There’s an engorged sense of triumphalism on the Left, which insists upon seeing even minor setbacks for the ruling party’s agenda as huge and dramatic victories in the ongoing war against neoliberalism.
Perhaps it’s because we’re so starved of wins elsewhere (particularly electorally). Maybe it’s because the Opposition are natural optimists (and going up against a National-led government that looks set to enter its fourth term, you presumably have to be in order to keep fighting).
Whyever it happens, various opponents of the present Government spent quite some time seizing upon lackluster polling results in support of flag-change as tacit evidence that Key’s Reign of Error was soon to be over.
In speech after speech, Winston and an array of others soared in rhetorical flights of fancy about how Key’s ill-conceived and quite literally ill-starred flag-change “vanity project” was sure sign that Key was out of touch, out of luck, possibly out of his mind, and soon to be out of office.
I’m not going to deny that some of these things are arguably true, but with a margin of victory for the Old Flag against the Lockwood design narrow enough that a mere 6% swing would have won it … if Key’s out of touch with the Electorate on these sorts of issues, it’s by mere meters rather than miles.
The numbers, as they stand, are 1,200,003 voters – 56.6% – in support of the Old Flag, versus 915,008 – 43.2% – for the Lockwood. Turnout was 67.3% – slightly more than ten percentage points lower than that of the 2014 General Election.
This low turnout will inarguably have helped the Prime Minister’s preferred option. Particularly in postal ballots, the people who care more about an issue are the ones who are likely to turn out. The rest of the ‘quiet majority’ who didn’t bother to vote may potentially disproportionately support the ‘status quo’ of keeping the flag; but even factoring that in, it’s difficult to reconcile the polling and prognostications of political leaders and pundits (including this Newshub/Reid Research poll cited yesterday showing the Old Flag ahead of the Lockwood by a whopping thirty percentage points) with the comparatively close margin of victory enjoyed by the Old Flag in the actual referendum itself.
It’s also difficult to square the referendum’s result with Winston’s claim upon hearing the numbers that this represented a “rout” for the Prime Minister.
This isn’t a full-scale, disorganized withdrawal for National. And certainly not a ‘white flag’. Instead, in tactical terms at any rate, at best it represents a “retreat in good order”. Key’s personal popularity may potentially take a hit – but partially due to National’s own effectively divided internal stance on the issue, it’s certainly conceivable that National’s brand overall will suffer relatively little harm.
Instead, “flag debate”, “vandalize our [flapping] heritage”, “tried to get rid of the flag”, and “vanity project” will be destined to become the sort of also-ran Leftist barely rallying-cries that “Sold our Assets!” and “Stripmined our Environment!” became after the 2011 Election. That is to say, words “full of sound and fury”, but ultimately “signifying nothing” for the many thousands of otherwise swing-voters who continue to support National.
We aren’t going to be getting rid of Key due to this flag-debate or its result.
That said, in strategic terms, there may potentially be some more serious repercussions for National. Though they won’t necessarily say it openly, for many rural and conservative types, the attempted flag-change will likely form yet another nail in the coffin for their ongoing support for the Government. The lid’s not firmly hammered down yet, but the trajectory which started with things like the PM’s support for equality of marriage and continued with gambling-funded convention centers and a signing away of our sovereignty through the TPPA, may potentially lead to a noticeable acceleration in the steady stream of former-Nats who’ve been gradually making their way over to NZ First of late.
The lingering disquiet that will surely settle in about fiscal priorities now that the much-quoted $26 million which has evidently been wasted on a failed referendum, will also further chip into National’s popularity and fiscal credibility. Coupled with recent funding cuts for the Police in tandem with a spate of larghessious renovations for Ministerial premises … a decidedly disquieting pattern in National’s funding decisions begins to reveal itself: symbols (whether MoBIE statues, “Cinderella-Stairs“, or flags) are prioritized over actual instruments of change.
Anyway, back to the flag results. With that tight of a margin between the Old Flag and the Lockwood, I feel safe in saying that had there been a better option on offer for replacing the flag with, New Zealanders may very well have chosen to go with that instead.
As one of my associates put it, the flag referendum result “resembles the Republic vote in Australia [in 1999], where they had the bad alternative of Parliament voting for the President”. The end result of that referendum was defeat for a Republic, even though people might have supported the establishment of one in principle, because of the manifest defectiveness of the proffered option for reform.
