Alan Towers

Local Government Loser

Buggers muddle member, former National Board member and National Party Northern Regional Chair Alan Towers put his popularity to the test in the Auckland District Health Board election.

He was sodomised by the voting public.?? Read more »

Who will replace Roger Bridge?

If the rumours that Roger Bridge is intending to tender his resignation are true National has the mechanism to replace a board member without a fresh election. This happened in when then board members Eric Roy and David Bennett resigned to contest the 2005 election.

The difficulty in replacing Roger is there is a fairly limited talent pool for potential directors. In recent years Alan Towers has lost board elections twice, so obviously not popular enough within the party to deserve a place. Regional chair for the CNI Peter Osborne is regarded as one of the most indiscrete men in the party, and someone who would probably leak even more than the current board leaks. Plus he has a moustache and men with?moustaches?generally can’t be trusted.

Both men are members of the buggers muddle and Osborne especially loves to meddle in selections and is a known misogynist who actively seeks to discourage women candidates. The last thing National needs is to be taken over by the kind of factional fighting we see in Labour. Placing either on the board means a confirmed vote for the buggers muddle factional leader Alastair Bell for president, and sources from close to the parliamentary leadership are saying there is no way Alastair Bell will ever be president because he has repeatedly proven himself to be a lightweight.

The only other regional chair not on the board is Ele Ludemann from the Southern Region. Ele is a much loved member of the National Party whose grace is unusual in political parties, where pettiness often dominates. Ele would provide a welcome strategic brain on the board, and would be a nice geographical replacement for Roger, but may get tripped up by overt and unsubtle lobbying by the buggers muddle.

Show Allan Peachey Some Compassion

For the last four days the tip line has been running hot about a move by certain factions in National to remove Allan Peachey on the grounds of ill health.

I have stood back and listened to all sorts of pitches about why Allan should go from all sorts of people who really should know better.

It is common knowledge Allan has cancer, and that he has had a relapse that he is recovering from. My understanding is Allan believes he is well enough to campaign and to remain as MP for Tamaki. He is apparently feeling better every day and is looking forward to returning to work. Last night he told a hastily called meeting that included President Peter Goodfellow and the Regional Chair Alan Towers that he was fit for work. Basically he stared them down.

Instead of being shown compassion Allan has had a massive kick in the guts when he is down from a party that should know better. The thought of returning to work is one of the things keeping Allan going, and now selfish individuals want to tear that away from him. These individuals should remember National is not Labour, and is not a nasty party.

Allan Peachey may not be my favourite MP, but that does not mean he deserves to be treated as badly as this. This is nothing less than?a failure of regional leadership to treat Allan with the respect he deserves, he’s a great New Zealander, one of the country’s greatest educationalists, he would have been a fine Education Minister had Don won in 2005. Instead of white-anting the poor bloke they should have put in a support structure around him, unfortunately though?for the last few years he’s been treated with total disregard by the Party, and by successive regional chairs who didn’t get the man they wanted into Tamaki in ’05.

If his illness does overcome him it will be a tragedy, but this is not a tragedy that should be sped up by a heartless bunch of self interested individuals who are prematurely dancing on his grave.

When two dogs fight

The Rodney selection debacle has finally made the papers. Adam Bennett has been following this from afar and has put the pieces of the puzzle together. Apart from the old “Ned Flanders” photo of Peter Goodfellow the article is very accurate, at least until they quote from Alan Towers.

The selection of National’s candidate for the safe Rodney seat has been delayed amid bitter infighting, with frontrunners Brent Robinson and Scott Simpson said to be tarnished by claims of attempts to slant the selection process in their favour.

Delegates were to have met this week to select the candidate to replace Lockwood Smith from a shortlist of five – Mark Mitchell, John Kirikiri, Christopher Penk, Mr Robinson and Mr Simpson.

If the electorate chair Cehill Pienaar and Regional Chair Alan Towers hadn’t both tried to jack up the delegates then the buggers’ muddle that exists now wouldn’t have?occurred.

Once?again I?have?been proven to be right with my allegations.

It is also understood a number of those signed up recently to Wainui should, according to party rules, have been registered to other branches because of where they live.

National’s hierarchy has decided to formalise branch boundaries within the electorate, a move that is likely to see members reallocated from Wainui to other branches.

That is the branch stacking sorted but what about the Regional delegate stacking?

