Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: In the nicest possible way

248 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Paul Williams:

    Were you going for a note-perfect impersonation of Ian Wishart, or was that just a pleasant side effect?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Does everybody suspect that Worth was sacked for being an adulterer? I didn't.

    My impression, and I didn't follow it too closely, was that Key said he was sacked because he was asked about X, denied it, and then subsequently admitted X was true and that he had lied.

    And that Key had fired him because his Minister had lied to him, and that's not something you want your minister to do. At which point the exact nature of X becomes of less importance (though probably not completely irrelevant).

    It's the Bill Clinton Lewinsky thing. There's doing it, and then there's lying about it to someone that possibly you shouldn't lie about it to (in his case a court).

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Does everybody suspect that Worth was sacked for being an adulterer? I didn't.

    I didn't but I do think getting jiggy on it was rather bad timing for Worth.There has been a constant badgering in the House since his return from India, which could be a big can o' worms but I am not speculating with the Big G in this house.;)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Craig, the PMs sacked a Minister, said he'd not be welcome in Caucus in fact; these are significant actions warranting explanation. In addition, several women have alleged harrassment by the same Minister and these allegations have been investigated by the Police. Prima facie and absent some other explanation about why the PM acted in the way he did, Worth's political career seems to have been ended because of these very "swirling allegations".

    None of this information is conjecture as far as I understand it (though I could be wrong), are you saying linking the two elements of the story requires a major leap of faith? Really?

    Of course all of this could be resolved with a simple explanation from Key.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    but I am not speculating with the Big G in this house.;)

    Knock your speculating self out, that's exactly what I was doing. So long as neither of us is claiming to have a double super secret background source we have to meet in a parking lot and who years later turns out to be Hal Holbrook.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Serious allegations of sexual misconduct have got nothing whatsoever to do with being "an adulterer". Can we agree on this?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Serious allegations of sexual misconduct have got nothing whatsoever to do with being "an adulterer". Can we agree on this?

    Absolutely. If I created the impression I equated the two, I apologise. Allegations of sexual misconduct are potentially criminal matters.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Thank you. So do you think that he was actually sacked for being an adulterer, or for the potentially criminal matters?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    I'd thought he was sacked/asked to resigned because of both (a) the allegations of sexual misconduct and, as Kyle's reminded me, (b) not being forthcoming about them when the PMs office initial investigated.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    So not at all in fact for what Eddie is claiming. Just so we're clear on that.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    So not at all in fact for what Eddie is claiming. Just so we're clear on that.

    ... I see what you mean, yes...

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Worth was Minister for internal affairs, questioned on his motives capacity and expenses on his trip to India.It was suggested his interests in India had been clouded with an abuse of his ministerial powers when the trip was supposed to be for a private matter and if that was so, it would be corruption if those he had met over there, suddenly got contracts from the government (and that was hinted at). Then in the House Worth was invited to reveal anything else he may wish to with insinuation that there was indeed more, then his private business goes under investigation by the SFO or police(Sorry cant remember which) but he insists to Key, nothing to worry about, then the rest is where we are at but still noone has been given anything by our PM. Frankly I would like to know,and not so I can gossip.As Lockwood would say, the integrity of the House is important

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Sofie, I think the fact that we're debating what led to his demise, allegations of sexual misconduct or improper commercial behaviour, is the most significant element of the situation.

    Key's simply not addressed the public right to know what's led to a Minister being removed.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    None of this information is conjecture as far as I understand it (though I could be wrong), are you saying linking the two elements of the story requires a major leap of faith? Really?

    Of course all of this could be resolved with a simple explanation from Key.

    Paul: If you're linking them with my severely stretched credulity that Eddie's basing his claims on anything more than GOSSIP then yes -- really. But, hey, what goes around comes around.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    None of this information is conjecture as far as I understand it (though I could be wrong), are you saying linking the two elements of the story requires a major leap of faith? Really?

    Of course all of this could be resolved with a simple explanation from Key.

    Paul: If you're linking them with my severely stretched credulity that Eddie's basing his claims on anything more than GOSSIP then yes -- really. But, hey, what goes around comes around.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Key's simply not addressed the public right to know what's led to a Minister being removed.

    To paraphrase Margaret Wilson, just because he hasn't given you the answer you wanted, that doesn't mean the question hasn't been addressed.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    just because he hasn't given you the answer you wanted, that doesn't mean the question hasn't been addressed.

    How has it been addressed?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Paul: If you're linking them with my severely stretched credulity that Eddie's basing his claims on anything more than GOSSIP then yes -- really. But, hey, what goes around comes around.

    Leaving to one side my conflation of "adultery" with "sexual misconduct", I did think Worth's sacking was to do with the allegations of criminal acts, not the questions about his business dealings (which I understood were matters to do with the Cabinet Office Manual).

    Either way, and I know this repetition will annoy you, Key's refusal to say why Worth no longer has his confidence is what is fueling this. Regardless of what you believe Eddie's insights are, the absence of a clear reason for the sacking/resignation will only serve to encourage speculation.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    I think it's the combination of all of them. Y'know hot potato.I think the old school Nats are becoming fewer by significance.I think Dr Worth goes against the grain, or at least against the reign.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Also Eddie has probably said one part of the truth, which would make this right. If it's a combination of things, then many differing reasons could be correct so this then shows up why it is helpful to know from the horses mouth or it's tail.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    I think Dr Worth goes against the grain, or at least against the reign.

    Just so I'm clear about what I mean and don't. I don't think personal issues, marriages and kids etc, ought to be factors in assessing a Minister's competence. I think/hope I've been consistent on this score but if not, I'm prepared to be chastised. Criminal acts, be they of a sexual nature or otherwise, clearly are however. I did think it was the allegations of potentially criminal sexual offending that led to Worth resigning. And, I did think Key handled it badly to the extent that he didn't say why he was so ardently opposed to Worth having a future in National.

    This is why I compared Key's (in)action with Clark's re Samuels. Once it became clear Samuel's could face a rape charge, he was stood down. When the matter was clearer up Samuels was restored, eventually. Compare the release Craig linked to with Key's equivocation; I think Key's fallen well short of what the public and his Ministry could reasonably to expect of him in the situation.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I don't think the reason is "adultery" either - doesn't seem to fit what we have seen of Key's persona.

    He is however making it harder to believe that Worth was ousted for some disrespect of due process, when his leader is not respecting conventions about accountability to the public for performance of Ministers of the Crown.

    I wonder if it's a simple as Worth not deferring enough to Key's expectations about being the boss? Bit of lip, that kind of thing.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    I wonder if it's a simple as Worth ....

    I always spout my distrust but it is because it's National and I don't expect any better.It is the form of that Party.They do have the ability to make me feel treated like we are not important to their operation.I do think it's as simple as, a lot more often than people give credit for.Heh, It aint academia, it's our politicians. When Hide showed cajones with his campaign Worth became meaningless.Some people only want to deal with the high stakes and I thinker that's a bankers game.JMO

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.