Anthony Hubbard

Nasty lefty asshole Anthony Hubbard orders you to vote for change

Anthony Hubbard is one of the more spiteful and nasty journalists still with a job in New Zealand.

When he isn’t attacking the government he is working on new projects to attack the government.

Today it appears the Sunday Star-Times has gone all in to promote the change for the flag, and they’ve even let Anthony Hubbard out of the shadows to moan.

Our flag is not just absurd, it’s laughable. “New Zealand,” it says, “still British after all these years.”

“Kiwis,” it says, “colonial and proud.”?”Don’t disturb,” it says, “still asleep in the 19th?century.”

As a symbol of modern New Zealand, the half-pie Union Jack is merely embarrassing.?Anything would be better than this, which is why we should go for the alternative Silver-Fern-plus-Southern-Cross. It’s not much of a flag, but at least it would be ours.

Some call it the rugby flag, a tea-towel that’s worse than that old British thing.?No, it’s not. If you visit New Zealand war graves in Europe, an experience that shakes the soul and tells you who you really are, you will find a silver fern on every tomb.

Read more »

Never trust a tramp

Anthony Hubbard was removed from the Sunday Star Times because it was feared his tramp-like appearance and nasty socialist dogma was losing even more readers for the paper (if that was possible)

Hey Presto he now turns up with his half-baked nonsense in the Dominion Post?having a go at police.

Hubbard claims (without evidence) that the cops broke someone’s neck while breaking up an out of control party.

Seems like a good story. But, of course, the real gems which reveal the whole truth are hidden under a cloud of bias.

Such as bottles being thrown, statements changing, statements being very similar and the suggestion of a central writer.

But the story pleads with us to remember these are “basically good kids”.

Then the bombshell:

Police had tried to discredit Mr Christie a few weeks after the party, he says, by leaking details of Mr Christie’s criminal record to The Dominion Post. He had six convictions, some as a minor, for driving offences, fighting, and making racist and abusive remarks to police.

Good kids? Of course, they’re just misunderstood.

Right at the end of the article we are told?delays in the investigation?have been caused by some kids at the party refusing to speak to the cops.

Maybe they are scared we will?find out the truth.


Two Phil Goffs in one article

A post by John Pagani popped up in RSS reader, I had a check and it referenced a Phil Goff mini-hagiography by Anthony Hubbard in the Sunday Star-Times.

Pagani as his want these days is shilling the bit?that?suits him, but if you go to the source article and have a read and out Goff’s comments in context you see a different story.

John Pagani comments that Phil Goff is battling for the folks on struggle street especially in regards to education because Phil Goff said this:

“Where do families in this neighbourhood send their kids to? To St Kent’s, to King’s College. They don’t send them to the local school, and there’s a reason they don’t do that, because the peer group worry about the quality of their kids’ education.

“I still actually believe that if we don’t like the education, if we don’t like what’s happening in Struggle St down there, we should be doing something to change it ? not simply accepting it and saying we’re happy to have two New Zealands. I don’t believe in two New Zealands.”

What John Pagani left out was the community that Phil Goff is talking about is not Mt Roskill, it is Clevedon. John Pagani conveniently left off (why did he do that?) the preceding sentence, the one that gives context:

Things are different now. Goff’s own little rural community is conservative, although he says “they are fine, decent people”.

And why did Phil Goff move to Clevedon?

He and Mary in turn brought their three kids here to the Clevedon farm in 1990, when he lost his seat in the rout of the Labour government. He had found out that a teacher had been telling his eight-year-old son Kieran “every morning about what I was doing wrong as minister of education. I didn’t know about it at the time… or I would have gone ballistic”. But he didn’t want to expose his kids to that, and Clevedon was an attempt to give them some privacy.

So Phil Goff is moaning about Struggle Street, but he is actually talking about Clevedon where he ran to after getting tossed out of office in 1990 and after his kids copped some flack from teachers in Mt Roskill. He ran to Clevedon to protect his kids from the education system in Mt Roskill. Now he is moaning that kids from Clevedon are being sent to St Kent’s or Kings.

I’ll bet you dollars to a knob of goat dung that Phil Goff’s kids weren’t educated at Mt Roskil Grammar like my parents were. I wonder if Phil will tell us where he sent his kids to school?

It is amazing how two Phil Goff’s can exist in one small article. It is amazing the lengths the left through Anthony Hubbard and John Pagani will go to massage the truth about Phil Goff.

National's worst nightmare

Apart from eviscerating Phil Goff, Anthony Hubbard notes National’s electoral nightmare.

The worst result for Labour and the left-of-centre bloc would be a narrow loss by National. A “losers’ coalition”, as Tim Groser calls it, is by no means impossible. National’s support parties, Act and the Maori Party, are in trouble. So is its loyal serf Peter Dunne. If National falls to the lowish 40s, and its helpers shrink too, it could lose. Whaleoil, the right-wing blogger, has been warning National that it risks just such a defeat. Under MMP, he shrieks, National could become “the natural party of opposition.”

But a win for a rag-tag coalition of the left and centre would be a disaster for Labour. Voters still have a strong feeling that the party with the largest share of the votes should lead the government. Defenders of MMP will say this is mistaken. They will say that it’s the overall coalition numbers that count, not just the lead party’s.

Perhaps they are right and perhaps the voters’ feeling is a kind of hangover from first-past-the-post. But the feeling remains, and it is strong.

Hubbard is wrong in thinking that it would be bad for Labour. Being in government is never bad. It gives you resources, it gives you the demeanour of a winner instead of a loser and it gives you control.