With both frontrunners now perceived to have indulged in “dirty pool”, the party insider said the way was now clear for one of the other candidates to come through.

Strong potential contenders include Mr Mitchell, a former policeman, and Mr Kirikiri, the district’s former deputy mayor whose key strength is said to be his strong relationships within an electorate that is regarded as very parochial.

Another party stalwart also said the competition was now far more open.

“People want this to be a fair contest and they don’t want to see a few people abusing the rules, so I think there’s an element to that.”

Dirty pool indeed! More like Murky pool. The most hilarious quote is one from Alan Towers:

Mr Goodfellow said he understood Mr Towers was reconsidering how he would appoint delegates to the selection committee.

This was because of “the criticism he’s facing that the way in which he’s exercised his discretion hasn’t generally been what you’d expect”.

This week, however, Mr Towers dismissed the allegations about his selections as “ridiculous”.

The only changes he was making in terms of appointing the 15 delegates needed to make up the quorum of 60 for the selection panel would be to reflect changes to the pool of potential delegates resulting from the reallocation of party members among the electorate’s four branches.

I hesitate to call people liars…except when they lie. I knew Alan Towers would do and say that, I have been waiting patiently for the lie to come out. Does he really want me to publish the list of delegates he appointed, the electorates they are from and the relationship to Scott Simpson? Because I will if he keeps lying. As a taster perhaps the media would like to ask him about Roger B. of Hunua/Botany electorate , or perhaps Jim S. of Mt Roskill electorate, or maybe Roy M. from Auckland Central and then there is the dear old thing from up north who has described Scott?Simpson?as “like a?son to her“. Alan Towers knows I know he isn’t speaking the truth, but does he want everyone else to know.

What Alan Towers could do, though, is the honest thing and change the regional delegates copying either the model Malcolm Plimmer used in Palmerston North, with five long standing members from each of the three surrounding electorates, or by putting ranking party members in as delegates.

The fifteen people this blog would like to see as delegates are:

The four Deputy Regional Chairs
The six members of the list ranking committee
The electorate chairs from Whangarei, East Coast Bays, North Shore & Northcote
PLus any shortfall made up of deputy electorate chairs.

These people all hold positions within the party they have been elected to, and they were not elected because they were Scott Simpson loyalists. So the stench of corruption would be removed from the selection process if the regional delegates are changed in the same way as the rigged local delegates are going to be removed.

This whole messy buggers’ muddle of a process has been a shambles, and it is fair to say that Alan Towers chances of ever getting on the board are now non-existent.


Muckraking in Rodney

Not content with having his mates jack up the regional delegates in his favor, Scott Simpson and his pals are now really stooping low by touting that one of the candidates has a dodgy background that should be looked into. They say this as though the pre-selection committee hasn’t already done so. Worse one of those on the pre-selection committee is now one of the muck-rakers spreading the malicious rumours.

That same muck-raker who sat on the pre-selection committee that approved all the?candidates?is also a board member and is assiduously trying to have that candidate chucked out by the board. This same board member is now actively going around delegates suggesting this information should discount the candidate, even though he didn’t do this at pre-selection.

Not only that they have tried to shop to me the alleged dodgy information about the candidates background hoping I’ll do a hatchet job.

In the interests of front footing the allegations that have been leveled and presenting the information to all concerned I have decided to publish the links to the alleged dodgy past that Mark Mitchell has.


On the surface this appears pretty awful, but a more thorough check of Google reveals the truth of the matter.


As everyone can now see there is nothing dodgy in this blokes past. He is actually trying to help the governments of Puntland in Somalia and Kuwait deliver a solution to the problems of piracy that is currently engaging a substantial amount of the worlds armed forces in combatting. Puntland encompasses the?important?Horn of Africa and so is in the front-lines of the battle against piracy.

Interestingly our own government is thinking seriously of sending a frigate up there to help in them battle with the pirates.

It would seem to me to be sensible that if we are considering sending troops and ships to Somalia to combat pirates then having someone in the caucus who knows the area might be a good idea.

As I have said this story has been passed to me so that I could run a hit on Mark Mitchell. As you can all see now there is nothing dodgy about this story, but the instigators of the smear campaign don’t want everyone to know the truth, just that there is something “on the internet”. It seems silly when a quick Google of Mark Mitchell’s name pops up the links for everyone to see. It isn’t like he is hiding it at all, unlike the surreptitious way this little episode has been spread around.

