Jacinda

[Honest john]

18 hours ago, Honest john said:

We are talking about a horse here. Lol

 

Hj

just the sexual assaults,  court case pending.  Chch guy and invercargill. 

 

Hj

[Maximus]

On 1/27/2023 at 12:21 PM, Hesi said:

Sport Northland a a privately owned concern, they can do what they like

Not sure why they would block Groundswell though.  They are a legitimate protest movement representing the rural sector in NZ, who have made a point of distancing themselves from the lunatic fringe

 

Sport Northland a 'privately-owned concern'?

I dont think so, Hesi-meister, and Max should know - having been involved many moons ago with its creation.

SN is a chairtable trust, part-funded now by District Councils, part-funded by central Govt, part-funded by local and regional sponsors. Its mission has always been to get more Northlanders active in sport and recreation. It operates sports facilities that include a large sports complex in Whangarei (McKay Stadium), which has event facilities ie 'rooms for hire' for meetings, events, awards nights, conferences etc Thats one of the ways they pay their bills.

IMO the management and/or Board of Sport Northland have acted disgracefully in denying this group access to one of their 'halls for hire'. Free and frank discussion of any subject is inherent in democracy; to deny them use of the hall is abhorrent. 

Sack the people responsible.

MM

[Turny]

Well done SN.

Their group has zip to do with Sport in Northland .... it is a political movement.

Quite sure MM if JA wanted it for a Labour rally your viewpoint would be very different as evidenced by your very many political postings on this site.

If my local League club rooms were offered to any political set up I am sure a big no would be issued. Our committee which I am on would not even debate the issue after the introductory statement. It is that simple

Edited January 31, 2023 by Turny

[Maximus]

I think you're missing the point Tom ...the rooms are available for hire to any group (commercial, political or otherwise, unless there's something in their charter that forbids political groups of ALL kinds/issues.

I'd agree with your view if SN has a history of declining all requests to hire room/hall for political meetings. My understanding for their refusal is that SN disagrees with the cause (ie to Stop Co-Governance) or by implication they support the cause of Co-Governance. 

Sport Northland should not be entering into political debate. They were simply asked to supply a venue for a debate.

MM

 

 

 

 

[Maximus]

Saw this today and thought it's a very astute analysis of the current circs...

Saint Jacinda’s Fall

- Media fawning wasn’t enough to save her

Karl du Fresne, The Spectator, Australia

That faint squealing noise Australians have been hearing over the past couple of weeks was the sound of New Zealand’s Labour government slamming on the brakes. The distant smell of burning rubber can also be explained. That was the same government executing a handbrake turn.

Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation last month triggered not only a sharp political reset but a pronounced change in the country’s mood. Ardern may have enjoyed worldwide adulation, but in two terms as leader she had become an increasingly polarising figure at home. Her departure resembled nothing so much as the lifting of a spell.

New Prime Minister Chris Hipkins wasted no time setting his government on a new path. His primary objective will be to win back the mass of swinging voters who crossed over to Labour at the 2020 election, when Ardern was surfing a tide of goodwill following her adroit response to the Christchurch mosque massacres, but who have abandoned the party since then in disillusionment over its ideological excesses and managerial incompetence.

Ardern’s departure – which was spun as a sudden decision, but turned out to have been carefully plotted weeks beforehand – could be interpreted in two ways. One was that she saw defeat looming at next October’s general election and didn’t want to go down in history as a failed prime minister. (That was the rat-and-sinking-ship theory.) The alternative explanation was that she realised she had become a liability to Labour and wanted to give her successor time to regroup before going to the polls. (That was the noble self-sacrifice theory.)

Either way, the portents were clear. Not only did opinion surveys show Labour in steady decline and its National party opposition in the ascendancy, but Ardern’s personal popularity had slumped to the point where she had fallen into the negative approval zone, where voters who liked her were outnumbered by those who didn’t.

It was a dramatic demonstration of what some political scientists call the Obama effect, where a leader is admired abroad but not so much domestically. It also reinforced the fundamental truth that ultimately, the only people in a position to truly judge whether Ardern was doing a good job were those who had to live with the consequences of her government’s policies. When it comes to the crunch, rapturous applause from left-leaning overseas commentators is just so much meaningless noise.

