Island Life: He lied to us all
133 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
And Clark knew back in February.
Which, if that's all there is, is much less bad than "Mike Williams gave Winston Owen Glenn's phone number to hit him up for some sly cash."
She still has to explain why, if Glenn told her otherwise in February, she's been publicly accepting Peters' account.
I imagine her meetings with Peters have been ... interesting.
-
Which, if that's all there is, is much less bad than "Mike Williams gave Winston Owen Glenn's phone number to hit him up for some sly cash."
I don't credit my understanding of the NZ political climate much, but I think you're underestimating how calamitous this revelation is. In an already shaky edifice, Labour was held together by Clark's reptutation for integrity. Most people would construe the fact that she sat on those contradictory statements for so long as proof that she was hoping the news wouldn't break until after the election. This is a disaster.
-
Interesting times.
I wonder if Helen will knock back a bottle of whisky this evening and call a snap election.
And will Cullen let her tyres down?
You could probably persuade McKinnon and Wood to reprise their original roles? Winston Peters will make an excellent stand in for Marilyn Waring of course. But you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting Helen to play Muldoon
According to Gufstafson's biography, Muldoon had had a "half dozen" whiskies and brandies at an event earlier in the evening, followed by a few drinks at Government House, and was a "drunken meglomaniac" by 8pm, before announcing the snap election at 11.15pm.
All class.
-
Clark’s reputation and standing has been based around integrity and competence.
I’m afraid that with this revelation she’s lost a lot of both.
-
she sat on those contradictory statements for so long as proof that she was hoping the news wouldn't break until after the election. This is a disaster.
Are you Duncan Garner in disguise? ;-)
Both Peters and Glenn "swear" they are telling the truth ... what's Helen supposed to do about it in the complete absence of any evidence one way or the other?
-
From the Herald:
While she said she wanted to see the matter "dealt with", Helen Clark said she felt she had a duty to be fair.
"I have not known Mr Peters to lie to me, and I have to take people as I find them," she said.
"He is utterly convinced that he never made that call."
What's wrong with her stance here?
-
what's Helen supposed to do about it in the complete absence of any evidence one way or the other?
Since Glenn had absolutely nothing to gain by lying, I think she should have at the very least harboured serious concerns about the credibility of her minister of foreign affairs. We know how she's dealt with suspicions of this kind in the past. The perception that she just kept mum and hoped that things wouldn't come to a head will be difficult to shake, and is a major tarnish on her reputation.
Much as we keep hearing so much about people being tired of Helen and her minions, with all the latent and not so latent sexism attached therein, she really is the reason why Labour is even holding on to such 'slim' a margin. Hit her credibility, the party will crumble in the polls.
Sincerely hoping to be proven wrong, yours truly, etc.
-
DC,
She had 6 months to get to the bottom of it. I don’t think what Helen has (not) done here is at the top end of being rotten. But it’s just shabby.
Basically Winston is in the process of bringing this government down as comprehensively as he brought down the Shipley government (such as it was by the end with Alamein etc…)
This is far more interesting than all that over-choreographed nonsense going on in Denver. -
And given I was backing up what you said, this may descend into some torturous logical loop. I'll call Winnie for advice =)
Don't worry Winnie is already committed to the ETS.
The heart of the matter for me is achieving a reduction in AGW gas production. The Kyoto based ETS of Europe has facilitated an increase in the carbon footprint of European consumers - it has polluted the planet. It has done this by applying costs to EU producers of AGW gases, whilst not applying equivalent costs consumption of goods produced by AGW gas emissions outside of the EU. The result has been an increase in production and transportation emmissions outside of the EU to provide lowest price goods to EU consumers.
The EU has begun to realise this flaw and is starting to institute charges on external AGW emissions. NZ (stupidly, inward and backward) is about to adopt the same ETS type scheme that the EU is in the midst of reforming. Our soon to be adopted ETS will contribute to increased AGW.
We're accruing liabilty for payment right now for every tonne of carbone emitted.
Our accruing Kyoto liability is insignificant and meeting it is counterproductive.
