Another thought - if he did send it, and if it's not forged, which is pretty ridiculous theory, then receipt would have been almost instantaneous: a few minutes at worst. So it would have been received on the server at National Party Head Office (it was sent to national.org.nz, not parliament.govt.nz) at about 3:17pm on Tuesday 24 May. Surely it is no too difficult to establish who was at National HO at that time/date and who could have had access to the server. Unless, that is, the email was 'intercepted'.
If it was forwarded from there to Steven Joyce, from someone other than Don Brash, then where is the evidence showing at what time/date it was forwarded and why isn't Joyce saying what date/time he received it?
If Joyce can tell Brash when he received it (if it was forwarded) then it seems to me that there is a very small window of time between 3:17pm on 24 May and the time Joyce received it in which to inculpate someone.
Or, am I too simplistic? Or are the answers too embarrassing?
Why doesn't someone ask Hickmott (the Brethren sender of the email) if he actually sent it. Is that too obvious?
Kent, I can't let this go without a 'right back at ya':
There's a laugh.
1. most National voters just wanted to get rid of Helen
2. as Terence said, National was deceptive about their monetary policies
3. many people were confused as to just exactly what the National policies were, see 2. above.
Governments are usually voted out and not voted in. Voting for an opposition party does not necessarily indicate support for it. it could just as easily indicate lack of support for the incumbents.
This blog is great but could do with an edit facility of some sort.
Your'e effectively saying National's 40% was fake - that the people were wrong. If so, Labour's support is not their either and their votes were 'wrong' too. Time for an election if that's the case.
All that Brash did was return the support to where it approximately was pre 2002. National has always has had 35% ish core support.
I can't believe you think that voting for a party does not necessarily indicate support for it. That's exactly what it means! Sure, there would be some protest votes in there, in the same way that Richard Worth probably received Labour electorate votes in Epsom in an attempt to defeat Rodney Hide. But that would be a very, very small percentage.
There is no way a book could be written in the same vein about the Labour Party. That is because they are too organised and too smart to be duped like this. I can objectively say this as an Act member.
And I want to refer to the quote below from Danyl's review:
It was these extremist views that suddenly saw National's campaign coffers bulge once Dr Brash became leader. The ACT party had previously been the darling of New Zealand's super-rich far right, but despite running the most expensive campaigns out of all of our parties, it had never been able to make its policies appeal to more than a tiny minority of New Zealanders.
Neither, it quickly transpired, could National. While the far right were paying the bills, polling companies and market research quickly determined that a party that ran on a platform of free-market economic reform could never hope to succeed in the election.
I think a lot of you are overlooking a couple of key things (pun intended!): National got 40% (approx.) It almost did succeed in the election and that is precisely why Hager, and the left in general, have jumped all over this book. I actually think National could have succeeded if Brash hadn't backed down so much. Second, money does not necessarliy equate to electoral support. As Danyl pointed out, Act had some major money when it was first launched and only ever got to 11% at its absolute peak. That slipped to 7% (ish) on election night 1996.
Finally, it is simply not true (as alleged in comments above) that 2.5% support liberal market policies. National policy was Act policy and 40% supported it. Therefore 40% agree with it. I won't go into why Act only got 2%. That might be for a book!
"He does indeed stand tall in the company of De Cleene, Douglas, and Prebble."
That's impressive company. Are you sure you want him there?
"The anti-stadium rhetoric generated in that meeting yesterday just defied reason. Cancerous? Used condom? Please ..."
Come on Russell, you weren't there even though you may have had your spies.
The rhetoric came from noted architects and planners, an associate professor of law, city councillors, MP's, and also other illuminaries. It hardly 'defied reason'.
"My soundings disclose that some of Brash's colleagues want to use the stadium controversy to cause the Government political embarrassment. Defeat the project and give Helen Clark another bloody nose, is how one National MP described the tactics."
Well that's not a very smart analysis by the Nats.
The blame won't fall on the MP's, rather they will make sure it falls on the councillors at both ARC and ACC level. Indeed, Hubbard is sitting like a lame duck on it at the moment: vote for it and lose your job next year; vote against it and lose your job next year. The way Mallard has been leaving it up to the 'councils' is very cunning. He will pointing the big finger their way if the faeces hits the extractor.
'Staying Alive' by the Bee Gees.
Title says it all doesn't it?
Has banning Murder stopped murders?