Local government elections late last year, in which candidates from the Left were resoundingly rejected everywhere but in achingly woke Wellington, confirmed that the country’s love affair with Ardern was over. So where did it all go wrong?

The Covid-19 lockdown in 2020 was a crucial turning point. Ardern’s earnest ‘be kind’ shtick and her patronising entreaties to the ‘team of five million’ soon took on an unmistakeably totalitarian tone. State-imposed mandates that barred unvaccinated people from working were seen as cruel and heartless. The same was true of a chaotic and randomly unfair isolation and quarantine system that prevented New Zealanders overseas from returning home, often in heartbreaking circumstances.

To many people, Ardern became the face of authoritarianism – ironically, the exact reverse of the compassionate image she sought to convey. Her daily televised pep talks from what was derisively labelled the Podium of Truth, so named because of her statement that the government was the sole source of reliable information about the pandemic, aroused as much scepticism as shoulders-to-the-wheel fervour.

None of this was helped by the growing public perception that Ardern was protected by sycophantic journalists. New Zealanders expect the media to subject the government to rigorous critical scrutiny, and they didn’t see that happening. In the end, the media’s fawning over Ardern became a negative.

All this smouldering resentment culminated in a three-week protest camp outside parliament, the riotous climax to which became arguably the defining event of Ardern’s second term. It’s fair to say the pitched battle between police and protesters, many of whom had never defied the law before, was not what she would want to be remembered for.

Covid aside, what most damaged Ardern was the growing public realisation that her government was pursuing a radical agenda for which it had no mandate and which it demonstrably lacked the competence to execute. Even as homelessness, gang crime and child welfare issues escalated, Labour ideologues seemed more concerned with promoting disruptive and destabilising changes in health, education and local government. As with some Labour regimes in the past – and with Australia under Gough Whitlam – there was a striking mismatch between ministerial ambition and ability.

So now Hipkins has embarked on a desperate salvage operation, reshuffling Labour’s cabinet, demoting his most unpopular minister, the divisive Nanaia Mahuta, and pledging to focus on ‘bread and butter issues’ such as the cost of living. He has also signalled the likelihood of a rethink on some of Labour’s most ideologically toxic policies – notably, Mahuta’s push for what is euphemistically termed Maori co-governance over the nation’s water resources.

Hipkins, who rejoices in the folksy nickname ‘Chippy’, personally exemplifies the change of political tone. Although close to Ardern, he’s not personally associated with the more extremist woke initiatives pursued under her leadership. He’s a more traditional Labour leader who may be able to reconnect with the party’s blue-collar base and could even appeal to voters in the conservative provincial seats that abandoned National three years ago when Jacindamania was at its peak.

Judging by the latest polls Hipkins has made a strong start, but history suggests he’s on a hiding to nothing. In the post-war era, every New Zealand prime minister who assumed office between elections was subsequently jettisoned by the voters. Perhaps the biggest factor in his favour is that his National opponent, former Air New Zealand CEO Christopher Luxon, is still on training wheels and has yet to show New Zealanders any reason why they should vote for him.

Karl du Fresne 11/2/2023

 

[Turny]

On 2/1/2023 at 3:28 PM, Maximus said:

I think you're missing the point Tom ...the rooms are available for hire to any group (commercial, political or otherwise, unless there's something in their charter that forbids political groups of ALL kinds/issues.

I'd agree with your view if SN has a history of declining all requests to hire room/hall for political meetings. My understanding for their refusal is that SN disagrees with the cause (ie to Stop Co-Governance) or by implication they support the cause of Co-Governance. 

Sport Northland should not be entering into political debate. They were simply asked to supply a venue for a debate.

MM

 

 

 

 

I am secretary of my league Club and I floated the idea at my club meeting.

Resounding FO, they have nothing to do with our club. Debate over. 

Pretty simple

[Globederby19]

After reading that, it reinforces my view  that Luxons training wheels are falling off slowly. Lots of platitudes with what they are going to do, but no solid credible policy. My bet is , and they will have to do this with a very carefully managed change , is to replace Luxon with Nicola Willis, (insiders are of the view she would do a much better job),as he is struggling in the job which should have National very worried. Luxon comes across as lacking authenticity ,he will just do and say whatever he thinks middle NZ wants him to. He needs to change and adjust , NZ doesnt need empty "sloganeering", we want substance , and to be honest he doesn't fill me with any hope . Long way to go to the election, but god forbid Labour prevail again. 

