A lot of angry - liars? Petition goes slightly awry

I see DPF has posted about the petition that's being run to try and ask for a constitutional revolution in New Zealand, by asking the governor general to not-sign the validating legislation:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/10/a_lot_of_angry_people.html

Obviously I don't support this petition. However, someone has added my name to it, using my Gmail address for this blog as the contact details. So of course the petition site emailed me confimation.

I sent them back the following:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Just Left - Jordan Carter <just.left@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: FW: Signature Confirmation - No Royal Assent to Electoral Act Violations - 3038 - nzgg
To: support@petitiononline.com


Hi

This is a malicious attepmt to connect my name to a petition which I
definitely do not support. Please delete my name immediately.

I suggest that if the authors have done this to me then they are likely to
have done it to others. I suggest this is an abuse of your processes and
that you should consider cancelling the petition immediately.

Best regards

Jordan Carter

-----Original Message-----
From: PetitionOnline [mailto:petitions@petitiononline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 October 2006 8:45 p.m.
To: Jordan Carter
Subject: Signature Confirmation - No Royal Assent to Electoral Act
Violations - 3038 - nzgg

Dear Jordan Carter,

This email message is sent to you from PetitionOnline.com to confirm your
signature as "Jordan Carter" on the online petition:

  "No Royal Assent to Electoral Act Violations"

hosted on the web by our free online petition service, at:

(URL deleted)

Your signature on the petition is already complete, and there is no need to
reply to this message.

Your signature number for this petition is 3038.

The petition has come from Blair Mulholland, who is as far as I know a disaffected ACT Supporter. While I don't doubt that there are many genuine people who believe the right wing lies about the validating legislation and are very angry about it, it seems to me a bit pathetic to start cheating in trying to share the anger around.

These sorts of dirty tricks are only going to accelerate, I suppose, as the angry right continues to go mental over losing the election.

 

Comments

[Insolent Prick]

Jordan:

All that you can come up with is that .01% of the signatures to date are inaccurate. 99.99% are accurate. What you're trying to do is prevent an embarrassing public statement of no-confidence by New Zealand voters in your torrid, corrupt government.

It wouldn't surprise me if you had listed your name and your email address so that you could then lodge a complaint with petitiononline.

10,000 voters want your Government to resign, and counting. Given that Labour won the election on the swinging votes of 20,000 New Zealanders, it must really rankle with you.

[Russell Brown]

"It wouldn't surprise me if you had listed your name and your email address so that you could then lodge a complaint with petitiononline."

It would certainly surprise me. You're really losing the plot lately, IP.

Cheeers,
RB

[Jordan Carter]

LOL! Now there's one for the books. I think, IP, that that suggestion says more about how your mind works than it says about me.

[Peter mck]

Jordan, I think yet again the Labour party are under-estimating the anger of many people from all sides of the political spectrum. I am now running into many traditional labour supporters who are far from impressed with this self-serving labour Government. I could not believe the anger of my father-in-law who has always been a labour supporter. He (and his wife) has been angry about the Phillip Field Affair, and the fact that Labour stole the money - (and continued to be arrogant about it) - I do not believe the irreparable damage that has been done to the integrity and credibility of the Labour party can be easily fixed. True your party has two years, but the degree of third term arrogance is going to carry all the way.

Like, I remember many National Party supporters felt it was time for a change in 1999, and voted against their traditional friend the same is going to hold true for the 2008 election, and labour will be swept from the treasury benches.

The Swingers voters will now leave labour (if they have not already), the traditional labour voter will not support Labour (probably be either not voting or voting for a minor party) and your party will only be left with their baseline and dedicated supporters.

To me I look back at the similarities of the Muldoon years and the Bolger/ Shipley years and think Labour has already repeated the worst of the mistakes of those years.

But at the end of the day, your party is considered corrupt but too many people, and for that reason, the public will no longer tolerate Clark's sisterhood and eunuchs any more.

[Kane Bunce]

Jordan the petition was created by a libertarian. Us libertarians are North according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html), not Right. The World's Smallest Political Quiz is an accurate and more reliable way of labeling a person's political leanings than the silly Right or Left you and most others use. It is diamond shaped not the silly line that the default one has. As such it is more realistic.

Also as an Ayn Rand fan I agree with the others that you are simply trying to protect the immoral corruption of your party. You were caught breaking the law and doing something of questionable morals and what do you do? Make reparations and apologise? No! You create more immoral corruption!

