The anger of David Moffett shouldn’t be written off or ignored – it needs to be challenged


Lots of mocking of New Conservative candidate David Moffett as he lashed out at Winston Peters and Jacinda for signing a feel good UN migration agreement…

Former rugby boss David Moffett threatens ‘traitor’ Jacinda Ardern

A former top rugby boss has called Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters “traitors”, and warned he’s coming to get them.

Ex-New Zealand Rugby CEO David Moffett, a member of the New Conservative Party, made the comments on Thursday after the Government announced it would support the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

“Yes we’ll see whether you 2 traitors are still smiling when we are done with you next year,” he wrote on Twitter.

“Have a good break coz you’re going to need it. Next year will likely be your Annus Horibilis because we are coming to get you.”

…the violence of Moffett’s language should send a tingle of fear down everyones collective spine. NZ Politics shies away from such language in case they unlock the dark beast of the NZ psyche. That Moffett is willing to publicly make such angry comments suggests a New Conservative Party that could be a far more dangerous beast than the goofy Colin Craig.

People forget that his placid leadership still saw a Conservative Party vote just below the 5% threshold, a weaponised Conservative Party however could prove to be a far more dangerous and snarling beast.

There are many white voters within National who are frustrated by the manner in which their party has been taken over by Chinese interests and who yearn for a leader who will engage in the culture wars in a way that matches their own angry social media feeds. The reason Simon Bridges is failing while National ride high in the polls is because he won’t go as lowbrow  as his rump voters want.

TDB Recommends

Moffett is something new, and dangerous and the way to stop him is to debate the issues directly, not hide.  The UN deal is not binding, it doesn’t threaten our sovereignty and we can still act in our own interests.

We need to acknowledge that the mass immigration policies of National have caused enormous infrastructure  pressure and we need to have clear rules on how we intend to counter those stresses, because blindly screaming xenophobe misses the anxiety those attracted to this message have and it is ridiculous to pretend that National’s mass immigration polices haven’t caused stresses and strains.

Moffett could tap into those dark angers, he needs to be dealt with head on, my fear is the reactionary Woke won’t see this and will want to deplatform, which is the exact opposite of what should happen.

Moffett is a spark on a dry plain, the woke won’t be able to help themselves but accidentally fan him.


  1. It was hard to know what to make of this guy.

    On the negative side of the ledger he is an ex Rugby executive, an area of uber conservative white male old school tie entitlement that suffocated all other forms of entertainment in NZ and inflicts year in year out this mindless bore fest upon our nation.

    And he is ironically, a British born, naturalised Australian IMMIGRANT who by that very virtue seems to have picked up the good ol boy anti immigrant nasty shit their retarded politicians so love. And he resides in Sydney so who the fuck is he to comment on our immigration policies?

    So why David, what is this really all about? You fucks love dumping Aussie generated criminal immigrants here so what you got to say ’bout that, sunshine?

  2. It’s been suggested that the way facebook reinforces our views by giving us info we already like is increasing the polarisation within western society. My fear is that we will need to see the consequences of this through to the end before people really understand what it means.

    It feels like the most radical thing we can do at the moment is to make friends with a right winger.

  3. Of course it’s not binding but it IS setting the basis for a future expectations.

    I need to explain Peter’s voter base and why he’s lost it:

    Back in 2015/6 there was a review of the firearms act attended by a wide range of stakeholders. National bungled the management of the review and allowed it to wander off its terms of reference and allow the inclusion of ‘evidence’ from the police union that was demonstrably untrue. (There is a growing agenda within the police to restrict access to firearms, it is thought because cops recruited from the UK during the Clark era are now in senior positions and have brought their culture of firearms banning with them)

    The report from the review was met with disbelief and anger from the shooting community who number over 300,000 members. I recall scanning the shooting forums and blogs and seeing widespread calls to vote NZF. I think this reactionary vote got Winston over 5% and back in Parliament.

    My expectation is that he’s already lost that vote plus most of the core NZF voters who are Muldoonists and to the right of National.

  4. Bring it on. What Moffett seems to be ignorant of is that Winston Peters has many supporters with real firepower. Jacinda Ardern is at royalty level support, which means there are many who will not stand by and see her threatened let alone set upon in any many or form by lowly bottom feeders of the right.

  5. Martyn;

    You have certainly spotted and touched on a raw nerve here.

    David Moffetts’ response is what happens when a Government is seemingly acting secretly, covertly in the shadows;

    Not only especially NZ First members, but many others outcry.

    From the Newshub link:

    “Mr Peters, Foreign Affairs Minister, said New Zealand WILL sign up after he received legal advice saying it won’t affect national sovereignty.
    “The Crown Law Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have provided legal advice which confirms this UN cooperation framework is neither legally binding nor constraining on this country setting its own migration policies,” he said.

    Why could he not say this when asked the question in parliament, from the
    Stuff link you provided in your

    “Peters told Parliament on Thursday that Cabinet had not yet made a decision
    on the now-controversial pact,”

    Yeh right, 5 days out from ratification.! (3 days minus weekend.)

    “National’s Foreign Affairs Spokesman Todd McClay asked Peters if he was
    aware the agreement made no distinction between legal and illegal migration
    and called for restrictions on freedom of speech and the media.
    Peters said he had studied the allegations, which had been made by some countries around the world and some people in a worldwide campaign, very carefully.
    “Both those allegations are demonstrably false,” he told the House.

