Hard News: The Spiral of Events
198 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
What a political mess. Miss Clark has lost all credibility over here. What on earth is happening over the ditch?
Really? How'd you measure that? I don't imagine many Australians give NZ politics too much attention frankly. Certainly I've heard lots of people comment favourably about Clark, particularly during Howard's later terms as PM.
Some NZers will always see some advantage to living in Australia, and for the moment I'm one of them, but I can't think of why any would think Australian politicians, State or Federal, were any better than NZ's - there's almost no evidence they are and shit-loads that says they're not. Where you living Peter, South Australia?
-
<quote><waves> Hey, you guys? You might make a few of us with vaginas who don't appreciate slut-shaming metaphors a little uncomfortable with that one.<quote>
thank you danielle, you did that so nicely. i just couldn't think of anything that polite!
-
Where you living Peter, South Australia?
Steady on, Paul!
But it's a good question to ask, all the same. Just where are you living, Peter? My feeling is that Helen Clark gets a fair amount of respect here, when they bother to notice NZ at all.
-
Hey, you guys? You might make a few of us with vaginas who don't appreciate slut-shaming metaphors a little uncomfortable with that one
Well excuse me for being offended. The mention of jenny Shipley was bad enough but to have her genitalia thrust into my mind whilst eating was a step too far, Muldoon would have been far worse.
-
Winston. I don't like the man. I truly wish they had dipped out at the last election.
But I just listened to his interview he gave this morning on national radio; and it changed my mind on how I think this is going to work out.
I thought it was a last ditch attempt to put his full version out before he had to step down, and so set the scene for his resurrection after he is cleared by the SFO and the Privileges committee.
His biggest problem today was his habitual paranoia. He sounded like someone so convinced of the truth of their case that they stumble their words and it comes out sounding even worse. Perhaps the tongue so unaccustomed...
My prediction:
-He will be cleared quickly by the SFO on the Vela/Bob Jones donations to NZ First.
-The evidence in relation to Owen Glenn donation will be inconclusive. The request for funds was by phone and Owen could be mistaken about who he talked to. Peters is adamant. Brian Henry is adamant. He *should* have a comprehensive note of the discussion which he could use to jog OGs memory.
-Winston attends the Karaka sales every year. He agrees they met there, but says this year not last, and says he never thanked him for a donation, because he didn't know about it. Perhaps Winston did say "thankyou for your donation" but in relation to the Auckland University business school, and OG misintepreted this? Maybe again Winston's team can throw doubt on OGs memory of the conversation. A good lawyer cross examining OG in front of the committee may make serious headway if they have some good starting material.
-The stakes are high. Winston has a story and he is sticking to it like glue. Where you can extract the factual threads from the cloak of bombasm, his story has been consistent. Deep down I think he is most likely telling the truth. It is still an ugly truth (his lawyer soliciting donations to clear bills that have not been rendered) and the OG payment may be found to amount to a personal donation to Winston. But he will be found to not have deliberately misled parliament - either through his statements or his declaration of interests.
-He will be seen as a victim by enough people for his support to return.
How that works out for the rest (John Key who rushed to judgement but hedged, Helen Clark who was not prepared to sack him without all the facts - although it must have been galling to have to put up with this, Rodney Hide who has attacked vigorously and probably has nothing to lose), who knows.
Although I hazard that the potential for this outcome is exactly why Clark hasn't rushed to judgment.
-
How about this - fantasy?
You've got a crusader persona, cultivated over more than a decade. It's looking thin after a few years in government.
You've got a few allegations against you. You have the evidence to knock them over.
Your time in government is almost up. You need to resurrect your crusader character.
You let a good storm brew up.
But you do tell bits of your defense, not enough to kill the storm, just enough to keep the most faithful core and establish a background for later. And you submerge the facts, focusing instead on positioning yourself.
You wait for a few of your adversaries to establish vulnerable positions.
And then, at the climax, You present the fundamentals of your case and play the contrite.
You then reveal your full hand. The storm evaporates. The crusader is reborn.
Your adversary?
-
Steady on, Paul!
Deborah, I meant only that Mike Rann, the SA Premier, is a kiwi of sorts... honest!
-
My, there's some fanciful chatter going on here. So let me join in ...
Another claim by Hide -- that TVNZ had deliberately destroyed evidence supporting that allegation -- has been shown to be entirely fanciful.
Is it possible that Hide knew he had to make this claim in order to get TV3 to air it? And once they aired it then TVNZ would air it too?
