Coming out punching

Very pleased to see the government coming out and actually pointing out that National's holier-than-thou approach to politics these days is the political equivalent of a castle built on sand.

Can't wait til the whole pile of emails comes out, as referred to in this morning's Herald.

The question is whether National is able to withstand the scrutiny now beginning to be applied to it. I am reasonably confident the answer is "no".

Comments

[Michael]

I'm sure Labour's Fundraising methods would shock the liberal Wellington Elite. Do the Labour Party still run Housie Nights in South Dunedin?

[Craig Ranapia]

Wrong question, Jordan. Winston Peters' record of smear campaigns that dissolve under scrutiny faster than a vampire on Bondi Beach speaks for itself. The real question is whether Labour's credibility can withstand a new low in desperation. You've just proved the old proverb that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

[Antarctic Lemur]

Just pay it back, Carter.

[Insolent Prick]

I'll take it as an honest mistake that you disabled comments on this post, Jordan.

Will make a change from the outright dishonesty of your posts defending Labour's corruption and theft of taxpayer funds to buy an election campaign, and baseless smears without any evidence against the National Party.

The worst part is that you know what you are saying about National is lies. You are humiliating yourself, Jordan. If you want to be taken seriously, stop defending the indefensible, and stop hurling lies that you know to be lies, as a deliberate distraction from your own Party's despicable attack on democracy.

Pay the money back, and call fresh elections.

[tim barclay]

Punch away. This crap was well thrashed out BEFORE the election and may have cost National the election, (you only won by 26,000 votes). But this is muck pure and simple and does NOT explain why Labour used taxpayers money illegally before the elction.

[GeniusNZ]

I advice people don't call for new elections.
Only the real partisans want that - if that becomes too big a theme you will shake loose the mainstream support you have already. It will become "its elections or nothing".

It is a bit like calling for prison sentances and then breaking into a rant about turning prisoners into hamburgers - the rest of the people start to look around and wonder who they are standing next to.

[neil morrison]

Winston to the rescue.

[haha]

GeniusNZ - too late, Don Brash has been calling for hamburgers for some time now.

[GeniusNZ]

haha,
Well that bugs me too - BUT as he phrases it it is probably a popular policy.

[Spam]

Can I ask whether these e-mails relate to the Insurance thing on Scoop at the moment?

The insurance council sent a circular stating that they like National's ACC policy. And that the poodle liked it too.

Can't you do better?

[lyndon]

Spam -

No. Different emails.

The important thing with the insurance one (old news, but got breezed over in the election campaign, apparently due to an airline pilot dissing Clark) is -

"The details of the policy have deliberately been kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council"

Fixing a policy with the industry to privatise ACC and not telling the public before the election. Charming. Why might someone do that?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00078.htm
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0609/Insurance_council_circular.pdf

[rightkiwi]

If Labour or New Zealand First holds information which shows or is highly suggestive of Don Brash being corrupt, they have a duty to release it immediately. Otherwise they would themselves become a party to that corruption.

[Spam]

Lyndon,

I would assume that it was fairly common-knowledge that the Nats would privatise ACC - considering that that is exactly what they did when they were in government last.

I'm sure it will be spun that this was National colluding with the Insurance Council to write policy (for cash, or some other crap); where in reality it was probably nats making the insurance council aware of existing policy.

And, what is such a crime in getting feedback from people on policy anyway? Isn't that actually part of democracy?

[Insolent Prick]

In other breaking news, there are fresh reports out that National's Simon Power spoke to policemen about National's Law and Order policy prior to the election, Health spokesman Tony Ryall spoke to doctors, and Wayne Mapp was seen in secret discussions with a retired territorial brigadier in a bar.

These are very serious allegations indeed, that the National Party had discussions with industry groups about its policies prior to the election.

[Paul]

rightkiwi,

sit on memo's - no surely not. Relaese all info now? as national did with the DBP afair.
Who else is sitting on Field info, and what opposition MP is telling them to hold off, or did the person with the latest allegations suddenly remember what happened.

Brash et al are playing one of the dumbest political games I have seen out of wgtn since the Muldoon era. Calling for fresh elections, over this? Yeah like the public want to watch these idiots kissing arses again for votes.

Bollocks about stolen elections and undemocratic gobbledegook? How does a million from a religious sect equate to democratic endowment.

Watching Brash take on Helen is very very funny.

First he went with the "we didn't loose the election, lets wait and see" now it's the election was stolen. How many F*$King excuses does this man want for loosing the election other than the fact that people didn't vote for him. Will his humiliation go away, someone roll him for Nationals sake.

[Insolent Prick]

Paul,

Labour spent $800,000 more than National on its campaign, unlawfully. It used taxpayer's money to fund the key plank of its campaign. This link has only just recently come to light--long after Labour could be prosecuted under the Electoral Act. The Police were not capable of prosecuting Labour for their electoral act breaches. Labour beat National by 26,000 votes, in one of the closest electoral races in recent history. How much was the election result influenced by Labour's overspending?