Frankly these tactics smack of desperation and shows clearly that Scott Simpson thinks that Mark Mitchell is a serious threat to him, so serious that he has tried to arrange a set up of top-up delegates and also someone to try and spike the candidate at board level. The most scurrilous part of all this muck-raking is that Mark Mitchell can’t respond to any of it because to do so would breach the rules surrounding selection. That is such a dirty low-blow, and they know it.

If you want to chuck muck then be very sure you get your facts straight otherwise it may just blow up in your face I should know about that, having been caught out before). Mis-representing the truth can often lead to legal action and I doubt that the board member concerned has my robust attitude towards legal action.

I haven’t named the board member, he knows who he is. So too do the delegates that he has seen in the past couple of days running this rumour.

If the behavior continues, though, then I will name the board member. While I am at it, I await with interest the new delegates list. I hope that Alan Towers has thought long and hard about his selections. I would have thought “communities of interest” would have been his catch cry. Alfriston is a long, long way from Rodney to highlight but one of his strange selections.

Auckland politics is dirty, but it needn’t be that way. I think the only sensible solution now for Rodney would be to have ex-presidents Kirk, Slater and Boag sit on a committee and decide the top-up delegates. If those three can agree on a delegate then you can be sure that the interests of the party and not a single individual will be met.


Update on Rodney skulduggery

News from the tipline.

The Rodney selection has now been delayed by two weeks with the selection date now being 14 March 2011. Clearly all was not well with the local delegates as outlined by this blog.

I know this because there is now an audit underway of memberships, particularly those of Wainui branch where more than 250 last minute memberships were registered all at $5 each. A cursory?examination?of the members and addresses has shown?anomalies?where members were actually residing within the boundaries of the branch. As I predicted this was a nasty attempt at rigging the outcome of a selection.

This now has all the hallmarks of stitch ups going back donkey’s years, including the nasty battle between Paul East and Max Bradford where thousands of “new” members were signed up and many had the same address, that being the local?cemetery.

This attempt was rather ham-fisted by Brent Robinson and Cehill Pienaar. It has been outed and hopefully now with the audit underway there can be some hope of integrity in the process.

However, if Alan towers is involved in the re-casting of the delegates then the stigma of a fiddle is still there given his?appalling?decisions so far on delegate selection for the top-ups. One wonders how they thought they would get this sort of fit-up past my nose without me sniffing the stench.

Since there is now a delay it also serves as a good moment to re=cast the regional top-ups.?Since?no one at the regional level can really be trusted to do the right thing I propose a possible?solution that would help to bring some integrity back into the process.

Long serving party members and/pr office holders should volunteer their services. Theere only needs to be around 20 selected so a grouping of about 30-40 would suffice. All those names would then go into a hat and the names drawn under the?purview?of past presidents John Slater and Michelle Boag. If those two can agree on the?suitability?of a regional delegate being pulled from?the?hat then it would be safe to say that the delegate is of impeccable intregrity and not one to brook any?nonsense?like we have seem thus far.

This whole episode in Rodney has left me disgusted that people in the party could behave in such?scurrilous?ways. Frankly if Brent Robinson or Scott Simpson can’t win a selection on their merits and have to resort to cheating, rorting or skewing the system then they certainly don’t belong in the house of representatives looking after?the?interests of the people of Rodney.

If Brent had even a single?iota?of decency he would quit the race after being caught out by this blogger.

More Skulduggery in Rodney

The tipline has been running hot today with people disgusted with the complete ethical lapse in Rodney. Having seen the list of delegates it appears it is not just Brent Robinson disgraced himself by trying to rig the selection process.

Long time Whaleoil friend, former Regional Chair and former National Board member and party stalwart Scott Simpson appears to have colluded with Alan Towers to stack the selection in Scott’s favour. They have rigged the selection of the regional delegates all in Scott?s favour, which is more disgraceful that Brent?s shabby efforts because Scott should know better.

What they have done is broken with precedent and appointed Scott loyalists from around the region to the selection panel, rather than using local delegates and ranking office holders from near by electorates. This is completely unethical and a stupid play when they knew full well that this would get out and cause controversy. It is beyond the pale to try and justify the appointment of delegates from Hunua (the polar opposite in the city from Rodney), Pakuranga and Mt Roskill as somehow having a community of interest with the people of Rodney. They do not. Sure they are long serving party members but they are as far removed from Rodney as humanly possible.

