Archive

Archive for 17 August 2014

On course for a change of government – hold her steady!

17 August 2014 1 comment

.

Red Green Up

.

The Roy Morgan poll, carried out at the end of July, was a complete reversal of National’s polling fortunes thus far;

National: 46%  (down 5%)

Labour: 30% (up 6.5%)

Greens: 12% (down 3%)

NZ First: 5% (down 1%)

Internet-Mana Party Alliance: 2.5% (up 1%)

Maori Party 1.5% (up 0.5%)

ACT:  0.5% (unchanged)

United Future: 0.5% (unchanged).

Conservative Party:  1% (unchanged)

 

To back up that earlier poll,  TV3  released it’s own Reid Research Poll. Our entire household whooped with delight at tonight’s (17 August) results;

National: 47.5% (down 1.9%)

Labour: 29% (up 2.3%)

Greens: 13%  (up 0.6%)

NZ First: 4.6%   (up 0.3%)

Internet Mana Alliance: 2.0%  (down 0.2%)

Maori Party: 0.8%  (down 0.3%)

Act: 0.3%  (up 0.2%)

United Future: 0.2%  (no change)

Conservative Party: 2.5%  (down 0.2%)

Note;
  • Both Roy Morgan and TV3 Reid Research are very close with their results for the four main parties
  • At 47.5% the Nats are near the 47.31% they won in the 2011 election (see chart below).

.

National Labour Greens NZ First
One News Colmar Brunton [1]2 October 2011 56% 29% 9% 1.9%
3 News Reid Research [1]2 October 2011 57.4% 26.6% 9.8% 1.9%
Roy Morgan Research [1]26 September – 9 October 2011 55.5% 28% 9.5% 2%
Roy Morgan Research [1]10–23 October 2011 53.5% 29.5% 9.5% 2.5%
Herald-DigiPoll [1]20–27 October 2011 53.5% 30.3% 9.5% 2.85
Actual Election Night Result [2]26 November 2011 47.31% 27.48% 11.06% 6.59%
Fairfax/Ipsos Poll [6]17 July 2014 54.8% 24.9% 12.4% 2.6%
Herald-DigiPoll [5]20 July 2014 52% 26.5% 9.9% 4.6%
One News Colmar Brunton [4]27 July 2014 52% 28% 10% 4%
Roy Morgan [3]31 July 46% 30% 12% 5%
Election Night: Frank’s Prediction20 September 2014 44% 33% 13% 5%

.

Notice how the poll results in 2011 dropped from around 56%/57% for National to an election night figure of 47.31%? That is around a ten-percentage point drop.

Polling results for Labour were static – but the election nights results for the Greens rose by two percentage points from around 9% to their Election night win of 11.06%.

A governing party’s support will always fall during the campaign, as a contest of real ideas and campaign advertising is given equal prominence to government propaganda.

It will be interesting to see how Nicky Hager’s book, “Dirty Politics”, story will  impacts on National’s support in coming polls.

If it drops radically any further, Key may have to,

1. Sack both Collins and Ede to mollify voters,

2. Reverse his decision and do a deal with the Conservatives,

3. Go for a tax cut policy – which though grossly irresponsible, unaffordable, and will put the govt back into debt –  would buy them the election. (I predict such a  policy shift will be seen as panicking by voters, fail, and rebound badly on the Nats.)

I’ve said it for the last couple of years;

  • Expect a new government post 20 September.
  • Key is history.
  • And watch a brutal political ‘knife fight’ between Collins/Slater and Steven Joyce for the National Party leadership.

Most important, my friends,  we will have a new Prime Minister and a new government.

.

David-Cunliffe-at-2013-Labour-Party-conference-nov2013--Getty-Images_w452

.


 

References

Roy Morgan:  National (51%) increases election winning lead over Labour/ Greens (38.5%)

Wikipedia:  Election Night results: 2011

Previous related blogposts

Latest Roy Morgan Poll – the game has turned!


 

.

Vote and be the change

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements

Death threats made to rightwing blogger?

17 August 2014 7 comments

.

Cameron Slater

 

.

As the heat goes on right-wing blogger Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, John Key, and Judith Collins as a result of Nicki Hager’s book, “Dirty Politics“, Slater has  alleged being the victim of a hate campaign himself;

.

Cameron Slater -  Death threats over 'Dirty Politics' - TV3 - Nicky Hager - Whaleoil - Jason Ede - John Jey

 

.

“‘Cos I’ve got a torrent of death threats as a result of Mr Hager’s book…”

Regarding Slater’s claims, I have these observations to offer;

1. Police

Threatening someone’s life is a criminal offence. Instead of discussing it over the airwaves (and thereby giving ‘oxygen’ to the alleged offenders), one would have thought to take the matter directly to the Police.

Airing this over the airwaves doesn’t achieve much except give credence to suggestions that Slater is “crying wolf” and trying to garner sympathy for himself.

2. If the allegations are true?

Death threats are very, very uncool.

