Andrew Geddis

Geddis on donations and why Cunliffe’s trust is tricky

Even though Andrew Geddis, like a petulant child, can’t bring himself to say my name, he does make good points in his latest post at Pundit.

The left wing blogosphere has been cock-a-hoop (wrongly it turns out) that Patrick Gower ‘got’ John Key on The Nation. Geddis doesn’t agree and schools them on the law.

There’s been a bit of lefty gloating going on around the traps aboutPatrick Gower’s interview with John Key on The Nation, in which he sought to draw an equivalence between David Cunliffe’s use of a trust to receive donations for his Labour leadership campaign and donations that National received back in 2010 and 2011 through a dinner held at “Auckland’s pricey Parnell restaurant Antoine’s”.

(On that last point, check out Antoine’s menu and the attached prices. This, remember, apparently is one of John Key’s “favourite places to eat”. That this fact does not at all seem to undermine the popular view of him as being “just like us” is a source of unending mystery!)

But much as I would love to grab a pitchfork and torch and follow in behind the crowd all the way to the door of Key’s castle on a bleak mountain top (which is what he lives in, right?), my goddam conscience just won’t let me do it. So I’m going to have to break ranks and say, “nice try, but not quite.”

If the lefty bloggers take just 5 minutes to read why they will find out why no other media except TV3 is pushing this story.  Read more »

Andrew Geddis on a couple of electoral matters

Andrew Geddis joins the chorus of experts certain that Kim Dotcom is full of the proverbial over his claims he can stand for parliament.

Quite how a convicted fraudster and German national is going to get over the citizenship line is beyond almost everyone except the Fat German.

Now, others already have expressed a degree of (shall we say) complete and utter disbelief regarding this claim. So let me just add my voice to theirs and say that Kim Dotcom ain’t going to be a candidate at the 2014 election. I’ve taken the liberty of putting the reason why in bold italics:

47 Registered electors may be members, unless disqualified

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person who is registered as an elector of an electoral district, but no other person, is qualified to be a candidate and to be elected a member of Parliament, whether for that electoral district, any other electoral district or as a consequence of the inclusion of that person’s name in a party list … .

(3) Regardless of anything in subsection (1), a person is not qualified to be a candidate or to be elected unless he or she is a New Zealand citizen.  Read more »

Andrew Geddis on the Privileges Committee

Winston Peters ran off tot he Police, Russel Norman too thinks the Police should troll through MPs emails and David Shearer stuttered off to lay a complaint with the Privileges Committee.

Andrew Geddis thinks this might be a big gamble with little reward. After all Winston escaped with a slap ont he hand with a wet bus ticket the last time he ventured to the Privileges Committee.

Firstly, though, Geddis pours scorn on the grandstanding with Police.

For reasons more fully covered here and here, there simply is no way the leaking of the Kitteridge Report itself meets this offence provision – the fact the PM himself was due to release it a few days later testifies to that. And there is as yet no evidence whatsoever that any other material that really is “likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand” has been leaked to anyone – even if Peter Dunne had access to such material, the fact that he is a prime suspect in leaking one sort of information isn’t any reason to suspect he’s leaked another sort. So, absent some as yet unrevealed June surprise, I’m calling this a dead end.

Good, because did anyone really want Winston and Russel’s police goons demanding emails of MPs?  Read more »

Blogger issues fatwa against another blogger, I’m joining in

After burying the hatchet with real estate blogger Martyn Bradbury it was only a matter of time until Imperator Fish blogger Scott Yorke found another blogger to torment to an eating disorder.

He has issued a fatwa against Andrew Geddis…one I am tempted to join…since Andrew cannot and will not mention my name or the name of my blog.

It is all very Wogistani but extremely entertaining:

Blogger Scott Yorke today issued a “fatwa” against Otago University academic Professor Andrew Geddis.

Mr Yorke said he had issued the edict to “take my revenge on that dirty thief.”

Yorke said he had been forced to act after Geddis stole one of his blogpost ideas.  Read more »

Geddis on Bain Compo Grab, Fisher was right in his review

Andrew Geddis comments at NBR in an article by Rod Vaughan (paid content) about the compo grab of David Cullen Bain:

“The cynic in me thinks they thought that the case against Bain was so clear that anyone who came in to look at it was going to give them an answer and they could make it go away.

“I genuinely think that [former Justice Minister] Simon Power thought Binnie was going to come back and say ‘he’s guilty, you don’t have to pay him’.

“And when Binnie didn’t do that, that’s when the fur started to fly.”  Read more »

Comment of the Day

ᔄ Imperator Fish

Andrew Geddis summarises Labour’s and Clare Curran’s social media strategy:

You can’t see the bigger strategy here. By obsessively focusing on John Key’s social media usage, Claire is revealing to real New Zealanders how obsessively focussed John Key is on his social media usage. And once real New Zealanders realise how obsessive John Key is with regards his social media usage, then they will realise they don’t really like him and instead like a party that isn’t obsessed with social media.

For The Win!

