Hard News: Need to Know
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Tom, I agree that there's intensely motivated interest by media and elites. I'd have thought that any politician playing the crusading holier-than-thou angles Winnie has specialised in would want to be squeaky clean for exactly that reason.
Instead he has been sloppy and arrogant, and his hypocrisy is charmlessly revealed. It's that which I believe is driving the coverage you noticed on your return. He's pissed so many people off that I don't see the need for a conspiracy to explain what's going on.
-
Paul I'll never read the phrase Large Hadron the same way again, thanks to Craig.
-
Speaking of the LHC - here is a technical site that is monitoring the powerup of the LHC and will indicate problems as they develop
-
Paul Henry pulled out a nice little news segway this morning suggesting Winston's last hope was that his "perfectly documented evidence" gets stucked into a black hole of LHC's making. Might be a douche but can be pretty funny at times...
I reckon Labour's best play on this now will be to turf Peters, give it a week or two to calm down, then use the whole affair to support the "urgent need for changes to electoral financing that we had to make" - highlighting Nationals trust use as part of it. -
Paul I'll never read the phrase Large Hadron the same way again, thanks to Craig.
For a modest fee, I'll lower the tone of absolutely anything -- Weddings. Funerals. Select Committee Hearings. :)
-
You'll LOWER the tone of a select committee hearing? Jeez you must be talented! :>
-
For a modest fee, I'll lower the tone of absolutely anything -- Weddings. Funerals. Select Committee Hearings. :)
I have a secret plan to get PA blocked in Australia. Craig doesn't know he's a Cylon yet.
for the sake of Winston Bloody Peters.
Those claiming to be 'over' all this may prefer to discuss the imminent return of Hayden Bloody Peters.
-
I reckon Labour's best play on this now will be to turf Peters, give it a week or two to calm down, then use the whole affair to support the "urgent need for changes to electoral financing that we had to make" - highlighting Nationals trust use as part of it.
Well, that already seems to be the damage limitation strategy. But (taking my partisan hat off for a moment) I'd advise that's a game you've still got a serious handicap on. Helen Clark's made it pretty clear that she wants to see state funding of political parties and I don't think this is the Trojan Horse to sneak that in.
As for "trust use", I don't think Labour has an excessive amount of credibility to draw on on that score either.
-
I'm not sure that they are going to come out of this with credibility which ever way they go! But that seems to be the most natural course...
-
I don't quite see why Glenn would want a Maori/Labour coalition. Since they had the support from NZ First (and National had zero chance of putting anything together), all it would do is make a Labour/Green/Maori government possible, which I doubt Glenn would be keen on?
Unless he likes giving money to random politicians to gain influence.
-
-
Sacha, I don't think Peter's has ever been a holier than thou crusader. he has been a populist, the last inheritor of Rob's mob, and the elites - like all political elites from Bangkok to Bainimarama - fear and loath the populist disturbing their cosy exercise of power.
I am not saying Peter's isn't lazy and sloppy, but I don't think he is a false populist like, say, Brash. It just seems to me his biggest crime is be a bit lazy, rather sybaritic wise guy who has gotten away with it - something which irritates the hell out of our self-important, puffed up conservative middle class.
-
I admit to just wanting to switch off the whole business.
But I am aware of way people constantly make assumptions like "she must have known", 'if you knew x you would do y", "You would remember that wouldn't you" or "you'd definitely ask more questions about that, wouldn't you". Or "it's obvious when you think about it"
The assumptions are made about management and leadership of any kind, and politicians in particular.
"You" would, do that "when you think about it" but the workload and volume of other distractions is amazing, particularly for politicians let alone someone of ministerial rank. They will be talking to dozen of people every day about issues great and small.
I bet Winston forgot, or mis-remembered.
Helen Clark's conversation about Owen Glenn (whatever it was - and I haven't been paying attention) would be likely to have been one of a dozen issues which passed her desk that day, one of hundreds in a week including security briefings, random constitutent issues and a whole lot of others.
To the ordinary person, who never deals in such things, it seems huge. To someone for whom important stuff happens a dozen times a day, six-seven days a week, it's one more detail.
She simply wouldn't get time to take half an hour and think "hmm, what do I do, or say here or to play the "what if" game, she'd have been 3 or 4 issues down the track by then.
I sometimes like to think of it as a map. For very busy people, overachievers, can often lose slip of details. Their maps are like a GIS with 7 layers, all visible at once, with a resulting mess.
I guess my point is that commenters look at these actions in isolation - one layer of the map - as if they were the only things happening at the time, or even the most important thing at the time.
Draw a map of Queen Street and you draw 1 line, marking with an X a particular feature - a piece of art or street furniture. It look easy to find, impossible to miss. Walking down Queen street, with dozens of people, noise, jostling, weather and advertising means details, even big ones, can get lost in the crowd.
That's an imperfect analogy, but my point is that taking things in isolation and then second guessing makes it easier to judge others out of context.