For one thing, it takes us down to Slater’s faecal-pile level.

Secondly, Slater has a family who are in no way responsible for his anti-social activities. We don’t blame kids for living in poverty-stricken families – no-one should  be stressing his children and partner with vile threats of violence and invitations to self-harm.

3. If the allegations are false?

If Slater is fabricating these allegations (which I believe to be the case), he will not take a complaint to the Police. He knows full well that there exists a criminal charge called “wasting Police time“;

In New Zealand, one can be charged under Section 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 for committing either of the following acts:

  • Making, or causing to be made, to a police employee any allegation of an offence “contrary to the fact and without a belief in the truth of the statement”.
  • Creating serious apprehension for the safety of any person or property (whether by statement or behaviour), either with the intention of causing wasteful employment or diversion of police resources, or being reckless as to that result.

A person convicted under this section may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to NZ$2000.

If Slater does not lay a complaint, we’ll know why.

My bet is he won’t. And I know why.

It’s called deflection.

4. If the allegations are true (issue B)

It would be hard to feel sympathy for Slater. He has posted obscene comments on his website, along with hate commentary; people’s addresses and other personal details; and incited  threats of violence to be made by some of his associates in the comments section.

As I wrote above, death threats and calls to violence are uncool.

With Slater’s past history of engaging in this kind of on-line thuggery/bullying and cheering the deaths of young people, it is hard to feel any sympathy for the pathetic little germ that he is.

As Gordon Campbell wrote on 15 August,

“Talking of death threats, too little has been made of the threat to Hager himself in an email sent to Slater, David Farrar and Matthew Hooton (see pages 91-92) in the wake of Hager’s previous work on international tax havens. “Those Chinese can be very vicious when they lose face…It would be a disaster if they all knew where he lived. He might need Police protection…” etc etc. It doesn’t matter that Hager’s phone number and address are in the phone book. The intent seems all too clear.”

5. Other illegal activity by Slater?

Cameron Slater has already been convicted on several charges of breaking name suppression orders surrounding victims of child abuse cases. He is currently being sued for defamation by Auckland businessman, Matthew Blomfield. (Interesting, Slater has been given computer hard drives belonging to Mr Blomfield, and is using the material on said hard-drive to write critical blogposts on the businessman. Slater refuses to disclose where/how/when he acquired the computer material. Sound familiar?)

Meanwhile, on the blogsite, The Dim Post, blogger Danyl Mclauchlan questions the veracity of Whale Oil’s supposed high “traffic”;

DPF and Slater have both linked to me roughly the same amount of times during that period. I guess you could argue that readers of Kiwiblog and the other right-wing blogs in that graph are more likely to click on links than WhaleOil readers, for some unknown reason, or that my site is also linked to in their side-bars, maybe? But go back and look at the traffic stats for WhaleOil in the first graph. His traffic is, supposedly, immense, towering over everyone else – but the amount of actual people clicking through from his site is tiny. 

My hypothesis is that the WhaleOil stats are gamed, somehow, and that the number of real people reading WhaleOil every day is probably in the low hundreds, mostly National and ACT activists and media elites and outraged left-wingers. Which is funny, because he’s paid very handsomely by the tobacco lobby and other industry groups to publish their PR on the basis that it’s going out to hundreds of thousands of people. 

The latest traffic survey for blogs, released by Open Parachute, lists the blog  rankings for last July. The top ten are;

Visit Rank Blog Visits/month Page Views/month
1 Whale oil beef hooked 2067499 3424236
2 Kiwiblog 464149 794565
3 The Daily Blog 226522 366224
4 The Standard 203712 444021
5 Transport Blog 156922 160849
6 The Dim-Post 56504 80703
7 Throng New Zealand 43672 79016
8 Liturgy 42217 56349
9 Sciblogs 41178 52242
10 NewZeal 37534 52102

Check out the number of visits per month: 2,067,499. Two million visits. That’s half the population of New Zealand. It is also four times the ‘hits’ recorded for number two on the rankings, Kiwiblog, coming in at 464,149 visits per month.

Seems credible? I think not.

Martyn Bradbury has done a follow-up story on alleged bloated traffic numbers, saying,

“…it looks like it’s all a farce with pumped up stats and bots running most of the actual traffic. It looks like many corporate are secretly paying Slater for nothing more than a bloated illusion. “

Martynhas a point. If Slater has artificially increased his traffic number by using services such as “click fraud“, “Paid-to Click“,  and/or other systems, then he may be guilty of misleading advertisers. De-frauding them, in other words.

Only a police fraud investigation may be able to determine what is going on with Slater’s blogsite.

6. Karma

She seems to be working over-time on Slater’s feral arse. Evidently there is much work to catch up on?

On a more serious note to conclude this blogpost on; a fair number of folk have dismissively shrugged their shoulders and dismissed Nicky Hager’s book with a “meh! – what else is new“. The answer; plenty.

