Hey Clint, that’s playing dirty politics

I found this at The Standard while I was searching for something on a post celebrating David Cunliffe’s success – And the winner is…


That’s ‘Hey Clint’ who was an author at The Standard under at least one name (dishonest practice) and has worked in the Labour, then Green, then the Labour leader’s office from the start of this year.

Insinuating any party would finance a ‘public’ poll is ludicrous and dirty politics itself without providing any facts to back it up.

And what did “Dirty Politics” say about iPredict?

Page 54:

The following week, on 28 March, Slater joked with Jordan Williams over Facebook about iPredict running stakes on who had leaked the Pullar e-mail. ‘See iPredict?’ Jordan asked? Slater asked on what and Williamns said the ‘acc leaker’.

‘Heh’, Slater replied, ‘who is winning?’Williams, who had been spending money to move the stakes, said ‘Collins or acc official. I’ve shorted Simon [Lusk] quite a bit, brought him right down’.

Page 64:

Slater also used a small sum of money provided by Lusk to manipulate Victoria University’s iPredict rankings of the Rodney candidates and then wrote posts using the iPredict results to reinforce their campaign.

Here are Slater and Lusk discussing iPredict” ‘Great post on ipredict,’ Lush said. ‘You like, i manipulate[d] scott to being the front runner before i posted, only took $5,’ Slater replied.’How much of the $200 have you got left?’ Lusk asked. ‘All of it,’ Slater replied.

Lusk and Slater were promoting one candidate for selection for National for an electorate.They were doing business on their own. It was dirtyish if Slater was using blog posts to make money on iPredict, but there is no indication that the National Party or ‘#teamKey’ were involved.

Clint Smith states he is still ‘Labour policy guy’. He gets involved in more than policy, he has been attacking Key and National through Twitter recently including today.

His association of Key with #dirty politics and his insinuation about ‘#’teamkey’ financing leader’s debates opinion polls, plus his misrepresentation of what was claimed in “Dirty Politics”, was playing dirty. And it was politics.

Lynn Prentice on radio on The Standard

Lynn Prentice from The Standard was interviewed by Guyon Espiner on Radio  NZ this morning.

Left wing bloggers defend their own work

Espiner: And joining me in the Auckland studio is Lynn Prentice from the left wing blogsite The Standard. Good morning to you.

Prentice: Good morning.

Espiner: Well, you heard Bill Ralston saying there that this has been happening for years and this is just the new form of it with websites. Is he right?

Prentice: Ah not for the left. Basically we don’t take material particularly from the parliamentary wing. We never have. other blogs might be we don’t.

Prentice doesn’t speak for “the left”. There are other major left wing blogs like Public Address and The Daily Blog – at the latter (which Prentice has been an author at) Martyn Bradbury was posting while a paid consultant to the Mana Party and while involved in the setting up of the Internet Party.

Espiner: So the Standard has never received any information from the Labour Party.

Prentice: We have but a long time back. If you go back you have to go back to the H-Fee back in 2008.

Espiner: So for the last, what, six years you’ve not received any information from anyone at all in the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mike Smith was General Secretary of the Labour Party until August 2009.  He became Prentice’s co-trustee at The Standard in 2010 and became an author. He was an adviser in the Labour leader’s office (in Parliament) up until last year. He is still authoring posts as of today. (Source L Prentice).

Prentice: We will often get stuff pointing at stuff that is already in public.

Espiner: Right. So you have received material but just not fresh material.

Prentice. Nah, That’s right. The thing about it is…

Espiner: You’re in contact with the Parliamentary wing of the Labour Party surely?

Prentice: Yes.

Espiner: Yeah, ok. So you’re really just the left wing equivalent then of Whale Oil are you?

Prentice: No.

Espiner: What’s the difference?

Prentice? The difference is basically we sit there and write opinion, we don’t try to form it. We write our opinions about what we actually do, we don’t actually go off and try and say what everyone should be thinking. We’re not broadcasters in the same way.

Yeah, that’s an interesting explanation. They have even had a number of posts recently imploring people how to vote. See Get Out The Vote!

Espiner: Well that’s a fairly subtle difference isn’t it? You’re forming or making left wing opinions based on contact with the Labour Party at times. You’ve just said that.