The same thing may very well have happened here.
Or, perhaps the closeness of the vote is instead reflective of the sheer level of time, energy, money, men, materials, and “celebrity endorsements” which National has been pouring in to this debate on its side.
Either way, three things are certain:
National is still in government; John Key is still the Prime Minister (albeit with perhaps a bit of his shiny rubbing off); and the Old Flag is still, for now at least, The Flag.
There are also serious and real issues facing New Zealand at present. They haven’t gone away, even if we have all found ourselves oft-distracted by this annoying, messy sideshow.
Now that that’s gone away, the Opposition have no choice but to try to make real change with real issues.
I wish us the very best of luck.
“Now that that’s gone away, the Opposition have no choice but to try to make real change with real issue”. Spot on in all respects. Apparently the change the flag group have vowed to continue, god help us. The opposition parties will be as useless as ever. Lets just hope that Key shuts up about the flag forever.
No defeat for key ? Making the fucker pay for it would be though.
Fucking brilliant CB yes he should pay for HIS OVERINFLATED EGO to put on his charade.
56.6% is a majority which is more than National have.
And 28%? What would you say that is?
A number that is irrelevant in this conversation.
National did far worse ONLY 20.93% in 2002. Does that help you and make you feel better?
INVOICE TO JOHN KEY:
$26 million wasted on a pointless exercise.
Please pay within 7 days.
Regards,
The People
No problem, just bill that to the Parliamentary Leaders’ budget.
JK.
[…] the triumphalism of some on the Left, the margin was far closer than most polls had predicted. Where I differ from Curwen’s analysis however is the significance of this politically for […]
After the politicizing of the flag vote by Labour, then Little’s decision NOT to vote, I find myself in the position of having no party to vote for come next election. I doubt I could ever vote Labour again.
Why blame Labour for John key’s mess? Doubt you voted Labour in the first place. It was John key who politicized it and broke parliamentary rules. Bet you will continue to support John key’s corruption anyway. Andrew Little voted to keep the flag.
The blame is for Labour and the Greens reaction to “John Keys mess”. They were simply unable to take the high road, which would have been to support their own policies for a flag change and fully engage with the process. Oh no, it was far more important to them to show their nasty side and act to “Get John Key”. I am so glad they don’t run the country and I fear for New Zealand if they ever get the chance.
Oh, really, OneTrack?!
You know, if Labour/Grens were so persuasive as you suggest, why didn’t they win the last election?
You Righties are hilarious; blaming anyone/everyone else for your f**kups. What happened to all the Personal Responsibility you lot are so keen to demand from everyone else?! Why don’t you demand Personal Responsibility from your esteemed glorious leader?
I’ll tell you why – because you lost.
The facts say that the Labour government ran the country a hell of a lot better than the failed National government. As PM John key has been an abject failure and a traitor, the worst pm this country has ever had. History will not look kindly on John key’s tenure of treason and economic and social destruction.
So pleased the majority of voters did kick John key’s butt, he deserved it. John key’s failed flag legacy wasn’t a democratic process to start with. It wasn’t Labour or the Green’s policy to change the flag. Labour wanted a review/discussion, which is not the same as actively changing it like John Key tried to do.
John Key showed his arrogance and nasty side again and again by ignoring the majority who were against changing the flag from the outset. He also ignored Labour’s request to at least include a yes/no question in the first ref to save the tax payer a lot money, when it became clear John key was still going to ram it down our throats anyway.
Anyone who still blindly supports John key like you do after all that has occurred over the last 7 and half years is a traitor to this country and its people.
I think you are missing the point here Curwen,’
John Key, quote “This is just a branding exercise”
John Key was far to AGGRESSIVE wasn’t he? and you must know that kiwis are incensed with being told what to do, and this referendum DEPICTED THIS and showed this well as you could wish for how this individual thinks.
Key spent lavishly to flood our minds with hiss corporate images of the new flag and all it represents as he said two days ago “This is just a branding exercise” I call it brain washing.
This shows he is thinking for his paymaster’s not the average kiwi and soon as he broached that void kiwis changed their minds about the flag then.
OUR POLLS ARE RIGGED AND WE OFFER PROOF HERE FOR YOU.
