Mike Hutcheson

Keep Calm and Ignore the Polls

Keep calm and ignore the pollsThere is an old adage in advertising, there’s two kinds of people who can make it. Those that can talk about it and those that can do it.

Labour’s adman, “Hutch“, has always been considered as sone who could talk could about it and was never truly respected by his peers as he only ever went where the money was.

But my sources tell me that he is struggling with his new client, the NZ Labour Party, having said of them, “It is difficult to spread glitter on shit!”

At a brainstorming session he boomed out across the spellbound room that what the party needed was a big game-changer.  As he waved his hands in the air he was desperately trying to think of an example.

“Like a Capital Gains Tax!” He exclaims.

“Wow! What a great idea!” cried the Labour Party members present (Trevor?) and that’s how it became policy.

Keep Calm and Ignore the Polls.

You are who your ad-man is – Part Three

I have blogged over the past two days about Labour’s ad-man who holds strong views on women, welfare and education.

Trevor Mallard and other luminaries of the left have attacked John Ansell and other people for their personal beliefs in efforts to smear their political opponents. But is their logic follows that you are who you ad-men are then Labour has some serious issues with credibility.

Mike Hutcheson appears to be a man with some very strong right-wing views. He thinks:

Our country has a social welfare web that cushions citizens from the consequences of their actions. The state actually rewards mothers for breeding, regardless of their capacity to successfully launch a new life into the world.

His views on teachers and education are certainly strong than Anne Tolley’s and then there are the Labour ad-man’s views on climate change:

Since women got the vote, it’s no longer fashionable to sacrifice virgins for ecological purposes.

Fluctuations in the sun’s radiation have a lot more influence than does man-made CO2. It’s interesting to note that Mars is warming up too – and the Martian polar caps are melting – but it’s hard to argue it’s as the result of rampant capitalism and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Global warming doomsayers claim the earth’s temperature will increase by between 1 and 5 degrees over the next century. My mate doesn’t trust any projection with a margin of error of 500%.

Empirical evidence also disputes the climate modelling. Indeed, the best evidence shows over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

And of course throughout history there have been huge variations in temperature.

Ad hominem attacks are a common tactic of leftists when faced with unfavourable evidence. If they can’t play the ball they play the man.

Or this:

An increasing body of research tells us that the Kyoto Protocol is based on poor science and flawed computer models. More recently, a Judge’s ruling in Britain said exactly the same thing the same about Al Gore’s movie.

While no sensible person could want anything but reduced pollution and a sustainable future for our planet, the most recent evidence suggests that the major contributors to climate change are as likely to be due to naturally occurring phenomena such as increased solar activity, forest fires and volcanoes rather than man-made emissions.

So if they can’t find a way to ban fires and volcanic eruptions, before we let the global-warming lynch-mob hang the motorcar from a tree in the nearest rain forest, maybe we should try and convince them that there is reasonable doubt as to its guilt.

So Trevor, Bomber, if the ad men speak for the parties they work for, then how does Labour explain its new policies on climate change, education, and welfare? Mike Hutcheson is clearly a filthy denier more suited to the hard right of the ACT party or National and yet he is running your campaigns.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think that mike is the consummate professional, but because of trevor Mallard we must hold his views to account against those of the Labour party, surely, in the interests of fairness and transparency.

You are who your ad-man is – Part Two

Yesterday I posted about Labour’s new ad-man Mike Hutcheson.

Labour’s crippled campaign manager thinks that you are who your ad man is when he attacked John Ansell and led the charge for personality smears against individuals. Bomber Bradbury launched a similar attack against Cathy Odgers, yet he has stayed strangely silent on Labour’s ad-man and his sexist comments about women.

I wonder now what the two of them think about “Hutch” and his opinion of teachers? I wonder what Sue Moroney will think?

I really doubt Labour’s teacher union funders would support the ad-man’s views on kids and standards:

Too much positive reinforcement and not enough negative reinforcement have taught our children that mediocrity is acceptable. Erroneously they think that doing their best makes them winners. They are more preoccupied with self-esteem and self-indulgence than with selflessness.

They are quickly going to learn that, sometimes, even their best isn’t good enough. How are their delicate psyches going to cope with the shock of finding out others in the world are manifestly better than they are at some things, despite what their teachers have told them.

In our clean little country with no natural predators, we have raised our children in such a way that they are often unable to cope in a world that can be both predatory and harsh. No wonder we have a relatively high rate of youth suicide.

We have become a society that rewards failure, not success. We’ve taught our kids how to hug the trees but not how to climb them. Our kids are taught its OK to fail by not even trying, as opposed to falling short in a valiant attempt.

So Trevor, if the ad men speak for the parties they work for, then how does Labour explain its new policies on education, and welfare?

You are who your ad man is – Part One

So it appears Labour’s new ad man Mike Hutcheson was the brains behind this little beauty.

Despite the awful lapse in judgment that led to the tragic spectacle of the ‘Gambler’ song, Hutch as he’s known, actually describes himself as being ‘to the right of Atilla the Hun’, and declared New Zealand under Helen Clark as a ‘girltocracy’.

So I’ve often found his campaign involvement with the likes of Len Brown and the left a little strange.  Perhaps it’s just the pay cheque.

But the reason I mention him, is in relation to Trevor Mallard’s attempted smears on ACT following the very public brain explosion by its ex-ad man John Ansell.

Using Trevor’s (il)logic: If Ansell was speaking for Act, then Hutch must be speaking for Labour – right?

Our country has a social welfare web that cushions citizens from the consequences of their actions. The state actually rewards mothers for breeding, regardless of their capacity to successfully launch a new life into the world.

Remember the outrage of Bomber over Cactus Kates “heaving pathetic underclass”? Remember the outrage over Alisdair Thompson’s “monthly sick days” comments?