With this book, Nicky Hager has forced us to grow up a bit, politically, and look deep into our political culture. If we shrug and look away with cynicism, we are in effect giving politicians carte blanche to behave as they will. It means we have taken away normal social restraints for what we want as acceptable behaviour. (And paid for with our taxes, I might add.)

If that is what New Zealanders – especially those who support National – really want, then it is easily achieved. We just do nothing. Which reminds me of an old saying,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. – Edmund Burke

As always, the choice is ours.

.


 

References

TV3 News: Slater – Death threats over ‘Dirty Politics’

Wikipedia: Wasting Police Time

Gordon Campbell on the ongoing fallout from Nicky Hager’s book

TVNZ: Blogger guilty of breaking suppression

NZ Herald: Cameron Slater ‘incredulous’ over ruling

The Dim Post:  Two points about Cameron Slater. First: Who reads this shit?

Open Parachute: July ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking

Open Parachute: Blog Rankings

The Daily Blog: Are Whaleoil’s traffic stats a bloated illusion?

Wikipedia: Click fraud

Wikipedia: Paid to Click

Previous related blogposts

When Karma caught up with Cameron Slater

When Stupid meets Hypocrisy, the result is David Farrar

When Stupid meets Hypocrisy, the result is David Farrar – *Update*

David Farrar – A Question for you please?

Dear John – Time to answer a few questions! – Hone Harawira

“Dirty Politics” and The Teflon Man

Other Blogs

Public Address: Confidential information: the legal rights and wrongs

Public Address: Dirty Politics

Polity: National and Labour’s membership data

Gordon Campbell on Nicky Hager’s new book

Bowalley Road: Closing Our Eyes In The Sausage Factory: Some Thoughts On Nicky Hager’s Book, “Dirty Politics”

The Standard: Rob Gilchrist On Nicky Hager

The Standard: Was a crime committed when Slater accessed Labour’s computer system?

The Daily Blog: Hager’s Dirty Politics – Death threats or hit jobs?

Kiwipolitico: Ducking for Cover

Pundit: Dirty Politics: The battle of the metaphors

Pundit: The politics of vilification

Pundit: A crazy day in dirty ol’ NZ politics

Imperator Fish: Cameron Slater is the real victim

Porcupine Farm: Why My Next Printer Will Be An Epson

Porcupine Farm: #TEAMKEY2

The Jackal: Death threats and Dirty Politics

The Jackal: Nicky Hager – Hero of the Week

The Jackal: National’s death by association

Recommended reading

The Jackal: The real nasty bloggers

 

 


 

.

Vote and be the change

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

The Mendacities of Mr Key #7: What is Dear Leader actually saying here?

17 August 2014 3 comments

.

 

Who do people believe - dotcom or key

.

Dear Leader Key has continually refuted knowing of Kim Dotcom until one day prior to the police raid on his Coatsville mansion on 20 January 2012, as he confirmed in Parliament eight months later,

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that he first heard of Kim Dotcom on 19 January 2012, the day before the police raids on Dotcom’s residence?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

He has been quizzed numerous times on this point., and each time he has given the same response; he only became aware of the impending Hollywood-style raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion the day prior to the event.

Now check out his response in this Youtube vid, posted on 25 November, 2012 – ten months after the raid – from a TVNZ Q+A interview;

.

 

.

Notice how Key frames his response to  Kim Dotcom’s answers to the late Paul Holmes;

Holmes: “Do you you believe John Key has lied?”

Kim Dotcom: “Yes.”

Holmes: “Do you have evidence of this?”

Kim Dotcom: “Yes.”

Key responded;

“Ok, so the answer to both those questions is ‘no’. Um, he’s completely and factually incorrect. So to say that someone lies means that you have to deliberately mislead people.  And there’s no way I have done that. My office has gone through every piece of correspondence my electoral office has had. Every piece of correspondence that I’ve had that could be anyway related to this area. Any meetings I have had.  What my ministries have done that I’m responsible for. There is absolutely nothing there.”

Key did not reply with an outright “no”.

Instead Key referred to searches of his electoral office; correspondences, records of meeting, and ministeries.

He wasn’t searching his memory for previous knowledge of activities relating to  Kim Dotcom.

He was searching files to ensure there was no evidence of previous awareness of activities relating to  Kim Dotcom.

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/misinformation?

Verdict: deflection/outright lie

.


 

References

Facebook Colmar Brunton: Who do you believe – Kim Dotcom or John Key? 

TV3: Who knew what about Kim Dotcom

Scoop media: Key, Dotcom and Hollywood

Parliament: Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Actions and Prime Minister’s Statements

Youtube: A ‘Grumpy’ John Key On Q & A To Answer To Allegations That He Lied About Knowing Of Kim Dotcom

Additional

Youtube: How to spot a liar #2

Previous related blogposts

The Mendacities of Mr Key #6: When apologising to a victim of violence is not considered “serious”

 

 


 

.

john key is scared of your vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 August 2014

.

.

= fs =