“PYTHON ELECTRONIC COUNTING STSTEM CAN EASILY BE HACKED.”!!
Also when you said “this Government looks ready to take a forth term”
That’s very suspect as we believe the polls were right last election and the vote was to close to call remember in 2014?
On that night all the poll pundits were baffled????
There was a 10% swing away from those consistent polls so this represents there has been some falsely altered results when the manual papers were then “electronically tabulated” counting took place using a known manipulated type of code called a “source code” and we believe this has been why this Government has won every election.
Read this and review the evidence and the testimony given to show how simple it was for our system to be compromised and bet that was what happened.
We are now having this all investigated at the moment and will let you know what we uncover.
The Electoral electronic IT counting system they use is called Python.
Python hacking is common world wide and some sites offer classes how to change the programs!!!!!
http://electiondefensealliance.org/eda-blogs/john_r_brakey/310809/ballot-image-scanning
See our current questions – HERE AS WE BEGIN TO INVESTIGATE OUR ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM THAT WE KNOW IS RIGGED!!!.
THESE QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTLY SENT TO THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION THE LONES THAT CLOSED DOWN ALL THE SCETCHES SUCH AS THE BRILLIANT “ON PLANET KEY”
SO WE NEED TO SEE WHAT GOES ON THERE.
US; TO ELECTTORAL COMMISSION;
· Next added question.
· IS THIS PYTHON ELECTRONIC COUNTING SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THE COUNTING SYSTEM USED BY THIS ELECORAL COMMISION DURING THE LAST THREE ELECTIONS NAMELY IN 20008, 2011; 2014 PLEASE
· AND IF SO; ARE WE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE “SOURCE CODE FOR OUR (IT) REVIEWING PANEL GROUP PLEASE? –
· DOES THIS REQUIRE A FORMAL “OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST’?
During a heated PHONE CONVERSATION WITH Alice PA TO Robert Paedem, we were told at your agency AFTER WE asked this simple question WITHOUT SUCCESS WE were finally advised to add this to our correspondence with you as the question we asked to directly speak or be referred to your IT failed to be granted to us.
We await your response asap.
Subject: RE: Election counting process for additional questions to please
Thank you for your further e-mail of 22 March. You have asked some important questions of detail.
I will come back to you as soon as I can once I have conferred with some other members of the technical team.
Kind regards
Electoral Commission
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2016 1:54 p.m.
To:
Subject: Election counting process for additional questions to Robert Pedem on your vote counting process.
You have lightly touched on the issue of Electronic tabulation which is where we have the deepest concerns here.
Evidenced by our request for Robert to review the website detailed information that does bring electronic Tabulation into suspicion should the actual results vary significantly from the poll results conducted in the run up to the flag referendum.
Please review the website information and the evidence given by a computer programmer in Florida using this system of “Source code” tabulation of scanning the paper voting forms as you do.
After you review the detailed evidence we provide can you please respond with your evidence that using your electronic source code Python system the results cannot be falsified or manipulated please.
We recommend you watch this video as you may find it very helpful.
http://m.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/114412/Hacking_Democracy__Full_Length/
Some Companies that provide equipment & services for voting market leaders are;
http://www.dominionvoting.com/company
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/premier-diebold/accuvote-os/
Are you using a consultancy company such as these or another similar, if so who is it please?
Thank you for your attention.
Reference of Electoral Commission system of referendum vote counting.
Can you confirm if the source code used in the flag referendum or your election counting process is not flawed in any way?
https://wiki.python.org/moin/Asking%20for%20Help/How%20do%20you%20protect%20Python%20source%20code%3F?highlight=%28concealing%29%7C%28source%29%7C%28code%29
Python
Asking for HelpHow do you protect Python source code?
BeginnersGuideAsking for HelpFrontPageHow do you …ource code?
FrontPage
RecentChanges
FindPage
HelpContents
How do you …ource code?
Page
Immutable Page
Info
Attachments
User
Login
Concealing (“Protecting”) Source Code
In response to the following question:
“How can I truly “protect” the python source code we create for a commercial product?”
First of all, it is important to distinguish between commercial and proprietary. The restriction is in the licence you use, not on whether the code is visible or not. There are numerous commercial products whose source code is Free (and open source) Software: various distributions of GNU/Linux fit this profile. In contrast, various free (as in cost, ie.