[ngakonui grass]

Luxon can't get the media on his side whereas with Jacinda they fawned over her even when she did things wrong.

With our new PM i haven't heard any media mention that he was standing behind JA nodding in agreement with everything said on  the Podium of Truth.

None of the above will be getting my vote unless things change drastically on their Law and Order policies.

 

[Maximus]

7 hours ago, Turny said:

I am secretary of my league Club and I floated the idea at my club meeting.

Resounding FO, they have nothing to do with our club. Debate over. 

Pretty simple

yes, simple because yours is a privately-'owned' club/Incorporated Sopciety or whatever and does not receive core funding from taxpayers/ratepayer bodies. Sport Northland does. 

Equally simple. 

Do you (does anyone) know if the Stop Co-Governance meeting was held at Sport Northland's premises or not in the end?

MM

[Maximus]

48 minutes ago, ngakonui grass said:

Luxon can't get the media on his side whereas with Jacinda they fawned over her even when she did things wrong.

With our new PM i haven't heard any media mention that he was standing behind JA nodding in agreement with everything said on  the Podium of Truth.

None of the above will be getting my vote unless things change drastically on their Law and Order policies.

 

Hipkins is doing a much better job at communicating than the so-called great communicator Jacinda. Can you imagine her trying to tell us from the Podium of Truth how to respond to Gabrielle?  At least Hipkins says his piece with sincerity and efficiency...but IMO the decision to declare a National State of Emergency was a day too late, and should have applied only to the North Island anyway.

Like you, I think Luxon is a problem for a National-led coalition, but Willis is consistently impressive.

MM

[Turny]

50 minutes ago, Maximus said:

yes, simple because yours is a privately-'owned' club/Incorporated Sopciety or whatever and does not receive core funding from taxpayers/ratepayer bodies. Sport Northland does. 

Equally simple. 

Do you (does anyone) know if the Stop Co-Governance meeting was held at Sport Northland's premises or not in the end?

MM

It wasnt, and rightly so. SN is also governed by the IS Act.

SN funding is largely from local sports club, and class 4 pokie funders, they being the governing umbrella body.

[Turny]

11 minutes ago, barryb said:

Yes, Luxon wont be getting my vote either.

However I think the vote for Labour will collapse, history says it will when a PM goes before the election.

Seymour will have a significant part to play in the next Govt, he has some very good people around him, Winston will again be kingmaker.

Agree.

Labour will get slaughtered.

Seymour is very key and Winston simply cannot be ignored, he likely to have a role to play.

[ngakonui grass]

1 hour ago, Maximus said:

Hipkins is doing a much better job at communicating than the so-called great communicator Jacinda. Can you imagine her trying to tell us from the Podium of Truth how to respond to Gabrielle?  At least Hipkins says his piece with sincerity and efficiency...but IMO the decision to declare a National State of Emergency was a day too late, and should have applied only to the North Island anyway.

Like you, I think Luxon is a problem for a National-led coalition, but Willis is consistently impressive.

MM

When i see McAnulty on the Podium of Truth i wonder why the possum on his head  hasn't woken up.

[Globederby19]

40 minutes ago, ngakonui grass said:

When i see McAnulty on the Podium of Truth i wonder why the possum on his head  hasn't woken up.

He He. He is not liked that much here in the Rapa. I play snooker at the Masterton Club with a lot of ex and present business owners. They speak of him in dare I say it, derogatory tones. A "brown " tongue by any standard.   

[Hesi]

I thought it was all over once Ardern resigned, but Chippy seems to have taken to leadership like he he is a natural

Bugger thought the Nats including the Chief Nat

When that huge fan of the Nats, Heather Du Plessis Alan starts applauding Chippy, then you know it is for real

[ngakonui grass]

Early days yet and when Chippy starts getting blamed for the floods just like Key did for the earthquakes and Ardern did for covid then how he and his team react will determine his fate.

Kiewis good at blaming MPs for problems.

