Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 6:11PM on 27 Nov 06. Permalink.

So what kind of email is actually opened at the National Party? I wonder what it takes for an email sent to the National Party to get noticed in an inbox? "Million Dollars contained within - click here"

To be fair any corporate network worth its salt should have flagged the message as spam - million dollars offered by reclusive religious sect, just reply, go on hit the reply button... on par with any number of Nigerian royal family scams!

But wait! The Exclusive Brethren don't use email, they instead believe that a super computer based somewhere in South Africa will eventually mind control all of us using RFID tags in our passports. As foretold by Revelations in the Exclusive Brethren Bible, as told to me by the Exclusive Brethren kid I used to sit next to at high school.

Yeah so where is Mr Joyce?

Posted at 6:18PM on 27 Nov 06. Permalink.

Off topic, but nice start today by Key & English - good messages: "I want an inclusive, multicultural New Zealand" and "those people [extremists, religious and economic] won't have a part to play in our National Party"... keep it up guys, and you will do well at the next election.

Posted at 6:33PM on 27 Nov 06. Permalink.

8 out 12.

I've got an idea. No, no, this is a good one: ask the EBs to fund and design a new stadium!

I'm sure they could come up with something more weep-worthy than this.

Oh, we need start lashing back at Eden Park now.

Posted at 6:42PM on 27 Nov 06. Permalink.

Well, Jeremy, it might get them elected, but the proof would be in the pudding. Key's voting record suggests he and I have very different visions of an inclusive society.

Posted at 7:15PM on 27 Nov 06. Permalink.

In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to build an application that based on how MPs vote, puts them on a scale of whatever-winginess.

Crib sheet for the electorate, basically. Mr Slack has taken the first step...

Posted at 11:17PM on 27 Nov 06. Permalink.

In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to build an application that based on how MPs vote, puts them on a scale of whatever-winginess."

Now there's an idea worth a geek somewhere pursuing.

Couldn't be too difficult to map the votes on to two axes, one for personal freedom and one for economic freedom, and voila!

Posted at 12:33AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

rodgerd: Key's voting record suggests he and I have very different visions of an inclusive society.

Well, he did vote against the Foreshore and Seabed Act ... is that a start?

Posted at 12:34AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Good point, David. That occurred to me too.

Even if Brash and Key didn't read the email, and Brash simply forwarded it to Joyce without even opening it, there is no way I will ever believe that National had a million dollar deal going with the Brethren and Joyce didn't think to mention it to either Brash or Key at some point. Ha!

It is so__tiring listening to them lie and lie and lie. You would think at some point they'd have the balls to say "OK, I messed up, I lied, I'm sorry - I will try not to do it again and I will learn from my mistakes". Lordy, lordy, wouldn't that gain people's respect? But no - they just have to keep on lying and lying to the bitter end. Ugh.

Mind you, having been a somewhat __obsessive watcher of American politics over the past 6 years, I can tell you that the biggest lesson I have learned is that if they say categorically that they don't do something, or that something never happened (like torture or illegal wiretapping for example), you can be damned sure that exactly the opposite is true.

Once you figure that out, it's easy to hear the truth. Just turn everything they say upside-down and you'll be close.

Just like 1984.

Posted at 12:40AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Well, he did vote against the Foreshore and Seabed Act ... is that a start?

What exactly do you mean by that Graeme?

Posted at 7:00AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

i'm inclined to agree with webweaver. the entire matter smacks of "plausible denial".

john howard and the AWB are another example. that evil little shit.

Posted at 7:53AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Re the vote on the foreshore and seabed act, I hope that's a principled stand against state alienation of private (in this case Maori) property rights. We'll see...

Posted at 8:32AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Couldn't be too difficult to map the votes on to two axes, one for personal freedom and one for economic freedom, and voila!

Trouble is, mostly their votes are party whipped. (ie: You are obliged to vote according to your party's position).That's principally why I chose Key's conscience votes and preferences expressed in his speeches. ( In which regard, such express positions took a little finding, which chimes with Peter's assertions here - recommended reading - about what motivates Key and English to run.)

Still, it would be interesting to trawl through the speeches and statements and Hansard to try and tease out express positions they've taken, and map them.

As for conscience votes, they're well catalogued here.

One further consideration that muddies the water: MPs will sometimes maintain that they should cast their conscience vote according to the wishes, as they perceive them, of their electorate.

Posted at 8:53AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

For what it's worth, some church out in the Kapiti Bible Belt rated all the parties from "moral" to "immoral", based on the conscience votes of their MPs. That's only one dimension of political beliefs, of course, but it's the one most likely to be open to conscience voting.

Just for a laugh, I combined the "immorality index" of the parties with the party vote at each booth in Wellington at last year's election. Then I graphed the results and mapped them to show the "moral" geography. Doing the same for the "individualist to collectivist" spectrum is left as an exercise for the reader.

Posted at 9:05AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Then I graphed the results and mapped them to show the "moral" geography

That's a very big red dot over Kelburn. Llew, I can see your house from here.

Posted at 9:15AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

What exactly do you mean by that Graeme?