“gratis”) programs are made available only as binary executables where the source code is not available; they are therefore proprietary products which are not commercial: official Microsoft add-ons and upgrades such as Internet Explorer fit this profile, along with other binary-only “freeware”.
(Note that “freeware” should not be confused with Free Software – see the Free Software Foundation site for more information on what Free Software
is.)
It is, however, assumed that the questioner would like to hide their code from the user. This article now discusses technical solutions to achieve this objective.
Use Compiled Bytecode
Python produces .pyc files when programs are run for imported modules.
This bytecode is not trivially understandable by most developers, and supplying only the bytecode might be sufficient in deterring modification of the code, but there are ways to “decompile” the bytecode and recover a human-readable program. The decompyle program is probably the best known tool for this task.
Note that .pyc files are not portable between different versions of Python.
Executable Creators (or Installers)
Tools exist which embed modules and a Python interpreter together into an executable, like PyInstaller and py2exe (see DistributionUtilities). These tools offer an additional layer of obfuscation over merely supplying bytecode files, since any decompilation of the bytecode may only take place once the bytecode has been located in the executable. However, unless additional processes are introduced to obscure the bytecode, it is likely that the task of locating the bytecode would be trivial for even the least determined inquisitive individual.
Software as a Service
Perhaps the most reliable way of concealing source code is not to distribute your programs at all. Companies such as Google apparently use Python and yet have no difficulty in concealing their source code from outsiders.
Python Source Code Obfuscators
Diligently using search engines reveals that at least three obfuscators exist which accept Python source code as input, and produce transformed code which is harder to understand. Transformations provided by most Python code obfuscators include:
Rename your code’s internally used identifiers (variable names, function names, class names, etc.) to gibberish.
Remove or alter comments and docstrings.
Even if you compile your code to .pyc files before distributing it, these transformations should increase the labor required to reverse-engineer your code.
Editorial Notes and Opinions
This topic touches on several others frequently discussed. A common thread in comp.lang.python, for example, bounces between someone who sincerely claims to need some sort of obfuscation to prevent others from taking or modifying his ideas, and a gang of the old guard who ask precisely what the ideas are, who might take them, what would be the harm in that, and so on. One proposition often repeated is that the only safe code is that hosted on a remote machine.
Commercial developers should perhaps consider the necessity of concealing their source code. In certain kinds of businesses, a good relationship between the customer and the vendor is able to provide plenty of additional value to both parties: extensible, freely modifiable code is arguably more likely to be improved and adapted over time, quite probably as a service provided by the vendor; in contrast, merely shipping proprietary products and attempting to persuade customers to upgrade, perhaps with the customer running the continuous risk of versions they already use becoming obsolete (and with no means at their disposal to, for example, recompile the code for new platforms or systems) may aggravate the relationship between the parties over time.
.. . .
[Futility of protection schemes–but equally for Java, C, …]
Also see “deployment”.
CategoryPythonInBusiness CategoryAskingForHelp CategoryAskingForHelpAnswered
Asking for Help/How do you protect Python source code? (last edited
2014-03-15 03:09:21 by DaleAthanasias)
MoinMoin PoweredPython PoweredGPL licensedValid HTML 4.01 Unable to edit the page? See the FrontPage for instructions.
From: Sent: Friday, 18 March 2016 2:29 p.m.
To:
Subject: RE: TO ROBERT PEDEM Chief Electoral Officer.
URGENT QUESTION ON FLAG REFERENDUM ASAP IN THREE DAYS.
“IS THE VOTE COUNT PROCESS MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY TABULATED??
Importance: High
Urgent;
TO ROBERT PEDEM Chief Electoral Officer.
16TH March 2016 2.30pm
URGENT QUESTION ON FLAG REFERENDUM ASAP IN THREE DAYS.
“IS THE VOTE COUNT PROCESS MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY TABULATED??
Following questions below, may be required after receiving this first question in three days.
________________________________________
Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:15 p.m.
To:
Subject: FW: Electoral Commission. PRIVATE & CONDFIDENTIAL TO ROBERT PEDEM Chief Electoral Officer. URGENT QUESTIONS PLEASE ON REFERENDUM FOR THE FLAG CHANGE VOTING PROCEEDURE PLEASE;
Importance: High
FLAG CHANGE VOTING PROCEEDURE PLEASE; IS IT THE SAME EQUIPMENT & PROCEEDURES AS THE AMALAMATION PROCEEDURE WAS?????