A good result for Hide, I'd say. I doubt people (other that Winstone) will dismiss his argument just because it turns out TVNZ didn't destroy the interview footage ...
And besides, Hide may have believed what he said. It's possible whoever gave him the purloined DVD told him the footage had been destroyed ("but I made a copy!") in order to pique Hide's interest.
-
WH,
Trotter said:
It has been made uglier, however, by the way in which this particular dog-fight is being stage-managed. Taking advantage of your opponent’s gaffes, and seizing your chance to drive a wedge into fragile intra-party alliances, is one thing. A carefully orchestrated campaign of character assassination - the political equivalent of a gang-rape - in which members of the news media have become as deeply implicated in the planning, timing and execution of each assault as the polticians themselves, is something else altogether.
And:
I was sitting in the departure lounge at Auckland International Airport, waiting to board Air NZ’s inaugural flight to Beijing, and I was chatting away with one of New Zealand’s leading journalists. We were talking about the accusations swirling around Winston and Owen Glenn, and this journalist leans in a little closer to me and says, sotto voce, “There’s a big pot of money out there to get Peters this time - big money.”
-
Of all the portfolios Helen Clark has held over the years, Assoc Minister of Racing is surely one of the more unlikely.
As for how this will play out, I concur with Logan:
-He will be seen as a victim by enough people for his support to return.
How that works out for the rest (John Key who rushed to judgement but hedged, Helen Clark who was not prepared to sack him without all the facts - although it must have been galling to have to put up with this, Rodney Hide who has attacked vigorously and probably has nothing to lose), who knows.
Although I hazard that the potential for this outcome is exactly why Clark hasn't rushed to judgment.
-
Interesting analysis, Logan, and one that I agree with. I don't see Peters as a fool - he's demonstrated his ability as a politician, if I can put it that way, many times in the past. A clearance on the SFO investigation will take the sting out of the Glenn donation mess. Winnie then has a perfect platform to campaign on - the crusader defeats the dark forces!
-
On the RNZ news this morning:
"Mr Peters' lawyer, Peter Williams QC, says he has seen a statement from the Spencer Trust, which received the donations, which shows the money was used as intended.He says the documentation will be shown to a senior SFO executive.
Mr Williams says it should have been examined before his client was subjected to the accusations."
-
So, Winston has a cunning plot? Perhaps we should be asking whether it's more Baldrick than Machiavelli -- but yet again, I'm surprised at people who are looking for any subtext, any hint that perhaps Winston has just finally been hung by his own hubris, and perhaps the same old box of tricks just isn't working anymore. Sure looks like immigrant-bashing isn't the same pixie dust it used to be...
-
No, Craig, I don't think he has a cunning plot. I believe he has just let things run to a position where he can gain maximum advantage. Winnie loves being the underdog.
-
Meanwhile, the PA Women's XV are heartless faux feminists according to Chris Trotter:
Apparently, it is also wrong to use the act of rape as a metaphor.
But how else to describe the experience of an individual whose character has been trashed day after day, and whose reputation has been assaulted over and over again in the mainstream news media?
What exactly are these faux feminists trying to say? That no man can ever employ the metaphor of rape to describe the all-too-similar experiences he has undergone at the hands of his psychological tormentors? Or, that whenever a man uses the expression “rape”, he actually intends it to be taken as nothing more than a joke?
Or perhaps these “feminists” are trying to say that, in spite of the the fact that practically the entire Parliamentary Press Gallery joined together to hurt and humiliate one particular human being - Winston Peters - the use of the expression “the political equivalent of gang rape” is, somehow, inappropriate?
Because, if that is the case, then the women who purport to be the legitimate successors of the people who blazed the trails to sexual equality in the 1970s and 80s are, in fact, complete charlatans. People who really do believe that there is absolutely no justification for, or utility in, linking the vicious behaviour which men unleash upon one another, with the awful behaviour they unleash upon women.
Which would suggest that “The Hand Mirror” feminists are so bereft of understanding and compassion that, when it comes to the sort of behaviour that reduces human-beings to friendless victims, they cannot recognise in the situation of Winston Peters, and in the right-wing establishment’s determination to remove him from the political scene, something akin to the punishing behaviour reserved for women who step out of line in social environments where female assertiveness is regarded as an excuse for the most condign physical punishment?
You couldn't make it up... And I think I understand why Trotter is so fond of Winston Peters.