Oh, and you may think the legislation validates what you done and makes it legal but the truth is it doesn't. The truth is the theft took place in the past and the past cannot be changed. Thus it was illegal and retrospective legislation does NOT change the reality of the situation: you done something illegal, immoral and corrupt.

[Oswald Bastable]

How about starting a petition supporting the 'Get out of Jail Free' act?

Let's see how the voting goes...

[Dinther]

What planet are you from Jordan! Here's a petition with over 12.000 responding and because little Jordan Carter's name was used incorrectly you want to silence 12.000 people! Fairly typical for our current Labour dictatorship isn't it. Man you thieves can't even pretent you are decent. Right now I can't bear the precense of friends that are labour supporters. That is how incredibly pissed off I am!

[weizguy]

"Right now I can't bear the precense of friends that are labour supporters. That is how incredibly pissed off I am!"

I think it's probably a good indicator that you need a little perspective.

Though cancelling the petition is probably a bridge too far, petitiononline may think about what it wants to do to advise people of potential anomalies...

[Jordan Carter]

Kane - you are a fantasist. Illegal immoral and corrupt - for doing what every other party in parliament bar one did? You really need to get a grip.

Dinther - maybe an over-reaction on my part, but as long as my name isn't on it, I truly don't care what happens to it. As for your issues of perspective on your politics, good luck with that.

Weizeguy - hear hear.

[Jordan Carter]

Peter, it says a lot when your contribution is one of the more reasoned ones!

Labour didn't steal any money. It spent it in line with policy at the time like six of the seven other parties in parliament (including National). Your righteous indignation is pathetically transparent. Like all the other parties, except NZ First, Labour has offered to refund the money the AG took issue with, and systems are being reformed to ensure a repeat cannot occur.

As for Field, I'll just maintain my long silence except to say I agree with the resolutions the Labour Council passed on the subject 110%.

I suggest that if you try and determine what's going to happen in an election two years away, you are likely to look a bit silly. In the wake of the 02 election, people like yourself were saying exactly the same things. Look what happened.

[Spam]

"Illegal immoral and corrupt - for doing what every other party in parliament bar one did? You really need to get a grip."

Not all parties raised bills to be rushed-through under urgency, explicitly voting-down amendments deliberately, to nullify a valid court-case against the Prime Minister before it could be heard.

[kiwi_donkey]

Jordan: What were the resolutions passed by the Labour Council on Philip Field?

[sagenz]

Jordan - dont tar everone in parliament with your immoral corruption. Labour knowingly overspent. That is a corrupt act. If the police in charge of the investigation had been good public guardians there would be 2 or 3 people convicted of corrupt practice by now.

The field corruption is a great indicator of how immoral this government is.

Lies, theft, fraud, corruption, vindictive threatening behaviour. That is what this government stands for.

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan, at the rate it's going, it will hit 100,000 by the end of the tenth day. That means 300,000 after 30 days. You'd better start writing now. That is, your piece on how that will be good for Labour.

[james cairney]

Fake names on the petition already, and the authors are complaining about 'corruption', what a joke, certainly burns any claim of a 'mandate'.

What an embarrasment that so many people have no understanding of our constitutional structure (that's if any are actually real).

[dfr]

I'm inclined to think that the A-G might have gone overboard in at least some of what he deemed to be electioneering, but really, surely no one thinks the pledge card was anything but electioneering. And as far as I can tell, only one party in parliament had the audacity to step so far over the line. So no, Labour didn't just do what every other party (bar one) in parliament was doing.

I think you can argue the toss on all the other stuff... but the pledge card - no way.

[libertyscott]

Yes most parliamentary parties spent money that they weren't meant to on campaigning. Labour spent 70% of the total and is in government, so why should you be surprised? It was stolen - it was money taken by force from taxpayers for another purpose and was used to keep a political party in power - if this happened elsewhere you'd say, at the least, that it is highly undesirable.

The simple fact is Jordan that had this been a National government that had spent $800,000 of taxpayers money in government on a mini-manifesto to all voters, and won the election by the skin of its teeth, you'd be shouting "stolen election" as well, much like the left shouted when Bush won in 2000.

Your tribe did it, so you're supporting them through thick and thin - if the other tribe did it, you'd be baying for blood - and you can't see that quite a few supporters of this "baying for blood" don't support EITHER tribe.

Spending the money in line with "policy at the time" does not mean it was legal. Funnily enough had the people whose money it was acted in any way as if they were evading surrendering that money, the government would say they are guilty and treat them so - because taxpayers have no rights - the only ones who do have rights are the people who spend taxpayer's money.