[pete]

[Maximus]

3 hours ago, Hesi said:

I thought it was all over once Ardern resigned, but Chippy seems to have taken to leadership like he he is a natural

Bugger thought the Nats including the Chief Nat

When that huge fan of the Nats, Heather Du Plessis Alan starts applauding Chippy, then you know it is for real

IMO Hipkins has some down-to-earth Kiwi bloke appeal and is not as self-centred/arrogant as Jacinda. However, he and Labour are gone-burgers. The aftermath of Gabrielle will be good for construction and local manufacturing but dreadful for our homegrown food and wine industries. Labour will just throw money at quick fixes and that will fuel domestic inflation. Job losses will rise dramatically in some regions and the hub of our national economy, Auckland, is in survival/recovery  mode. Where is the money coming from? Cindy and Grant have already printed and borrowed their way out of Covid (fuelling inflation) to the tune of $120b (?) handing it out to all kinds of nonsense Covid recovery projects ...Fletcher Building pocketed $70M, I hear, from wage subsidies not paid back.

Grrr.

MM

[ngakonui grass]

Don't know if there will be any quick fixes and thats when the people start getting snarkey and angry.

 

[Maximus]

Early election, anyone? Here's Matthew Hooton in today's Herald (extract) suggesting Labour might go for 15 April !

MM

 

Labour gains nothing from giving National time to finalise candidates, bash out some policy and perhaps choose a new leader, all the while waiting for even higher interest rates and the looming recession.

Most importantly, Labour needs a new tax policy from July 1 this year, including tax cuts for people in the $50,000 to $100,000 range and tax increases on very high earners.

Asking voters to wait until July 1 2024 is electorally unacceptable.

Getting the money flowing to its supporters from July 1 — and being collected from its opponents — requires the tax changes to be announced in the Budget, expected on May 18.

Labour’s problem is its 2020 tax policy. That promised no new taxes or increases to income tax this parliamentary term, except for the new 39 per cent top rate on incomes over $180,000 that is already in place.

Labour went further, not just ruling out any further tax rises but also promising no income tax changes at all. Voters may not be so prone to punish a government for breaking a promise not to cut taxes but, in a close election in which Labour will accuse Luxon of a secret agenda, any deviation from its solemn 2020 tax policy is a risk.

This argues for an election ahead of the May Budget. Now mostly finalised but unannounced, the Budget work provides Labour with a ready-made manifesto, all carefully checked by the Treasury and clearly ready to be implemented — in contrast to National which offers nothing.

If called today, an election could be held on March 25, but that would be gauche in the midst of the flooding. No government would hold an election on April Fools’ Day, and the next weekend is Easter, which means Saturday, April 15 is the first available date, still a clear month before the Budget.

With voting starting the week beginning April 3, Labour would worry about the Reserve Bank’s official cash rate rise on April 5. But much better to cop that than wait for another increase on May 24, followed by four and a half months of higher mortgage rates through to an October 14 election.

An alternative is holding out for two more weeks, until April 29, with voting starting around April 17. That involves betting that the food and rent indexes on April 17 show some improvement, and that March-quarter inflation is better than expected when reported on April 20.

Labour could also benefit from planned increases to the defence budget, expected to be announced around Anzac Day on April 25.

But sooner is safer than later, tipping the balance to April 15. That gives a month for any coalition negotiations and consequent modifications before the May 18 Budget would be used to launch the new government.

This requires Hipkins being prepared to risk being a mere footnote, having been Prime Minister for just three months. But nine months isn’t much better. If he takes the risk, it’s odds-on Labour would win a third term, and Hipkins at least three years in the top job.

Labour has demonstrated enormous courage so far this year, and earned the polling returns.

Does it have the nerve to take the next logical step, and boldly put a ring around April 15?

- Matthew Hooton is an Auckland-based political and public affairs strategist. His clients have included the National and Act parties, and the Mayor of Auckland.

[Midnight Caller]

I would have thought that the 1st of April would be more than appropriate for calling an election.

And can the media stop calling the new PM by his nickname(cringe).Would they have called the girl from Porridgeville Cindy? Or anything horse related? I think maybe nay!

Edited February 16, 2023 by Midnight Caller

[Midnight Caller]

On 2/14/2023 at 10:47 AM, Maximus said:

Saw this today and thought it's a very astute analysis of the current circs...

Saint Jacinda’s Fall

- Media fawning wasn’t enough to save her

Karl du Fresne, The Spectator, Australia

That faint squealing noise Australians have been hearing over the past couple of weeks was the sound of New Zealand’s Labour government slamming on the brakes. The distant smell of burning rubber can also be explained. That was the same government executing a handbrake turn.

Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation last month triggered not only a sharp political reset but a pronounced change in the country’s mood. Ardern may have enjoyed worldwide adulation, but in two terms as leader she had become an increasingly polarising figure at home. Her departure resembled nothing so much as the lifting of a spell.

New Prime Minister Chris Hipkins wasted no time setting his government on a new path. His primary objective will be to win back the mass of swinging voters who crossed over to Labour at the 2020 election, when Ardern was surfing a tide of goodwill following her adroit response to the Christchurch mosque massacres, but who have abandoned the party since then in disillusionment over its ideological excesses and managerial incompetence.

Ardern’s departure – which was spun as a sudden decision, but turned out to have been carefully plotted weeks beforehand – could be interpreted in two ways. One was that she saw defeat looming at next October’s general election and didn’t want to go down in history as a failed prime minister. (That was the rat-and-sinking-ship theory.) The alternative explanation was that she realised she had become a liability to Labour and wanted to give her successor time to regroup before going to the polls. (That was the noble self-sacrifice theory.)

Either way, the portents were clear. Not only did opinion surveys show Labour in steady decline and its National party opposition in the ascendancy, but Ardern’s personal popularity had slumped to the point where she had fallen into the negative approval zone, where voters who liked her were outnumbered by those who didn’t.

It was a dramatic demonstration of what some political scientists call the Obama effect, where a leader is admired abroad but not so much domestically. It also reinforced the fundamental truth that ultimately, the only people in a position to truly judge whether Ardern was doing a good job were those who had to live with the consequences of her government’s policies. When it comes to the crunch, rapturous applause from left-leaning overseas commentators is just so much meaningless noise.

Local government elections late last year, in which candidates from the Left were resoundingly rejected everywhere but in achingly woke Wellington, confirmed that the country’s love affair with Ardern was over. So where did it all go wrong?

The Covid-19 lockdown in 2020 was a crucial turning point. Ardern’s earnest ‘be kind’ shtick and her patronising entreaties to the ‘team of five million’ soon took on an unmistakeably totalitarian tone. State-imposed mandates that barred unvaccinated people from working were seen as cruel and heartless. The same was true of a chaotic and randomly unfair isolation and quarantine system that prevented New Zealanders overseas from returning home, often in heartbreaking circumstances.

To many people, Ardern became the face of authoritarianism – ironically, the exact reverse of the compassionate image she sought to convey. Her daily televised pep talks from what was derisively labelled the Podium of Truth, so named because of her statement that the government was the sole source of reliable information about the pandemic, aroused as much scepticism as shoulders-to-the-wheel fervour.

None of this was helped by the growing public perception that Ardern was protected by sycophantic journalists. New Zealanders expect the media to subject the government to rigorous critical scrutiny, and they didn’t see that happening. In the end, the media’s fawning over Ardern became a negative.

All this smouldering resentment culminated in a three-week protest camp outside parliament, the riotous climax to which became arguably the defining event of Ardern’s second term. It’s fair to say the pitched battle between police and protesters, many of whom had never defied the law before, was not what she would want to be remembered for.

Covid aside, what most damaged Ardern was the growing public realisation that her government was pursuing a radical agenda for which it had no mandate and which it demonstrably lacked the competence to execute. Even as homelessness, gang crime and child welfare issues escalated, Labour ideologues seemed more concerned with promoting disruptive and destabilising changes in health, education and local government. As with some Labour regimes in the past – and with Australia under Gough Whitlam – there was a striking mismatch between ministerial ambition and ability.

So now Hipkins has embarked on a desperate salvage operation, reshuffling Labour’s cabinet, demoting his most unpopular minister, the divisive Nanaia Mahuta, and pledging to focus on ‘bread and butter issues’ such as the cost of living. He has also signalled the likelihood of a rethink on some of Labour’s most ideologically toxic policies – notably, Mahuta’s push for what is euphemistically termed Maori co-governance over the nation’s water resources.

Hipkins, who rejoices in the folksy nickname ‘Chippy’, personally exemplifies the change of political tone. Although close to Ardern, he’s not personally associated with the more extremist woke initiatives pursued under her leadership. He’s a more traditional Labour leader who may be able to reconnect with the party’s blue-collar base and could even appeal to voters in the conservative provincial seats that abandoned National three years ago when Jacindamania was at its peak.

