NZ Politics Thread

grouch · Post by **grouch** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:14 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:Chris Bishop is the talent in the wings. He’s biding his time though.
He's my local MP and I've seen and chatted with him at several events over the years. Hard working, but I wouldn't see him as the sort of talent to be a successful PM or senior front bencher

Let's face it, the quality of the average MP is atrocious. Chris Bishop is not in that category, but if he's the best parliament has to offer now, then we're in real trouble.

I agree.

It pervades all aspects of society and in IMO is a direct consequence of Kiwi brain drain /diaspora that commenced in Muldoon's watch and hasn't abated much since then.

There's a price to pay for exporting your well educated ,trained, motivated , free -thinking young and replacing them with conservative middle class , middle aged ,immigrants with capital [ even those that can speak english]

To quote the 'colourful' Sir Robert Jones : " anyone with any get-up and go , has got up and gone "

grouch · Post by **grouch** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:54 am

Tomorrow's news on today's Daily Blog.

The murky water around Simon is beginning to smell of old & largely forgotten crimes.

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/10/17/w ... -politics/

"Well, well, well – Aaron Bhatnagar and Dirty Politics is back inside the National Party

This is getting dirtier and nastier but this time around the sleepy hobbits of muddle Nu Zilind don’t have the laid back anti-intellectualism of John Key to absolve their conscience and ignore corruption, they have bumbling Simon Bridges. Key could look down the barrel of the camera and lie to our faces and the sleepy hobbits loved him for it, Simon can’t lie convincingly and they will turn on him.

National Party voters love a good liar, they detest a weak one. "

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:31 am

Bridge's is gone burger

Just heard one of the tapes.

He was talking about list mps. Which ones to ditch. Said one was useless. Said 2 Chinese ones are worth more than 2 Indians.

I'm sure all parties have the same conversations, but there is no way he could live that down.

The donation is a bit irrelevant.

Far out

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:34 am

The mere suggestion of choosing potential MP candidates based on ethnicity to suit a potential donor is going to go down very badly with National voters, I would think.

Wilderbeast · Post by **Wilderbeast** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:37 am

Dark wrote:Bridge's is gone burger

Just heard one of the tapes.

He was talking about list mps. Which ones to ditch. Said one was useless. Said 2 Chinese ones are worth more than 2 Indians.

I'm sure all parties have the same conversations, but there is no way he could live that down.

The donation is a bit irrelevant.

Far out

Really

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:39 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:The mere suggestion of choosing potential MP candidates based on ethnicity to suit a potential donor is going to go down very badly with National voters, I would think.

You’d hope it’ll go down badly with anyone, regardless of who they vote for.

It smells m’lud.
Like a rotting thing.

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:40 am

Just heard it too. The MP he slams is Maureen Pugh.

Maureen Pugh is f**king useless though. Isn't she also an anti-vaxxer?

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:43 am

guy smiley wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:The mere suggestion of choosing potential MP candidates based on ethnicity to suit a potential donor is going to go down very badly with National voters, I would think.
You’d hope it’ll go down badly with anyone, regardless of who they vote for.

Well, yes, but it doesn't change the political landscape if a few people already voting Labour/Green take umbrage at this tape.

On the other hand, if Nats supporters are angry about this, there could be an impact on their polling. You'd think NZF would be the primary beneficiary, and they probably could do with it. Surely some real solid material for Winston to make hay with in there.

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:46 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:The mere suggestion of choosing potential MP candidates based on ethnicity to suit a potential donor is going to go down very badly with National voters, I would think.
You’d hope it’ll go down badly with anyone, regardless of who they vote for.
Well, yes, but it doesn't change the political landscape if a few people already voting Labour/Green take umbrage at this tape.

On the other hand, if Nats supporters are angry about this, there could be an impact on their polling. You'd think NZF would be the primary beneficiary, and they probably could do with it. Surely some real solid material for Winston to make hay with in there.

Yeah, I see your point there. It’s pretty low though, even if she is a rabid anti vax goblin wth hairy teeth and a broomstick jammed between her legs.

