Cracker: Strike Nine (and counting)
249 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Lucy, here's a link to that study showing that it's really hard to tell someone else is drunk.
Ah, cheers - should have Googled but I was too rushed/lazy.
-
David Farrar's observed that Garrett's resignation from ACT can really only result in him leaving parliament entirely since he is a list MP. I can't help but wonder if he's thinking he might hang on though since clearly he's a man who lacks judgment. Key surely won't want to have a separate arrangement with him.
-
I still don't know why Worth resigned earlier this year.
Worth resigned last year for making very inappropriate sexual comments and texts to a woman that is not his wife.
-
And Kyle, if you are going to do rankings like that, you have to normalize for the number of MPs each party has available to make fuck-ups. If Garrett were the only idiot in ACT, that's still make 20% of ACT MPs idiots...
I'm entertained by "normalize" and ACT being in the same paragraph.
If we could normalize ACT, that would be great, but I'm not holding high hopes.
-
Worth resigned last year for making very inappropriate sexual comments and texts to a woman that is not his wife.
I'm sorry, we have an adultery test for our politicians now? I seem to remember it wasn't quite that simple.
-
I'm sorry, we have an adultery test for our politicians now? I seem to remember it wasn't quite that simple.
There's no test. That's why he resigned.
There's also no test for Garrett. There aren't that many things that would get you kicked out of parliament, most people leaving resign.
-
Hide speaks:
Act leader Rodney Hide has said he could no longer support David Garrrett following yesterday's revelations about information he gave to a court in 2005. ...
Hide said he called Garrett last night and said he was withdrawing his backing.
"I rang him from Hong Kong to say as leader I could not support him," he said in Wellington this afternoon.
(TVNZ)
Breathtaking. Just breathtakng.
Officer recruits soldier. Declares soldier to be his brother-in-arms. Instructs soldier to fight dirty. Says "Don't worry about Geneva Convention, nobody will know". Sends soldier into battle. Soldier hit. Officer finishes him off, from behind.
-
Lets see now...
You're new at this politics thing, so before going for office, you run your dirty secrets past your party leader, who says thats ok, well just keep it quiet...
But then you get publicly found out, and your party leader dumps you because he couldnt possibly support you for things he's known about all along?
Rodney's doing a good job of making Garrett look to be not the lowest or most reprehensible person in ACT...
-
Hide did identify the lying to the court bit in the statement. He presumably didn't know about that when Garrett fessed up before the election.
-
That seems...... convenient :)
-
Come on, Kyle, that's the flimsiest of pretexts. Hide knows it, you must too. The talkback lines aren't running hot because of that "new" information/allegation, the public haven't even processed that yet.
It's all about the dead child. Garrett's not a complete fool, he knew it would look terrible if it came out. But Hide reassured him, with a forked tongue.
-
Come on, Kyle, that's the flimsiest of pretexts. Hide knows it, you must too.
I dunno. If you were the leader of a party and took someone on high on the list and they told you that they'd had a discharge and name suppression, and you agreed to take them on...
You'd be pissed if you found out that he'd lied to the courts to get that discharge and name suppression, and to you.
I'm dubious that Garrett told Hide that he'd lied to the court, because Act party list selection wouldn't be made by just Hide, and Act is falling apart at the seams. If Hide knew that he'd lied to the courts, then he's not the only one, and that's going to come out along with any other dirty laundry.
The simple answer is that Garrett didn't front up with the information "oh, and by the way, I lied to the court".
-
Key surely won't want to have a separate arrangement with him.
Garrett will almost certainly support on confidence and supply until he's no longer an MP. Having one less MP does weaken the hand of ACT in negotiating policy, however, and I can't see Garrett getting much as a maverick outsider.
Our constitutional arrangements are starting to mature and prove robust, giving lie to wild claims about instability. Even if they keep in power people we don't always like.
-
Kyle, as I said (and you ignored), the news is *all* about the dead child's ID. That's why Garrett has been dumped. Public opinion. The rest is a fig leaf.
But if Hide believes Garrett committed perjury, then he has a duty to do a bit more than dab his eyes with a handkerchief at the loss of a colleague. Will he?
Anyway, the dumping machine is now at full speed. Now Hide says thanks for the money and the votes and the three strikes, but actually he shouldn't have got them. Garrett was a mistake, it turns out.