The entire list of delegates should be scrapped and made up again. In the interests of fairness Alan Towers should be removed from his role in the process as he has shown himself to be partisan when he should be impartial.

The messy nature of this process means an honest broker from outside the region should be bought in to take it over to ensure the best candidate wins, not the most unethical. Long time party people like former President Judy Kirk or current board member Pat Seymour would have the confidence of the party, and the guts to crack heads when politically stupid people try playing silly games.

The tipline has also been receiving information from sources inside National about another board member behaving extremely unethically, and when these stories are confirmed they will be blogged.

At times like this this blog almost misses the reign of terror that Michelle Boag imposed on National. Even if she was the president for the worst ever election result and left the party with a massive debt, Michelle?s ferocity meant that this kind of embarrassing ethical lapses were stopped well before they came to the publics attention. People were simply so scared of Michelle they would not try anything dodgy.

I am appalled at?the?shenanigans?that have and are still going on in Rodney’s selection process. The players obviously haven’t realised that times have changed and things like blogs exist that will out un-ethical behaviour. More fool them.

I will cop a great deal of flak, but?such?is my anger at?the?blatant gerrymander going on that I feel compelled to tell the truth about the details. In time past this would have flown under?the?radar.

Ranking Board Candidates

National Party logoThe National Party has a preferential voting system for electing board members. Preferences are vitally important for ensuring that you get the board members that you want. Therefore I am going to provide a guide for delegates from the various regions on the best way to maximise the preferences for the candidates you prefer. I am also providing the guide because no conference booklet has yet materialised.

Before I do that though, I have had a great deal of feedback about the alleged charge that voting Peter Goodfellow off the board might somehow embarrass the prime minister. Several people have pointed out that it would be hard to embarrass a man who supports and implemented an ETS on the advice of Nick Smith. There is a great deal of angst in the party about the ETS, so I have a suggestion for those delegates that are really very angry with the party implementing the ETS. Place Peter Goodfellow 4th in the preferences in order to embarrass the Prime Minister and make the message about the ETS. He doesn’t seem to get it that the party is angry, so what better way to send a message. Put Peter last for the ETS.

On another note, delegates have been contacting me also to point out that under the presidency of Peter Goodfellow this is the first conference in 74 years of the party that hasn’t had a conference booklet produced prior to the conference, nor a conference agenda. This is done usually two weeks prior to conference and is a useful tool for delegates to get together to work out which sessions each will attend, discuss various nominees for office and plan an effective conference. This year, no booklet has been sent, I presume delegates will be given something upon arrival, but essentially there is nothing so far with just two days to go. Of course one supposition is that this has occurred because each of the nominees for the board positions would have had a page to extol their virtues and there would have been a stark contrast between 3 of them and Peter Goodfellow, who would be hard pressed to fill a postage stamp with his achievements for the National Party. Nevertheless the lack of a conference booklet or agenda prior to the conference is an indictment on the organisational abilities of Peter Goodfellow and accordingly he deserves to be ranked dead last.

Now onto suggested preferences. For me it is quite simple. There are three board positions and four contenders. One is a lazy, waste of space who has held just one previous office in the party, that of Auckland Region Publicity Officer, a position he put his entire abilities into by not holding a single meeting of the publicity committee in his entire tenure. The other three have very long pedigrees at branch, electorate and regional positions.

So my suggestion is always put Peter Goodfellow last. If you are from LNI, Auckland or South Island regions then place your Regional chair first and the the other two candidates second and third in whatever preference you desire.

Example A: a delegate from Christchurch would vote thus:

1. Roger Bridge

2. Alan Towers or Malcolm Plimmer

3. Malcolm Plimmer or Alan Towers

4. Peter Goodfellow

Example B: a delegate from Auckland would vote thus:

1. Alan Towers

2. Roger Bridge or Malcolm Plimmer

3. Malcolm Plimmer or Roger Bridge

4. Peter Goodfellow

Example C: a delegate from Wellington would vote thus:

1. Malcolm Plimmer

2. Roger Bridge or Alan Towers

3. Alan Towers or Roger Bridge

4. Peter Goodfellow

By voting in this manner the delegate can ensure that the preferences flow to the three best candidates and Peter Goodfellow is ranked dead last. Let’s get quality board members, members who will contribute and not just be nodding patsies to the agenda of caucus. Elect Roger Bridge, Alan Towers and Malcolm Plimmer to the board

National Party Board Candidate

I have posted previously on these candidates but will post again.