Now the Governor General will sign the legislation making what was illegal legal - because she was appointed by this government - but it doesn't make it right. If this was a National led government doing the same, you'd almost certainly agree.

[Whaleoil]

You did steal it. The A-G found the appropriation to be unlawful which is legalese for stealing.

In simple english for you Labour ne'erdowells that is "taking illegally" ie stealing.

It is what is ...or was until you changed to the law to make legal what was illegal.

[Gooner]

I know that Act and I think also the Greens are indignant at how the A-G has ruled. Rodney may only have been caught to the tune of $16K or so but even he was light on Labour. Why? Simply because the A-G *did* change the goalposts. Whether they were in the wrong position in the first place is a better issue in my view than just simply calling this 'theft and corruption.'

I think what dfr wrote above is useful. The pledge card definitely pushed the boundaries but all parties push the boundaries on electoral laws/matters leading into an election. Some do so to win, others to just survive.

As for Field, he is an absolute liability and a disgrace. Labour needs to orchestrate a removal. He stinks out the whole of parliament.

[Aj]

Whaleoil "You did steal it. The A-G found the appropriation to be unlawful which is legalese for stealing"

Ditto for the Nats, in fact every party but one.

[george]

In order to be disgraced a prerequisite is you must have a sense of honour.

Labour have proved they can never be disgraced.

[Razorlight]

The difference between Labour using $800,000.00 and National using $12,000.00, besides the obvious size, is National paid it back immediatley and admitted they were wrong. They took full responsibility for their actions.

Labour has at no time conceeded they did anything wrong. They are still making excuses like it was accepted policy and everyone else did it. It was wrong wrong wrong. Admit it, pay it back and move on.

The longer these excuses are used the longer this issue will drag on. If we want to bury it now, admit the mistake apologise, pay it back and move on.

[tim barclay]

Oh dear Jordan you must hate the internet and grass roots democracy. Of course the Labour Party with its elitist power structures, including block votes jacked up in smokey rooms will never adapt. Now they want to bring in state funding and dry up political activity at the party level. But they cannot stop "people's democracy" on the internet. Hahahahahahaha

[Craig D]

First they come for the golfers, then they come for the right wing bloggers... ;-)

[rightkiwi]

Jordan - ONLY the Labour Party breached the cap. It is the breach of the cap that is described as a corrupt practice. Therefore, only Labour is corrupt. Understand?

[neil morrison]

Most likely a malicious prank.

I'd like to second Peter mck's comment. I don't think Labour understands how many Labour voters are really very pissed. And for me that's the worst aspect of this - the complete lack of contrition on Labour's part. They just don't want to admit they were wrong. It's arrogant and reflects the danger of any party being in power too long.

[toms]

Neil, to be a politcal cynic/realist for a second: It doesn't really matter how many Labour voters are currently pissed off, because:

1/ No mater how pissed off they are, they won't vote National.

and

2/ National has no coalition partners.

If Labour loses votes to the Greens over this, so what? A Green Party on 12% and Labour on 36% plus the Progressives and confidence from the Maori Party will still beat a Don Brash National party on 45%, and arguably produce an even more vigorous left wing government than the current one.

[cdc]

Danyl McLaughlin over at kiwiblog claims to have run a perl script over the so called signaturies. Out of 200 names analysed he found one that matched an entry in the white pages. So If 10% are valid thats 1200 really angree fellows.

You go you right wing petitioners, at least you have proven you know how to stuff a ballot box in defence of democracy.

[cdc]

Oops, my bad, that's 0.5% valid, roughly 60 angree fellows busy deleting cookies and resubmitting.

[Marcus D]

Jordan - I am not overly concerned about the validating legislation although I do describe to Dean Knight's view on his blog that it was not necessary. What I am very unhappy about is that this legislation was rammed through under urgency, thus abrogating my democratic right to comment on legislation that spends my money through tax I have paid. Now why can't I have a say on that?

I also have no respect for a person, Helen Clark, who votes for legislation that effectively frustrates a court case in which she is a defendant. How do you think it would look if someone who was up for tax avoidance tried to get validating legislation through the house to get them off? It is the same principles and that is the way I believe the general public are thinking about this issue. Like other commentators on your blog I have discussed this with a lot of friends, people who come from all sides of the political spectrum, and I have not heard one word of support for how the validating legislation has been handled.

[kiwi_donkey]

cdc: And would there be a slight 'conflict of interest' in Danyl McLaughlin's research? Or is a conflict of interest only relevant if you don't like the results?

