Cool Technology

Ideas for reducing travel

SSC asks for ideas on reducing government travel

The State Service Commission (SSC) has asked for proposals on way to reduce government department travel by 15 percent by 2010.

Interested parties have until August 31 to respond.
 

Numpties. Just cut the number of parasites living off the public teat by 15% and not only will you spend less on travel and wages, you’ll probably grow the economy.

You don’t need until August 31 to figure that one out… 

Naming names

Clinton Smith, the cross dressing Labour activist carrying the Standard, engaged in a game of smears and innuendo against un-named National MPs yesterday. I challenged him to name names and face the heat of legal action as well as the damage a mutual mud-slinging match would cause.

Being the gutless panty sniffer he is, Clinton has failed to come up with the goods. So over the coming weeks and months you can expect a drip-feed of information exposing the links between the Labour machine and the anonymous left wing blogosphere. 

Today’s victim is WOBH commenter and Newzblog blogger redbus aka Angus Hodgson. His profile on the blog suggests he is some kind of Maverick left-winger. What it doesn’t tell you is that he is a Labour lickspittle and office holder.

The ‘independent’ redbus is in fact Angus Hodgson. He’s the Deputy Chair of the Coromandel LEC and the Waikato/BOP rep for Young Labour. But his involvement goes even deeper.

While he was blogging ‘independently’ for Newzblog, he was also the blogging mouthpiece for Hugh Kinnimonth, the Labour candidate for Coromandel. Despite trying to hide this in WordPress settings, content available via Google Blogsearch reveals that redbus was responsible for the material on Kinninmonth’s campaign blog/website

 

I left a message for Kinninmonth seeking comment. He didn’t call back and now, rather curiously, his campaign blog has been deleted. A very, very interesting situation.

Update: It’s worth recalling some of the dumb shit Kinninmonth allowed a 14 year old to put to his name

I’ve never been a fan of the polls. They’re incredibly irrelevant and unrepresentative. For one they seldom report the number of respondents who are ‘undecided’. Around 37% of electors don’t have a landline – they are therefore exempt from participating in the polls.

I don’t think Sandra Goudie featured in the preferred Prime Minister poll.

Now Hugh needs to answer the question: is Angus Hodgson still blogging on his behalf?

The Standard 2.01: Panty sniffing

From the Stranded:

Two of the frontbench are publicly in the closet, although pretty open about it in their day to day lives. No prizes for guessing, obviously. I don’t understand why you would choose to be publicly in the closet and go so far as to vote against gay rights but there you have it.

That’s Clinton Smith – the holier than thou fuckwit carrying the Standard since some of the 9th floor bloggers were instructed to stop – showing his true colours.

The Labour Party as a whole is obsessed with other people’s sex lives. From Mallard to Jill Pettis, they love panty sniffing and rumour mongering. But they never come up with the goods.

So I challenge Clinton to name names or withdraw his accusation. Because if he wants to start talking about the private live of his opponents, I will start.

Should we start with a prominent Young Labour activist who is closeted? Or the married frontbench Labour MP who is fucking the one of his associate Minister’s (male) press secretaries? Or that Minister’s fetishes? Or the sexual misadventurers of a certain good doctor in the Labour party?

The fact is Clinton, if you want to throw mud, we’ve got more than enough to throw back.

 

Secret tape saga rolls on

The secret tape saga has gained new momentum today. WOBH has obtained tapes of a senior political figure who played a key role in rejuvenating his party and returning it electoral viability talking about political tactics.

X: “all of the information that you glean through research, through polling, through focus group testing, that informs your policy … [You are] going out, talking to the electorate about their wants and needs and using that to inform … policy. So it’s become a critical component in the manifestos and the policies .. [offered] at election time

Y: “So that translates to campaigning directly?”

X: “That’s right”

“[Election campaigns] have now become all about organisation and discipline and control and style … there’s a very clear script written in advance and all the main players stick to it with some rigor.”

What’s even more worrying is that the source is one that has for years been associated with the party in question. It sounds like this person is outlining that his party uses all of the same Crosby|Textor tricks the ninth floor staffers at the Stranded have been ordered to attack. 

So folks, who has been caught out on tape admitting to using the Crosby|Textor playbook?

Dumb Labour: Viv Goldsmith

Last month I announced that as part of our charter commitment to Fair and Balanced reportage I would be running a regular, apolitical series looking at what fuckwits the Labour party harbours. Here’s the August edition.

Labour have had a great deal of trouble finding candidates to put up in electorates around the country.

It’s not a great time to have your name associated with the Labour party, and this was particularly true in the East Coast Bays electorate – no one has ever been particularly willing to go up against the hardworking and conscientious, popular and competent incumbent Murray McCully. And rightly so.

This time round, the ECB LEC really scraped the bottom of barrel and found some loser dumb enough to stand.

They found a frumpy housewife/primary school teacher known to her few remaining friends as Viv Goldsmith. She has a morbidly obese, drain on the health system and whingeing pom for a husband who follows her about on the campaign trail.