There are four candidates for three positions, and the board elects the president.

Peter Goodfellow (Incumbent, President): Well known in National circles for being indolent and useless. His tenure has been marked by doing nothing, achieving nothing and not understanding that the Party Presidents role is a 60-70 hour a week job that leaves no time for other employment. His list of non-achievement can be found in yesterday?s post, The Case Against Peter Goodfellow. He said to TV3 last night:

Mr Goodfellow refused to appear on camera, but told 3 News he has achieved ?in a bunch of areas?.

?Cameron Slater represents an intransigent view. I?m certainly getting a lot of support and I?m standing on my record.?

As I said to TV3 yesterday not even Peter can tell us where he has achieved, and from the quote above you can see I was right. Peter Goodfellow stands on his record, therefore he stands on and for nothing. If anyone is concerned about embarrassing the PM it should be Peter and he should withdraw.

Alan Towers (Challenger): Alan is the new Northern Region Regional Chair, and has a track record of working hard in different parts of the party over a large number of years. As the Chair of the biggest region and the region that National need to win to win government he should be on the board, no ifs, buts or maybes.

Malcolm Plimmer (Challenger): Malcolm is the Lower North Island Regional Chair, and has received rave reviews for turning a region that was a dysfunctional disaster area into a focused, tight unit that will put a lot of pressure on Labour in 2011. His campaign pitch is all about providing electorates with the tools to win the Party Vote. This focus on winning votes will be valuable around the board table.

Roger Bridge (Incumbent): Roger is the much loved and hard working Chair of the Canterbury Westland region. He has been in the National Party since his teens, and has held just about every office possible. Roger is a true gentleman with many friends all over the country, especially as he is known as one of the most generous people in National with both time and money.

Saturday 12.15pm delegates get the chance to vote for the Board. For the future of the National Party I will be voting for Alan, Malcolm and Roger, solid men with a track record of hard work for National. I will be ranking Peter Goodfellow last.

Call to Action for vot?ing delegates:

  • Elect Roger Bridge, Malcolm Plimmer and Alan Towers to the Board
  • Rank Peter Good?fel?low?Last
  • Pun?ish him for his record of doing nothing
  • Get a new Pres?i?dent, and see the National Party thrive

Peter Goodfellow and the Strategic Seats

Peter Goodfellow - idiot presidentAs the focus of caucus shifts from the failure of trying to strong-arm Alan Towers from the board elections to putting pressure on Roger Bridge (Yes I’m very well informed, thank you). Senior Ministers are whispering now that Roger will be standing down, leaving just three candidates for the three positions. If Roger stands firm then they will move onto Malcolm Plimmer.

One has to ask why it is that a faction within caucus are hell bent on have a lazy, pontificating twat as president and why they are meddling in party business? Do they want this blogger to start to focus on their performance as MPs and Ministers?

Now I?ve bagged Andrew “Three Hats” Little off and on for years, and a fair bit since he became Labour Party President. Even though I have bagged him I have to say he has a points victory over Peter Goodfellow because he has actually got around to doing something in the seats Labour wants to win.

Labour had early selection in Auckland Central, Waitakere, Maungakiekie, Ohariu and West Coast. There are five Labour list MPs of varying levels of ability out there working in the electorates they want to win. “Gladys” Chauvel is working his guts out in Ohariu where he might just win if National don?t kneecap Dunne and turn it into a blue seat. Damien O?Connor is a good bloke (wrong party) with plenty of time to win a seat he had held for years. “My Little Pony” Ardern is Labour’s pick to win back a seat that means more to them than just about any other, Auckland Central. The best that can be said about the other two is, in the immortal words of Murray Ball ?God, he loves a trier?.

Fair play to Andrew “Three Hats” Little. He has seen something needed to be done and done it. Compare that to Peter Goodfellow. He has done nothing. Nothing at all. Our MPs in marginal seats have had absolutely no support from the party, and nothing seems likely if Peter stays president.

Think about that Paula, Nicky, Sam, Katrina & Chris. Think about what could have happened, and what has happened, and if you personally would be better off with a change in president. Add Nathan Guy and Gerry Brownlee to that list because they are the most vocal supporters of Peter Goodfellow right now.

Call to Action for vot?ing delegates:

  • Rank Peter Good?fel?low?Last
  • Pun?ish him for his record of doing nothing
  • Get a new Pres?i?dent, and see the National Party thrive