Hard News: Why we thought what we thought
287 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
legislation to make finance company directors retrospectively accountable
There already is. The problem seems to be getting sufficient evidence to prosecute them.
-
Despite desperate spinning by Boag and other apologists that Dirty Politics is just a fantasy, the core implication of the SFO email is pretty straightforward for Collins.
Collins was Minister of Justice. As part of her role, she was the Minister in charge of the SFO. And in that role, she had a conversation with a blogger who informed her that he was about to undertake a campaign to torpedo the head of the SFO. Rather than telling the blogger that such a course of action is entirely inappropriate, she instead gives him a green light to go for it. After all, when you tell someone that you’ll pass their material on to the State Services Commissioner, and you don’t tell them to then pull their head in, that’s a green light.
So if Slater wasn’t lying in his email, that’s the best case for Collins, and that, to my mind, is resignation material on its own. And if the true situation is less than best case? Well, Collins won’t ever be returning as a Minister.
-
Hear Boag spinning like a top and Hooten having a real go at her on Radio Live (embedded audio clip).
-
There are any number of stories in the past five years that we might now peel back and inspect in this light, and ask why we thought we what thought about those stories.
I hope something comes to light about the setting up of MP Darren Hughes. It was very fishy at the time - including an unnamed person reporting a naked man running through Hataitai in the early hours of the morning. The effect was the forced resignation of one of the most popular Labour MPs and the freeing up of a provincial seat.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
We need a formal government Inquiry to unravel this horrifying mess, and punish those responsible.
Of course only a government that didn’t need such an inquiry would be prepared to hold one.
Fortunately, we can elect a different one.
And Judith Collins has actually said she wants an Inquiry. To clear her name.
-
Sacha, in reply to
She wants a narrow, tame inquiry like the one McCully set up into the Malaysian diplomat. The PM will oblige her tomorrow.
-
Ethan Tucker, in reply to
At the time of his resignation in 2011 Darren Hughes was a list MP.
-
Caleb D'Anvers, in reply to
If there is one thing that comes out of this that is positive I am hoping that no journalist will take anything that Cameron Slater says at face value.
Well, you'd hope so. But, if we're talking about the integrity and intellectual firepower of the NZ mass media, tidbits like this one (RTd on Twitter last night by RB) don't inspire much confidence:
@PamelaStirling: .@johnkeypm looks better than he has all campaign. He's back.
As someone else put it on Twitter, "@citizen_parable: Wow. Colours. Mast. Nailed. Thanks for the clarification." There's a story to be told about the Listener's infiltration by the Right under Stirling, just as there is one to be told about the similar ideological compromise of RNZ under certain producers. I hope one day we get to hear those stories.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
She wants a narrow, tame inquiry like the one McCully set up into the Malaysian diplomat. The PM will oblige her tomorrow.
Which will raise more questions than it can answer.
-
edje,
Seems fairly straightforward.
John Key knows, and is complicit; or knows nothing, and is a sap. -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
If there is one thing that comes out of this that is positive I am hoping that no journalist will take anything that Cameron Slater says at face value.
I'd like to think no journalist takes anyone at face value -- not because they glibly assume everyone lies, but because it's quite reasonable to assume nobody ever talks to the media without some object in view.
-
A C Young, in reply to
I’d like to think no journalist takes anyone at face value – not because they glibly assume everyone lies, but because it’s quite reasonable to assume nobody ever talks to the media without some object in view.
I would argue that there is a difference between taking into account someone's stated ideological views and knowing that someone may be getting paid by an unknown party to push a viewpoint.
I mean seriously, at this point nobody should be able to accept any piece from Slater without asking who is paying him.
-
It seems very likely that JK approved of Ede's little plots with Slater, and understood that he was the good cop to Slater's bad cop. I am therefore astounded that Key released the email that finally undid JC. Maybe the rumblings of her impatient Prime Ministerial ambitions influenced this?
-
Sue,
I'm just wondering when RadioNZ starts to consider who it pays for opinions on shows like the panel and nine to noon.
-
What happens next will be a test of our democracy.
-
Key took action against Collins so he could say this sort of tosh:
Prime Minister John Key has tried to distance himself from claims Mark Hotchin was paying bloggers to undermine the Serious Fraud Office, saying he does not know about the arrangement and it is not a matter for the National Party.
...
Mr Key said it was nothing to do with the Government beyond Ms Collin's possible involvement which would be subject to an inquiry. She was the minister in charge of the SFO at the time.Mr Key said Labour leader David Cunliffe's statements that it amounted to potential corruption were "trying to create a political smear for his own benefit".
The PM even gets to utter the word "Accountability" and have the Herald obediently use it as their headline.
-
However, more OIA shennanigans emerge:
Judith Collins' office processed an Official Information Act request in just two days to release an email embarrassing then Serious Fraud Office head Adam Feeley in 2011.
-
Also from the Herald
Mr Key initially said he had been summoned by Inspector-General Cheryl Gwyn but his office later said several of his staff had been asked to appear, but not Mr Key himself.
So his office but not him, but when he talks about himself does he mean himself himself or the PM's Office himself? Confused? You will be ...
-
simon g, in reply to
What happens next will be a test of our democracy.
I'd amend that to: "What happens eventually will be a test of our democracy".
There are two very different timetables: the political, and the judicial (including quasi-judicial inquiries). Sadly, horse-race journalism is so entrenched that it's almost obligatory for our media to pretend that the story ends on September 20. It won't.
Pollsters asking voters every five minutes "Well, have you changed your mind yet? Well, have you?" doesn't help. Human nature doesn't work like that.
It's entirely possible (even probable) that Key will be PM after election day, and assorted commentators will declare 'He got away with it" or "He's been vindicated", depending on their leanings.
To repeat an earlier post: Nixon's vote, over 60%. After Watergate. But before the consequences.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Um "Gord" - may have been a bit hasty - mucosal damage produced by the abnormal reflux of gastric contents into the oesophagus - sounds about right.
-
Listening to Hooton on Morning Report,
the man is delusional... -
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Yes but he was well placed to regain that seat later that year, and was probably the only Labour candidate who could. He had also been involved in advocacy for tightening up drink driving rules. Enough to raise suspicions now about the sources for that whole story. No witnesses were ever named.
-
Hebe,
Sir Geoffrey Palmer says on NatRad that a Royal Commission is justified and that Key should consult Cunliffe as it is within the 90-day caretaker period. Cabinet Manual para 6.9.
He also says looking at the scope of the caretaker government conventions and rules is warranted. In Australia such a unilateral inquiry could not happen during the election period.
Hooton said similar earlier.
BTW, Key appeared to slip up on Morning Report and detail some of his dispute with the Dirty Politics book. But he hasn't read it, has he? (That core contempt for political difference being permissible has astounded me, especially that he has been allowed by journalists to continue that line.)
-
Sacha, in reply to
He made the same slip on Saturday. Guess he'd just claim his office has read it.
-
simon g, in reply to
Key appeared to slip up on Morning Report and detail some of his dispute with the Dirty Politics book. But he hasn't read it, has he?
Yes, he's said in several interviews: "If you go and have a look at the book ...". Still waiting for an interviewer to pick him up on it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.