I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that there isn’t a squeak from the same people over that “outrageous” comment from Labour’s ad-man. They will excuse it away by saying some along the lines of “oh, that’s just Hutch being Hutch”.

Grrrr

The other day I blogged about Len Brown’s Christmas card. I also submitted a LGOMA request for the costs.

I am yet to receive a reply but it looks like Len’s spin weasels have seen that there could be some impending damage and so ran off to the Herald with the numbers.

Brown’s mayoralty has been marred by allegations of cronyism after key members of his campaign team – and those who have helped him in the past – were appointed to jobs such as directors of council-controlled companies.

The latest issue involves Christmas cards sent from the mayor’s office – the company in the last-minute scramble to design the cards, business cards and letterheads is led by Mike Hutcheson, who advised Brown in his Supercity campaign.

The total value of the work, covering four separate orders between October 22 and December 12, was $9623.10.

They haven’t used Bernard Orsman like the cheap whore he has become, but they have milked a story out of Kieran Nash. No acknowledgement from Nash either about where he got the story from or where the charges of cronyism in Brown’s office have come from. That’s just rude.

Anyway the story is still about Len Brown’s wasteful ways. He has blown nearly 10 grand on a bloody christmas card. First it was credit cards that got him in trouble and now it is christmas cards.

Len Brown campaigned on being honest, and yet he just hands out jobs to his mates. Yet another Brown campaign team member has dipped his hands into the pockets of ratepayers. Not only that he banged on and on during the campaign about John Banks spending money on flowers and yet he has almost spent as much on a single bloody christmas card.

The Night-Mayor continues….as does the repeating of repeaters.

Honesty with Limits still the policy at Manukau

Len Brown promised to resign if his ratepayers ever asked him to reveal who he had dinner with at Volare. This ratepayer did, and did it under the LGOIMA.

On Thursday I receieved my response from his lickspittle CEO, Leigh Auton. So too did the Sunday Star Times, and they are not happy, having laid a complaint with the Chief Ombudsmen about Len Brown’s secrecy.

HE CHIEF ombudsman is investigating Manukau City Council’s refusal to name those whom mayor Len Brown wined and dined at an $810 dinner paid for by ratepayers.

Brown has said he will never name those at the September 27, 2009, dinner – held at Italian restaurant Volare just days before his birthday and paid for on his mayoral credit card.

“Will I give you the names? Never,” Brown told a council committee meeting when asked to justify the dinner, insisting it was business-related.

Unfortunately under Council guidelines for use of the Purchasing Card he cannot do this. This is what the SST and I am trying to enforce. What I can’t fathom though is why Len Brown is prepared to die in the ditch over $810.00. He has made this relatively small dinner a do or die principle to keep quiet, and for why? If he simply had complied with council policy and provided the details people wouldn’t be wanting to know why the secrecy. It would have died as an issue from day one.

Now it is extremely interesting to for us to see who he is wanting to die in the ditch for. Why the secrecy?

As you could see from my LGOIMA request, I was very, very specific as to the questions I asked. they could be answered with a simple yes or no answer and thereby wouldn’t breach anyone’s privacy. Very simple isn’t what the Mayor and his Chief Executive want though, they want complicated and therefore they want this story to be big.

I responded to Leigh Auton’s letter:

With all due respect Mr Auton this response fails to meet the requirements of the council’s own policy and the requirements of the LGOIMA

Your reliance upon the Privacy Act to answer yes or no questions as outlined again for your benefit is stretching the intent of the council’s policy and the LGOIMA Act.

I ask again

6. Was Conor Roberts in attendance at the “fundraiser? YES or NO
7. Were any members of the Mayor’s family in attendance? YES or NO
8. Was David Lewis in attendance at the “fundraiser”? YES or NO
9. Was Noel Robinson in attendance at the “fundraiser”? YES or NO
10. Was Richard Jeffrey in attendance at the “fundraiser”? YES or NO
11. Was Mike Hutcheson in attendance at the “fundraiser”? YES or NO

If these people weren’t in attendance then there can be no breach of policy by answering NO. If they were in attendance then again there is no breach of privacy. In fact it could be argued that the there was no privacy as this “meeting” or “fundraiser” as you and the Mayor euphemistically call this ostensibly private function because we as ratepayers paid for it.

The Mayor’s diary also points to the fact that this wasn’t a fundraiser at all, simply an Opera Night at Volare, a night of entertainment rather than business.

Please reconsider your response. I will also be asking the Ombudsmen to consider your response as well.

In a separate request I had asked for the Mayor’s diary for that night, I also asked for Leigh Auton’s and the Deputy Mayor’s but he hasn’t sent those through. As you can see from the diary there is no fundraiser, it is simply a Opera Night, exactly as advertised by Volare. the only people to claim that this night was a fundraiser were Len Brown and his spin doctors, and even then their story didn’t hold water. Just to remind readers of the spin, lies and obfuscations surround this dinner, it was explained that the night was a fundraiser for a local, up and coming Opera singer, this blog proved that it wasn’t a fundraiser, and the dinner to ‘support a local emerging artist’ turned out to be for a Gold Coast based professional singer whose manager and fundraiser also happens to be one of the guys in charge of the Telstra Clear events centre, the very same organisation that is supposedly paying for one of Borwn’s spin doctors and campaign managers, Conor Roberts.

There is a reason why Len brown is dying in the ditch for this, and since they refuse to say who we must then take it as read that the refusal to even say who wasn’t there as tantamount to an admission that they were. Until Len Brown is forced to keep the council’s own policy we can only but speculate as to who was there, one thing is for sure, it certainly wasn’t a fundraiser, and it sure as hell wasn’t council business.

My letter to the Ombudsmen was sent Friday.