If Labour, through the quirks of MMP was to attain power and at the same time ACT and the Maori party departed then National would be the natural party of opposition. Not only that MMP would be cemented in because no one took a stand to challenge MMP and they would only have themselves to blame.

The country would then be locked in non-performing cycle of elections delivering up mediocrity cycle after cycle. Locking up our talent and resources in a morass of ordinariness because politicians are too afraid to do what is necessary and instead do what is demanded despite the consequences.

So while John Key doesn’t want National to have a policy, Labour and the Greens whole-heartedly do have a policy and are actively and vocally endorsing MMP. John Key doesn’t care, he won’t be there in 6 years. Neither will Simon Power or any other National member who supports MMP. But their actions will?have?consigned National to the dustbin of permanent opposition. I will explain further in my next post.

Hubbard slips the knife in

Anthony Hubbard is a true pinko. Today he starts the dirty, but necessary work of spilling Labour’s leadership blood.

Phil Goff has a wretched life. Here he is, a few months out from the election, having to deny rumours about offers of resignation. “Bloody rubbish,” he tells the journalists, and then the journalists report the rumour again. Did he ask his front bench whether he should quit? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, Goff can’t win.

Goff can’t win and his entire caucus know it. Thus far they lack the courage to act. Hubbard is the start, but he too suggest they wait. I suggest this part of the softening up strategy.

Goff should not resign. It wouldn’t do Labour any good. It would seem to be exactly what it would be: a panic in the face of likely defeat. Labour panicked in the run-up to the 1990 election, replacing Geoffrey Palmer with Mike Moore less than eight weeks before the poll. That didn’t prevent the massacre.

All choices are hard for Labour now. Another leader might not lose as badly as Goff, but the party would be stuck with him (nobody thinks the next leader will be a woman). And a choice made amid terror and despair is unlikely to be the best bet long-term. That means: stick with Goff until the election.

The problem with that scenario is that a lot of talent is certain to be dusting off their CV if the rout becomes a massacre. The thinking needs to be to save the talent. Only a change of leader can do that. If labour sticks with Goff then they are seriously handicapped for the 2014 cycle.

The best hope for Labour is a narrowing of the gap with National and a not-entirely-dishonourable defeat. The party could then choose a new leader and start a new political race. National in its second term will be much weaker than it is now. And Labour could then present itself as a new model and not just a panel-beaten old one.

I disagree. They should start the changes now. I asked several Labour back benchers over this week if they would keep Goff as leader if they won. The silence was telling, the only sound one could hear was the shuffling of feet.

Above all, Labour can never claim to be a new party while it is led by Goff. Goff has many strengths. He has an excellent grasp of policy across the board, the result of many years in government and of his own high seriousness. He is a policy wonk, with a grasp of detail that Key could never match. He would make a splendidly competent cabinet minister.

Although he naturally belongs on Labour’s right, he has been leader at a time when its policy has shifted left. He has worked to become less robotic in his manner and has partly succeeded. He is a friendly enough bloke and can mix with high and the low. He has the egalitarian manner required of New Zealand leaders. But Goff can never be a symbol of new Labour. He’s been around for too long. He’s a reminder of a past that Labour needs to leave behind.

This is Labour’s problem in general. A look at their front bench shows many tired old faces. The so called “talent” to back them up is missing, rather Labour have presented us with a list that resembles tokenism and mediocrity at best, party hacks and flakes at worst.

The second to last paragraph is why I believe Hubbard’s article is a softening up for some blood letting.

Labour will then have a much better chance. Does it have a new leader in its ranks, ready to grab the new opportunities? Certainly it will have talent. Andrew Little, the former union leader, will be a genuinely new face, and nobody can blame him for past Labour errors. David Parker was a Cabinet minister under Clark but was hardly well-known. And he is the man most responsible for Labour’s new policies. Parker’s heart is on the left, although he has also been a successful businessman. He has cross-over appeal. Shane Jones appeals to Maori and Pakeha alike and has a bodgy charm, although Labour’s women might have trouble forgiving him for the blue movie thing.

Until now no mainstream media person has mentioned Shane Jones as a contender, yet this is the name that has constantly been surfacing int he past two weeks form my Labour sources. Hubbard’s article puts the proposed leadership team to replace Goff and King front and centre. This article by Hubbard is the softening. After tonights poll results the rhetoric will become harsher.

Nobody knows whether any of these blokes could do it for Labour next term. But one thing is certain. All would be a better bet than Phil Goff.

Actually those blokes do know, they are just counting and waiting. The only thing holding David Parker back is his messy personal life. He may well get ignored unless that gets sorted pronto.

THE EFA Bites: Legality of Govt press releases challenged

The Electoral Finance Act is like a cold soreLegality of Govt press releases challengedElectoral officials will be asked toconsider if press statements on the website are election advertisements under the Electoral Finance Act, as National continues to highlight difficulties with the new law.
[NZ Politics]

The Electorla Finance Act is the gift that keeps on giving. The only problem for the government is that their spiteful and ill-considered Act is only giving to National.

This was the law that was supposed to be rushed through, silence Labour critics, enable labour’s allies and free up government cash for the government to use.

Almost daily, since Jan 1, it has risen to bite Labour on its own prodigious ass. Every time an EFA story hits the press that is a few more people who are awakened to the farce that is this government.

Like cold-sores the EFA rears its head when the government least expects it. Now it is government press releases from Minister that may well be in breach of the law. I can’t say we didn’t tell them so while we all chortle at the governments discomfiture the apologists are all strangely silent on the issue.