So what makes her dumb? In the press release announcing her candidacy, the bint chipped in this throwaway line:

“She pledges to be a representative who will have a presence and an availability not seen currently in the East Coast Bays electorate.”

Let’s unpack that a little. Firstly, she pledges to be available and visible locally if elected. Then she implies that the incumbent is something other than the hard-working and popular local his constituents know him to be.

The second claim is an outrageous slur that can be disproved in a cinch.  The first is more contentious.

On her website, Goldsmith admits she lives well beyond the borders of McCully Country in the North Shore electorate. Not exactly a new standard of local advocacy is it?

To be fair, a lot of candidates and some MPs don’t live in the electorates they are standing in. But at least they go to some length to get involved in the local community. Not Goldsmith.

Such is her disdain for the people of East Coast Bays, she refuses to even host her fundraisers locally. In fact, she is hosting what she describes as her one “BIG fund raiser!” in another city about eight hours walk from East Coast Bays. Is that really a new standard of representation? Or is it simply the case that Goldsmith has such disdain for people in East Coast Bays she’s hosting a fundraiser many local people would find it difficult to get to. 

Living outside the electorate you want to represent and hosting your “BIG fund raiser[s]!” in Avondalé – a suburb in another city – isn’t a new standard of representation. It’s what I call Dumb Labour.

Know your Weasel: Jordan "fucking retard" Carter

“You’re a fucking retard, aren’t you?

Jordan Carter denigrating people living with disabilities in 2005. Is this the level of political discourse we expect from one who aspires to public office?

Know your Weasel: Jordan "I don't want to be an MP" Carter

It’s pretty clear that Jordan Carter doesn’t want to become an MP. Ever. He didn’t even make it on to the Northern region list. That sounded odd at the time but now it makes more sense.

Carter doesn’t want to rely on a list position because he doesn’t want you to vote for Labour. At least that’s what he said in 2005:

as a Labour Party activist, I am quite relaxed about … our left vote going to the Greens. A comparative look at the policy agendas of the 1999-2002 and 2002-2005 governments indicates the influence the Alliance had, and the current term has definitely seen a more conservative government on some economic issues than last term did … I think an injection of more stridently pursued left wing ideas into government would be a good thing.

If Labour insists on pitching to the centre, as it has done on public spending, on trade, on justice issues and so on, then it will hold the centre come the election. A coalition with the Greens would pull back some of those issues, and give a more visibly progressive government a chance to emerge.

This is just more proof of the strategy Carter wrote of in a memo to Young Labour members in 2002. He described it as a gradualist strategy, aimed at “achieving a worker’s paradise” and advancing the agenda of people on the “radical edges” of the Labour party by stealth. Presenting a moderate face to the electorate, and then pushing as hard and fast as you can for socialist policies.

Carter would happily have Labour “pitch” to the centre, abandon left voters and then use a Green coalition as an excuse to advance a radical agenda. Carter should be disendorsed as soon as possible.

An open letter to the absentee candidate

Dear Jordan,

The other day I heard you had been selected as the candidate in Hunua. This came as a surprise to me, but it will be even more surprising to the people of Hunua when they discover you are their candidate.

Firstly, do you intend to actually step foot in Hunua, and if so, when? The rest of my questions sort of hinge on this one. It would be unfair to apply such a high level of scrutiny to you if you continue to be a candidate in (an unrecognised) name only.

If you do intend to enter the electorate, I think you have a responsibility to engage in a dialogue with people regarding your real values. To kick off this dialogue, I have prepared a series of questions for you to answer.

Do you support the politicisation of Parliamentary Services?

In 2004 you wrote of the need to “rip away” the “non-political” “fig leaf of Parliamentary Services”

Do you still consider yourself to be on the “radical edges” of the Labour party, working to achieve a “worker’s paradise”? If not, have your views really changed or are you practising the “gradualist strategy” you wrote of in 2002?

These quotes are taken from an edition of “Future Lefts”, the Young Labour newsletter you edited.

Would you encourage the international community to take military action against Israel to enforce UN resolutions?

In a 2003 edition of the Socialist Worker Monthly Review you wrote that world opinion “on the Palestine/Israel conflict … [should be] enforced with … the vigour Iraq is currently facing”

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that “war is working people fighting each other, at the bidding of the fat cats,”?

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that “the United States armed services are predominantly people we might call ‘white trash’,”?

Do you stand by your classification of the United States as an “empire” that “calls itself a democracy,”?

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that the Republican party “has been built on racism among working class whites” with a “get your bitch ass in the kitchen and cook my eggs and pop my sprogs” mentality?

In 2004 you supportively linked to an article in the New Left Review, quoting the excerpt below:

Washington’s military-imperialist thrust into Central Eurasia, at first deplored by right-minded pillars of the status quo as an over-reaching adventure, has become the basis of a new world consensus: the hegemon must not be allowed to fail. The first, elementary step against such acquiescence is solidarity with the cause of national liberation in Iraq. The US-led forces have no business there. The Iraqi maquis deserves full support in fighting to drive them out.