The Shield of Sanctimony, Ctd


Andrew Geddis tears apart the Greens for their sanctimony and hypocrisy in using public funds to buy a referendum result:

First, it becomes pretty hard to rail against the influence of money in politics when you yourself are spending money trying to influence politics. For example, the Green Party’s policy proposal on campaign finance reform reads:

No person or entity can donate more than $35,000 to a political party in any twelve month period. This would need to include rules to make it illegal to split up large donations into lots smaller than $35,000 to avoid this cap.

So why exactly is giving more than $35,000 to a political party to spend on trying to achieve political outcomes A Bad Thing, whilst spending $50,000 (at least) on trying to achieve political outcomes is A Good Thing? Sure, you can maybe square the circle – there’s the concern about corruption, or the like – but it becomes a tougher argument to make when you have to start from the position of justifying why you should be able to do something that others cannot.

Back to the Drawing Board

The Southland Times editorial has picked up what Labour has so far failed to…that their election campaign using illegal stop sign facsimiles has failed.

It was inevitable, of course. The only real surprise is that it has taken almost three weeks for Labour’s latest attention-grabbing bid to crash and burn.The “Stop asset sales vote Labour” campaign, launched in Auckland on April 4, effectively died of scornful, mocking laughter on Thursday. It should not be lamented, even by the most ardent of Labour supporters.

In itself, there was nothing wrong with the concept and a great deal to recommend it. National’s publicly announced plans to begin selling off state assets if (when) it wins the next general election have found so little favour with the electorate that even prominent business leaders have voiced their opposition.

Handled with skill, finesse and a little luck Labour’s campaign could have been, if not a winner, at least a long poll with which to poke the borax. It could even have become long enough to lever the party back up the popularity ladder. Few will look back with favour on the raft of sales of some of our most valuable state assets in the 80s and 90s by successive Labour and National governments.

So the concept was good. The only parts missing were the skill, finesse and luck.

And that scornful, mocking laughter was very loud at my place.

Whoever came up with the concept of plastering the message on imitation road stop signs should be led away to a disused shed out the back somewhere, put under 24-hour guard and released only after the next general election is over.

Whoever then came up with the idea of selling these signs to the party faithful at $10 a pop should be made to share the shed.

But a desert island, a really remote desert island, should be reserved for the genius who came up with the idea of putting the signs, signs with the same shape and colouring of real road stop signs, along the median strip of a road in the Hutt Valley this week.

And Labour still thinks everything is fine with their campaign and they will continue to run their Ponzi scheme. Sue Moroney was even skiting on Facebook about her illegal sign activities in Hamilton long after the issue was highlighted for all to see.

The Land Transport Safety Authority takes a dim view of any roadside signs that could distract drivers. The regulations are pretty clear: “A person must not install on a road, or in or on a place visible from a road, a sign, device or object that is not a traffic control device, but that may be mistaken for a traffic control device.”

You’d think that even if someone was a sheep short in the top paddock he or she would realise that slapping big stop signs along a busy road might have caused a few problems for motorists, but no.

Up they went. And within an hour, down they came again, courtesy of the Hutt City Council, responsible for controlling the roads in the area. The signs, the council noted in a press release, did not meet any road signage requirements and following a complaint from the public they were removed.

Labour still insists that every thing is ok and they are #winning. Unfortunately, no matter how hard they spin the facts the law is the law and their signs are illegal and can’t be displayed.

Unfortunately, the Labour Party still didn’t get it. General secretary Chris Flatt huffed that it was all a dastardly plot by National Party bloggers and right-wing groups to ruin the campaign. “Any reasonable person would see that the nature of the writing and the `vote Labour’ on there indicates they’re not traffic control devices,” he insisted, and vowed party supporters would continue using the signs, though they had been told to be more cautious near roads.

We have some advice for Mr Flatt: throw the signs in the shed, or ship them off to the island. Consult Marketing, 101. Get rid of the negative Stop the asset sales. Be positive. Try something like Save our assets. On a sign that does not look like a road stop sign, or a give way, or even a pedestrian crossing. Do not erect the new signs anywhere near roads. Let’s try to keep the road toll down.

Perhaps some Labour MPs are getting it, they have started removing the avatar from their Facebook profiles, although their transport safety spokesperson was a little slow to grasp the problem for her. She still has the sign in her profile pictures though making her position on anything remotely connected with road safety somewhat tenuous. Especially when there is a photo of her standing ON a road waving an illegal sign.

Darien Fenton - Labour road safety spokesperson breaking the law

Annette King is a former transport Minister, you would think she would get it? Nope, not likely:

Annette King, former transport Minister ignores road safety

Andrew Geddis keeps pointing out Labour’s folly:

April 22, 2011 at 5:40 pm

As someone who has commented on this issue elsewhere, I thought I’d chip in my 2 cents worth on the legal niceties of all this 
(1) The question of authorisation was a misdirect by me, based on low-resolution photos of the signs. I’ve retracted and apologised over at Pundit.(2) The Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations 2005, Reg 5 (raised by Cameron Slater above) isn’t directly relevant 
 this only applies in the 2 months prior to an election. What it does show, however, is that even during the height of election season political expression has to play second fiddle to road safety issues.(3) The question of using these signs around roadways is not simply “would a ‘reasonable person’ really think it is a stop sign?” There’s also an importance in keeping the shape/colour of road signs “pure”, in that when people see a red octagon on the roadside they aren’t having to conciously think “is that really a stop sign, or just someone using the shape and colour for a different purpose?” Instead, you want an instinctive reaction 
 red octagon, must stop”. So the rule may be over-protective, in that it stops some signs that most people wouldn’t really think are proper stop signs so as to ensure the distinctive nature of such signs remains.Some thoughts, anyway.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.