-
I don't quite see why Glenn would want a Maori/Labour coalition. Since they had the support from NZ First (and National had zero chance of putting anything together), all it would do is make a Labour/Green/Maori government possible, which I doubt Glenn would be keen on?
Well, Rich, let's get the caveats out of the way first. I can't speak for Glenn. I certainly want to be very, very careful about imputing any kind of corrupt or criminal behaviour to him.
But would I prefer a National-Maori Party coalition (even on the level of some kind of Green-like arrangement to abstain on C&S votes) to anything involving New Zealand First?
You bet your arse.
Not because I agree with the Maori Party kaupapa all along the line. Or even that it's my ideal option.
But I certainly trust Turia and Sharples a damn sight more than the Noddy and Big Ears combo leading New Zealand First. And if National hasn't learned from the last marriage of inconvenience with Peters, it doesn't deserve to occupy the Treasury benches.
-
Rik,
I'm interested to know what it would take to shake the unbending faith that the author and a large number of the readers of this blog have in Helen Clark?
As reported in the Herald today, "Mr Glenn said by February this year the Prime Minister was fully aware of his donation to Winston Peters."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10531418
Is it really OK for Helen to sit back a stay quiet while she watches Winston Peters lying to the NZ public?
Is she really as principled as she is (all too) regularly made out to be in this blog? I don't think so. Self serving springs to mind.
There may be plenty wrong with National but there is just as much wrong with Labour.
-
I bet Winston forgot, or mis-remembered.
Yeah, maybe he has so many billionaires cutting him $100,000 dollar checks this one just slipped his mind.
-
Rik,
I bet Winston forgot, or mis-remembered.
Rachel
What you suggest may have been possible but do you really think it was wise for him to use the grand-standing "NO" placard that he held up?
Perhaps if you plan to do something as definitive and un-retractable as that you think he might have checked to get his facts straight first?
I don't believe for a moment that he didn't know or couldn't remember - he just thought he could bluster his way through it (and remember he had ample opportunity to explain) and it would all go away. But it hasn't and now it will be interesting to see how honorably he handles being (finally) caught out. -
Is it really OK for Helen to sit back a stay quiet while she watches Winston Peters lying to the NZ public?
She knew about the donation, but she didn't necessarily know whether Winston Peters knew it about it did she?
-
Does anyone know what it would cost to build a LHC (and subsequent black hole) under the Beehive?
-
Sacha, I don't think Peter's has ever been a holier than thou crusader. he has been a populist, the last inheritor of Rob's mob, and the elites - like all political elites from Bangkok to Bainimarama - fear and loath the populist disturbing their cosy exercise of power.
Oh please, Tom... The weather is really lovely on your planet, but shall we return to this one?
-
I'm interested to know what it would take to shake the unbending faith that the author and a large number of the readers of this blog have in Helen Clark?
As reported in the Herald today, "Mr Glenn said by February this year the Prime Minister was fully aware of his donation to Winston Peters."Well, Rik, perhaps because (a) Winston Peters steadfastly and unflinchingly denied the donation existed; (b) there was no hard evidence either way; (c) accusing the leader of another party who is also one of your Minister of being a big fat liar in the absence of (b) is unacceptable; and (d) the point that Rachel P. makes above.
-
Their maps are like a GIS with 7 layers, all visible at once, with a resulting mess.
Ha, excellent - never thought I'd see GIS concepts as political analogy.
-
Rik,
She knew about the donation, but she didn't necessarily know whether Winston Peters knew it about it did she?
So if she knew about it and watched Winston publicly declaring that it did not exist (ie. she knew he was lying) and then does nothing about it - what does that say about her ethics?
Good grief, what would it take - a taped phone conversation of Helen discussing this donation with Winston early this year and you would still give her the benefit of the doubt!
Does anyone know what it would cost to build a LHC (and subsequent black hole) under the Beehive?
Several billion apparently - could be worth it though?!
-
Paul I'll never read the phrase Large Hadron the same way again, thanks to Craig.
It is a big erection but...
I have a secret plan to get PA blocked in Australia. Craig doesn't know he's a Cylon yet.
Emma, don't you dare!
I'm interested to know what it would take to shake the unbending faith that the author and a large number of the readers of this blog have in Helen Clark?
Rik, I've not got blind-faith in any leader, including Clark. However, this issue is principally about Peters not Clark and let's not forget the deals Brash/English and Key did with the Exclusive Brethren or the deals Bolger did with Peters, the one's Shipley had with anyone and everyone... National are hardly clean-skins.
But in answer to your question, where it not based on a false-premise, shaking my faith in a Labour-led government would first require the Opposition to publish a coherent and meaningful set of alternative policies... what do you look for?
-
Rik, I don't have anything like unbending faith in Helen Clark - but it seems you're part of the bunch that have unbending faith in anything that may possibly smear her?
I just don't think her involvement in this was of great significance
Post your response…
This topic is closed.