Later that year, you wrote “[I] find myself wishing the insurgency [in Iraq] every success”. Do you support the insurgency in Iraq and are you sympathetic to the views expressed in the excerpt above?

Do you stand by your statement in 2004 that “Iraq’s economy will likely become a branch of Wall Street with economic policy determined by the invaders not the Iraqis,”?

Do you stand by you statement in 2004 that America’s national interest has been “constructed as inimical to global interests for quite some time,”?

These quotes are taken from various postings on your blog made in 2004.

You have a record of making statements that would suggest you have a radical agenda cloaked beneath a “gradualist approach”. Are you going to stand in Hunua as Jordan Carter the radical or Jordan Carter the moderate? Your views seem to be completely out of step with those even of the party that nominated you. I think it is imperative that you clarify, withdraw, re-affirm or distance yourself from comments you have made in the past before you can credibly stand for election.

Cheers,

Steady Eddy
whaleoil.co.nz

Know your Weasel: Jordan "Jimmy" Carter

Some may be surprised at the amount of space I am dedicating to Carter, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Today I’ll canvass Carter’s pre-2005 comments, the rest will come in due course.

2004 was a year when American politics couldn’t be avoided. Locked in a heated Presidential race, political junkies on both sides of the divide couldn’t take their eyes off the action. Labour’s absentee candidate in Hunua was one of these but in commenting on the election, he crossed a line of decency that I think would restrict his capacity to work in a Government dealing with a Republican administration in the States.

Carter wrote that the Republican party “has been built on racism among working class whites” with a “get your bitch ass in the kitchen and cook my eggs and pop my sprogs” mentality. He went on to claim that “If the Republicans win [the 2004 election] then the whole planet is completely fucked. No response to global warming. No building of a new international framework. No success in ending terrorism. No end to preemptive wars.” Charming.

Later in the year he linked supportively to an article in the New Left Review by Susan Watkins where she wrote:

Washington’s military-imperialist thrust into Central Eurasia, at first deplored by right-minded pillars of the status quo as an over-reaching adventure, has become the basis of a new world consensus: the hegemon must not be allowed to fail. The first, elementary step against such acquiescence is solidarity with the cause of national liberation in Iraq. The US-led forces have no business there. The Iraqi maquis deserves full support in fighting to drive them out.

His sympathy with fellow radicals showed through in November 2004 when he wrote
“Iraq’s economy will likely become a branch of Wall Street with economic policy determined by the invaders not the Iraqis”. In the same month he wrote ” [in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal] find myself wishing the insurgency every success”. He went on to say America’s national interested has been “constructed as inimical to global interests for quite some time”.

After the US election he posted the following picture:

Along with the following commentary:

I hate George W Bush

In the spirit of the traditional primal scream in respones to loss, I said “I’m sorry, but it’s true. I really do. I hate the bastard.” Possibly a little strong, but you get the idea.

Some thoughts:

* more US civil rights will be eroded.
* the draft will be introduced.
* Bush will go for broke, now he has no more terms to fight for.
* the Dems are screwed. Daschle lost; their own leader.
* There is the vaguest possibility that Kerry could come back on specials.
* The Dems need to mobilise their base better. Clinton H would be good at this.

Basically, all I can say is: help. The world is screwed, and I do not say that lightly. More sensible response later.

It’s unclear whether or not Carter still stands by these comments or whether he is abandoned them as part of his “gradualist” strategy to foist his self-confessed “radical” agenda on unsuspecting New Zealanders.

Know your Weasel: Jordan "Moorehead" Carter

What do Jordan Carter and Sunni terrorist group the Rashedeen Army have in common?

Quite a lot it seems. Both apparently seem to support violence against Israel and both have used Michael Moore’s hate-film Fahrenheit 9/11 to garner support.

In 2004 Jordan Carter organised a showing of the controversial film at a Labour party fundraiser. The decision to show the film, noted for it’s gross inaccuracies, suggests a degree of political naivety but is by no means a career ending mistake. Carter’s response however, is.

In 2004 he wrote:

war is working people fighting each other, at the bidding of the fat cats. The United States armed services are predominantly people we might call ‘white trash’ and Latin-American and Black Americans; the poorest and most deprived communities provide most of the troops for the Empire’s wars. This has always been the case in every empire, but in something which calls itself a democracy is pretty chilling.

The self-confessed radical certainly isn’t shy about his views. Now he’s a Labour candidate, will he repeat his view that America is “an empire” that can only “call itself a democracy” driven to war at the bidding of “fat cats” using troops he describes as “white trash”? He went on to claim that “such people” – blacks, Hispanics and “white trash” – “join the armed forces because they’re often the only way out of the poverty and lack of life chances they have”.

Carter’s anti-American bigotry, reminiscent of the kind practised by his namesake, endanger American-New Zealand relations. Why have Labour selected such a loose cannon?