UncleFB · Post by **UncleFB** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:52 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:Just heard it too. The MP he slams is Maureen Pugh.

Maureen Pugh is f**king useless though. Isn't she also an anti-vaxxer?

Why on earth are the Nats allowing anti-vaxxers to stand under their banner.

I expect Labour will be disappointed if Bridges steps down, it's helpful having an idiot in charge of the opposition.

Wilderbeast · Post by **Wilderbeast** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:21 am

Coming up at 6pm: Who is Maureen Pugh and why is she so fucking useless?

Credit to The Civilian twitter account

Enzedder · Post by **Enzedder** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:51 am

Let's Do This

MP Mark Richardson: just joking or a hint of the future?

AM Show sports presenter Mark Richardson is someone who wears his political affiliations on his (blue) sleeve, but could he be about to make his commitment official?

It may have been all in jest, but on the show on Wednesday morning he said he was "considering" standing as an MP for National, after party deputy leader Paula Bennett suggested she would interview him for the role of Botany by-election candidate.

After the mayhem within the party of the past few days, Richardson pointed out right at the start of the show he was wearing a blue shirt on the set to show his support for National.

Then when Bennett was being interviewed she said: "We're going to win that by-election. In fact, I could interview Mark now, if you like, as a candidate."

Richardson thought it was a great joke, and said he was "considering" the offer.

Later in the show, host Duncan Garner was reading comments sent in from someone called Penny, from Tāmaki. "We have an invisible remote muppet as an MP," she said, apparently referring to National's Tāmaki MP Simon O'Connor.

"Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if we don't have an MP at all. So I'll lead the campaign to get Mark Richardson on board. Mark is exactly what our area needs, although he will need to go through jetski re-education school, as civilised National voters hate them.

"My name is Penny and I approve of this damn fine political message. Mark please help us in Tāmaki."

At one point in the show, Richardson had said he was only prepared to represent "the good people of St Heliers, Mission Bay and Kohimarama". Those places are all in the Tāmaki electorate.

Richardson was chuckling away. News presenter Amanda Gillies asked: "What do ya reckon, Mark?"

"Oh, look I'll consider it, but at the moment I'm quite comfortable where I am," Richardson said.

"Wow, 'consider'," Gillies said.

Pressed for a decision by Garner, Richardson said: "Oh, I'm still considering it."

"Oh really," Garner replied, sounding surprised. "You wouldn't do it. You'd be mad mate, honestly."

"Thanks for turning your back on us. You wouldn't do that. How could you?" Gillies said.

"Actually that makes it a bit more appealing," Richardson said.

Garner said Richardson wouldn't do it because it would mean moving away from his "lovely family".

Laughing, Richardson said: "that would make it even more appealing".

Richardson is a former test cricket opening batsman, who played 38 tests for New Zealand from 2000-2004. He is also a former co-host of TV sports magazine show the Crowd Goes Wild, and is the host of The Block NZ.

The tone was set right from the very start of Wednesday's The AM Show.

"Can I just make the court aware of the fact that I am in fact wearing blue today in support of my party," Richardson said.

"Fading, fading fast, a faded blue," Garner said. Gillies agreed it wasn't as rich a blue as Richardson usually wore.

"This is the new National colour. Remember they changed the colour to a slightly lighter blue, a murkier blue," Richardson said.

Shortly after that, when Garner was wondering why anyone would want to be a politician, when supposed friends turn out to be enemies. Richardson said he still wanted to be a politician.

"But I'm doing it for the right reasons."

"Which is a decent pay when you go into retirement," Gillies said.

"Yeah, I'm just going to sit on the back benches and basically do nothing," Richardson said.

At one point in the show, he did say he was only prepared to represent "the good people of St Heliers, Mission Bay and Kohimarama."

After AM Show host Mark Richardson's show of continuing support for National, party deputy leader Paula Bennett offered ...
NEWSHUB
After AM Show host Mark Richardson's show of continuing support for National, party deputy leader Paula Bennett offered to interview him for the job of National candidate for Botany.

