June 2010

Enlisting Caucus support for flagging presidency

Peter Goodfellow - idiot presidentNational Party President Peter Goodfellow, a man more known for what he hasn’t done than what he has, is so desperate to retain his board place and the presidency that a rear-guard action is being fought from within caucus.

On Tuesday National’s caucus was begged asked to consider the impact of the dumping of the President from the board at the up-coming national conference by lobbying their electorate delegates to vote for Peter Goodfellow to retain his place on the board.

But they are struggling with this begging request because he has done sweet f-all for them. The listies are worried about getting back in if the party vote falls, the ninth floor thinks the party orgnaisation is hopeless (and with Peter Goodfellow they are right) and those in strategic seats are worried about losing their seats because the party has done nothing. Just about everyone is annoyed about the victory fund tax on electorates when the fundraising hasn’t been that strong.

The question the MPs need to ask is “what has the party organisation done for you?” and consider whether it has given them a better chance of getting back into parliament, and who was the one responsible for putting the party organisation into this position. They can’t blame Judy Kirk, she help win the election and retired in success. The only person who can be held accountable is the President and he is pushing for a two ticks campaign when everybody knows, god knows Judy said it often enough, Party Vote National is the only strategy.

There are three vacancies on the board up for election and four contenders remaining after Stephen McElrea, the PMs electorate chair, strategically withdrew. They are Northern Regional Chair Alan Towers, LNI Regional Chair Malcolm Plimmer and Southern Regional Chair Roger Bridge. The only fly in the ointment, so to speak is Peter Goodfellow.

Of the four only Peter Goodfellow has no natural constituency to support his bid. It is thought, due to intense canvassing for proxy delegates by Michelle Boag, and the attempt at rallying support from within caucus that Goodfellow’s support has dwindled to just Boag loyalists and McCully acolytes.

Alan Towers, Malcolm Plimmer and Roger Bridge all have just cause to expect a place on the board. Bridge for his track record on fundraising since the election, Plimmer for his re-vitalisation of LNI and Towers for having control of the largest region, a region that National must win to retain power. They all have good records in their regions and can point at real results for efforts they have controlled. Goodfellow on the other-hand has a stellar record for non-achievement in almost every area of the party, except for putting on good booze-ups the night before critical conference votes for him.

Sources within caucus have been aghast that such a request could even have been made. Traditionally in National if caucus meddles in party business then unexpected results occur. The party does not like to hear that caucus is meddling. There will be a back-lash and it is no surprise that most MPs I have spoken too intend to do precisely nothing in support of Peter Goodfellow. They, rightly, assess that such things are best left to the party and to the delegates.

Different sources in the party (I have many) also tell me that fundraising is good, though is largely being done in the electorates as part of the “Victory Fund”, almost all of the funds that have been raised are from the “Victory Fund”. Peter Goodfellow though continues to claim that this fund growth is due largely to his efforts. Again, nothing angers delegates more than people claiming others hard work for their own.

I have also heard that several major fundraisers have expressed dismay at the attitude of the “Goodfellow Camp” towards them at recent events. They certainly aren’t happy, and though they still support a John Key led party, they certainly aren’t enamoured with the President and the culture of “Footballers Wives” that surrounds him.

With just a couple of weeks to go before board selections delegates are presented with few choices. Perhaps the best option is for delegates from Northern, LNI and Southern to vote for their Regional Chair at position one on the ballot, the other Regional Chairs at positions two and three and put Peter Goodfellow dead last. With this strategy all parochialism is avoided, regional delegates can reward the hard work of their chairs and the board can cast adrift the deadwood holding the party back.

In this post I must tender my apologies to Wira Gardiner. I bagged him last year, spiked his board election, but I was wrong, I shouldn’t have. If Wira Gardiner had been elected to the board, and then to the Presidency, he may still have been a fair-weather friend and a dummy-spitter but at least he would have actually done something in his year as president. The same cannot be said of Peter Goodfellow.

As a final note, I serve a word of warning to the President, The Whale has a lot of people in the party who communicate with him. Bad mouthing The Whale to them isn’t perhaps the wisest course of action, nor is dissing the influence bloggers have in New Zealand politics. Let’s consider this post part of an ongoing lesson in the power of blogs in modern political discourse. It is a lesson the president has thus far failed to grasp.

For regular readers, you may also enjoy this political advert from the US. I love the way US politics is inherently more honest when negative campaigns are run.

Forget it John

Brain FartJohn Banks has had a wee brain fart. It is good that he is thinking bigger for Auckland but the waste of money that would be spent on trying to even had a shot at the Olympics let alone hosting the stupid event could be better spent elsewhere.