While some refer to the Orewa speech as the most divisive thing to happen to NZ race relations in some time, I'd suggest that that would actually be the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

If anything, Orewa created a bi-partisan ('though not non-partisan or multi-partisan) consensus on race in NZ - that Government should be funding 'need not race'.

People were asking for an inlcusive society - I was suggesting that one in which the PM refers to Maori opposed to the Foreshore and Seabed Act as 'Haters and Wreckers', and prefers to talk to sheep, probably isn't that inclusive.

Posted at 9:28AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

That's a very big red dot over Kelburn. Llew, I can see your house from here.

Well we do our very best for the cause.

Posted at 9:29AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

and prefers to talk to sheep

What are you saying here?

Posted at 9:48AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

David,

I am pleased you posted this I was starting to think I was the only one still interested in the question of how long can Brash keep telling us porkies on this subject.

After an initial interest in the subject most media now seem to be willing to now give not only Don but also John a passo n this question.

Brash Responds – I Didn't Read The Email Either!

Dr Don Brash Explains Himself To National Radio

It is kinda astonishing to me how he manages to wriggle out of being confronted on the lying issue in all his interviews.

"I did not knowingly mislead the public"

yeah right.

Posted at 9:56AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

After an initial interest in the subject most media now seem to be willing to now give not only Don but also John a pass on this question.

I read it this way: the media give Don a pass not so much because they accept his word, but because he's history.

Conversely, the rights/rites of honeymoon get Key a pass no matter how dubious his defence might sound. He's the new player and they don't want to see him bloodbinned after thirty seconds.

Posted at 10:20AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Yes...

Plus also in the case of Key. They really do like him.... as someone in the office pointed out yesterday after his presser.... Key has taken the art of smarmy into an entirely new planetary system.

Posted at 10:29AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Key has taken the art of smarmy into an entirely new planetary system

I haven't actually paid much attention to the guy Alastair - partly because he's so smarmy looking I cannot bear to read whatever text accompanies his picture.

Is it just an unfortunate look? Or is he really as smarmy as he appears?

Posted at 10:42AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Ummm, I got 9 out of 12 on that quiz, having never heard anything about Mr Key's voting habits...I used my unfounded stereotypes of National voting behaviours and what do you know? I'm a genius!

Posted at 11:13AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Worth tuning in: Rod Oram is on Nine to Noon right now talking about Key's economic direction. Key was interviewed in the first hour, but no audio on the site yet.

Posted at 11:28AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Might have to listen on radionz.co.nz

Posted at 11:28AM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

While some refer to the Orewa speech as the most divisive thing to happen to NZ race relations in some time, I'd suggest that that would actually be the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

I would tend to agree with that analysis, but only because of the power factor. That is, Brash would have been a far more racially divise force if he had the power to be so, he just didn't get the chance, (I wonder if he ever really believed Orewa I??). But in saying that I must admit I find Clark much more morally repugnant for her behaviour over the foreshore and seabed.

I think you will most Maori, myself included, fail to see any substantial difference between Labour and National in terms of the way they will cynically exploit us if it suits their purposes. We have a joke that you tell what major party is in power by whether the knife is in your front (National) or your back (Labour).

I am just patiently wating for demographics to allow Maori to take back responsibility for their lives, land and whanau.

Posted at 1:03PM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

While some refer to the Orewa speech as the most divisive thing to happen to NZ race relations in some time, I'd suggest that that would actually be the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Might Labour's response to the F&S issue have been different if they hadn't been spooked by Orewa and its reaction? In other words, did the Orewa speech set up an enivornment in which the shameful aspects of the F&S legislation became politically expedient or even necessary?

Posted at 1:12PM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Might Labour's response to the F&S issue have been different if they hadn't been spooked by Orewa and its reaction?

No, Orewa came after the Appeal Court decision on the F&S, and aimed to take advantage of public disquiet. Although the final shape of the legislation was doubtless influenced by Orewa.

And, yes, Labour was seriously spooked, not least by the NZ Herald, which went mental over the issue and had to crawl its way back. (Can anybody think of a more recent case of the Herald losing the plot?)

The amazing thing about the F&S debate at the political level was how almost everyone seemed to change their stance at least once. Act had about five different stances, from offering its votes for the government to legislate over the court decision without further ado, to publicly supporting Treaty Tribes. Its supporters probably had a right to be confused.

Posted at 1:34PM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Thanks, I was trying to remember the timing. I knew that the court decision came before Orewa, but I'm not sure whether Labour had already decided not to let Maori "have their day in court" by the time of Orewa. It does sound like Orewa capitalised on and then inflamed a "mainstream" reaction that made Labour afraid of being seen as "soft on maori".

Posted at 3:41PM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

Good point, but the timing is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is Labour denied the right to due course of the legal system to a group of people based on their ethnic identity. The NZ Herald and Brash were certainly culpable in the furore that eupted, but Labour betrayed Maori, yet again, and for many Maori it is the betrayl of trust that is the salient point.

Labour held the legislative power in that situation and chose to exercise it in a divisive and profoundly unjust manner, making Labour worse than National in the eyes of almost every Maori I know.

Posted at 3:56PM on 28 Nov 06. Permalink.

I can't argue with that.