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:52 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:The mere suggestion of choosing potential MP candidates based on ethnicity to suit a potential donor is going to go down very badly with National voters, I would think.

Yeah because political parties don't base their MPs on voter demographic

We have a DPM who said "Two Wongs don't make a white" ffs

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:57 am

Read the post properly...

“To suit a potential donor” is the bit you’re looking for.

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:03 am

He talks about choosing additional candidates of a certain ethnicity to suit the donor. That's a real problem as it basically says you can influence the make-up of Parliament by putting enough money through the books. Other countries might call that corruption, but there is no corruption in New Zealand - so I've been told.

Auckman · Post by **Auckman** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:13 am

No major illegalities in the recordings, although that 30 day reporting rule sounds like it was broken - minor.

The real damage is what he says about his own MPs and the potential racial mix he and his mate Ross want. Sounds very very close to buying their way into parliament on the list. That alone makes his position untenable. He needs to resign.

deadduck · Post by **deadduck** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:40 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:He talks about choosing additional candidates of a certain ethnicity to suit the donor. That's a real problem as it basically says you can influence the make-up of Parliament by putting enough money through the books. Other countries might call that corruption, but there is no corruption in New Zealand - so I've been told.

Forget about ethnicity for a a second and consider something more basic such as 'interest group' and this sort of thing has been going on forever

When Labour stack their list with union people in order to ensure the hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from the unions, is that really any different to National stacking their list with people who'll pander to the Chinese business community to attract donations from the Chinese business community ?
Do you think Et Tu, NZMU, EPMU etc would donate so much to Labour if it didn't bring any influence inside the party including representation on the list?

At the end of the day, this sort of thing is one of the main reasons political parties exist and shouldn't be that surprising that it happens. Or is the real reason that people are making such a fuss about it because the donors were Chinese?

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:45 am

guy smiley wrote:Read the post properly...

“To suit a potential donor” is the bit you’re looking for.

I doubt Labour would want to go down that particular route considering how many of their MPs are ex union officials from major union donors.

And the unions even help chose their leader

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:46 am

deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:He talks about choosing additional candidates of a certain ethnicity to suit the donor. That's a real problem as it basically says you can influence the make-up of Parliament by putting enough money through the books. Other countries might call that corruption, but there is no corruption in New Zealand - so I've been told.
Forget about ethnicity for a a second and consider something more basic such as 'interest group' and this sort of thing has been going on forever

When Labour stack their list with union people in order to ensure the hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from the unions, is that really any different to National stacking their list with people who'll pander to the Chinese business community to attract donations from the Chinese business community ?
Do you think Et Tu, NZMU, EPMU etc would donate so much to Labour if it didn't bring any influence inside the party including representation on the list?

At the end of the day, this sort of thing is one of the main reasons political parties exist and shouldn't be that surprising that it happens. Or is the real reason that people are making such a fuss about it because the donors were Chinese?

Sorry

Missed this

^^^

This

deadduck · Post by **deadduck** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:50 am

I'm certain all of the employment and contract law reforms pushed through by this government in the first 6 months had absolutely nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to the Labour Party by the unions

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:50 am

The difference being that it’s public record that unions donate and Labour have union hacks. It’s not public record that Donations from particular ethnic groups then lead to potential appointees from that group. I’m sure many voters would see that distinction, where you wish to imply that’s racist or not.

RuggaBugga · Post by **RuggaBugga** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:56 am

Dark wrote:
guy smiley wrote:Read the post properly...

“To suit a potential donor” is the bit you’re looking for.
I doubt Labour would want to go down that particular route considering how many of their MPs are ex union officials from major union donors.