Judging by the latest polls Hipkins has made a strong start, but history suggests he’s on a hiding to nothing. In the post-war era, every New Zealand prime minister who assumed office between elections was subsequently jettisoned by the voters. Perhaps the biggest factor in his favour is that his National opponent, former Air New Zealand CEO Christopher Luxon, is still on training wheels and has yet to show New Zealanders any reason why they should vote for him.

Karl du Fresne 11/2/2023

 

Plenty of similar analysis on this side of the globe Maxi. I remember a couple  of weeks ago, Karren Brady putting the slipper in about the recent resignation. 

From the outside looking in, the bus is still rolling but a new driver! Penfold still has his printing ink fingers on the purse.

Remember  Maxi, I am your only "source of truth" in the Northern Hemisphere. 😁

[Honest john]

chippy is a junior Cindy,  attended socialist conferences with her.  same piece of turd however you label it.  my tick is act,  and national my main vote. I'm in sausage fingers electorate,  she will get back in.  Woods spends too much time at the hilmorten bakery. 

 

Hj

[Globederby19]

Hipkins  is a dead ringer for Richie from Happy Days.  

On another note I see Princess Anne complained that her itinerary was changed. Mostly because the country is in disaster mode , which seemed lost on her.

Poor dear, who else can have a job circling the globe shaking hands and smiling at the cameras while the country picks up the tab. Its high time we stopped this bullshit and kicked them for touch. 

[pete]

2 hours ago, Maximus said:

Early election, anyone? Here's Matthew Hooton in today's Herald (extract) suggesting Labour might go for 15 April !

MM

 

Labour gains nothing from giving National time to finalise candidates, bash out some policy and perhaps choose a new leader, all the while waiting for even higher interest rates and the looming recession.

Most importantly, Labour needs a new tax policy from July 1 this year, including tax cuts for people in the $50,000 to $100,000 range and tax increases on very high earners.

Asking voters to wait until July 1 2024 is electorally unacceptable.

Getting the money flowing to its supporters from July 1 — and being collected from its opponents — requires the tax changes to be announced in the Budget, expected on May 18.

Labour’s problem is its 2020 tax policy. That promised no new taxes or increases to income tax this parliamentary term, except for the new 39 per cent top rate on incomes over $180,000 that is already in place.

Labour went further, not just ruling out any further tax rises but also promising no income tax changes at all. Voters may not be so prone to punish a government for breaking a promise not to cut taxes but, in a close election in which Labour will accuse Luxon of a secret agenda, any deviation from its solemn 2020 tax policy is a risk.

This argues for an election ahead of the May Budget. Now mostly finalised but unannounced, the Budget work provides Labour with a ready-made manifesto, all carefully checked by the Treasury and clearly ready to be implemented — in contrast to National which offers nothing.

If called today, an election could be held on March 25, but that would be gauche in the midst of the flooding. No government would hold an election on April Fools’ Day, and the next weekend is Easter, which means Saturday, April 15 is the first available date, still a clear month before the Budget.

With voting starting the week beginning April 3, Labour would worry about the Reserve Bank’s official cash rate rise on April 5. But much better to cop that than wait for another increase on May 24, followed by four and a half months of higher mortgage rates through to an October 14 election.

An alternative is holding out for two more weeks, until April 29, with voting starting around April 17. That involves betting that the food and rent indexes on April 17 show some improvement, and that March-quarter inflation is better than expected when reported on April 20.

Labour could also benefit from planned increases to the defence budget, expected to be announced around Anzac Day on April 25.

But sooner is safer than later, tipping the balance to April 15. That gives a month for any coalition negotiations and consequent modifications before the May 18 Budget would be used to launch the new government.

This requires Hipkins being prepared to risk being a mere footnote, having been Prime Minister for just three months. But nine months isn’t much better. If he takes the risk, it’s odds-on Labour would win a third term, and Hipkins at least three years in the top job.

Labour has demonstrated enormous courage so far this year, and earned the polling returns.

Does it have the nerve to take the next logical step, and boldly put a ring around April 15?

- Matthew Hooton is an Auckland-based political and public affairs strategist. His clients have included the National and Act parties, and the Mayor of Auckland.

Hooton is basically full of shit. Scurrilous little man.