1. Frank. Do you not see Martyn’s comments on the links between Lusk, Slater, Farrar, and co to the right wing to be slightly hypocritical in now understanding he is also accepting payments from his political affiliates?

   • Do you not see Martyn’s comments on the links between Lusk, Slater, Farrar, and co to the right wing to be slightly hypocritical in now understanding he is also accepting payments from his political affiliates?

     BV – those links you point out are public knowledge. See the above media references.

2. While it cuts me to the quick to be fair to Farrar, Bradbury’s ‘disclosure’ mentions noting about being employed by Parliamentary Services to work for the Mana party, which is quite a bit different from “a political consultant to organisations of the left and centre-left and argued for the creation of the MANA Party”.

   That said, yes, it’s a non-story. Also, you’re quite right about the Axis of Evil within the Nats. During the 2008 election, Farrar and Slater toured the country in a camper van they called the Blogmobile, interviewing National candidates on video and posting the results on a website that has now disappeared. They also posted little snippets about wrecking signage for opposition parties and other “happy mischief”.

   • Mark, you raise an interesting point. Re Martyn’s statement;

     … “a political consultant to organisations of the left and centre-left and argued for the creation of the MANA Party”

     The only word missing is “paid”.

     Which is comparable to Farrar’s own disclosure;

     Employment

     I worked in Parliament for almost eight years from July 1996 to March 2004. I initially worked as a media advisor to Ministerial Services when Jim Bolger was Prime Minister. I then had the rare privilege of working in the Prime Minister’s Office for Jenny Shipley, and in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition for Jenny Shipley, Bill English and Don Brash.

     Source: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement

     Again, Farrar omits the word “paid”. (In fact, I’m only guessing that Farrar was paid, and his work wasn’t voluntary, as an “intern”.)

     So both gentlemen use the same wording. Only, Farrar chose to make a “meal” of it.

     Re; your reference to Fqarrar and Slater wrecking signage”… now isn’t that interesting? In 2011 Slater made a big deal about hunting down people who had wrecked National Party hoardings. I guess he didn’y appredciate “competition”.

   • What is wrong with touring the country during an election campaign and flogging about it?

     • ???

   • There seems to be a lot of disinformation over exactly what it is I do for Mana. I helped set the party up and argued why a party to the left of the greens using a sub 5% threshold strategy was the only way for the left to win minus NZ First.

     I am not a staff member or an employee of Parliamentary Services. I give MANA my political opinion on politics and send an invoice with that opinion. I don’t seed stories, I don’t manipulate spin. Slater, Lusk and Farrar just got publicly implicated in trying to implement a far right coup within the bloody National Party – that’s why this has suddenly been thrown up.

     Farrar has a disclosure a page long because he has fingers in every pie. He does polling for the Government on what spin to take on any issue and Slater won’t ever admit to anything even though he’s been outed in Lusks plans.

     The claim that somehow I am hiding a left wing agenda here is bullshit – I’m very open about my left wing agenda – I state I am a consultant for left wing organisations – I give them my opinion and they pay me for that. What seems to shock so many on the right is that anyone would value my opinion that much.

     • Thanks for that clarification, Martyn.

       In the final analysis, Farrar couldn’t even get the wording of his so-called allegations against you, correct.

       If he persists with so mendacity, it will be to his cost. It is his credibility on the line.

   • Do you have link to back up your claim that they deliberately damaged election signage? It is quite a serious allegation you are making and one that David Farrar has denied.

3. Considering Mr Bradbury constantly brings up David Farrar’s supposed linkage to National via his polling company (The National party’s pollster I believe is one of the terms used) pointing out Mr Bradbury is a paid political consultant is pretty mild in comparison.

   • No Gosman, Farrar is pointing out public knowledge.

     It’s like me accusing John Key of being a paid member of the National Party. Der!

4. Farrar is just Slater in a suit. I don’t see that he has any credibility at all. He allows the same sort of filth in his blog comments and therefore has a share in the responsibility for Aotearoa becoming a dirty racist hole full of rednecks.

   • Do you mean filth in comments such as accusations of illegal behaviour without providing evidence ?

     Isn’t this blog thread guilty of that?

     • What illegal behaviour is “this blog thread” guilty of?

       • I stated accusation of illegal behaviour. Don’t you agree that defacing election signage is illegal?

5. Kia ora Frank, interesting post. I’ve been thinking about the Slater vs Bradbury topic, and I wonder if it is time to have a discussion about the kind of tone and language that we want to encourage from contributors. Some have a really colourful way of expressing themselves in a way that gets their point across in a strong manner and they can be a bit extreme in their statements. Countryboy fits this group. He’s brilliant and I find myself laughing out loud at his posts, but then he will write something that pushes the boundaries of polite society. And I have been intemperate at times in my comments, mostly because I make the mistake of commenting when I’m feeling annoyed about something instead of pausing to take a breath.
   And there are times when I think that some of the tone is set by the writers. I find myself agreeing with much of Martyn’s writing, but if there is a criticism it is that he resorts to mild personal abuse (calling Farrar “the Bore of Babylon”), which would probably be a lot funnier if it was only hinted at or suggested subtly. Or not said at all, which would raise the visibility of the argument.
   Because the personal rivalry/feud whatever it is that is being generated only distracts from meaningful debate.

6. A massive catch up here but a need to be succint and less wordy than usual.
   In full agreement with you Frank on the desperate ‘distract & divert’ attempts
   aka the Farrar/ Slater tag team on Martyn..

   The Centre Right ( Yeh/Nah) vs the Fiscal & Frightening FarRight CrusherCollins etc-channeling the rusting in pieces MaggieT is less of a worry to me, now it has been outed than so many not knowing about it..
   Bit like the Brash Bretheren connect .
   A ball breaker..
   The rest of the current PPP is simply what I like to call
   Perception Propaganda Politik
   Aka the current fearbased reactions to the Devil beast Greens giving it more of a verbal Bash than Labour so let’s try and use their older persona against a more feisty newage one which actually caught a few on the hop.
   My my the benignly good all round-bloke imaged Key, definitely not liking the comparison with Muldoonism
   He really isn’t up to that level though.
   He actually sometimes believes his own Crosby Textor PR profile now until that camera angle catches him offside and you see the smiling assassin that the London Financial hacks also saw..
   Only so far as anyone no matter how highly paid, can really remodel someone who is more ‘comfortable’ speculating with numbers than people
   .
   Someone who chooses to Ignore someone who may do the same to maintain their position (Banks) or the one who unexpectedly sh#t ( Dunne) where some would much rather the emphasis was shifting from..
   Anywhere but on the Dystopian State that has replaced the Land of the Illusory Free?..
   G forbid anyone links the recent joint exercises here and a massive spying programme we could also well have been the guineapigs for
   (Oops did I?).
   There seem to be some willing to do almost anything to prevent that from becoming a join the dots focus, before they change the legislation here to bury any ‘arguably legal?’ concerns. A need for a law to clear those who have broken it, which given the benefit of DOUBT any jury would consider a perfect case of a double oxymoron?
   .. ..

Comments are closed.