And the unions even help chose their leader

TheDocForgotHisLogon · Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:56 am

Dark wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:He talks about choosing additional candidates of a certain ethnicity to suit the donor. That's a real problem as it basically says you can influence the make-up of Parliament by putting enough money through the books. Other countries might call that corruption, but there is no corruption in New Zealand - so I've been told.
Forget about ethnicity for a a second and consider something more basic such as 'interest group' and this sort of thing has been going on forever

When Labour stack their list with union people in order to ensure the hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from the unions, is that really any different to National stacking their list with people who'll pander to the Chinese business community to attract donations from the Chinese business community ?
Do you think Et Tu, NZMU, EPMU etc would donate so much to Labour if it didn't bring any influence inside the party including representation on the list?

At the end of the day, this sort of thing is one of the main reasons political parties exist and shouldn't be that surprising that it happens. Or is the real reason that people are making such a fuss about it because the donors were Chinese?
Sorry

Missed this

^^^

This

Whiteouts

Yup was going to post same but beaten to it. No amount of whataboutery is going to help though - and the press certainly isn't going to be making that point on the nightly news.

If JLR has recordings of caucus and / or of conversations with other senior figures this could be very serious for National. Sets a horrible new standard for behaviour, and I feel a bit sorry for Bridges - he's done nothing out of the ordinary, got set up by someone he ought to have been able to trust, and there's very little he can say or do to dig his way out.

Wilderbeast · Post by **Wilderbeast** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:59 am

JLR allegedly spoke to Simon Lusk and Cameron Slater this morning. He’s trying to do as much damage as possible.

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:01 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:The difference being that it’s public record that unions donate and Labour have union hacks. It’s not public record that Donations from particular ethnic groups then lead to potential appointees from that group. I’m sure many voters would see that distinction, where you wish to imply that’s racist or not.

Don't get what you mean

If it is above the threshold then it is all declared

Unless you think unions don't make individual donations

I was reading today that 83% of Nationals donations are anonymous and 80% of Labours

She is hardly a one sided thing

As an aside Winston's was the worst at nearly 100%

deadduck · Post by **deadduck** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:04 am

The only Chinese MP on the National list is Jian Yang way down at #34. Whatever influence they're "buying" it doesn't seem to be very much. We'll see again in 2020 but unless there's more than a couple in the top 30 it would hardly be out of the ordinary.

What is concerning is the illegal and deliberate splitting up of the donations in order to hide them from the electoral commission. If that is indeed what's happened it's quite serious stuff. That's the bigger issue here.

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:04 am

I'd actually love someone to ask Ross whether told Pugh he was releasing that tape before tweeting it, to warn her.

Useless she may be, but that isn't an excuse to call the media hounds on her without notice.

If it is a no he is a prick.....as well as a bit gaga

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:04 am

What do I mean? That the Labour Party is built around the premise of union participation. A Labour voter can hardly be shocked by union representation. National voters on the other hand could be somewhat surprised by the fact that special interest groups can be promoted with a very minor donation in the grand scheme of things.

These are not equal or comparable issues.

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:08 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:What do I mean? That the Labour Party is built around the premise of union participation. A Labour voter can hardly be shocked by union representation. National voters on the other hand could be somewhat surprised by the fact that special interest groups can be promoted with a very minor donation in the grand scheme of things.

These are not equal or comparable issues.

Unions are still a special interest group and not that many people even belong to them anymore

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:08 am

deadduck wrote: What is concerning is the illegal and deliberate splitting up of the donations in order to hide them from the electoral commission. If that is indeed what's happened it's quite serious stuff. That's the bigger issue here.

Legally speaking I tend to agree, but foreign influence is something which could well have an impact on National’s voter base. I suspect that issue could well have a longer term impact on National’s vote share.

Gordon Bennett · Post by **Gordon Bennett** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:11 am

Dark wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:What do I mean? That the Labour Party is built around the premise of union participation. A Labour voter can hardly be shocked by union representation. National voters on the other hand could be somewhat surprised by the fact that special interest groups can be promoted with a very minor donation in the grand scheme of things.

