of words was corrected by my colleague Gerry Brownlee, because it was correct to say that I answered the police’s questions—that is, I made a statement to the police.

        Andrew Little: Why did he say last Tuesday that he did not know who told him about the tapes, when he knew that that answer was not truthful?

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with the member’s statement, but I do agree with another one he made: “we must stop the abuse of the system by dodgy employers”—

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! When I rise to my feet it is important that all members, including Ministers and Prime Ministers, then cease their answers. Further supplementary questions?

        Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the question time today, you were at pains to point out the rules. Could you please tell me what part of the Prime Minister’s responsibility that was when he answered that question.

        Mr SPEAKER: The member should go back and study Hansard like I do when it is published later on, and he will see—[Interruption] If the member is going to ask the point of order, then he should show some manners and wait for the answer. Then, if he goes back and studies, he will see that as soon as I saw the Prime Minister deviate off track, I rose to my feet immediately and his microphone was switched off so he could not continue with an answer that was not relevant to the question asked.

        Andrew Little: Why did he say he did not know whether the tapes even existed, when, in fact, Todd Barclay had offered to play them for him, meaning he knew that that answer also was not truthful?

        Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In response to the leader of the “Free Foreign Labour Party”, can I say—

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want an answer—[Interruption] Order! I just want an answer that addresses the question.

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been plenty of comment on that matter, and, in light of the police investigation, I do not intend to add to that comment.

        Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt—Andrew Little. [Interruption] Order! We will just have the question without the interjections from my right. [Interruption]

        Andrew Little: How many Young Nats have gone to help the Republicans? [Interruption] Given—

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not want to be asking a senior Minister to leave the House, but Andrew Little was then responding to an interjection. It would be far better for the order of this House if there were substantially fewer interjections coming both from my right and from members to my left.

        Andrew Little: Given the contents of the tapes have now been revealed to concern Todd Barclay and sex and drug matters, does he accept the tapes exist, and when was he aware of their contents?

        Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, I have no comment to add to what comments have been made. But the member should, I would hope, be as forensic with his own statements about the free foreign labour and the idea—

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have asked for less interjection. I am not getting much cooperation from either side. If I therefore have to ask a member to leave the Chamber because the member continues to interject, then I would suggest that person not complain to me afterwards.

        Andrew Little: Putting aside the Prime Minister’s admiration for my exemplary truthfulness—

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the question.

        Andrew Little: Why did he say—[Interruption]

        Mr SPEAKER: Order!

        Andrew Little: Why did he say he did not know anything about Glenys Dickson’s settlement, when he had earlier texted Stuart Davie that the settlement was larger than normal, meaning he knew that that answer also was not truthful?

        Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Prime Minister to address it, but it—[Interruption] Order! It is marginal that it does not breach—I suspect it breaches Speaker’s ruling 173/1, but I will allow the Prime Minister, if he wishes to address the question, to do so.

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those matters have all been publicly commented on, and I do not intend to add to it.

        Andrew Little: Is this an accurate time line of his statements as Prime Minister on this issue: last Tuesday he said he did not know who had told him about the tapes; later that day he said he remembered Todd Barclay had told him; last Wednesday he said he had reported the matter to the police; the next day he remembered it was the police who contacted him; on Saturday he did not know if the tapes existed; and by Sunday he remembered that Todd Barclay had offered to play him the tapes? If so, why does his version of events about a potential crime committed by one of his MPs just keep on changing?

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If it comes to time lines, that member had better be clear about the scale of immigration fraud—the scale of immigration fraud—to which he may be a party.

        Andrew Little: Bearing in mind his own statement as Prime Minister that Ministers should be truthful, can he be straight with me: does he know if any person suggested Todd Barclay destroy the tapes that were the subject of a now reopened police investigation; if so, who was that person?

        Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly have no ministerial responsibility for that, although that leader has responsibility—

        Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Carmel Sepuloni will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that interjection immediately.

        Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.

        Mr SPEAKER: Now, point of order—Grant Robertson.

        Grant Robertson: Point of order—[Interruption]

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is—[Interruption] Order! I do not want to keep reminding members on my right that this is a point of order.

        Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker, in both of the first two questions, when the Prime Minister moved outside matters that were his responsibility or, indeed, his answer to the question, you drew that to his attention. I just wondered how long he goes on defying your instructions as Speaker without being pulled into line by you.

        Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order—

        Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance, but I do thank the member for offering it. I will watch that very, very carefully, but when I consider the tone and length of the question, and look at Standing Order 380, it did give some licence to the Prime Minister when he took the opportunity of addressing the question.

        Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his answer, the Prime Minister said he had no ministerial responsibility. The question that the Leader of the Opposition asked him was if he knew of any person—in other words, is he aware of something. How a Minister becomes aware of something does not matter. In what capacity they become aware, if they have any form of ministerial responsibility for it—and in this case, the Prime Minister is responsible for the statements he has made as Prime Minister. How he became aware of a piece of information is neither here nor there. Ministers, when they are aware of something, are aware of it in their ministerial capacity.

        Mr SPEAKER: I have two problems with the point the member is raising. First of all, it is just that the length and tone of the question was substantial. It was very difficult for me to actually decipher the essence of the question the member was asking. Then, I do point out to the member Speakers’ rulings 198/5 and 198/6. The Prime Minister—my job is to judge whether he has addressed some of that question, and in my opinion he has. I do not accept any responsibility for the quality of the answer that has been given.

        Andrew Little: Why did he sit for a year on an issue that was so bad it forced the honourable member for Clutha-Southland to retire from politics once it became public and is now the subject of a new police investigation, and is that the moral standard by which he now governs?

        Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Prime Minister can address either.

        Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. I took part in the previous police investigation over a year ago. How long did that member know about the 85 free foreign workers—

        Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! It is not the Prime Minister’s right to ask me when I knew any such issue.

      • Gezza

         /  28th June 2017

        Well that’s great isn’t it? 😡 I dig up the goss for you & you’re off gallivanting around somewhere else !

  6. Pete Kane

     /  28th June 2017

    Oh really?
    “Leaked National Party report clears Barclay
    27 June 2017 By Richard Harman (author)

    POLITIK has learned that the National Party’s Board as recently as last Thursday agreed to a report clearing Todd Barclay of charges that he was not suitable to be a National MP.
    The Board considered the report less than 24 hours after Barclay had been pressured into announcing his retirement because of allegations he had secretly (and illegally) taped his electorate staff’s conversations in their office.”

  7. Pete Kane

     /  28th June 2017

    And further to above, an old familiar name.
    “The committee was also asked to look into some Whaleoil blog entries — which they declined to do and then to look at whether Barclay was eligible to be a National MP.
    This centred on his signature on his nomination form  declaring that he “knew of nothing that could embarrass the National Party.”…………….”

  8. Pete Kane

     /  28th June 2017

    And The Standard understandably offered this care of Newsroom.
    “Debarclay gets sordid
    By: notices and features –
    Date published:
    1:47 pm, June 27th, 2017 – 76 comments
    Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, national – Tags: #debarclay, make it stop, newsroom, sex and drugs, Todd Barclay
    Oh lord. Really?
    Parliament officials knew details of Barclay tapes
    Exclusive: Intercepted discussions in the Clutha-Southland MP’s electorate office included talk of “sex and drugs”, a source tells Newsroom
    Despite the lede it is of course a very informative piece, with details of negotiations around the payout.
    Newsroom has Dickson’s un-redacted statement, which has not previously been made public.
    In it she says Dalziel had begun negotiating with the Parliamentary Service over her severance conditions after the dispute with Barclay arose.
    The lawyer wanted a higher settlement than the Parliamentary Service was prepared to pay but the situation changed after it became clear Dickson’s privacy had been breached.
    “They told her (Dalziel) about the recordings that Todd had. This is the same information that I had received from Bill English.
    “Consequently, she then went back to Parliamentary Services and negotiations continued. They then came back within a day and accepted the original offer that we had asked for.
    “It seemed strange that they’d changed their decision so quickly within a day.
    “Catherine Dalziel also told me that she had spoken to Parliamentary Services and that they had acknowledged there was recorded conversations involving me which concerned Todd Barclay regarding sex and drug matters.
    Read on for plenty more on Newsroom.”

    • Just like banging stenography operators around parliament then Pete K? Dragging sex and drugs up shows this is starting to die – to reach out for those topics displays the desperation from the left not to talk about possible immigration issues etc for their imported campaign troops….

      • You mean a young man in his twenties has taken drugs and had sex.

        Strike me down with a feather.

      • Blazer

         /  28th June 2017

        I suspect mention of sex and drugs is played up as a red herring,and will get the- so what reaction as per..Trav…could believe the cover up is more about tobacco lobbyist funding the Natz and the scale….of it.Big tobacco is bereft of principles and ethics,a match made in heaven for this…crew.

  9. Gezza

     /  28th June 2017

  10. Blazer

     /  28th June 2017

    one thing is clear from ‘ForgetaBill’s’ answers….he is on the ropes,and trys to divert to a MINOR MADE UP ‘scandal’….involving..Labour.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: