The worthless little hobgoblins over at Labour Party agitprop outlet The Standard have been busy recently, standing up for stand-up guy Winston Peters and lamenting the dire ethics of the big mean mainstream media who have been mercilessly persecuting the blameless New Zealand First leader.
In this thread pseudononymous Standard author ‘John A’ argues that investigative journalist Phil Kitchen is indeed just being a wanker for daring to ask Peters questions about the undeclared donations from various millionaires to his various secret trusts; here we have Standard stalwart Steve Pierson dismissing the entire story as an irrelevant waste of time (evidence of massive corruption + very senior politician = nothing to see here).
One doesn’t know whether to laugh in their faces or vomit on their laps; it is rare for a day to go by without ‘The Standard’ regurgitating another tantrum about National and their sinister secret trusts and demonic corporate donors, yet when confronted with behavior that is just as bad – if not far far worse than anything National has gotten caught at – their response is to clutch their pearls and wring their little lace hankies and plead for the media to change the subject.
This would be a little more understandable if the target of the current jihad were some Labour MP or even a Green; but Peters is one of the most abhorrent politicians in our recent history, a man who bangs the drums of racism and intolerance every election year, devoted his time as foreign minister to repairing relations with the Bush administration, whose party promoted a private members bill to try children as adults, who demonises gays, asians, refugees and any other vulnerable minority he can think of. Is this really a guy The Standard wants to leap to the defense of?
The answer is: of course, because Peters currently supports the Labour government and that means The Standard stands up to bat for him, no matter how questionable his behavior or how daft it makes them look.
The laughable, mediocre toads contributing to ‘The Standard’ delude themselves that they are left-wing progressive bloggers. They are nothing of the sort – they are company hacks, shills for the ruling party and a particularly contemptible medium for a conspicuously craven brand of propaganda.
Sure there are worse blogs out there – particularly on the right – but at least the wingnuts are providing a critic of those in power. Even if it is often a very stupid, ugly critic it is still far more honorable than acting as a lickspittle for the sitting government – especially when they already have several hundred press secretaries and spin-doctors paid to advance their agenda.
The Standard is the tasteless Labour flavor of The Hollow Men; but at least the spin and lies pouring out of National win votes for the party, while the wretched drones at The Standard makes even a long term left-wing voter like me recoil in disgust.
Tell me, have you ever heard of a little principle – “Innocent until proven guilty”.
To date I haven’t seen anything that Winston has actually done wrong under the Electoral Act 1993. To be more precise I haven’t seen anything that I don’t already suspect most of the parties doing under that Act – which had holes you can drag a barge through. For instance the Waitemata Trust that the Nat’s used to launder millions of dollars through in 2005.
I suspect you are helping Winston’s electoral chances by acting the fool. The guy is a lawyer, and I’m pretty sure that whatever he did was legal, and well within the behaviour expected by an Act that the Nat’s put in to benefit themselves.
I’d have to say that you are tasteless little lynch-mob moron who really doesn’t seem to think before they write. I wonder when I last booted you from The Standard for being a moronic troll? From your writing style, I don’t think you’d last there long.
Lynn
Comment by Lynn Prentice — August 1, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Lynn, It’s perfectly obvious to anyone that Winston is guilty of rank hypocrisy, regardless of the illegality of his actions. To suggest that the Waitemata trust is in anyway comparable is to completely overlook the fact that National make no secret of the trust and declare everything they get from it (unlike Peters). Suggesting that they are “laundering” money through this is typical Standardista hyperbole.
I note that Danyl appears to be correct. It did not take long for the Standard to comment using the “standard” Labour method of distraction and misleading accusation.
Comment by macdoctor01 — August 1, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Oh come on Lynn, I’m still waiting for “A” or “Pierson” to front up to the question I put on this thread which was – setting aside any question of donations – they believe the behaviour of Peters and Ron Marks in th House these past few days makes them fit and proper persons to sit in the House of Representatives?
Is it okay with them, in other words, to extend a disgusting campaign of smear, defamation and vitriol to ordinary citizens as well as MPs in a transparent effort to provide a smokescreen against legitimate questions as to political donations?
I’m still waiting, and I’m going to keep asking.
Comment by Rex Widerstrom — August 1, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
I wonder when I last booted you from The Standard for being a moronic troll? From your writing style, I don’t think you’d last there long.
If I ever deign to grace the comments of your wretched little site you’ll know it.
Comment by danylmc — August 1, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Unfortunately Danyl has a point, which Lynn’s response demonstrates.
The Standard has had some good commentary, analysing the government’s record and National’s emptiness. But there are too many predictable Party line posts, and the sledgehammer moderation seems designed to confirm every opponent’s preconceptions about the “left”.
I doubt that waverers and potential sympathisers read the Standard and come away more likely to vote Labour. (A quick visit to Kiwiblog, on the other hand, and I’ll soon be cheering for Helen again).
Comment by sam — August 1, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Indeed.
Well said Dim.
It is great to see you are capable of thinking for yourself and capable of seeing right from wrong.
Over at the Standard, they truly are Liabour’s lapblog, incapable for digressing from the Liarbour Party line.
Over at No Minister, which might be one of those bad blogs in your view, we do allow freedom of thought.
On some issues we criticise Rodney Hide, on others we’ll criticise John Key. One others, we praise them, sometimes in the same week.
We are free, as you are.
But the Standard is indeed a shill for Liarbour and Dear Leader, which takes away the fun of blogging, even if I must admit, they do have some well argued pieces, occassionally.
Comment by Fairfacts Media — August 1, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
I see Danyl that you have found a real fan in Lynn there.
I too have been somewhat taken back by the defence of some left bloggers for Winston. I think the most telling thing in the last two weeks is his refusal to answer the charge of hypocrisy.
I don’t know whether I should be proud or ashamed of the fact, but I get on reasonably well with Mr Peters.
In the few times I have had a chance to ask him about this in the last few weeks, he has just said there is a difference between what he has done and what National, Labour and Act have done over the last 15 years, his reply is that there is a massive difference and he would explain it tomorrow.
He has not yet done so.
The soliciting of donations from “big business” and disguising it through trusts has been a common practice amongst some political parties.
But on the surface NZ First have been worse, not only have they attacked the practice for 15 years, but even had a secret trust to do the funnelling.
New Zealand First’s electoral returns say it has received not one declarable donation since 1996. The Bob Jones case throws massive doubt on this.
The refusal to address the allegation of hypocrisy speaks volumes too me (and the left bloggers who defend him should realise that no Labour politician is defending him from that charge).
I also thought NZ First’s performance in the House on Thursday was appalling. What was sadder was that their body language implied they thought it was the right thing to do.
It is good this Parliament is coming to an end.
Comment by Ian Llewellyn — August 1, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
New Zealand First’s electoral returns say it has received not one declarable donation since 1996. The Bob Jones case throws massive doubt on this.
In Winston’s ‘hurricane Peters’ conference in Auckland he declared that no one in New Zealand First received or retained any money from the Spencer Trust; I think this was probably true and that it is a secret fund to pay his personal legal fees and expenses (which sound as if they are extensive).
Rumours have been floating around about allegations Sir Roger Bhatnagar gave a large donation to Peters shortly before he was knighted; wouldn’t it be great if Peters had spent all those years railing against Asians and big business while being bankrolled by a multi-millionaire from north India.
Comment by danylmc — August 1, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
I wonder when I last booted you from The Standard for being a moronic troll? From your writing style, I don’t think you’d last there long
What Sam said.
Comment by georgedarroch — August 1, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
I wrote a response exactly in kind to danyl’s post. If he wants to write bile and direct it my way then the little weasel can accept it back again – right?
I repeat myself…
“Tell me, have you ever heard of a little principle – “Innocent until proven guilty”.
To date I haven’t seen anything that Winston has actually done wrong under the Electoral Act 1993.”
The fact is that to date, and on the comments here, there is a lot of speculation and no evidence. In fact there is so little evidence of wrong-doing that it’d be really hard for anyone to even investigate through lack of search warrants.
I’m not defending Winston or NZF – in fact I don’t like either. However I dislike the shrill voices of the pathetic lynch mob in the media and blogs even less. The post up above is a classic example. Danyl pathetically abuses the posts at The Standard for not joining the braying mob. Why does he do this?
“The answer is: of course, because Peters currently supports the Labour government and that means The Standard stands up to bat for him, no matter how questionable his behavior or how daft it makes them look.”
Nope – wrong – you contemptible little hobgoblin. It is because there is no evidence that he violated the 1993 Act. In fact there is no evidence that he did anything that hasn’t been done by the trusts for all parties. That is because the 1993 Act was totally useless at handling donations.
The EFA 2007 tightened that up. It still isn’t perfect, but it is better..
Comment by Lynn Prentice — August 2, 2008 @ 12:17 am
Lynn – perhaps if The Standard was to post something along the lines of “We don’t know that Peters is a crook, but he IS a hypocrite”, you’d have more credibility. Peters said in February that NZ First had NEVER received any money from big business. So who’s not telling the truth? Owen Glenn? The Vela family? Sir Robert Jones? Or Winston Peters?
Comment by Inventory2 — August 2, 2008 @ 6:12 am
Lynn, you have done yourself no favours jumping in to this thread. You are just confirming the belief that many of us hold about your risible party propaganda site. The irony in this is that you are probably the only enthusiastic amateur at the standard.
The defense of peters must be sickening for all involved. Eating a dead poodle is how I have described it and it must be gut wrenching for lefties to have to do it.
The standard site may not be directly funded by Labour or Labour’s heterosexual wing (EPMU) but the bulk of the posters are labour and union hacks employed by the taxpayer/ labour party or hetero wing.
Comment by barnsleybill — August 2, 2008 @ 6:46 am
hetero wing? what the fuck?
Its amusing to watch Lynn attempt to deny his site is a platform for Labour propaganda by repeatedly chanting the latest party line on Winston (‘there is no evidence of anything illegal, there is no evidence of anything illegal . . .’). Nice own goal.
Its also interesting to contrast The Standards brand of brainless devotion to their party – no matter how calculating and venal the PMs actions are – with the disgust with which the right-wing bloggers greeted Nationals u-turn on working for families this week.
If Clark and Cullen converted to neo-liberalism overnight and decided to privitise the state’s schools and hospitals the next day its impossible to conclude The Standard wouldn’t be marching right behind them beating the drum and singing their praises like the dismal little zombies they are. Its what they do.
Comment by danylmc — August 2, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Great post DM, and you’re spot on, Lynn’s responses only serve to typify the craven hypocracy of the standard: ie chant the party line, abuse those with opposing views, (hobgoblin ffs?), and then threaten to mute you (“I wonder when I last booted you from The Standard for being a moronic troll? From your writing style, I don’t think you’d last there long.”)
Seriously, what else could you expect from a group of people, who by their admission, support the concept of central control, have no desire to become wealthy, and who don’t have a problem with the concept of nationalizing privately owned businesses such as The Warehouse?
G
Comment by Grant — August 2, 2008 @ 7:43 am
Yes, Labour does need this piece of dog turd and well done Danyl for your analysis, but have you noticed that John Key is also terrified of coming out and attacking him for fear (yes, fear) that he might lose the possibility of his support if he wins the next election?
Which is better, a corrupt government fighting a spin battle to cling onto the last chance of power or a craven opportunist who is prepared to stuff his principles up his rectum in a desperate attempt to sieze the same power for power’s sake?
However, there is a third player here. The guy in the silly yellow jacket seems to be coming back to his old form. Now here’s a guy with nothing to lose and everything to gain. Its gonna be interesting.
Comment by Dave Mann — August 2, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Perhaps Danyl should write a post on the $2 million anonymous donation that the Waitemata trust gave National in 2005. That donation was reported to the Electoral Commission. If they’d paid it in $9999 lumps they wouldn’t have had to – quite likely what the Spencer trust did with Bob Jones donation.
In the “Hollow Men” Nicky Hager asserted that there was a donation by insurance companies to National via these anonymous trusts. Of course the privatization of the ACC (which has been National Party policy) would have been a great windfall for those same companies.
When I see Danyl attack all of the anonymous donations done using that ineffectual Electoral Act of 1993 that National wrote for their own electoral benefit, then I may have more respect for his opinions. At present, all I see is an ill informed, thoughtless, and stupid attack on my site with little consistency in his views. It looks to me to be a straight attack on the site and the writers.
He should actually read the posts that have been done at The Standard in this topic. The writers have just viewed NZF’s and the Spencer trust’s actions as being yet another instance of the total idiocy of parts of the 1993 Act. They haven’t supported NZF or Windston – they have just noted it as being yet another instance of a problem with the Electoral Act 1993.
Comment by Lynn Prentice — August 2, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Lynn don’t waste your time on Danyl. He’s a good mate of Farrar’s and slowly drifting to the right, so this kind of underhanded and dishonest attack is what you’d expect. Look at who’s cheering him on – the extreme right wing and the perenially aggro George Darroch.
What I find the most ridiculous is his claim:
“If Clark and Cullen converted to neo-liberalism overnight and decided to privitise the state’s schools and hospitals the next day its impossible to conclude The Standard wouldn’t be marching right behind them beating the drum and singing their praises like the dismal little zombies they are. Its what they do.”
Just last week a poster on the Standard brutally attacked Cullen for the omnibus tax bill that would send manufacturing offshore. The week before the Immigration Bill was attacked and discussion on the site led to an online petition against it. The week before the government’s insistence on building roads in the age of peak oil was attacked. I could go on.
And he still hasn’t found a single post where anyone on the Standard has said the support Winston. He’s just collected two posts from different authors questioning the lynch mob mentality. He puts two and two together and gets five.
Danyl McLaughlin – lying hack.
Comment by JK — August 2, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Lynn: You seem to be having enormous difficulty with the difference between the Waitemata and Spencer trust. I’ve posted a comment on Inventory’s website but here it is again, in case you missed it.
National:
Donor (secret) -> Trust (known) -> National (known and declared)
NZ First:
Donor (secret) -> Trust (secret) -> ?????????
Spot the difference…
Comment by macdoctor01 — August 2, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
I have emailed you an explanation for the “hetero wing” comment..
Comment by barnsleybill — August 2, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
“They are nothing of the sort – they are company hacks, shills for the ruling party and a particularly contemptible medium for a conspicuously craven brand of propaganda.”
Lack of transparency seems to be a feature of this “Labour-led” government. I find it bizarre that while other parties like the Greens are open about the authorship and operation of their blog, Labour goes out of it’s way to pretend that “The Standard” is independent.
On blogs like Frogblog, Kiwiblog , No Minister, TVHE, Ratesblog rational debate is accepted and encouraged over at “The Standard” the debate appears to very rarely rise above referring to dissenting voices as “retarded”: a debating technique most people leave behind at 7. It is extremely disturbing that we are paying for this via parlimentary services.
Comment by bryanspondre — August 2, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Bryan – the Beehive based bloggers are paid by Dept of Internal Affairs, not The Parliamentary Service.
I guess they would claim that they get paid a salary regardless of what they do, so their blogging doesn’t cost the taxpayer any extra money.
Comment by David Farrar — August 2, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
David, that is incredibly disturbing. To have individuals as partisan as them working in THAT department is scandalous.
Comment by barnsleybill — August 2, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Thanks David.
Comment by mawgxxxxiv — August 2, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Wow Lynn – you managed to mention the Waitemata trust three times in one short thread as well as the hilarious Hollow Men…. at least we know what you guys are insinuating over there on that ghastly blog of yours.
How does it feel knowing you are defending Winston Peters a man I am willing to wager you probably hated when he chose National over Labour.
Comment by Clint Heine — August 3, 2008 @ 12:58 am
“I guess they would claim that they get paid a salary regardless of what they do, so their blogging doesn’t cost the taxpayer any extra money.”
So presumably their managers approve of their activities ? If they don’t then surely the employees concerned are ‘stealing time’ from their employer ? If the managers do approve then how does this demonstrate neutrality of the public service ?
Looking at outline of DIA activities on their website I struggle to see how managing a blog that attacks the National Party could fit into any of their employees job desciption.
Comment by bryanspondre — August 3, 2008 @ 2:52 am
Lynn – the fact that you are still outraged about activities carried out by an opposition party three years ago but have a cheerful socratic indifference to much more serious allegations leveled against a minister of the crown in the present day is an affirmation of my thesis, not a refutation of it.
Comment by danylmc — August 3, 2008 @ 6:41 am
Ministerial Office employees in Ministerial Services (a section of DIA) are allowed to be political, In fact it is pretty hard not to.
I think the key issue is transparency. They should do what the Greens do at Frog Blog and openly acknowledge that some of their bloggers are parliamentary/ministerial staffers.
Comment by David Farrar — August 3, 2008 @ 9:37 am
I think the key issue is transparency. They should do what the Greens do at Frog Blog and openly acknowledge that some of their bloggers are parliamentary/ministerial staffers.
That’s what I don’t understand: even though the PM no longer has her infamous ‘dream team’ of press secs Labour still have some of the best comms people in the country on their payroll; why don’t they set up a group blog for them instead of suffering under the indignity of having The Standard be their presence in the blogosphere?
Comment by danylmc — August 3, 2008 @ 9:48 am
“I think the key issue is transparency.”
Agreed. I struggle to see what the downside would be for “The Standard” in being upfront. “The Standard”s aversion to transparency reminds me of the Chinese premier during the NZ hosted APEC in the 1990′s demanding to be screened from the Falun Gong protesters. It is an almost infant like “if I can’t see you then you don’t exist”. “The Standard” bloggers have an almost neurotic aversion to dissent, unlike any of the other NZ political blogs.
Comment by bryanspondre — August 3, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
I see that the “Bearded One”, Clinton Smith aka “Steve Pierson” was protesting at the Nats’ conference today, and in so doing has committed TWO breaches of the EFA.
I always find it a bit strange that someone wanting to blog anonymously would take on what looks like a real name to hide his identity. It’s hardly transparency in action, is it? At least bloggers such as myself, blogging under a nom-de-plume aren’t pretending to be a real person who doesn’t exist.
Comment by Inventory2 — August 3, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
I see that Lynn has defaulted to the Labour-supporter’s dtandard setting – stick to one tiny part of the argument you are fairly sure is safe, call everyone else a liar/deluded/retarded/undereducated/rightwing based on that tiny part, then extrapolate the apparent correctness of the excerpt to the whole and bask in the glow of moral superiority. Lynn, I don’t care much either way for Labour, National or NZF, but WP’s gross hypocrisy and desperate denial is getting on my wick. But hey, what do I know? I’m just one of those dumb morons who don’t get the message, aren’t I? To be honest, it’s not Labour’s performance over the past nine years or National’s brilliant policies that will cost Helen and Co the next election; it’s the insufferable smug arrogance of Labour activists, who are so far up themselves that they won’t even listen when someone points out their arrogance. Will the Standard continue after the election without taxpaper funding, by the way?
Comment by Don — August 4, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Lynn Prentice your bilious rant in your initial post and your further ‘clarifications’ prove Danyl right.
Idiot.
Comment by Jane — August 4, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
To be honest, it’s not Labour’s performance over the past nine years or National’s brilliant policies that will cost Helen and Co the next election; it’s the insufferable smug arrogance of Labour activists, who are so far up themselves that they won’t even listen when someone points out their arrogance.
IMHO some of the National Party activists online are much more awful than Lynn or any of the Labour party ones (www.whaleoil.co.nz).
Comment by Danyl Mclauchlan — August 4, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
“Will the Standard continue after the election without taxpaper funding, by the way?” – No.
Comment by bryanspondre — August 4, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Christ, Danyl, don’t get me started on the other lot. A curse on all their houses…
Comment by Don — August 5, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Hahahahaha Has the big, mean, Standard has come along and taken some of the blog scene from the paranoid adolescent right? All throwing our toys at the other side picking up huge numbers of hits and stopping Farrar’s metronomes dominate the blogsphere?
Comment by toms — August 5, 2008 @ 9:18 am
All throwing our toys at the other side picking up huge numbers of hits and stopping Farrar’s metronomes dominate the blogsphere?
Well put.
Comment by danylmc — August 5, 2008 @ 11:17 am
[...] (who is definitely on the left) at the Dim-Post did a scathing post on The Standard last week. I will resist quoting large segments of it here. Rather than flame him for his comments (and they [...]
Pingback by A half denial | Kiwiblog — August 5, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Lynn Prentice wrote:
Tell me, have you ever heard of a little principle – “Innocent until proven guilty”.
I reply:
Good question, Lynn — and one you might choose to put to some of your own contributors, except editorial responsibility only seems to be for Mr Farrar. And am I the only person who thinks “But Mummy they do it too” is, even if true, the kind of crap justification that is tiresome from toddlers, unacceptable from teenagers, and plain embarrasing from alleged adults?
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 5, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
And toms wrote:
Hahahahaha Has the big, mean, Standard has come along and taken some of the blog scene from the paranoid adolescent right?
I reply:
… and replaced it with the paranoid adolescent left. Not much haha to be had there.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — August 5, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
lol
Comment by Kimble — August 5, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
“…and slowly drifting to the right…”
LOL, burned!
Comment by Kimble — August 5, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
From your writing style, I don’t think you’d last there long.- Lynn
Nobody who dares to disagree with the jumped up little marxists at the Standard lasts very long.
Comment by LabourMustBeLiquidated — August 5, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
And if this blog was the same as the standard lynns comments would have been moderated and then he would have been banned at the first.
Comment by LabourMustBeLiquidated — August 5, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
I once asked a simple question over at The Standard, “explain HOW the actions of the Labour Party in government has led to an improvement in life for New Zealanders” (or something to that effect.
I got a bunch of replies that claimed Labour took over and things got better, but nothing which actually explained why one thing would lead to the other. The logic chain was: Labour won the election —> things got better.
I just asked for something a bit more detailed and meaty. It wasnt a nasty question, but after that point pretty much all I got was worthless flame.
I recall there was a chart which showed Labour taking power and things getting better straight away (incomes or something like that iirc), so I pointed out that this could hardly be the impact of Labour as they didnt have any time to make an impact. No worthwhile response. I pointed out that the chart actually showed that much of the gain attributed to Labour occured during this early period, so Labours impact, even by their own evidence, must have been negligble. No worthwhile response.
I did get called a heartless, selfish capitalist who hated the working poor. Which was nice.
As far as I could see, the most The Standard could come up with was “Labour made things better by winning the election and keeping National out of power because National would have made things much much worse because they are National.”
Comment by Kimble — August 5, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Reading the original post, and then the comments, I am saddened by the responses of some who claim to be of the left.
I am affirmedly left, have voted for the Labour candidate in my riding as long as I could vote, and voted for the Green Party once MMP came in. That is where I feel comfortable politically. BUT that won’t happen this time. As a social democrat, I worry that Labour appear to have lost some of its core values. It seems only to want to hold on to power. Witness the EFA (and when I sent comments in, they simply told me I had been brainwashed by the right – sigh), and now the support for Winston. They are arguing VERY narrowly that it is not illegal. The line “Innocent until proven guilty …” is certainly aligned with this position. It nicely avoids the questions “Is it RIGHT?” or “Is it MORAL?” or “Is it hypocritical?” because the answer to all three SHOULD be NO!
And when those of us on the left of the political spectrum express our concerns? We are told that we don’t know what we are talking about, are dismissed, and told to leave it to those who know better.
Well, sorry, that isn’t going to wash. Not now, not ever.
Comment by David in Chch — August 5, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Oops. The answer to the three questions “right”, “moral”, “hypocritical” should be No, No and YES. (Note to self: Remember to PROOFREAD before posting!)
Comment by David in Chch — August 5, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Good comments David in ChCh. Despite my handle I voted Labour at the last election! You can see that I have moved decisively to the right. Why? Because of Labours nanny state interfering in the lives of ordinary NZ’ers.
Comment by LabourMustBeLiquidated — August 5, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
“Despite my handle I voted Labour at the last election!”
A beer, a billboard.
Moving from electing to liquidating in less than 3 years must be the fastest turnaround since Molotov met Ribbentrop.
There are plenty of ways of expressing dissatisfaction which don’t involve swinging “decisively to the right”. And only a fool’s vote is decided by protest rather than policy.
Comment by sam — August 5, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Danyl,
I should visit here more often.
The Standardistas are daft, your explanation is wrong:
“The answer is: of course, because Peters currently supports the Labour government and that means The Standard stands up to bat for him, no matter how questionable his behavior or how daft it makes them look.”
The problem with The Standards stance of softly, softly, Winston is that it makes absolutely zero political sense. The Standard are what the Americans call a 527 – an independent (in name at least) group with affinity to the Labour Party, like the Swift Boat Veterens of 04 were for the GOP. Their function (if they are ever to have one) is garnering votes for the Labour Party through propoganda that is persuasive and popular. Cynical, underhanded and dirty politics redeemed only by its effectiveness.
Because they are “independent” the Standard can take an independent line favourable to the Labour Party vote in the next election. They could target Winston with attacks, smears (call him slippery), because 95% of the electorate do not like Winston. They could highlight that the slippery Winston is taking big donations from corporate interests and that to do so is sleaze, because the electorate perhaps associate corporate graft with the Nats. And they could perhaps ask just where Winston learnt his political craft, way back when (hint: National Party). Positives of such an approach are in the 55 – 60% range. Labour could then closer to the election endorse the Standards position, for a windfall gain then which the Standard have built as semi-officailly Labourite today. And worst case scenario, Winston gets upset about a freakin BLOG. He is in no position to go to the polls now. And Helen will still be supportive for another month or two.
The Standard screw this opportunity up horribly. Defending the legal legitimacy of Winston (who 94 – 96% of the electorate can’t stand) by specifically linking to the “wonderful” EFA (which guessing 80% of the electorate do not like). The numbers mean that the most positive support they can garner is 4% of 20% = 0.8%; whilst the negatives are a staggering 94% of 80% = 75%. The imbeciles at the Standard are backing a 100:1 longshot, soo STOOPID and totally worthless.
The Standard appear daft, because they are daft.
Comment by unaha-closp — August 5, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Oh, what gold! Lynn obviously hadn’t taken his meds and Neale (aka JK) follows Lynn’s lead (he’s in charge of the taxpayer funded Standard, you see…it’s not really a communal thing, because someone has to be Stalin).
This comedy deserves a TV show – Lynn, have a chat to Mike and see if NZ On Air can spare some dosh.
Comment by Buggerlugs — August 5, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
What a great post and thread of comments.
Lynn – your posts are a classic case of the defence proving the prosecution’s case for them – wiser to exercise your right to silence if everything you can say just helps prove the case.
I completely share David in ChCh’s view on this – I am by nature a Labour leaning voter, but I’m also keen on some liberal democratic values like free speech (which the EFA suppresses) and transparency (that the EFA avoided) that neither Labour or the Substandard seem able to cope with. When we raise issues like this, we get an aggressive, sneering reaction from Labour’s blinkered and tactically stupid apologists – which alienates people like us even more. Sam, for example, seems to believe that nobody can genuinely say they’ve drifted away from Labour to the centre/right. Anyone who says this, Sam seems to think, is a liar who was always really a closet fascist.
Comment by Johnmacc — August 5, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Sam said: And only a fool’s vote is decided by protest rather than policy.
Yes, yes, because of course, every single voter sits down and reads through every policy of every party before objectively deciding who to vote for.
In this country we vote governments out, not in. And the hammer is about to fall on the current regime.
Comment by LabourWILLBeLiquidated — August 5, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Johnmacc
No. I have been critical myself (see comment 5 above), and I’m no apologist for Labour and/or the Standard.
I just find it hard to take seriously somebody who says he voted Labour last time, and now wants Labour “liquidated” (and who posts very right-wing posts on other blogs). Labour have not fundamentally changed since 2005. If anything, their confidence-and-supply partners have made the government move to the centre.
Of course the polls clearly show that many voters have switched from Labour to National. But few are partisan bloggers or politics junkies. They have not been rushing rightwards (hence National’s shift to meet them in the centre). Generally, they gave Clark the benefit of the doubt in 2005 and want to give Key that benefit next time.
But in any event, why do we have to accept a simplistic either/or? Why can’t we like some things Labour do and dislike others? In a multi-party, pluralistic democracy, it is nonsense to pretend that the only option for those critical of the current government is to vote for the official opposition. I’d be interested to know which party you think is the best vehicle for the liberal democratic values that you support. National?
Comment by sam — August 5, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
“In this country we vote governments out, not in.”
The royal we?
People vote for any number of reasons, from the war in Iraq to Winston’s hair-do. You vote for your reason, I’ll choose mine, thanks.
Comment by sam — August 5, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Oh, and the reason I was just a teeny bit
unconvinced by “LabourMustBeLiquidated” telling us he voted Labour last time – comments like this on Kiwiblog:
“Homosexuality is just an addiction. Those suffering from this disgusting dysfunction are deserving only of our pity at best, at worst our contempt.”
Of course, it could be a different person, same choice of name. Or he could just have been very confused in 2005. Or … not.
Comment by sam — August 5, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
sam, in my first election here (I arrived in 2001) I was planning on voting Labour. On the face of matters they looked like a political party with the right ideas. I did not vote however as I felt I’d not been in the country long enough or learned enough about the various parties to cast a vote with any measure of confidence.
Then I got married. Had a family. And saw that while Labour says one thing they actually do something completely different. I was a Labour supporter. Fully in terms of policy. And in one moment of rational thinking I flipped completely away from them. I realized that the ideology they were pushing could not provide a safe, healthy and prosperous future for my family. It was not something that came about slowly. It was just a moment of connecting all the dots and getting an answer.
And I’m sure from what you’ve read of me (If you visit Kiwiblog) you’ll know I am now considered “right wing” as well.
Comment by Pascal — August 6, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Fair enough Sam. But are you saying that everybody who votes for Labour agrees with the homosexual lifestyle? That seems to be drawing quite a long bow. And i agree with the comments before about either/or thinking as regards political parties…
In retrospect I voted Labour at the last election because I didn’t like the look of Don Brash, and Labour seemed the lesser of two evils. This time as far as I am concerned its the other way around. Things changed for me over Labours refusal to give tax cuts, the anti-smacking thing (ok that was the greens but it wouldn’t have got anywhere without Labour support).
Further to this, and probably more significantly, my personal circumstances have changed somewhat since then, at the last election I was a struggling uni student, now I am a struggling worker
haha. I suppose people do vote ultimately for what is best for them. My next door neighbour is going to vote labour, and he admits that it is only because he is on the dole, wants to stay on the dole, and is scared that national will cut his benefit.
Comment by LabourMustBeLiquidated — August 6, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Pascal” “I realized that the ideology they were pushing could not provide a safe, healthy and prosperous future for my family. ” Exactly, income transfer does not create a wealthier country, in fact the overheads of taking from one group and giving to another reduces productivity.
Comment by bryanspondre — August 6, 2008 @ 10:37 am
“…everybody who votes for Labour agrees with the homosexual lifestyle”
Conservative Pacific Islanders?
Comment by Stephen — August 6, 2008 @ 11:51 am
The Standard people have a letter in this week’s Listener, proclaiming to be independent, and exclaiming how “influential” their blog is. Wow!
Comment by Bugs — August 6, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Its been cited more than once in Parliament I believe, so probably could be said to be so…
Comment by Stephen — August 7, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Anyonme else notice how long it took for “The Standard” to get a post up this morning ? No doubt in a meeting with Helen Simpson to decide how to divert the issue.
Comment by bryanspondre — August 7, 2008 @ 11:39 am
You’re catching their paranoia Bryan!
Comment by Stephen — August 7, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Stephen: I didn’t realize paranoia was contagious. Maybe I downloaded the “Paranoia Virus” from their website
Comment by bryanspondre — August 7, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Heh. I see they’re at it again. If they don’t like the message, send a stern response to the messenger:
“Crank
August 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“Academic, youse are paid too much”
At least the Standard recognises who its readership is.
A great example of moaning to the converted
[lprent: You are referring to a machine having some kind of opinion, because that is what "The Standard" is. This program doesn't have opinions - so read Rules and talk to a person.]”
Lynn clearly believes that The Standard is not human, so I was nonplussed to read this in the About section:
“Who are you?
We’re The Standard – a collective who saw a gap in the New Zealand political blogosphere and decided that we should have a go at filling it. We write here in our personal capacities and the opinions that are expressed on the blog are individual.”
So there you have it – by Lynn’s own admission, the Standard has been taken over by the machines. Where is John Connor when we need him?
Comment by Don — August 7, 2008 @ 4:35 pm