[Spam]

CDC,

I couldn't be bothered writing a script, but doing a manual check, I got 10 out of 10. Its over 19,000 now.

The likes of you and DIM can pour as much scorn on it as you like, but I would suggest that this is another case where Labour are underestimating the level of resentment in the country.

[weizguy]

So a whole lot of National and ACT voters are annoyed that they can't have it all their own way. Again. What's changed?

BTW - the wording of the petition is so overstated as to be grossly misleading. Why don't people stick to the facts when they write these things? Is Norm Withers taking classes in petition drafting?

[cdc]

Oh, and another thing, I notice the stuff.co.nz news poll regularly gets 5k to 10k voters a day on mind blowing issues such as "How many hours a week do you spent on the internet?" and "How much spam email do you receive a day?". How many people filled their religion in as "Jedi" on the census form?

Given folks like IP receive instructions from their National MP every few days it would not be hard to drum up support for a petition like this. "Click here for National" would just about do it I think.

National recieved about 40% of the vote, if that petition does not exceed 40% of the electorate then we can consider it an abject failure.

[Jeremy Greenbrook]

"Oh dear Jordan you must hate the internet and grass roots democracy"

Do you really think blogs and online petitions are grass roots democracy? One only has to look at recent studies in the US which show that blogs have so little to do with democracy or actual campaigning and organising.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538663,00.html

[Insolent Prick]

cdc:

I don't generally communicate with National MPs. I have probably seen 3 National MPs at National Party social gatherings in the past six months. I would have seen many more in December last year if I had gone to a Party Christmas function; regrettably, I was unable to attend, so made a donation instead. I am comfortable in the knowledge that that donation will be used to help National win the next election, rather than you, as a labour supporter, donating in the knowledge that that money will be used to pay back money Labour corruptly misappropriated from the taxpayer.

I also did a check of random petition names against the whitepages. Given that the whitepages only lists about 40% of registered electors, I was surprised to find that of the 50 random names I checked, 48 were identifiable in the whitepages.

cdc: Labour also received about 40% of the vote. By your befuddled reasoning, if there is not a petition calling on Labour to resist public calls for it to resign, and if that petition does not receive the electronic or manual signatures of 50.01% of the electorate by, say, next Wednesday, then the Government will no longer have a legitimate public mandate to govern.

Face it, cdc: Labour is in polling freefall. The longer you and others try to maintain this corrupt bunch of legalised criminals, the longer your beloved party will be in opposition.

[Insolent Prick]

Jeremy:

If that's the case, then how do you explain Helen Clark's recent statement that Labour's fall in fortunes is due to the efforts of a few "right wing bloggers"?

Face it. Online discussion does have a place. It's extended well beyond Helen's much vaunted "beltway". Bloggers have an influence. Petitions are a useful demonstration of opinion on individual issues. Labour is also in political freefall.

Sharpen your knives, Jeremy. It's about time you and Jordan got together and nominated a fresh Labour leadership team to fight the next election. It's going to be much sooner than you hope.

[cdc]

IP - in my silent days I definitely saw posts where you were bragging about the organisational capability of National and how you receieved an regular emails from your MP telling you, as a party member, what to do. Either you were lying then or you are lying know or, like your leader convenient senility is setting in.

[Insolent Prick]

Ah, you're quite right, cdc. I do receive regular email newsletters from National MPs. I receive mccully.co.nz (which is a public, distributed newsletter, online, which you can read), and a similar newsletter from my local MP. I also receive Scoop-generated feeds of press releases from all political parties.

To claim that those newsletters constitute "instructions from National MPs" is really pretty silly. I have had far more private meetings and interactive correspondence with Labour Cabinet Ministers over the last year than I have had occasional social meetings with National MPs. You couldn't possibly argue that I'm receiving instructions from Labour Ministers, either.

But be assured, cdc. National is communicating its policies to its members, and the electorate as a whole, in an excellent fashion. National is setting the political agenda in Parliament and outside. Don Brash is the Prime Minister in waiting.

Compare that to Helen Clark, who runs and hides from public scrutiny, blames and waffles, and does anything she can to avoid responsibility for running the most corrupt government in New Zealand history.

[cdc]

"I don't generally communicate with National MPs."

So, having taken that back maybe you could apologise to Jordan for suggesting he faked his own name on your precious petition.

I am with you on your sudden adherence to public scrutiny. Perhaps you could direct your call to Don Brash and his various forgotten meetings.

