Chris Trotter is a man of standards. He has at least two of them. And double standards equip the left so very well to argue their way to electoral victory. But like some errant teenage car enthusiast, he lowers both standards to gutter level. He's proud of his street mods, but I'm left thinking he is just another boy racer.
Trotter starts his article off with a rev up. He speaks of the 1951 election being the dirtiest ever, coming out of the exhaust fumes of the infamous waterfront dispute. He mentions that "emergency regulations" had made it illegal for New Zealanders to speak, write, publish, broadcast or demonstrate in favour of the locked -out workers. Gee, now we know where Labour got its inspiration for the Electoral Finance Act.
Of course, Trotter attempts a drive by shooting on National for those times, but he needs to focus on who is actually doing what this election. It is Labour that is attempting to run down free speech Chris.
This moment in history leads to Chris Trotter's first prediction - that this election will be the dirtiest ever. I think we can form a general theory to support Chris Trotter's claim:
How dirty an election will be, is directly proportional to Labour's perceivced chance of losing.
It's a good theory. And unlike Chris, I'm not going to misdirect the true credit for this theory. I'm willing to call it "Trotter's Theory". Thanks Chris, for making this prediction. Obvious when you think about it, really.
From here Chris starts to spin the wheels a little. Risking burnout he comes up with claims so outrageous, you know he drives a Subaru. I think the model is called Impressiona. But only the impressionable would believe these claims:
[National's] contrived outrage over Labour's [mis]use of Parliamentary Service funds
No Chris, they were genuinely upset Labour deliberately mis-used tax payer funds for the supposedly "nothing to do with an election expense" Election Pledge Cards. Then Chris makes another whopper:
as [Labour had previously spent] without let or hindrance in both the 1999 and the 2002 elections
That's almost like a thief being caught on the third burglary claiming that they should get off because they got away with the first two. But just to clear up the confusion (and this 'contrived confusion' by Chris and Labour), there were rule changes made to absolutely clarify spending bounds in 2004, and this information clarified to all parties so that there would be no 'confusion' in the 2005 election. If the door was locked, then it was definitely 'break and enter', even though any child knows an unlocked door is not tantamount to an invitation to steal.
[END OF PART ONE]
Part II - The mouthpiece of Labour
Trotter starts his article off with a rev up. He speaks of the 1951 election being the dirtiest ever, coming out of the exhaust fumes of the infamous waterfront dispute. He mentions that "emergency regulations" had made it illegal for New Zealanders to speak, write, publish, broadcast or demonstrate in favour of the locked -out workers. Gee, now we know where Labour got its inspiration for the Electoral Finance Act.
Of course, Trotter attempts a drive by shooting on National for those times, but he needs to focus on who is actually doing what this election. It is Labour that is attempting to run down free speech Chris.
This moment in history leads to Chris Trotter's first prediction - that this election will be the dirtiest ever. I think we can form a general theory to support Chris Trotter's claim:
How dirty an election will be, is directly proportional to Labour's perceivced chance of losing.
It's a good theory. And unlike Chris, I'm not going to misdirect the true credit for this theory. I'm willing to call it "Trotter's Theory". Thanks Chris, for making this prediction. Obvious when you think about it, really.
From here Chris starts to spin the wheels a little. Risking burnout he comes up with claims so outrageous, you know he drives a Subaru. I think the model is called Impressiona. But only the impressionable would believe these claims:
[National's] contrived outrage over Labour's [mis]use of Parliamentary Service funds
No Chris, they were genuinely upset Labour deliberately mis-used tax payer funds for the supposedly "nothing to do with an election expense" Election Pledge Cards. Then Chris makes another whopper:
as [Labour had previously spent] without let or hindrance in both the 1999 and the 2002 elections
That's almost like a thief being caught on the third burglary claiming that they should get off because they got away with the first two. But just to clear up the confusion (and this 'contrived confusion' by Chris and Labour), there were rule changes made to absolutely clarify spending bounds in 2004, and this information clarified to all parties so that there would be no 'confusion' in the 2005 election. If the door was locked, then it was definitely 'break and enter', even though any child knows an unlocked door is not tantamount to an invitation to steal.
[END OF PART ONE]
Part II - The mouthpiece of Labour