John Hartevelt

How stupid is Martyn Bradbury?

Martyn Bradbury?has written a post today attack the Herald on Sunday and John Hartevelt for going after National Standards.

Except John Hartevelt works for Fairfax and the Herald On Sunday sanctimoniously?refused to publish the data.

Martyn Bradbury?asks how stupid HoS and John Hartevelt feel now, the real question should be how stupid does Martyn Bradbury?feel right now?



A planted story?


Labour fanboi John Hartevelt has the heart-wrenching story of a young student who is now having to borrow more because of the evil government changes:

Caitlin Davies has been forced to add thousands of dollars in student loan debt and take on extra hours of part-time work so that she can finish her masters degree.

Ms Davies, 21, is among thousands of students part way through post-graduate study who will have their student allowance cut off when changes announced in last week’s Budget take effect next year.

“They just changed it without telling us and we can’t really do anything about it now because we’ve already started,” Ms Davies said.

“If we’d had warning, our decision-making would have been different.”

As well as freezing the parental income threshold at which students can claim a student allowance, the Government has also decided allowances will not be available to people in masters or PhD programmes ? a move that will cut up to 5000 students from the scheme.

Ms Davies was eligible for the allowance in the first four years of her psychology studies because the income from her mother did not cross the threshold.

This wouldn’t be the same Caitlin Davies who was very active helping Grant Robertson at the last election in Wellington Central?

Surely it is just a coincidence that Grant Robertson is also the spokesman for Tertiary Education.

Perhaps if she spent less time drinking she may have enough money for study.

Once again repeaters?have?taken a nicely fed story and printed it without background checking their source wasn’t compromised in some way., or even connected with the Labour rent a quote spokesperson.

UPDATE: The person who took the photo I linked to says that Caitlin wasn’t involved. I will take him at his word. However I find it amazing that someone who professes to have never met Grant Robertson or supports Labour in fact “Likes” his Facebook page.

A Brighter Future?

David Shearer delivered a competent speech this morning in front of the teleprompter. Delivered in a swanky upmarket club in Labour’s Wellington stronghold he could only muster one member of his caucus to witness his “vision”.

However it was the stand ups afterwards that have caused him problems again.

When Labour fan-boi John Hartevelt calls it for Key for the head to head speech battle then you know you are in deep trouble. Even Tracy Watkins is underwhelmed.

But perhaps the most egregious part of the whole exercise for David Shearer was his use of National’s slogan.

It was at the stand ups afterwards that have caused him problems again.

In his media conference after the speech he uses the phrase Brighter Future, not once, but twice – and that was after the media had called him on it. To be fair to Duncan Garner who seems a little touchy today, it was him who called out Shearer for the use of National’s slogan.

I know, here’s an idea, how about a haiku on Red Alert?

Clare Curran thought she was being cute. She wrote a haiku to John Hartevelt, Labour’s fan-boy at Fairfax:

Though our aim divine/
The delivery?human/
A labour of love


Readers of Red Alert felt inspired, like Danyl McLauchlan:

As the dying eel
drifts to the sea floor
Labour drifts into social media

…and Chris Trotter:

The summer rains fall,
Hopes for better weather fade,
Shearer says nothing.

Yeah, not sure that the haiku was a good idea Clare.

If only our columnists could be so honest

Check out the tagline of this columnist, Dan Hodges, ?at the Daily Telegraph:

I wonder what Brian Rudman’s would read like, or Bernard Orsman, hell imagine Vernon Small’s and John Hartevelt’s?

Such refreshing honesty…from a journalist.

The Press debate – verdict

Far be it for this humble blogger to pass judgment on last night’s Press Leaders Debate.

Let’s leave it to the media commentators:

The Tory lickspittle and hard-right journalist John Hartevelt on Twitter said:

[blackbirdpie id=”131643553632878592″]

Well known host of Tory dress up parties and fundraisers Vernon Small said:

Key had the audience eating out of his hand – a showman in top form.

A clear victory for the PM.

Clearly the Key fanboy he followed up that with an article this morning where he said:

If the first TVNZ debate was a narrow-points victory to Phil Goff, last night’s Press debate was not far short of a rout by John Key.

So we could believe a couple of hard-right journalists who probably used to work for some nasty Tory, or are just trying to improve their CVs for a job after the election or we could see what the the fair and balanced commentators at The Standard thought:

The first debate

Not often I agree with Scott Yorke:

Lefties will say Goff trounced Key, and those on the right will point to the viewers’ text poll and say it shows John Key won.

But who really won the leaders debate?

Tactically I think it was a draw. Neither leader managed to really nail the other. But in the broader scheme of things I suspect Key will be a happier man than Goff. Labour had to win this debate, and had to do something to damage the credibility and record of John Key.? However, Key held his ground.

What really annoyed me were the self-appointed experts opining part-way through the debate on who was winning and who was saying what. Have we become such imbeciles in this country, and has political discourse in this country been so dumbed down, that we need to be told what to think? I prefer to make my own mind up, rather than be spoon-fed an opinion by an “expert” whose analysis is utterly superficial.

Debates like this are all about personalities. We didn’t really learn much about either party or their policies. What we did learn is that Key still has a nice smile, and that his tie looked very smart. We also learned that Goff likes to point. He probably doesn’t want to point quite as much next time. His righteous anger is understandable, but it probably won’t play well with those who love Key.