[Jeremy Greenbrook]

"Face it. Online discussion does have a place. It's extended well beyond Helen's much vaunted "beltway". Bloggers have an influence. Petitions are a useful demonstration of opinion on individual issues."

Rubbish. I could probably count the number of genuinely undecided voters who regularly read blogs in NZ on one hand - I'm not one and (dare I say it) neither are you. It has no influence beyond reinforcing existing political philosophies of party hacks.

[Jeremy Greenbrook]

Sorry, posted before I was finished:

And the politicians know that: Helen Clark is not going to read David Farrar's blog and suddenly change her mind about something. Conversely, Don Brash wouldn't read Jordan's blog and change his mind.

Any influence bloggers have is entirely inside their own heads or parties.

[Michael]

Sorry, I'm late - while I respect the sincerity of the petitioners, it's no good. The GG promises to look with favour upon Parliament, that is, sign everything they send him - regardless of what he thinks of it.

And as for the idiot (whoever it was) that decided to add your name - it was small-minded and likely to damage the creditbility of the petition as a legitimate protest.

Finally, a response to Jeremy - I don't write my blog, or comment on other peoples blogs to influence the views of the undecided. I do so because it's an outlet to discuss politics - how I feel and see how others feel. Anyone who thinks blogs are as infuential as mainstream media are, as Jeremy says, deluded.

[Insolent Prick]

Jeremy,

You claimed that I take instructions from National MPs. I said that was a nonsense. You said I was in communication with them. I said that yes, I did receive regular newsletters, but that does not constitute instruction. I am in far more regular personal contact with Labour MPs and Ministers.

Nobody claims that the purpose of Jordan's blog is to get Don Brash to change his mind. You have said that online petitions have no influence on voters. That is not consistent with Helen Clark saying that the reason that the election spending issue became so prominent was due to the activities of "right wing bloggers".

Either you believe, as most people do, that the election spending issue has been damaging to Labour, in which case right wing bloggers have had an influence on raising debate, or you are one of the small minority who blithely believe that the scandals that have hit this government in recent months have had no impact on its support base. But you can't have it both ways. Either blogs are influential in spreading a message, as the Prime Minister says, or she is wrong.

If you are asserting that so far, 26,000 voters who have signed the petition, are inside the political beltway, then it would surprise everyone to learn just how many people are now occupying the beltway.

[Jeremy Greenbrook]

"Jeremy,

You claimed that I take instructions from National MPs. I said that was a nonsense. You said I was in communication with them. I said that yes, I did receive regular newsletters, but that does not constitute instruction. I am in far more regular personal contact with Labour MPs and Ministers."

Um, no I didn't.

[searching]

"Now the Governor General will sign the legislation making what was illegal legal - because she was appointed by this government - but it doesn't make it right. If this was a National led government doing the same, you'd almost certainly agree."

Posted by: libertyscott | Thursday, 19 October 2006 at 09:34 PM

What planet are you on. She is a he

[libertyscott]

Searching - yes I made a mistake. Such a good twat of you to focus on one letter than the point itself - those supporting Labour would be baying for blood if National did it while it was in power (and I don't doubt some of those opposing Labour would be rather quiet as well).

[GPT]

"I suggest that if the authors have done this to me then they are likely to
have done it to others. I suggest this is an abuse of your processes and
that you should consider cancelling the petition immediately."

Hey - by that logic we should cancel the results of the last election too. I would suggest massively overspending on the campaign is a bit more serious than some pillock faking your name on an on-line petition.

[James]

Kane - you are a fantasist. Illegal immoral and corrupt - for doing what every other party in parliament bar one did? You really need to get a grip."

IE: "So what if I raped that woman? Others did it too so that makes it all right! Safety in numbers!"

Lefty logic at its best. ;-)

[weizguy]

James

You might want to reconsider your analogy.

National's logic is as follows:
"Labour raped that woman!!! Arrest them. Lock them up and throw away the key!!!"
"But hang on, you raped her too."
"Yes, but I didn't rape her 'as much'. If we keep yelling about Labour, maybe people will forget about us"
"Riiiiiiight..."

Incidentally, your choice of analogy is fairly distasteful. It's also flawed in a legal sense. What Brady has done is to ignore precedent, and deliver a decision in complete contradiction with earlier rulings.

As for Whaleoil... what is it with bush lawyers getting it completely wrong:

"The A-G found the appropriation to be unlawful which is legalese for stealing."

Law is about pedantry and semantics (which is what pisses most people off). Whaleoil's comment above just shows that he doesn't get it.