Prentice: Not just the Labour Party, I mean we talk to the Greens…

Espiner: Other left wing parties.

Prentice: There’s maybe, I don’t know, fifteen or twenty people who’ve been active on the blog over time, some of them from the Greens, some of them just not affiliated at all like Karol.

Karol recently stated she was not a member of any party but “I have party voted Green in recent elections, and intend to do so again this election” and has been strongly promoting Greens and voting left.

Espiner: Was it originally hosted on the Labour Party server?

Prentice: Ah hem. There was a server courtesy of a, that was donated to the Labour Party which then got ported onto an activist, and we were hosted on the activists running it, and that was for a grand total of about six weeks until we found out that that was actually the case.

Espiner: Right, ok. Why don’t people on The Standard blog blog under their own names?

Prentice: Why should we?

Espiner: Well because when you’re putting an opinion forward, putting your own name to it …

Prentice: Because the fast way to have Cameron Slater go and try and trace you down at work.

Espiner: Well, no…

Prentice: It, it’s actually in my current job I had to actually go off and tell them if Cameron Slater finds I’m here he’ll attack me.

Espiner: Ok, but you could say look, Cameron Slater, no matter what you think of Cameron Slater, you know who he is.  He’s the son of the former National Party president. You’ve got no illusions about where he’s coming from whether you like his material or not. Yep I’m looking at The Standard website now and I have a bunch of people, Rocky, who’s Rocky?

Prentice:  Rochelle Rees, my niece. She’s well known.

She may be well known amongst the regulars at The Standard but will be unknown to casual readers. I check out The Standard quite often and either didn’t know who Rocky was or didn’t remember. Being well known to Lynn doesn’t mean everyone else knows her that well, but they don’t seem to get that.

Espiner: Ok, who..

Prentice: There’s Mike Smith.

Espiner: Who’s um, you’re lprent I presume.

Prentice: Yeah.

Espiner: Who’s Bunji?

Prentice: Bunji’e just one of the guys from Auckland.

Espiner: Who is it?

Prentice: I don’t know.

Espiner: You don’t know who that is?

Prentice? Well, I do know but ‘m not going to tell you.

First he lies, then he won’t say. Fair enough for the latter, except that Bunji himself did say a bit today.

There’s much more and this must surely rumble on, but for a start can I say that I’m unaware of any passing of gossip and scuttlebutt to The Standard – even if I don’t know all the authors.  I know that a few times Labour policy has been sent to us as it was to journalists with an embargo so we can have stories ready and scheduled when it’s announced.  But nothing more than that.

So they have received material before it goes public. A repeat from above:

Espiner: Right. So you have received material but just not fresh material.

Prentice. Nah, That’s right.

Bunji also said today:

People know where I’m coming from far more than whomever is doing today’s Herald editorial.

They know I’m a Labour party member – as I’ve mentioned that – and from my topics, that I’m based in Auckland.  That’s further confirmed by the fact that I’ve blogged about Labour conferences in Auckland – which might cause an accurate assumption that I’m actively involved in my local Labour Electorate Committee.

Ok, so an active electorate party member. But again, ‘people’ don’t know this.  Some regulars will know but many won’t. I didn’t. Unless you happen to notice the comment amongst many that reveals a bit about someone you won’t know. None of the authors (or either trustee) has disclosures or any information about themselves that’s easily available.

Espiner: Ok, well this is the point though isn’t it, because people can’t make up their minds about…

Prentice: …about what they’re writing? Of course they can? It’s sitting right there on the page.

Espiner: Yes, but it’s anonymous, isn’t it.

Prentice: No it’s not anonymous.

Espiner: Well yes it is because we don’t know who these people are.

Prentice: No, but the thing about it is that it’s no more anonymous than the editorial of the Herald…

Espiner: Well let me put this to you.

Prentice: …who are completely anonymous, they don’t even put their names to it.

Not right – here are named people in editorial positions at NZ Herald.  No one is identified in About at The Standard, and rarely is anyone identified on posts apart from their pseudonym (with an exception or two).

Espiner: Yes, but we it could be couldn’t it that these people could be members of the Labour Party, could even be Parliamentary staffers for all we know, they could have very strong links to the Labour Party, so…

Prentice: Except I say they aren’t. Mike Smith says they aren’t, and we’re the people running the Standard.

That’s the Mike Smith mentioned above, who was himself an adviser in the Labour leader’s office not long ago.

Espiner: So none of these people are connected to the Labour Party?

Prentice: No, they might be connected to the Labour Party, they might be members, they might be supporters, but what you’re asking is are they MPs, are they staffers? Nah.

Espiner: Who are they?

Prentice: They’re basically people who’re interested in politics.

Like mickysavage (Greg Presland), who isn’t a staffer but works in David Cunliffe’s electorate committee and set up a donation trust for Cunliffe last year. And who else? No way of most people knowing.

Espiner: And why don’t they put their names to it?

Prentice: Because basically we’ve had people who go off and try to attack them at work, ok. And it’s a strange thing to do. If some of our people like Clint Smith for instance, basically went on as Steve Piersen on the blog, and eventually went off when he went off when he went off to work for Parliamentary Services. He just happened to be out in the open.

I’m not sure that he was out in the open. Clint Smith worked for Labour, switched to Greens (‘Hey Clint’) and earlier this year moved back to Labour. It had been claimed but wasn’t verified that Smith posted at The Standard as ‘James Henderson’ up until the end of last year, if that is true it was as a Green staffer.

Prentice: But the point about it is there’s a long tradition of being pseudonymous on the ‘net. That goes back thirty years…

Espiner: Ok, can I put a hypothetical to you. Someone comes to you with information which is hugely damaging to the National Party, and it’s four weeks before an election, around about where we are now, and what do you do, do you put it on a website?

Prentice: Ah, a lot of the time what we’ll do is just simply forward it to a journo.

A lot of the time?

Prentice: We’re not there to make news, we’re there to write opinion.

Espiner: All right, thank you very much for explaining that and for joining us, we really appreciate your time. That’s Lynn Prentice from the left wing blog site The Standard.

Some may not be interested in making news, but there is a lot of discussion at times about wanting to make news and to be noticed by mainstream media.

I think it’s fair enough that some people choose to use pseudonyms online. I don’t and being known makes me more of a target for personal abuse. I understand that some prefer to avoid that.

But using a pseudonym does alter perceptions of what is written, not knowing if it is just an ordinary unaffiliated person or David Cunliffe’s offsider.

Lynn hates getting advice (he bans people for it) but I’ll give him and Standard authors some – it would help if you had an ‘authors’ page (or add to ‘About’) with named authors with brief backgrounds plus authors with pseudonyms with brief descriptions of their disclosed background. It does make a difference if you know you’re talking to an active party member or a non-aligned individual.

The problem with avoiding saying anything about authors (apart from in comments scattered through the blog) is that it makes it much more likely people will speculate. If an author is hard out promoting a party but their background is unknown many people will presume they are working with or for the party.

They way things are at the moment there is doubt and there is mixed messages that are far from convincing.

UPDATE: Later in the day on Newstalk ZB ex Labour candidate Josie Pagani named three people including Clint Smith who she says blogged as staffers at The Standard. The other two were Neale Jones and Rob Egan.

There has been discussion about this at The Standard (including Prentice) and so far no denials. I’ll update if there is more on this.

Clint’s trendy job chart criticised

Green’s Hey Clint published a manufacturing jobs chart on Twitter which he claimed showed trends. There are a number of problems with it.

@ClintVSmith: Here’s an update on manufacturing jobs under National

Charting purists jumped on an obvious point.

@keith_ng: Starting the axis at 160k for an area-based representation. GRRR. #cheating

@hamiskofoed: you have misrepresented that graph with the jobs number starting at $160k. U should correct it and re tweet

@sakkaden: you have misrepresented that graph with the jobs number starting at $160k. U should correct it and re tweet

@sakkaden: I do this for a living. Use a line graph if omitting zero. Amputated bars are a high school level failure.

@isaacfreedom: Vertical axis should start at zero, otherwise you exaggerate proportion of change, which isn’t cool.

Clint defended his choice of scale and bars but accepted the criticism.

I had it as a line graph but annoying to make part red part blue in excel.

Zero not compulsory, scale narrower so u can c trend still down. shld hv been line but multi-colour line hard in excel

Next time i’ll do line, as with the previous graphs I’ve done on this topics.

So here’s what it looks like as a line graph.

Manufacturing QES line scaledHmmm, does the trend look like it’s changing? Here it is with the full height Axis, which is less dramatic.

Manufacturing QES unscaledThe visual trend there looks like jobs have dropped a bit with our recession followed by the Global Financial Crisis plus two major Christchurch earthquakes and it has leveled off – with possibly the start of a very modest recovery.

This is what Clint said about it:

The trend since the recession ended is -500 jobs per quarter

My count is from start of the GFC, mid 2008, when manu jobs went from steady ~230 to ~190K in a year.

When did the recession end? According to Wikipedia:

The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession.

To my eye manufacturing jobs bottomed out in 2012 and since then is a hint of recovery.

Yeah, it’s the lack of recovery, in fact, continued decline, that’s the problem

It doesn’t look like a continuing decline to me. And blaming it on National is a bit picky, the rest of the world has seen a manufacturing decline through the recession. Australia:

It represents a hollowing-out of traditional manufacturing in Australia, with the sector now accounting for just 6 per cent to 7 per cent of economic output. Employment in the sector fell by 140,000, or 13 per cent, between the year 2000 and November last year. New South Wales lost 52,900 jobs, or 18.5 per cent of its manufacturing workforce over the 13-year period. Victoria was hit even harder. It shed 95,100 jobs, more than 29 per cent of its manufacturing workforce.


Australia is yet to be hit by the closure of major car manufacturing plants which will result in a further 50,000 job losses.

So what does the overall job trend look like?

All jobs QESCherry picking data and choosing a chart style to suit making a point is easy.  But there’s a lot more to job trends than a Green political diss.

Greens have been proposing Green jobs, in part through manufacturing green energy thingies. There’s a bit of that happening but it can be a very expensive sector to invest in. And it’s very difficult competing in manufacturing with China and India, as the rest of the world is finding.

green job, also called a green-collar job is, according to the United Nations Environment Program, “work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute(s) substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality.

Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high efficiency strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution.

Green Party Green jobs:

We have a practical economic plan that creates decent jobs, adds resilience to our economy, and protects our natural environment. It is a plan for clean green prosperity for all New Zealanders.

Our plan will create 100,000 new jobs through direct government investment in housing, by ensuring our state-owned energy companies capture the massive export opportunities in the renewable energy sector, and, most importantly, by shifting the drivers for green jobs in the private sector

How are they going to do it?

Our plan is detailed and fully-costed. It includes plans for direct government investment, building sustainable infrastructure, supporting the greening of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), driving innovation, introducing smarter regulation, getting the prices of resources and pollution right, protecting our brand, reforming capital markets, making our workplaces fairer, and measuring progress differently.

So far it’s very vague and idealistic. Some Green ‘highlights’:

Direct investment
We will ramp-up the Heat Smart home insulation programme ensuring it is rolled out to a further 200,000 homes over the next three years, costing $350 million and employing 4,000 people directly — 10,400 if you include indirect and upstream employment effects.

That’s an extension of a scheme that’s been running for several years. It’s not clear how many additional jobs would be created by a Green ‘ramp-up’.

From my own experience it can be as cost effective doing this without a Government subsidy because that is inflating prices. I bought a heat pump at least as cheaply as I would have if I used a subsidy and I had more choice doing it through the open market.

Keep it Kiwi
We will retain ownership of our state-owned enterprises while creating the right incentives for them to partner with clean tech entrepreneurs in the private sector and develop renewable energy solutions that we can patent and export abroad. With the right incentives in place, if we can capture just 1% of the global market for renewable energy solutions, we’ll create a $6 to $8 billion export industry employing 47,000–65,000 people in new green jobs.

Very idealistic and vague. This would require large Government investment in high risk enterprises. If it was a viable market it would be happening of it’s own accord – green tech has often proven to be very expensive.

Support for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Through a mix of government procurement policies, tax incentives, start-up funding, and a $1 billion boost to R&D funding, we’ll support SMEs to step up and rive new job creation in the cleantech sector.

More idealistic vagueness. See 100,000 green jobs for New Zealanders (PDF) –

I welcome a chart from Clint showing projected job growth through these policies over the next (say) ten years. Here is another  Green graphic:

Wind power. Apart from the obvious problem that wind power must work alongside other power generation to cover times that not enough wind is blowing (some of the coldest time in winter is calm and frosty weather) there is a an ironic issue – environmental protest.

Wind power plan cancelled

Meridian Energy has decided not to go ahead with their plan to put 176 wind turbines in Central Otago. Local people set up a protest group. This group has spent a lot of time and money fighting to stop Meridian Energy for the last six years.

An earlier plan by Meridian Energy for hydro power from the Waitaki River in Otago was cancelled in 2004, partly because of protests from local groups.

Would a Green government ban environmental protesters so they can proceed with green energy projects?

I’m sure Greens could create some green jobs – at a cost. But it will be challenging to do it in an economically sustainable way – a lot more difficult than adding a Green line (or blocks) to a campaign chart.

Is ‘James Henderson’ Clint Smith?

David Farrar beats around the bush on Kiwiblog in asking A question:

Which prominent blogger has been on the parliamentary payroll for the last 18 months to two years as a parliamentary communications advisor to a political party?

Would not a failure to publicly disclose this be a shocking breach of ethics?

Will the media ask party leaders the names of all their communications advisors, and see which one fesses up?

It’s a fairly good bet Farrar is referring to authors at The Standard, in particular ‘James Henderson’ and possibly ‘Eddie’ and ‘Zetetic’.

It’s been fairly widely suggested that ‘James Henderson’ is the now infamous “Hey Clint” Smith. If Clint can advise that he does not directly or indirectly use that pseudonym (nor any of his co-PR staff at Greens) then I will blog acknowledgement of that as a clarification.

It has at least been confirmed that James Henderson is a Green Party person, and whether it is Clint or not it’s a dishonest misuse of pseudonym to present as a person using a full name when that is not your name.

lprent (Lynn Prentice) makes all sorts of excuses for this dishonesty (you can also question who uses ‘Eddie’ and ‘Zetetic’) but usually resorts to attacking the messenger, which is a sure sign the messenger is close to the mark.

The credibility of The Standard as a forum for the labour left is severely damaged by this ongoing dishonesty and lack of transparency. And there is a strong labour-Green association involved.

So the credibility of the Greems is in question.

The easiest way to clarify is to get an answer. Hey Clint?

I’ll post any response in full.

Green reaction to MRP

After the Mighty River Power share price and buyer statistics were announced last night the Greens were active.

The official word from Russel Norman:

Mighty River con revealed

The Mighty River sale has been shown to be a con on New Zealanders with less than 3 percent of Kiwis buying in and most of the shares going to corporates, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

“The charade is over: ‘mum and dad’ New Zealanders haven’t bought the shares; the big finance institutions and foreign corporates have,” said Dr Norman.

“John Key’s talk of ‘mum and dad’ investors was a con – less than 3 percent of Kiwis have bought shares in Mighty River Power.

“The fact that Kiwi retail investors are having their allotments scaled back so National can sell shares to foreign corporates shows what a farce this has been.

“The multi-million dollar ad campaign has failed to con Kiwis into buying Mighty River, they want lower power prices instead.

“The supposed 440,000 pre-registered investors turned out to be a figment of John Key’s imagination. The number of retail investors is only half the number who bought into Contact and less than half of what Treasury forecast.

“Over two and a half times as many Kiwis have signed the petition calling for a referendum on asset sales as bought Mighty River shares – that tells you what Kiwis think of John Key’s asset sales.

“John Key has wasted as much as $100m on the sale of Mighty River. That’s nearly $1,000 per retail investor. It’s been a disaster. He should cancel the rest of the asset sales and focus on creating jobs for Kiwis, not payouts for financiers,” said Dr Norman.

Comparing the number of share buyers with the number of petition signers is ridiculous. Signing a piece of paper costs nothing and often spur of the moment, purchasing shares is a significant financial decision.

Greens were active on Twitter:

@patrickgowernz and so 300,000 ‘fake’ registrations Will you report the MRP disaster like that too? Hmm?

@metiria nope

@patrickgowernz really? What a surprise.

It’s not a surprise, there is no indication there were anywhere near that many ‘fake’ registrations – many people who registered simply decided not to buy (like me) –  although there were obviously some:

I was registered fraudulently at least twice, another MP 5 times. I complained to treasury & they wouldn’t fix the system

And ditto on fake claims of the scale of fake registrations from Russel Norman:

So only 113000 retail investors in MRP. So by Key’s logic there were 330,000 fake MRP registrations. Key the conartist

So by your logic, Key had 75% fake registrations @patrickgowernz? Will you run that line?


no surprise there Paddy.


Nats have spent $1000 of taxpayer money per retail investor in MRP. 100000 investors for $100m. Nats waste public money yet again.

More pertinent is querying whether the cost of promoting the share float would have been returned in increased sales interest and value of the sales. That can’t easily be measured – but it would be relevant to compare the cost of promoting this with the cost of promoting other share floats.

The party line:


Key’s ‘mum & dad investors’ line revealed as a con. Less than 3% of Kiwis bought Mighty River shares http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/mighty-river-con-revealed … stop the sales

@PeteDGeorge@ClintVSmith If that’s why people rejected MRP, it’s only a recognition that NZ Power will bring down prices to fair level

Fair time to announce a policy affecting power prices & excessive profits was before the sale. Not like Key’s secret GST rise

Mighty River sale cost up to $100m: brokers ~$50m, bonus shares ~$40m + ads, fees, etc. What a waste. Stop the asset sales.

No. Key has wasted $100 on a sale that makes no sense & Kiwis oppose. He should be working on jobs, poverty, & sustainability

Plus every single poll has shown a large majority oppose sales.

And the troops – Gareth Hughes:


First asset sale is a total con. Despite spending millions on ads: less than 3% of Kiwis buying in & most of the shares going to corporates!

@Matt_Green sure, but excessive profits in the past should never be guaranteed into the future.

@Matt_Green yeah, I think many did that too. The Govt did sweeten the deal with taxpayer money.

Have a listen to my short speech on #NZPower today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zjWCjqi7nOk … Greens coming up with solutions while Govt focused on spying laws

@Matt_Green yeah, fair point. I dont think we ever had. We designed #NZPower if assets kept in Kiwis hands or flogged off.

MRP Share price $2.50. Asset sale costs $120m. Free share bribe $400m. Keeping assets Kiwi & delivering cheaper, cleaner power. Priceless.


Andrew Campbell:


@patrickgowernz disaster for govt. way fewer than valid signatures on asset sales petition. Where are all the mums and dads buying?

@johnkeypm should apologise for the rort. How many fake registrations for MRP shares?

@CactusKate2 it was less than Govt said it would get and less than Treasury predicted. Worse than Contact original offer #epicfail

And Hey Clint doesn’t seem happy about it…

@stevenljoyce onyl 113,000? that’s a disaster. So much for ‘mum and dad’ investors

Only 113,000 ‘mum and dad’ investors in Mighty River. What a disaster. that’s half what Contact got. only a quarter of pre-registrations

@felixmarwick @katieabradford It’s the largest now because 2/3rds of Contact shareholders have sold. 113,000 is half Contact’s float number

@k8chap except that less than 3% of Kiwis have bought shares

@patrickgowernz guess the other 330,000 pre-registrations were fakes and false #Keycons Less than 3% of Kiwis have bought shares. Disaster

@VernonSmall Did the other 330,000 even exist? There were dozens fake Russel Normans. Less than 3% of NZers buy MRP, so much for ‘mum & dad’

@patrickgowernz what % of ownership is ‘mum and dad’? Sounds like most is institutional

@VernonSmall so they’re scaling Kiwis while selling shares to overseas corporates?

So much for ‘mum and dad’ investors. Nats are scaling back their investment to sell shares to overseas corporates

@hardsell @patrickgowernz because that would be a taxpayer subsidy, NZ Power gets rid of electric companies’ superprofits creates fair price

massive fail, 97% of Kiwis don’t buy MRP shares. Mr FixIt, Mr ForgetsIt, and Double Dipton f*ck up again @stevenljoyce

@CactusKate2 less than half what Treasury expected, half what Contact got 14yrs ago. So much for ‘mums and dads’ Most shares to institutions

@CactusKate2 what % of Kiwisaver savings are in MRP? What % of MRP do Kiwisaver funds own?

@patrickgowernz @metiria @GuyonEspiner so people who sign petition then move = fake. but 2 dozen Russel Normans pre-registered = real?

@thekiwicanary ‘mum and dad investors’ is Key’s term to make the asset sales more palatable. Hence my inverted commas. Take it up with him.

@sthnjeff would you have preferred the Greens kept their plan to lower power prices secret until in govt? Like Key did with GST?

@CactusKate2 That’s why I thought I’d ask you. #330000short

@patrickgowernz @RusselNorman mate, $100m spent on MRP sale, 113,000 retail investors that’s failure. Asset sales referendum is gonna happen

Hey, where was Key at the Mighty River sale announcement? This is his one economic policy. Such a disaster he wouldn’t front up. $100m waste

@thekiwicanary john key’s twitter account is @johnkeypm if you want to abuse him for calling you a ‘mum and dad’ investor #patronising

@kht27 @patrickgowernz that’s key lies. nz power means only fossil fuel plants affected by ets. Under nats ets, hydro owners get a windfall

@Garner_Live @liamdann @patrickgowernz treasury thought 250,000 would buy. We never imagined it would be this low. Thought at least 200,000

@duckky007 @kht27 @patrickgowernz why? NZ Power eliminates economic rents to hydrodam owners, they’re making those regardless of yr discount

@thekiwicanary @stevenljoyce shld they have kept their lower power price plan secret past election asJoyce & Key did w their sneak GST rise?


Clint too

Green media muppet Clint Smith has been getting plenty of social media coverage – more than Gareth Hughes, who initiated it on 3 News last night by asking Clint if they were allowed to show they were happy at disrupting the MRP share float.

See Hey Clint at Kiwiblog,  #HeyClint on Twitter, and “Hey Clint” – on spin doctors and soundbites at The Listener.

Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

It was @TovaOBrien who brutally exposed the inner workings of Green spin machine and its power over Gareth Hughes: ‘Hey Clint…’

Greens media policy exposed. 1. Call for inquiry 2. Ask Clint/”Hey Clint”

Coincidentally I had a Twitter exchange with Clint in the weekend, he was repeating blinkered mantra:


@robhosking real business owners r looking forward to lower power prices & hiring more people. Why are you defending govt-created oligopoly?

The “real business owners” term has also been used by Labour.

I asked “have you surveyed them”.

The MEA is among biz, consumer groups coming out in support. Will Dunne campaign for keeping high power prices?

maybe you can be joyce’s campaign manager. got your slogan: ‘Proud of our record: higher power prices, fewer jobs’

“Very ironic Clint, you’re are the one peddling Green slogans. Why don’t you try “proud of stuffing the economy”.”

cheaper power=warmer, healthier homes, lower biz cost=better economy. status quo=$700m superprofits to Crown&Origin

“Resorting to shallow PR slogans suggest you have no idea what you may be doing to the markets.”

let me assure you we know precisely what we’re doing – taking away an inefficient (Nat-created) tax on the economy

Precisely what they want to do is transfer wealth from shareholders to whoever they think it is fair to give it to.

But they are ignoring the wider ramifications – or really are blind to anything outside their ideological line of sight.

this plan is supported by business groups, consumer groups, child poverty groups, grey power, lines companies etc

only people opposing lower power prices the oligopolists themselves & the failed Nat govt + its wee zombie parties

Be interesting to see where all that support is, I haven’t seen much, and I’ve seen a lot of people opposing and criticism.

What he recited is amazingly similar to what his wee zombie MP has been saying.

It was noticed that Clint had gone quiet today, on Twitter at least. But perhaps he’s just gone under cover, this sounds very much the same message:

Loss of wealth? No, a redistribution of wealth

And TV3 has released the full video.