Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If anyone thinks it's not as bad, just say so.
I think I took your comments in the manner they were offered in my earlier reply and I'm still of the view that the role of all Parliamentary parties, and their staff, is to carefully and thoroughly scrutinise each other including back-stories, when they are relevant, and Key's trading is. IMO.
-
__There is the FWW Rhodes scholarship only for law students who are former pupils of Auckland Grammar $2200 pa__
There has to be a joke in that ...
For which the punchline is presumably:
"To overcome the immense social disadvantage"
-
In fact here we go, from Stuff today:
Traditionally, it was only contested when the holders were playing on their own patch. Now we appear to be on the cusp of a new model where, after four successful home defences, teams put the shield on the line wherever they are playing.
I'd favour this approach or some minor variation. A good team ought to be able to win on the road but a flukey win should still have some reward... It'd be nice for a second division team to have at least the home advantage for a challenge and, if successful, the first few defences at home.
-
__Hmmm, is that as bad as 'researchers' in the PM's dept spending a lot of time going thru Key's share dealings of the last 5+ years??__
Or covertly recording candidates at cocktail parties, and "leaking" the results to the media?
Craig, there's no suggestion the Labour Research Unit had anything to do with this is there? Not in anything I've read at least.
But it's a fair point/question John. From my perspective, (I briefly had some time in the Labour Research Unit in 1996/97) I'd argue that researchers should and do focus on political and parliamentary matters and not search for irrelevant scandal. My experience was almost 100 per cent focused on substantive issues (the small exception being some very basic legal work relating to Trevor Mallard's defence against Tuku Morgan's defamation action).
That said, Key's commercial record is not irrelevant, not least of all because he's made it a big part of his narrative, but also because it's relevant to his performance in parliament. He's claimed to be fresh and independent, to be uncompromised and a straight-shooter. This incident suggests he's at best naive, at worst corrupt, either way he's clearly not the cleanskin he claims and it's important that the electorate know (perhaps if National had some policy, the focus would be elsewhere, but in its absence, the leader's under the microscope)
-
__Sorry for the tangent, but I'll just offer this with no further comment:__
Ex New Zealand First MP and High Commissioner to the Cook Islands, Brian Donnelly, has passed away at the age of 59. A family member says he died at midday on Thursday after a short illness.
That's very very sad. I liked Brian. He was thoroughly decent bloke. I had a few dealings with him in the mid- to late-90s over various education issues and he was always informed, reasonable and honest. A genuinely hard-working and well intentioned man. Vale.
-
On an happier note, McCain is surely toast now. Letterman tracks a huge lie as it unfolds.
Excellent, thanks Don. Letterman actually does it well. I think McCain's misplayed this and Obama's capitalising (will be interesting to see how it plays through on realclearpolitics).
-
It is worth remembering that Labour sustained as much political damage through supporting a Green MP's private member's bill.
I'm grateful you made that point. Labour mightn't always have been as friendly towards the Greens as they could have been, but where there's been a coincidence of interests, they've surely been supportive and sometimes even in the trenches.
I also agree the first point you made. The calculations are bound to be about piecing together a coalition to enact their policies for a further three years; MMP's changed a lot, but elections are still largely zero sum games.
-
I guess the moral of the story is that if you make rich, powerful enemies you shouldn't engage in illegal and corrupt practices and then pointlessly provoke a war with the national media.
I'm still don't agree Danyl. If he's made rich and powerful enemies by exposing their corruption, shouldn't he be congratulated for doing what really only politicians can do (and sometimes the media but not often)? I don't think we should turn a blind eye when they seek to exact some revenge - I don't know that that's what happening, but your earlier comment seemed to suggest that you'd be ok if it was.
I think we'll eventually find that Peters is guilty of something, but I'd far rather the Privileges Committee and the SFO do the investigation themselves than have the media fed evidence of questionable merit by disgruntled former opponents.
-
While his moral "high" ground is absolutely rather low, it still strikes me as being relatively higher than Labour's after the last couple of weeks.
Perhaps, but that's what annoys me about this; Labour's tainted by association, not by deed. If Peters and Key have both lied the public, it's only electoral calculations that preclude Labour from condemning both...
-
Whoever it was did the country a favor - in addition to lying to the country non-stop for almost a year, Peters convinced the government to go against Treasury advice and award the horse racing industry millions of dollars in taxpayer money while at the same time receiving secret donations from wealthy businessmen in that industry.
That sets a dangerous precedent Danyl. I don't like Winston and will be happy to see him finally fall but I'd be equally concerned if he's been bought down by begrudging corporates still looking for payback from the Winebox...