Not a winner John, I’m afraid.

New Zealand should never even contemplate wasting the time and money on even thinking about such an event.

Let’s concentrate on getting a couple of decent iconic harbour crossings in Auckland before something like an Olympic Games, oh and fixing the motorway system.

Maybe fencing South Auckland in?


Wednesday Weirdos – What do you want? What do you really want?

[shudder] still cringing…..seriously creepy

Wednesday Weapons – .50cal vs. iPhone 4 and iPad

Rifle: Barrett M82A1
Round: .50 BMG 647gr M33 ball cartridge

Apparently Apple Care doesn’t cover .50cal bullet-holes.


Wednesday Weirdos – All Shook Up

A compelling video

This video provides compelling evidence as to why Football is a game for poofs.


Quote of the Day

One reason I read Tumeke! is that sometimes Bomber and Tim can be…well…brilliant.

TUMEKE - The Goff and Carter ill communication

TUMEKE - The Goff and Carter ill communication


Strongman Ron

Ok this is just weird on all sorts of levels. You just keep watching though. Thankfully neither Tugger Jones nor Koru Club Carter come springing in and bounce on the bed.


Pinkos whining that trough isn't big enough

Pinko councillors Alf Filipaina and Efu Koka, both Brown lickspittles, are having a moan, along with closet pinkos Sir John Walker and the Deputy Trough-pig Mayor Gary Troup about the remuneration for Super-city Councillor positions.

Pay Peanuts and Get MonkeysSEVERAL senior Manukau local politicians are reconsidering whether they’ll stand for the new Auckland Council because of a salary widely condemned as “unfair” and an “insult”.

They say the $80,000 a year set by the Remuneration Authority means supercity councillors will be paid less than MPs for serving larger constituencies.

Manurewa councillor Sir John Walker says the salary’s “not on” for what will be a stressful, fulltime job overseeing a significant portion of the country’s economic assets.

Like many councillors he’d expected councillors to be paid on a par with the $131,000 paid to backbench MPs.

Paying $80,000 will get part-time councillors and is “an insult to the integrity of good people who want to do a damn good job”.

“If they’re going to pay peanuts, we’re going to get the same people that you don’t really want – regurgitating ex-ministers and mayors and people who’re getting on in life a bit.

“You want to be attracting younger people with a bit of nous.”

Sir John had been intending to run for the Auckland Council “but I don’t know if I want to now”.

“I think they’re going to turn a lot of people off who should have been there and won’t do it now.

“Why would you do it?”

That’s the question now being asked by Mangere councillor and 30-year police veteran Alf Filipaina.

The remuneration’s forced him to review his decision to run on the Labour ticket with councillor Efu Koka for the 156,000-population Manukau ward.

He asks: “Who in their right mind is going to leave a job that possibly pays more than what’s a fulltime job as a councillor?” Mr Filipaina says it isn’t just about the money.

“It’s about trying to pay the bills for me and my whanau, the same as everybody, and still working for the community if you’re successful.”

Whilst their argument has some merit, for these incompetent troughers even $80k is on the high side. It can’t be a bad thing if $80,000 is low enough to get Efu Koka to re-consider standing. Even at $80,000 it would be more money than he has ever earned before, and likely to be the best job he could get but for him it still isn’t enough. Silly me thinking that these guys represented the poor of Manukau.

Another Dirty Doctor with Name Suppression

I see we have another dirty doctor who continues to practice despite being found guilty of disgraceful conduct.

Name Suppression

A Christchurch doctor found guilty of having sex with a teenage patient was manipulative and dishonest, his victim says.

The woman, now married with two children, said yesterday the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decision had relieved her of a 25-year burden.

The doctor, who cannot be named and continues to practise, was found guilty of disgraceful conduct – the most serious charge a doctor can face.

The doctor could be struck off and banned from practising.

The tribunal found that he had sex with the victim, who was his 16-year-old patient in 1985. Charges were laid in 2002.

The doctor and his lawyer declined to comment on the finding.

The woman, known as “Ms A”, told The Press she was satisfied the truth had been revealed after eight years of “dilly-dallying” by medical officials.

The tribunal held a four-day hearing in Christchurch last November.

In its decision, the tribunal said the doctor, known as “Dr C”, exploited the woman by having sex with her twice.

Both encounters happened soon after she said she had been raped by another person.

Readers, you know what to do. Dr C. must not be protected and allowed to hide behind name suppression. Once again we have the elite utilising laws to keep themselves above reproach.

Would any other woman want this man as her doctor knowing who and what he has done?