These are not equal or comparable issues.
Unions are still a special interest group and not that many people even belong to them anymore

And if you vote labour, you’d have to be a blithering imbicile be be unaware of the union influence. Are you saying Labour hide that influence or try to? If not, the two things are not comparable.

deadduck · Post by **deadduck** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:13 am

Gordon Bennett wrote:What do I mean? That the Labour Party is built around the premise of union participation. A Labour voter can hardly be shocked by union representation. National voters on the other hand could be somewhat surprised by the fact that special interest groups can be promoted with a very minor donation in the grand scheme of things.

These are not equal or comparable issues.

That's only because the National party is a loose agglomeration of wide ranging conservative interest groups and not founded with a specific ideological purpose like Labour. It's a coincidence of history.

The principle, that donations to political parties are used to gain influence in parliament, is exactly the same.

TheDocForgotHisLogon · Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:28 am

Everyone will work right up to the line and a bit over it. What hasn't helped over the years is Plod's refusal over and over again to investigate and / or prosecute where there have been clear abuses, and of course Labour's disgraceful retrospective law to clear itself. That sets the line further towards corruption that we should want it to be.

Ghost-Of-Nepia · Post by **Ghost-Of-Nepia** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:35 am

Dark wrote:Bridge's is gone burger

Just heard one of the tapes.

He was talking about list mps. Which ones to ditch. Said one was useless. Said 2 Chinese ones are worth more than 2 Indians.

I'm sure all parties have the same conversations, but there is no way he could live that down.

The donation is a bit irrelevant.

Far out

No he didn't. That was JLR. If you're going to make such bold statements, the least you could do is get them right.

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:37 am

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:Everyone will work right up to the line and a bit over it. What hasn't helped over the years is Plod's refusal over and over again to investigate and / or prosecute where there have been clear abuses, and of course Labour's disgraceful retrospective law to clear itself. That sets the line further towards corruption that we should want it to be.

The number 7's of govt

Maybe McAwe should run in Botany

Wilderbeast · Post by **Wilderbeast** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:46 am

deadduck wrote:The only Chinese MP on the National list is Jian Yang way down at #34. Whatever influence they're "buying" it doesn't seem to be very much. We'll see again in 2020 but unless there's more than a couple in the top 30 it would hardly be out of the ordinary.

What is concerning is the illegal and deliberate splitting up of the donations in order to hide them from the electoral commission. If that is indeed what's happened it's quite serious stuff. That's the bigger issue here.

Have you missed alll the reporting on Chinese influence in the Pacific and Jian Yang’s role in all this?

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:55 am

Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:
Dark wrote:Bridge's is gone burger

Just heard one of the tapes.

He was talking about list mps. Which ones to ditch. Said one was useless. Said 2 Chinese ones are worth more than 2 Indians.

I'm sure all parties have the same conversations, but there is no way he could live that down.

The donation is a bit irrelevant.

Far out

No he didn't. That was JLR. If you're going to make such bold statements, the least you could do is get them right.

Sorry, you are right.

My mistake

Ghost-Of-Nepia · Post by **Ghost-Of-Nepia** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:04 am

Dark wrote:
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:
Dark wrote:Bridge's is gone burger

Just heard one of the tapes.

He was talking about list mps. Which ones to ditch. Said one was useless. Said 2 Chinese ones are worth more than 2 Indians.

I'm sure all parties have the same conversations, but there is no way he could live that down.

The donation is a bit irrelevant.

Far out

No he didn't. That was JLR. If you're going to make such bold statements, the least you could do is get them right.
Sorry, you are right.

My mistake

Hareaway · Post by **Hareaway** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:10 am

As far as bombshells go that’s a really shit one .

JLR comes across as a complete cock .
Labour Party holding the high ground , while NZF rolling around in the shit as per .
Bridges is fvcked whatever happened.

Wilderbeast · Post by **Wilderbeast** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:11 am

Hareaway wrote:As far as bombshells go that’s a really shit one .

JLR comes across as a complete cock .
Labour Party holding the high ground , while NZF rolling around in the shit as per .
Bridges is fvcked whatever happened.

Reckon that’s the nuts of it but it ain’t over yet.