Hard to judge. But it must have had an effect.

I say there are very good grounds for National calling for a fresh election based on that alone.

I'm personally comfortable with referring all of these matters to a special commission of inquiry to investigate what went wrong in 2005, who was culpable, who broke electoral law, and who did so with the express intention of affecting an advantageous election result. Give a High Court judge six months to report back, with broad powers to call anybody they like to give evidence, and bring all the issues to light.

I would accept a High Court judge's determination, if he said Labour did nothing wrong. But this issue is far too important to let people off the hook without a proper inquiry.

[Kate]

How appropriate... it's one year today since the Exclusive Brethren were uncovered as National's secret backers
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0509/S00170.htm

And on Friday, it'll be the anniversary of Don Brash finally admitting on bFM that National knew about it.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00107.htm

Great timing for a sequel.

[Insolent Prick]

How appropriate indeed, Kate.

After a year since the allegations, the only evidence of a plot by National to direct the Exclusive Brethren's anti-Government campaign is baseless allegations to that effect from the Greens and Labour.

But no actual *evidence*.

I realise that socialists have become indoctrinated to think that something is correct if Helen Clark says so, but the voters no longer believe her.

[Aj]

Brash is a proven liar. That makes him corrupt under most peoples understanding of the word.

[Tony Milne]

Brash should just resign and save us all some time.

[Tony Milne]

It has taken some time, but I think people are starting to understand the point.

If National is right on the pledge card, then every party (including National) are in the wrong and every Party will have a substantial amount of money to each pay back.

Or (here is a novel through) if every other party in Parliament is right and National is wrong, then the spending was within the rules.

The rules were clarified after the 2002 election, but clarified in a way that makes it clear that National and Labour's 2002 pledge cards (and 2005 spending) were both acceptable.

National should admit their hypocrisy, apologize, and Don Brash should resign.

[Insolent Prick]

Alright, Tony.

Let's put it to a proper test. Let's have a Commission of Inquiry look into the election--not a bunch of politicians, not partisans such as you and me, but a retired high court judge. Give him six months to call whoever he wants, and establish who did what and when, and what was legal, and what wasn't.

[OfficeGirl]

Did you forget something? Maybe you should wipe that arrogant smile off of that just left face, the whole reason the spin has been placed on the so-called "payment for policies" scandal is because the labour party won't pay back OUR money. For Christ's sake just pay it back.

[Paul]

IP,

If you think for one minute that National lost the election because of the pledge cards, please do not take a job for me in marketing or strategic planning. Name me one person and I do mean ONE person who changed their vote because of the pledge cards.

[Insolent Prick]

If people didn't vote based on the pledge cards and some $400,000 additional spending Labour took from Parliamentary Services and used for electioneering purposes, then what was the point of that publicity?

$800k+ of publicity must have had some effect. How much? Who fucking knows! But Mike Williams didn't describe it as the core plank of Labour's election campaign for nothing.

It would only have taken 26,000 votes--1% of the voting electorate--to swing a different way, based on the massive advertising that Labour had at its disposal, and the result may have been very different.

[james cairney]

National and 'cash for policy' with the Insurance Council? Really? I for one seriously doubt it, it's more about the two having a shared political philosophy.

What is remarkable though, is how thousands will actually believe it, and National will be forced into the defensive- and will be damaged as a result. All Labour have to do is speculate, and remind everyone of Brash's Brethren lie, and circumstantial evidence becomes pretty damning to an untrusting public (better the devil you know etc).

Brash will come to regret that lie.

[Insolent Prick]

That is Labour's tactic: to tell deliberate lies often enough to smear people and distract from the truth.

[Gary]

IP, I agree with you on all points, but with one correction. If Labour beat National by 26,000 votes, it only required 13,000 people who voted for Labour to vote instead for National.

Whilst those familiar with Labour's excessive spending of money for little or no result may say the spending had no effect, surely $800k made a difference to at least 13,000 people!

Tony M, you really feel threatened by Don Brash, don't you? He is making headway and you really want him gone. If he was as bad as you pretend, you would surely be hoping he stayed on as leader!

Keep believing the spin.

[spector]

"If you think for one minute that National lost the election because of the pledge cards, please do not take a job for me in marketing or strategic planning. Name me one person and I do mean ONE person who changed their vote because of the pledge cards."

Awesome. So Labour misappropriated $400 - $800,000 and it didn't even get them one more vote. Meanwhile someone on a hospital waiting list dies through lack of funding. Go Labour.

[Robert Bruce]

As I recall at Don Brash did not deny Brethern involvement. He was asked if the pamphlet in the reporter's hand was from the Bretheren. He said he did not know.How the hell can that be a lie?

[GeniusNZ]

JC,
I expect most politicians would have fallen for that trap, maybe not Helen though.