Importance: High
Electoral Commission.
Robert Pedem, Chief Electoral Officer. 17th March 2016
Dear Robert,
SUBJECT;
Electoral Commission.
PRIVATE & CONDFIDENTIAL
Robert Pedem. Chief Electoral Officer.
URGENT QUESTIONS PLEASE ON REFERENDUM FOR THE FLAG CHANGE VOTING PROCEEDURE PLEASE;
IS IT THE SAME EQUIPMENT & PROCEEDURES AS THE AMALAMATION PROCEEDURE WAS?????
•Can you describe the following detailed information for us below please?
Thanks Robert.
see below
Importance: High
if you could respond please?
•If your system uses electronic counting machines,
•What are the model and make of these electronic reading machines please?
•Are your scanners Kodak scanners, or other machines but they are not electronic reading machines
•Does your first batch of voting papers (usually 50) just manually checked for accuracy then as part of our reconciliation process do you manually check every informal and blank vote for accuracy, overseen by a JP”
•Can you describe the meaning/intent and process behind the term “reconciliation” please if you use the term can we assume this;
•Does “reconciliation” mean just a quick check (and glace/inspection) of why the “high speed” electronic reader rejected them?
•Do you not have a single pass electronic reader,
•Do you have voting machines as you may know them.
•Or is your system is much simpler than that, such as each voting paper is scanned through essentially a large desktop scanner that scans are a batch of voting papers of 50 at a time (in about 20 seconds). A “photo” of each voting paper is then stored in our voting database, after which we run our proprietary mark sensing vote recognition software which detects a tick inside the tick zone (the circle on the voting paper). The votes are then recorded and stored in our voting database. After the close of voting, we then hit a button that tallies the votes in a separate process and produces the result
•That this “reconciliation process is carried out by a employee and JP both of the soiled or rejected votes by the “high speed electronic reading machine that the electronic process counting is tracking?
•Does reconciliation” refer only to the manual inspection of the (soiled or blank) ballots, & not used in any way along with the following process?
•Most importantly are these 50 first “voting papers” (ballots) used as a (real backup method test) as seen happen in the video as a manual count to check against if they were electronically included in the “high speed” electronic counting process for true accuracy of the electronic tabulation machines and reflected in the FINAL process?
•If the answer is No, are they simply just used as a test check that our scanning and recognition process is setup correctly?
•Are you telling us that we should remember that we process many elections voting papers each day, this is our core business, and we are using our vote processing technology all the time? & that many polls like this one is just one of many elections we have on at the moment, so our systems are used, checked, reconciled, and balanced every day.
•Robert – What we are trying to see is whether there are any internal processes during the single event “high speed” electronic tabulation counting process as it is carried out or at the end of the process?
•If it\s not a single event, are there are lots of business processes around the electronic process to ensure accuracy?
•How does the accuracy remain constantly checked for errors?
•Is this a single event time audited Deloitte audit and certify back against the ISO standard 3402, an internationally recognised fit for purpose certification standard.
•How does your process meet the legislative requirements for vote processing and are audited and certified to ensure they are accurate, under the watch of an independent JP at all times.
•“Accreditation” question surrounding who gives accreditation is it Deloittes as to whether they have any “global” recognised accreditation of certifying the single event process that you will be carrying out next week for true accuracy before release of the final counting process of the Flag referendum process. yes, see above
•Does your contacted counting/tabulation electronic or manually counting Company activities with our activities & laboratory process conform to every full accreditation process, carried out under controls dictated by NZ accredited highly regulated companies during every testing or installation procedure even following recertification of equipment, and if we request documentation of these (under an OIA request we assume) are we able to obtain those documents if this process is even carried out during your final counting process of this often complicated voting process?
We recommend you watch this video as you may find it very helpful.
http://m..disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/114412/Hacking_Democracy__Full_Length/
Some Companies that provide equipment & services for voting market leaders are;
http://www.dominionvoting.com/company
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/premier-diebold/accuvote-os/
Are you using a consultancy company such as these or another similar, if so who is it please?
Thank you for your attention.
