It is, quite frankly, feeble. Attempting to explain the true situation to any of them on their respective blogs is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. Those blogs come complete with commenter-goons, whose self-appointed task it is, to frustrate reasoned debate and demean any commenter who isn't dyed true-blue. My dear friend and dinosaur, Jabba, typifies this breed of Nat with his dull comments and relentless ad hominems but there are worse.
What's most galling is the willingness of Jabba and his ilk, and the bloggers themselves, to maintain their misleading, dishonest blog titles and claims regardless of information provided by the brave souls from the Left who can be bothered engaging on those blogs. However, David Farrar's Kiwiblog today provided a nice example of how dishonest posting can be exposed by the simple provision of facts.
He, like Ludmann and KS, have whipped themselves into a lather over the removal from the candidate list by the Green executive of David Hay. The Right claim the Greens have destroyed their credibility by doing this, despite their own party's exact-same behaviour in the past. Without going into the details, which reveal that the story told by those blue-bloggers is falsely presented, here's the comment by at Kiwiblog that patiently exposes the technique used by National Party shill-bloggers, and tells the true story. Farrar claims:
So the Greens are now the party where if you declare you want to stand for the leadership, you get banned from candidacy. Sounds like the current co-leaders are very desperate to avoid a vote. I suspect their concern if not that Norman would beat Hay, but that the size of the protest vote for Hay could show how much discontent there is.
Chardonay Guy responds:
David, surely this is basic party discipline at work? Would someone who challenged Key’s leadership be similarly welcome within the National caucus? And look at the civil war that convulsed ACT in the Key administration’s first term over Rodney Hide’s leadership, as well as the New Zealand First schism in 1998. How is this any different?
Sorry, but what is going here seems little different from ACT (2002-2005). In that case, Heather Roy and Rodney Hide were at each others throats and Sir Roger was evidently not a very happy chappy. One cannot have constant internal sniping and disunity within a parliamentary caucus or potential candidacy and expect to be lauded for parliamentary stability. Why criticise the Greens for behaving like a responsible, disciplined political party instead of process-obsessed ineffectual leftist pressure group? Oh.
Dear ol' Toad adds:
The recommendation to refuse Hay’s entry to the candidate pool was made in September. His leadership bid was in response to that, not the other way around as you suggest DPF.
In short, what Hay did in 2011 was attempt to campaign for the electorate vote in Epsom, despite a clearly articulated nationwide party strategy to campaign for only the party vote. This was particularly important in Epsom, where many Greens were holding their noses and voting for National’s Paul Goldsmith in order to try to stop the odious John banks from taking the electorate.
…National’s Board uses it very very rarely, and basically only uses it for people who are “mad” or “bad”.
Which was Roger Payne?
This sort of 'interaction' is typical of this level of political action and can make an ordinary sort of bloke like me feel jaded. However, I'm buoyed by the clarity brought to these skirmishes by the likes of ChardonayGuy and Toad (Armchair Critic and Viv) along with Judge Holden, Edward the Confessor and others, all of whom are regarded as trolls, commies, whatever, on the Tory-blogs, or banned altogether in order to lessen their 'disinfecting' effects on the Right-wing blogs.
Go the Good Guys!
23 comments:
aaah the wonderful world of politics. I think the chap who runs Ryan Air is correct in that any publicity is good publicity and the average person can sort out the reality. Party values should become before individuals ambitions. Unfortunately most politicians have ambitions that outstrip their abilities and in a moment of madness is comes crashing down round their ears. In a few days the story will be insignificant and the world will continue to revolve. We need less navel gazing and more scanning of the horizon for opportunities to return NZ to the great country it once was.
The main political blogs are mostly PR sites, both left and right. It's mostly spin, not actual journalism. My perception is that National party mouthpieces post more PR nonsense, but I'm left wing and should acknowledge bias which probably makes me nod in agreement with much on the Standard and scoff and rubbish HP. PR people aren't interested in stimulating debate, their aim is to influence people's thinking not to encourage them to think for themselves. The blogs have drawn battle lines and commenters are now called trolls just for turning up and disagreeing. The 'swinging' voters who will determine the result of the election probably don't read the blogs, which is why next election I'll be back on the main street, smiling and handing out Green party pamphlets. That's PR too, I guess, but if someone wants to ask me questions I won't call them a troll.
Scanning the horizon.
Yes.
Far-sighted individuals with keen vision.
And perspicacity.
Smile for all you're worth, corokia.
Smiling works wonders.
Interesting RG that you accuse the right of the exact same crimes the right accuse you of.
As for the politics of the situation, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". Maybe not quite the right quote but I'm sure you get my drift....
As for 'the truth of the situation'? What was that about the eye of the beholder? or is it more a case of "you can't handle the truth"?
What?
My comment about the 'truth' of a situation can be dependent on your viewpoint.
I say truth, you say "truth".
Which is your truth
We can be certain that Cameron couldn't handle The Truth.
Ha!
True that.
Truth depends on your viewpoint Paranormal? Toad (of the Greens) explains Hay was banned from candidacy BEFORE his leadership bid. Where do you have to stand to get a different viewpoint and, according to you, get a different 'truth' to that?
That's your version of the Truth Corokia. I don't have an opinion on this one, or could care less.
Merely commenting that in politics the truth is often the first victim. RG's and your assertion of the truth is from your perspective. The reality of what happened to Hay behind closed doors could be different again. But then that could just be a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps Hay was not picked because he didn't have enough class or a sense of occasion, qualities some right wingers consider neccesary to be fit for office.
It could be that John Banks is lying about helicopters and donations. It could be that John Key is lying about Kim Dotcom.
It could be that those who don't think that possible are naive in the extreme.
Tell the truth, John.
2014 looks as though it'll be great fun!
No maybe about it, Banks is busted and its the final ACT. Where to now for the greedies or do they settle for the titbits from Key.
Banks has to stand trial, he has not been found guilty of anything yet. Even so, bizarre that NZ can be reported as least corrupt country when legislation (the Sky city convention centre bill )has just been passed using the vote of the MP who is to face trial regarding election funding from Sky city.
Philip - the 'greedies' have been camped under the blue tent for some time now, having realised that their yellow cab has flat tyres and battery,is rusted out and there's no where left to Hide. John's their man now! All hands to the pumps!
Corokia
It's astonishing, isn't it, that we are so willing to hold our noses and trust John Key, given the potential crook enabling this legislation.
Pretty sick state of affairs.
It could be that Banks lost the mayoral election and didn't consider what he was signing had any relevance. It could be the truth is he hasn't broken the law.
The truth is Act was stuffed before Brash asked Banks to stand in Epsom.
Could be. Banks could be a man of integrity.
I don't think so though.
Do you?
I don't like Banks - never have. As for integrity - he's a politician. But after his own fashion I think he is a man of integrity. I just wouldn't vote for him.
I also don't think that he broke the law. What he did may be morally wrong, but no law was broken. The only difference between Banks and Loopy Len is that Len just had better advice on how to hide donations and funneled them through a trust. Len's advisers being the ones who wrote a crap piece of legislation in the first place.
Post a Comment