[Tony Milne]

I was just trying to save you guys some time. Keep him on if you want :)

[Insolent Prick]

Actually, Gary, just looked at the actual result figures--I was also using the number of voters who would have to change their mind was 26,000, but the actual difference was 22,500, as the difference in vote between the two parties was 45,000. A swing of 22,500 votes from Labour to National would have won National the election.

What was Labour's $800k overspend worth? I'd say 22,500 votes is pretty conservative, given how crucial that spending was to Labour's message during the campaign.

[Troy]

Putting out the pledge card didn't have to swing 26,000 people - it only needed to swing the 300 odd people that Darren Hughes took Otaki by - if Nathan Guy had got that seat then that could have swung the whole thing couldn't it as National would have an additional electorate seat- and with only the current 1 seat majority that would have made things interesting.

[Matt]

No Troy I wish it was true. However how many seats a party gets in parliament is determined by the party vote. If Nathan Guy had one Otaki there would be no change in the numbers. Except where one gets more electorate seats than it is entitled to by the party vote as happened with the Maori Party. This is called a overhang

[Jim D]

That would have been true under FPP Troy but if Nathan Guy had won Otaki, National would have had one less list MP.

[Troy]

Well thats a fuck up then isn't = even if Nathan had won his party would be no better off. What a friggin mess.

[james cairney]

Troy, ah ... no. (and some claim STV will be easily understood!)

I/P: National will get nowhere looking back screaming like banchees, throwing mud etc bla bla corruption bla.

Why, because this Labour government are better at it than them. Mud is a far better adhesive when applied to he who has claimed the moral high ground, and Brash is about to get filthy.

[sam]

Haha these stupid born to rule torys like troy dont even understand MMP. Thats why they keep losing I guess. Its as stupid as those idiots on David Farrar's blog after the election saying that all the right wing parties should band together and vote a Labour member the speaker, because the speaker didnt have a vote - and then they could govern! bzzzt wrong. Those rules were changeda wee while ago now grampa

[Gary]

Bow down before the great SAM, the all-knowing, never-erring one... He must be a lefty, because they never make mistakes.

[troy]

So were you born a cunt Sam or did you learn it from your parents?

[Logix]

Troy,

Free blogging lesson #1:

When you have just committed a blatant blunder that cannot in any fashion be covered up, the correct response is "duh, yeah you're right". Been there done that myself a number of times. Coming out with another swing just invites being laffed at.

[troy]

Thanks for that and yeah - he may be right - doesn't mean hes not a cocksucker though does it

is that lesson 1 rehashed?

[pdq]

Well if you are relying on Winston, just check is record of successful litigation and take a deep breath. I prefer to rely on horoscopes. Lucky meat - mince.

[GeniusNZ]

However - insults don' exactly make one want to say "duh your right"

blogging lesson #2:
when you corect an error some one has made tacking on a long series of insults and dubious inferences is likely to make your valid point get lost.

[peter mck]

through all this crap that labour are throwing (because they know they are guilty of corruption) attack being their only defence I am pleased the media are staying focused on the key issue and that remains labour stole the money thinking they could get away with it. The corruption is starting to hurt them very badly (how is helen's little begging bowl campaign going) so the only thing they can do is try and drag everyone down saying they are the corrupt ones - but Jordan - that just is not getting the traction.

by the way this is great

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/node/3082

[peter mck]

Interesting to see the heat is getting a bit much in the kitchen with Mallard now stooping lower than I would have thought possible. Labour are near thermal meltdown with typical bullying and cowardice as their attact strategy.

Mallard in parliament yesterday and reported in the paper this morning "Cabinet minister Trevor Mallard warned yesterday that Labour would expose National MPs if National kept up its claims that Labour and Prime Minister Helen Clark were corrupt."

seems to me your corrupt party can give it - but certainly can't take it. Well I would suggust that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

[Virgil]

Labour won't release dirt on National, surely? Because that can cut both ways, and there are some secrets in Labout that would shatter their (leader's) image. National's secrets just make a couple of members look a bit "interesting"...

[haha]

"In other breaking news, there are fresh reports out that National's Simon Power spoke to policemen about National's Law and Order policy prior to the election, Health spokesman Tony Ryall spoke to doctors, and Wayne Mapp was seen in secret discussions with a retired territorial brigadier in a bar.

These are very serious allegations indeed, that the National Party had discussions with industry groups about its policies prior to the election."

IP, the issue is not the policy, it is the cover-up. Brash is building up quite a track record for someone pushing an image of being a straight hitter.

[Insolent Prick]

haha,

You've got no evidence of a cover-up. You've got no evidence that Don Brash was shown the pamphlet that the EBs were intending to put out, or that he had any involvement in organising or distributing the pamphlet.

What you have evidence of is that Don Brash had a meeting with the EBs, along with countless other people who wanted to get rid of the Government, prior to the election.

So what? Don Brash is Leader of the Opposition. Of course he's going to meet with people who don't like the Government, and hear from them that they wish to remove the Government.