Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
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.
-
Does everybody suspect that Worth was sacked for being an adulterer? I didn't.
Well my sense of what "everyone" thinks is filtered by my access to information. I did think that that was generally understood, I could well be wrong. He should've been sacked for being a prat in my opinion (and before anyone says, you would say that, there's a couple of Nats I reckon are doing pretty well).
-
Eddie's credibility is just unknowable, the way in which the post is framed - partisan anonymous blogger citing anonymous sources to make a claim that is in itself impossible to disprove - makes its contents unverifiable from any angle.
I understand this point Gio, but the context and known information are relevant to assessing the veracity of Eddie's claims. Eddie alleges Worth was sacked for something we actually know a bit about c.f. there were complaints, there were preliminary police investigations etc. Absent a denial from Worth or some clear statement by Key, Eddie's comments cohere with what's generally known.
Eddie might be unknown and his/her sources anonymous, but s/he's saying nothing terribly controversial. Someone may counter with "have you stopped beating your wife" but even that's a stretch since Worth's peccadilloes appear to well documented.
To me then it's a case of an admittedly partisan blogger claiming to have insider knowledge confirming what everyone basically suspects anyway ...
-
Emma, a friend and writer based in Sydney's written a piece similar to your's that you might enjoy. It attracts the same variation of comments...
-
I was thinking more about the kinds of shit Farrar would catch around here if he ran presented as fact (under a blazing headline) entirely anecdotal 'evidence' from a hardly disinterested source.
Perhaps, but Eddie's claims are only sustainable to the extent that Key's pronouncements created a vacuum. Again, it's is Key's mishandling of the situation that's the issue, not the connections or otherwise of activists.
-
"The Minister cannot be effective in his job in a flagship government programme while allegations, controversy, and public debate swirl around him."
It occurs to me that given the charges against Worth have now been dropped, Key could reinstate him... that'd be decisive. Clark did, in the end, largely rehabilitate Dover... why did Key go so much further in his comments about Worth?
-
Craig, I didn't get too forensic in my review of the case, I relied on my memory. Iappreciate you linking to the release.
My view is that it serves to highten the contrast between the cases. Clark's made clear she's stood him down, not sacked him, until the matters - which were well known (they were the subject of an extended item on the news from memory) - were resolved.
In Worth's situation, we don't know what the matters leading to the resignation were, we only know Key won't have him back in caucus... that's quite different and an awkward precedent.
-
You mean after the Police ceased the investigation? Yeah.
I still think Clark's handling was superior to Key's. Samuels was stood down for known transgressions. This meant the public could determine the quality/reasonableness of the decision.
This is the difference in the Worth matter. Worth resigned etc but didn't say why. He didn't stand down or get stood down. The PM accepted his resignation and commented that he'd not have him back in his government. He even wondered out loud about his future in the caucus.
Key's made this matter bigger than Ben Hur but we still don't really know why... if it is, as Eddie says (and I'm inclined to believe) 'cause he's indulged in extra-marital dalliances then that's a new standard for Ministerial behaviour (since, regardless of our view on this, it doesn't go to his performance of his public duties).
-
The power of the Speaker to exclude people from Parliament grounds, with the consequence that those who ignore the warning to leave can be arrested and charged, has been exercised lawfully on many occasions, but when that power was used to stifle political speech and peaceful assembly in 1997 it went too far.
The courts have remedied a real injustice.
I watched the protest, I then worked in the Labour Research Unit, and knew of the Speaker's refusal before it began. It was inexplicable. It was a political decision and a serious misjudgment by Kidd. Kidd's decision to refuse access was in stark contrast with earlier applications which had been approved (and very for similar protests). I'm friendly with the then NZUSA co-president Karen Skinner (who also now resides in Sydney) who led the protest. I'm sure she'll feel vindicated.