If I was Phil Goff and Labour I would listen more to John Pagani (he did a post but has deleted it), than to Brian Edwards. Unfortunately Brian Edwards set Goff up for a fall and based on that performance fall he did. Unfortunately for Goff and Labour I don’t think John Pagani is too enamoured with the Goffice.

If Goff fan boys like John Hartevelt felt Goff won by a nose then the general public will think he got slaughtered:

[blackbirdpie id=”130909460125327360″]

The Law rather than emotions

The more insane members of Labour caucus and the left wing blogsphere are outraged, firstly that John Key even went on Radio Live for an hour and secondly when he was on the show he talked about cats and Coronations Street.

Even journalists who should know better climbed into the debate.

Once again it has been left up to the blogosphere to teach the trained journalists things that they get paid for, that is research. Graeme Edgeler explains the law in terms that even John Hartevelt should be able to undertand.

No broadcaster is allowed to give time to someone to run an election programme. Broadcasters can?t give one party or another a better deal on ad space. And no-one is permitted to broadcast an election programme before ?writ day?. Which is pretty much why?John Key?had to talk about his cat and?Coronation Street, when he was given an hour today on Radio Live.

In 2008, Newstalk ZB gave slots to?Rodney Hide,?Tau Henare,?Winston Peters?and?Shane Jones. Shane Jones went so far his time was an election advertisement (as defined under the Electoral Finance Act). Winston Peters didn?t go as far but his show (along with Shane Jones?) was found by the Electoral Commission to be an election programme. The incidents?were referred to police.

So Radio Live, either better advised, or just sensibly cautious, told the Prime Minister today that he had to stay out of politics.

And the last paragraph is a real slap to the journalists.

There?s an exception later in the Broadcasting Act about how the prohibition on broadcasting election programmes doesn?t restrict ?in relation to an election, of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes,? but giving over the airwaves for politics is over the line. But if the result is?going to be like this, you?ve got to wonder why they bothered. And a note to Stuff: this isn?t prohibited by ?Electoral Commission rules?, they?re a offence created by Parliament.

Stupid Sue

Labour’s education spokesperson Sue Moroney just can’t get it right.

First she tries to slag off National for bullying in schools – oblivious to the fact that the incident which is being commented on actually took place four years ago – when Labour was in power?and Chris Carter was education minister.

Then she reveals her friendship with Fairfax journalist John Hartevelt on Twitter – almost ordering him to write a story.

Sue Moroney sucking up to mediaI’m looking forward to reading whatever story Hartevelt comes up with. And I’ll be watching to see which other journos are being encouraged to repeat Labour’s fairy stories.

What is Goff to do?

John Hartevelt asks for ideas for what Phil Goff can do to arrest Labour’s astonishingly poor poll results and che comments on the need for a plan:

Frankly, the plan must be torn up. Goff has to trust his instincts and lay into it. Simply, he must both work harder and relax more. Let’s not forget that Phil Goff has an extraordinary parliamentary record and an undoubted intellect to match. By the time of this year’s election, it will have been three decades since he first entered Parliament. He has been a minister of education, justice, foreign affairs. He’s got brains, and he has seen it all in politics. So why aren’t we seeing this from him now? Let’s hear less of the soundbites pronounced ad nauseam and more intellectual engagement with actual Government policy. It might sound boring, but boring can be good.

Hartevelt says Goff must trust his intincts. But can he remember when he had any? Is he a rogernome or a builder of the state sector?

While Goff is trying to find his insticnts, Labour is burning in the polls.

Back in January, I mused at who would go when Labour’s poll results sunk into the 20s. They are there now so we need to look again. In that post I listed and reviewed the MPs based on Labour holding the polls at 29%, they have sunk now to 27% and indications are they are going to seriously challenge Bill English’s 2002 result.

Since then too there has been the infamous gagle of gays comment and the departure under a cloud of Darren Hughes. Damien O’Connor needs to win West Coast if he is to get back into parliament and Darren Hughes has gone permanently.

Others to fall by the wayside in the list ranking are Ashraf Choudary and Ross Robertson. Ross will get back in anyway. Louisa Wall also was not on the list.

Other MPs at risk now because of the low poll ratings are Steve Chadwick, Rick Barker and Stuart Nash. As?the?tide goes out for Labour their last remaining provincial seat, Palmerston North, is seriously at risk. With Iain Lees-Galloway going nasty it is likely that National’s candidate Leonie Hapeta will tip him out creating a sea of blue from Manurewa to Mana.

Kelvin Davis is also at risk. He is thoroughly nice guy, who is probably in the wrong party. However he has to battle both a low list ranking and Hone Harawira so his chances of remaining right now are slim.

Right now the only new blood that will make it into parliament from the list is Andrew Little, and that is only going to be bad news for Phil Goff. Cacucus colleagues will now be sitting in?the?chamber trying to do the math around their particular list ranking and playing out scenarios about what they can do to save their list spot. This is where politics becomes deeply personal and hugely venal. Labour members will be thinking about who could lead that would deliver their list place into parliament.

Labour will deny they are thinking this way, but it is basic human nature and survival. We saw this same behaviour in National in 2002. In the end National acted like Pavlov’s Dogs and sat waiting for the torture. That decision consigned them to 6 more years in opposition.