Labour says the Law doesn't apply to them

In the Herald this morning Labour leader (Pro tempore) Phil Goff has said that labour will continue to ignore and break the law in their campaign to Stop Asset Sales.

Labour leader Phil Goff, who launched the campaign last week, said he didn’t know who within his party had put the signs up, “but if the council has a problem of course they can talk to whoever might have put them out”.

While the signs were modelled on stop signs “nobody’s going to mistake it as a stop sign, that’s just silly”.

“This is just the National Party highly embarrassed by the fact that most New Zealanders don’t want asset sales and the Labour Party is standing alongside New Zealanders in that view.

“In fact we’re leading the push back against the assets sales. That’s why they’d love to see us not have the chance to get our message out there.

“We’ll keep using those signs. If the council’s got a problem we’ll listen to them of course, but nobody thinks they’re going to be a traffic hazard, that’s just nonsense.”

Where to begin with his statement. For a start he says he doesn’t know who put the signs up? There is photographic evidence of at least 8 MPs or candidates including Carmel Sepuloni, Trevor Mallard, Iain Lees-Galloway, Darien Fenton, even Phil Goff himself. Jeremy Greenbrook-Held even boasts of the one he put up in Helensville.

Then he talks about the National party being embarrassed which is hilarious since no one in the National party has said a word, it is bloggers that have snapped their campaign and now utterly destroyed it.

Then Phil Goff declares that they will just carry on regardless despite the law.

So Labour is poised to ignore the law (again) - and encourage their supporters to participate in potentially dangerous and illegal behaviour.  Phil Goff doesn’t care about motorist safety. Andrew Geddis points out Labour’s problem:

Now, this isn’t to say that Labour can’t produce signs that look like stop signs, or stick these up in places that aren’t visible from a roadway. It’s just that those putting them up – most of whom I’m guessing are enthusiastic volunteers – shouldn’t be putting them up alongside the roads. And Labour also probably shouldn’t be saying “We’re aiming to blanket the country with [the signs]“, which could (at the least) be interpreted as encouragement to use them in ways that are prohibited.

It is worse than Andrew Geddis suggest because on their Facebook site they even go out of their way to state:

Yes, the admin of the Facebook site tells us all that they designed the signs to mimic stop signs. That breaches the law straight away right there. Then they go on:

Labour's sign stuff up

Labour wants to blanket the country with them…the photographic evidence suggests that blanket the country means hammering them into grass verges, having loons jump up and down at busy intersections carrying stop signs and leaping into the path of on-coming traffic brandishing red stop signs.

The LTSA should be telling Labour to axe the signs - because right now there’s a risk other groups will ignore the law and quote this ham-fisted campaign and Phil Goff’s statement as a precedent that the authorities did nothing about.

Sanctimonious, Unctuous Twat alert

What is it about lefty c**ts who take it upon themselves to get all sanctimonious and unctuous.

Let me pose this question. If Russell “My Shit doesn’t Smell” Brown was doing this would they be frothing like rabid dogs.

Of course not, because lefty c**ts are hypocrites, they take courses in it, it is the only thing they excel at.

They of course did noble things like burned flags, filmed pigs, sat in cages pretending to be chickens, booed loudly at National party meetings, wrote letters to the editor about the Springbok tour in the 80′s while John Key was shagging his missus to be and threw paint at troops who risked their lives. They actually have never stood for freedom, ever. They also supported laws like the Electoral Finance Act.

Well fuck them, they aren’t the ones answering hundreds of supportive emails, including at least 50 from victims feeling dis-empowered from a legal system that cares more about criminal rights than anything else. They aren’t the ones getting phone calls from people they’ve never met saying go, go, go. They aren’t the ones that have people raising funds for them that they have never met. More importantly they aren’t the ones who are going to ever get anything done because they never stand for anything other than control over the citizenry.

When the Police charged me to “set an example” they picked the wrong person. If they wanted a sacrificial lamb they should have picked a lefty, they would have lain down and said fuck me in the arse because I like it and I’ll say sorry afterwards and pay a fine, I should have been more subservient, and doff their caps to the establishment as they left court. But then lefty weaklings never test the edge unless it is in favour of people like Pol Pot or Hamas.

I live over the edge, I have a hang glider and a bungy and a rappelling rope. they should try is some day, un-yoke themselves from subservience and dependency and free their thought. The problem they face thought is that they are really just like pavlov’s Dogs conditioned not to think and to only repeat the approved mantras and so their brains have withered.

I pity them.