-
No, Craig, I don't think he has a cunning plot. I believe he has just let things run to a position where he can gain maximum advantage. Winnie loves being the underdog.
Well, John, I'm inclined to apply Occam's Razor here and think you're really giving him too much credit. I'd recommend to anyone finding a copy of Barbara Tuchman's __The March of Folly: From troy to Vietnam__, and Bob Woodward's __Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate__. Hubris is a more useful concept to apply here, than the standard meme where Peters and Clark are viewed as creatures of supernatural cunning.
Who knows, Peters might be able to spin himself into enough of a victim to win back five percent of the vote. I've got my doubts, because I remember when the CW was that he couldn't lose Tauranga... until he did. And that immigrant-bashing was always going to be a winner for Winston... until it wasn't.
-
You couldn't make it up... And I think I understand why Trotter is so fond of Winston Peters.
I don't. This, and McCain picking an unknown woman as VP makes me think the gates of hell of been unleashed. Someone should jump in a time machine and go back and warn Trotter that one day he will be a Peters stalwart.
On the RNZ news this morning:
"Mr Peters' lawyer, Peter Williams QC, says he has seen a statement from the Spencer Trust, which received the donations, which shows the money was used as intended.For the benefit of PAS readers who don't run businesses or multiple Family Trusts: my accounts are always done at least 12-18 months later and there's a fair bit of jiggery pokery to maket things fit. Aside from the Puritans I think everyone makes.shit.up. to get their accounts done after the fact.
(I say this only to explain why these accounts are only appearing now, not that I think Peters actually originally used the money as intended)
-
JLM,
The more I read of Chris Trotter's blog, the more I wonder if he is turning into the Christopher Hitchens of New Zealand politics.
-
Oh dear. Is it time to play feminist concern troll bingo with Chris Trotter?
-
Oh dear. Is it time to play feminist concern troll bingo with Chris Trotter?
Against my better judgement, I couldn't resist leaving a dissent:
<quote>I’ve got to thank you for this wonderful innovation in blogging — usually the trolling goes on in the comments. You do it up front. Even on often over-wrought level of your rhetoric, saying Winston Peters has been subjected to anything like REPEATED SEXUAL ASSAULT is just dumb. I’d spell it out for you, Chris, but I have the horrible suspicion you know the difference and just don’t care.
By the way, given your attacks on Idiot/Savant, nice to see the drive-by smears on the contributors to the Hand Mirror as “faux feminists” who are racist and misandrist to boot. All class - if you drop the C and the L.</quote?
Now, for the record I don't consider that "feminist concern troll bingo" but being a decent human being -- and one who isn't exactly known for always keeping his own rhetoric chilly -- who happens to have a penis.
-
For the benefit of PAS readers who don't run businesses or multiple Family Trusts: my accounts are always done at least 12-18 months later and there's a fair bit of jiggery pokery to maket things fit. Aside from the Puritans I think everyone makes.shit.up. to get their accounts done after the fact.
John: I don't run businesses or multiple family trusts, but I am a freelancer. And while regional secretary of the Wellington Young Nats, I sure as hell wasn't given 18 months to jiggery-poke the accounts into shape. If only...
-
This Winston business is a bit of a beat-up. The media are locked in their obsessive battle with him to such a degree that they have developed tunnel vision and are slavering like hounds on a hunt.
IMO he is an irritating, paranoid egotist, but lots of ordinary people, who mistrust journalists anyway, just see the issue as reporters and editors being mean to Winston, who they believe is championing the little man's cause against big business. Sure, this stuff needs investigating but could the media please stop frothing at the mouth?And Danielle,
I thought Steve's aside was funny. I, too, would not want the mental image of J Shipley spreading her legs when I was trying to eat. Just as I wouldn't like to have to comtemplate, say, the "dried arrangement" of a trouserless Rodney Hide. Surely we don't have to find everyone's genitalia appetising? This is a standard comic convention along the lines of the joke: Q: What is the worse thing about the No 69 position? A: The view.Let's keep our powder dry, as it were, for real misogyny.
-
Because it's not real misogyny to reduce a woman to something fuckable?
-
I don't believe Steve Barnes' original flippancy was misogynistic, no.
-
Sure, this stuff needs investigating but could the media please stop frothing at the mouth?
Ok. Suze, could we decide on the narrative here: Are the media whores or pimps, rapists or nymphos who worship power? Sorry, but I think we should actually stop being so damn patronising towards "ordinary people" and treat them like citizens who actually deserve serious scrutiny of their elected representatives.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.