    “Outside the House, McClay rejected any suggestion National had signed up to an agreement in 2016 that had led to this pact.
    He said an agreement had gone through the UN that New Zealand had not
    spoke out against, but had not actively signed up to – only 15 countries had.
    “We didn’t attend the meetings. All countries in the UN allowed it to go through.
    It was open for signature, the National Government did not sign it – Peters is wrong, but that happens often.”

    He said it “felt like this [pact] has been discussed in secret, they won’t release any information, they won’t tell us what to do, four days before the agreement
    is to be signed.”

    From Newstalk ZB link:

    “Winston Peters says he is comfortable with the compact, despite the outcry
    from many people, especially NZ First members, who believe the agreement
    will sign away the country’s sovereignty.
    He says the compact doesn’t blur the lines between legal and illegal migration, and they are not legally bound to the document.”

    Then why sign it.?

    I think Winston is being completely disingenuous.
    Off cause the Crown Law Office would agree.

    Because this is at odds from two law professors from Europe.

    Found in my comment at bottom of here:

    “This, Belgian law professor Pierre d’Argent argues, will act like other UN compacts that have proceeded it will be used by lawyers to interpret the
    meaning of laws.
    He said: “…lawyers use this pact as a reference tool to try to guide them…
    This has already occurred in international or national jurisdictions to refer to instruments that are not legally binding.”

    “German law professor Matthias Herdegen came to a similar conclusion, as Breitbart London reported. Remarking that the UN compact occupied a
    “legal grey area”, it “gives the impression of [state] liability”

    And of note:

    “During drafting, British negotiators called for clauses recognising that it is the right and obligation of states to control their own borders, and that there should be a distinction between refugees and economic migrants, but they were not incorporated into the final text.

    While legal professionals have said the compact acts will create a legal framework that lawyers will interpret at the national level to advance mass migration, it has received little attention or debate in the United Kingdom,
    where the political space remains consumed by Brexit.”

    There are many heads of state comments as well.

    “Hungary’s statement that the ‘non-binding’ Compact can, in fact, be ‘binding,’

    Calling it “a legalisation of mass migration,” the Dutch populist said:
    “It’s declaring migration a human right.”

    In all, looks like 15 countries have not signed, most from Europe.

    That is a large number and stands to reason.

    No migrant would want to go to Africa would they?

    China, Russia, Japan and Saudi Arabia,(to name a few) simply won’t have them.

    Most will be heading to the West.

    This compact will have many hidden teeth.

    To both Labour and NZF, who pledged to reduce migrant numbers, I say you have just lost the 2020 election.

    This is why it was kept out of the Media and Parliament until it was to late and most New Zealanders will not take kindly to developments.

    Last but not least.

    UPDATE 2:

    “A leading immigration think tank has said that the United Kingdom’s adoption
    of the UN’s migration pact “all but violates” the government’s pledge to cut immigration.”

    A charge that can be laid at the feet our NZ Government as well.!

    “A group of French military generals have written an open letter to Emmanuel Macron accusing the French President of committing “treason” by signing the
    UN migration pact.”

    “The letter accuses Macron of being “guilty of a denial of democracy or treason against the nation” for signing the pact without putting it to the people.”

    Again, a charge that can be said of our NZ Government.!!

    So much for transparency.

    No cheers.

    • Well, time will tell about the compact, but I for one wouldn’t trust a mysterious “leading immigration think tank”. They could be anybody.
      Some commenters may be right about Peters’ supporters leaving; politics is a fickle business. But do not underestimate Peters.

  6. Moffat will get some support.

    One of the worst things Jacinda Ardern did was use the word ‘transparency.’ In any way. She has backed herself into a corner in the tiny minds of those with lots of corners in their tiny minds. Now apparently everything the Government does, thinks about, talks about, every tiny detail of their existences, who they meet, call, who calls them, is expected to be front and centre, listed to be scrutinised.

    Not doing so means being stealthy, secretive, covert. (The Auckland convention city dealing was a true example of openness and transparency.) Not doing so means the fearmongers have a leg into the tiny minds looking for anything to put the boot into.

    Moffat had his stint in rugby here, went to the UK, had his time there and came back. When he got back here he was an expert on how things should be here, and where and how things were wrong. So many things being wrong might have been testament to the shabby job he did. His pontifications on a regular radio slot used to piss me off.

    The deliberate sensationalist language on his re-emergence is quite
    ironic. David Moffat? Anus horiblis.

  7. Doesn’t say much for New Zealand rugby that he was its CEO. What other’s like him are still in the woodwork there?

  8. Destruction of National pride and identity.
    Goal No. 2 of 21 of the Bilderberg. Open migration, no borders.
    Yep, that’ll do it.

  9. Graham Capill was a paedophile.

    Colin Craig was an adulterer (or wannabe adulterer).

    What skeletons are going to fall out David Moffett’s closet?

  10. Before you all go white eyed and start panicking about an old dick saying cheap and easy things without his requirement to front up for a ‘spirited face to face conversation’, remember? labour, national, green, nz first? They’re all heads of the same Hydra.

Comments are closed.