Thanks again Robert.
TO;
Thank you for your response and we have many question to answer as a result of your response to our complete set of questions we sent to Robert Pedem on your vote counting process.
You have lightly touched on the issue of Electronic tabulation which is where we have the deepest concerns here.
Evidenced by our request for Robert to review the website detailed information that does bring electronic Tabulation into suspicion should the actual results vary significantly from the poll results conducted in the run up to the flag referendum.
Please review the website information and the evidence given by a computer programmer in Florida using this system of “Source code” tabulation of scanning the paper voting forms as you do.
After you review the detailed evidence we provide can you please respond with your evidence that using your electronic source code Python system the results cannot be falsified or manipulated please.
We recommend you watch this video as you may find it very helpful.
http://m.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/114412/Hacking_Democracy__Full_Length/
Some Companies that provide equipment & services for voting market leaders are;
http://www.dominionvoting.com/company
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/premier-diebold/accuvote-os/
Are you using a consultancy company such as these or another similar, if so who is it please? Thank you for your attention.
I wondered who kept all those tinfoil manufacturers in business…
Thank you, thank thank, thankyou Cleangreen. Most people with their eyes open know dirty National has been rigging the system, and as pointed out in other threads, I do not have any faith in the Electoral Commission as it has been corrupted. Another point, no one from the left would ever party vote National. The 2014 election in particular, really did expose that there was something inherently dodgy going on.
Yes thanks words,
We in NZ are right now being targeted for a electronic internet voting trial for the next election!
So we need to keep the paper voting papers to hold a backup independent manual recount audit, to see if these electronic internet voting systems are actually safe/accurate and free from hacking as they are reported to be prone to we are advised now.
Opposition Parties must require that we keep the paper voting papers for at least six moths not the usual 28 days.
So we can independently challenge any “Doggy” 2017 election results after they electronically tabulate those manual paper votes.
And also make sure that we keep our right to hold the election using the paper voting system, as our backup audit in case we are critical of the doggy election results again next time.
Wow! Go cleangreen! I really hope you get some answers! I am behind you on this one – the New Zealand people should know the systems in place used to count votes – how fool proof they are – and the companies involved in there undertaking. It should all be transparent otherwise, like present, democracy is open to manipulation.
THANK YOU KIM DANDY,
WE KNOW THE DOGGY VOTING ISSUES ARE VERY CORRUPTED VOTING AND PM KEY OR HIS ACCOMPICES MAY HAVE USED THIS AS HIS WAY OF STORMING OUR COUNTRY EIGHT YEARS AGO AS ALL THIS BEGAN WHERE HE WAS LAST RESIDING?
WATCH THE WHOLESET OF THIS COMPLIATION OF PROGRAMMER CLINT CURTIS AS HE BEGINS HIS 6YR EXPOSE’ OF THE CORRUPTN VOTING SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW APON US.
DESEMINATE THIS TO ALL FOLKS YOU CAN PLEASE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhBtfiRKaVY&ebc=ANyPxKqWPE89j0sOWw1wIvcn84ky9SLJcTkK3KQ-0QCxLHYp-Lp0XwxjokocnbWg8Yx6zVVD3TdyjFu3ObaIRvKOLdptKU7SSQ
Uploaded on Jul 29, 2009
Murders Spies And Voting Life’s:
The Clint Curtis Story is an incredible documentary which tells the story of a computer programmer who was contacted by a private company’ with ties to convicted Chinese spies, to write a program that could be used to rig elections…
What follows is the breaking of a massive conspiracy in which there would be hard evidence of vote
This one hour long Nicky Hagar produced very good video story of John Key backstabbing Don Brash to become leader of National in 2005 when he arranged with The exclusive Bretheren to taint Don Brash as he tied him to circulation of illegal posters in the first case of dirty politics.
Then Key flies to Australia and hires Crosby Textor as he prepares for the 2008 election, so perhaps Crosby Textor had a hand in our Electoral Commission use of doggy voting systems too for our election then???.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NBQSU9btnw&ebc=ANyPxKpMXpGuxziBQPIiTbkarsZW612C7vMBoU_o2QfFuZG1ZBiuQ0X0j69i_jGYTptVf2oEDjLqCWddpC9gpk4itDLHI5QSNQ
Comments are closed.