So, just to recap:
August - Hide needs Garrett's vote to ditch Roy, install Boscawen.
September - Hide ditches Garrett. Nice.
-
Who started this respectable meme? Anyone? or did we just stumble into it, like most of the stupidity that doesn't make sense anymore.
Yeah that was me sorry. I disagree with what I/S says, in that I think we should respect most people, and MPs should be no different. Of course as soon as they show themselves up to be corrupt, idiotic, odious, hypocritical (or some combination thereof), then that respect disappears. Having respect for someone is not the same as saying they're better than me.
I think a lot of people start with a position of disrespect towards MPs, and I don't think that's healthy. Skepticism perhaps.
But then you get publicly found out, and your party leader dumps you because he couldnt possibly support you for things he's known about all along?
I thought much the same thing regarding Goff and Carter to be honest. Goff was supportive initially then changed when the public mood did, even though his essential 'crime' (the overseas travel) was long since revealed. Key/McCully did much the same with Andy Haden. And yes, I know there are differences in all those examples, but my point is that anything goes until the public mood swings far enough.
(What was that I said about respect before? Scratch that...)
-
Garrett will almost certainly support on confidence and supply until he's no longer an MP. Having one less MP does weaken the hand of ACT in negotiating policy, however, and I can't see Garrett getting much as a maverick outsider.
Our constitutional arrangements are starting to mature and prove robust, giving lie to wild claims about instability. Even if they keep in power people we don't always like.
All good points and I wasn't clear. I mean John Key wouldn't want to have a deal with him; he's toxic. If he doesn't need too, which I take it from this, he doesn't, he will still surely want him relocated.
Officer recruits soldier. Declares soldier to be his brother-in-arms. Instructs soldier to fight dirty. Says "Don't worry about Geneva Convention, nobody will know". Sends soldier into battle. Soldier hit. Officer finishes him off, from behind.
Wonderful metaphor.
-
Having respect for someone is not the same as saying they're better than me.
I think a lot of people start with a position of disrespect towards MPs, and I don't think that's healthy. Skepticism perhaps.
Quite agree, and I/S shits me sometimes with that stuff.
Distrusting or demeaning someone solely on the basis that they have presented themselves for consideration as a democratic representative doesn't make sense to me.
-
Either Hide is telling porkies or he's just an incompetent idiot.
If I were a party leader and one of my potential recruits told me he'd been involved in a court case involving identity theft, I would want to see every shred of evidence involved with the case, in order to satisfy myself that the person was suitable.
So either Hide did this and knew about the allegedly-false affidavit, or he didn't bother to enquire. If he didn't bother then he's a fool.
Most likely he was looking for an excuse to knife Garrett in the back, and the latest story gave him the opportunity.
Talking of which, I hear ACT has just announced its new policy to tackle knife-crime: install metal detectors in all ACT Party meeting rooms.
-
I'm sorry, we have an adultery test for our politicians now? I seem to remember it wasn't quite that simple.
It was that simple. Worth didn't commit adultery. As I said, it was to do with sexually inappropriate comments , he obfuscated over it, was found out and Key obliged him to resign.
-
Either Hide is telling porkies or he's just an incompetent idiot.
It doesnt have to be an either/or situation... both could be true. :)
-
@Whoops - I hope you don't mind if I take you up on that offer. Watch Q+A on Sunday morning for the hat-tip :)
-
It was that simple.
Actually Grant we don't know that at all - because Key refused to tell the public why one of his Ministers resigned.
-
Either Hide is telling porkies or he's just an incompetent idiot.
Going by his position on climate change I'm pretty sure it's both. But
I don't think there is anything remotely surprising about Hide's position. I'm sure that in private Hide still doesn't see Garrett's offenses as a big deal. But it's pretty clear that the Garrett is politically radioactive now and Hide can't keep him around.Between this and the Roy situation there must be quite a few in the ACT party wondering if they can afford to keep Hide around now.
-
Friday brain teaser:
If Rodney Hide is a hypocrite for his abuse of travel perks, and David Garrett is a hypocrite for his criminal past, is it hypocritical of Hide not to support Garrett as a result of his hypocrisy? Or just ironic.
-
It was that simple.
Actually Grant we don't know that at all - because Key refused to tell the public why one of his Ministers resigned.
True, but it was generally implied (in the media, etc) that Worth's comments were of an inappropriate sexual nature and there's been little dispute about that being the case.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.