This ETS will meet the Kyoto emissions liability. Yet this ETS taxing each tonne of Carbon emitted whilst ignoring our consumer carbon footprint will increase global AGW gas emissions. The cost of our Kyoto liability is (by definition) much less than the longterm costs of AGW. Any act to fulfill our Kyoto liability at the expense of increased AGW is therefore unjustifiable.
-
I'm not quite sure what to think of the PM being told this back in February.
You obviously don't go firing Ministers because someone made an accusation, and the screams of "she knew he was lying" are a bit absurd - she didn't know that at all and was in fact assured otherwise.But when you have statements made to you by an alleged donor that directly contradict the statements being made in public by that Minister you can't just let them go nowhere?
-
This ETS will meet the Kyoto emissions liability
Rly? I was under the impression that it would mitigate but not meet it.
-
For more interesting is looking at the lengths the Privileges Committee is willing to go to investigate a party funding issue. Is this a precedent being set, an admission that all is not right in the secretive side of our democracy?
Don: Do you think that this is possible? Who would explore it? What would be needed to trigger it?
-
I imagine her meetings with Peters have been ... interesting.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall. This is pretty much "Tuku Morgan's undies" territory - sure, it makes NZF and the gov't look bad, but when it comes to the crunch, it's simply a matter of numbers and Labour needs NZF's support.
I expect Clark has been gagging to boot his sorry arse outa cabinet, but she won't because a) she won't want to risk Winston throwing his toys around big time and b) it'd look even messier than what it already is, were she to do so just before an election, and, c) if there wasn't an election looming, she probably would've.If Peters was a Labour MP, however, she'd have given him the sack.
-
giovanni/leggie/gareth:
i don't think there was anywhere the PM could go with this.
Owen: I had a conversation with Winnie
Helen: Is this true, Winnie?
Winnie: No it's not, I swear
Helen: Are you sure?
Winnie: YesIn the lack of any corroborating evidence, this he said/he said crap can't go anywhere.
Guys like Owen and Winnie presumably each have several hundred meetings, and upwards of 1000 phonecalls, a month ... so their ability to recollect accurately is doubtful anyway.
Plus, I can't help but think this is a beltway issue.
-
just for the record, i really hate the term 'the beltway'.
this is wellington for christssakes...
</nothing personal>
the thordon bubble seems more applicable (with all due credit to the blog of that name)
-
Is the thorndon bubble that tiny spot where you can get reliable wireless in welli? :)
-
Not that auckland is any better, I'd add before the wellingtonista mafia lay into me. :)
-
drop reliable, and you're close to the truth.
-
i don't think there was anywhere the PM could go with this.
Owen: I had a conversation with Winnie
Helen: Is this true, Winnie?
Winnie: No it's not, I swear
Helen: Are you sure?
Winnie: YesAnd in days gone by, Helen would’ve said “One of you is lying; get your facts straight and get back to me by the end of the week.”
As I said, this is as much an issue of competence as anything else.
Anyway, I’m with Che. You lose your credibility by dropping “beltway” into it.
-
And in days gone by, Helen would’ve said “One of you is lying; get your facts straight and get back to me by the end of the week.”
Well, yes, if she were dealing with members of the Labour party. Methinks you anoint her with powers beyond her realm of influence.
-
<quote>But when you have statements made to you by an alleged donor that directly contradict the statements being made in public by that Minister you can't just let them go nowhere?>>
He is a little more than an alleged donor to Labour and Clark. For goodness sake they took (and disclosed) $500,000 from him at the last election, took (and didn't disclose - denied in fact) a loan of $100,000, and made him an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. He's not just some Joe at a meeting.
How can such a glaring conflict be sat on for so long? Presumably HC only mentioned it today because it was about to be disclosed by Glenn. I guess she had a heads up, otherwise why mention it at all?
-
BTW. I still think this could blow up in Nationals face, after all, it seems to be geared to distract from Nationals complete lack of coherent policy.
-
took (and didn't disclose - denied in fact) a loan of $100,000,
To be fair, the perceived loss of interest on the interest free loan was under the amount that needed to be declared. As the principal was repaid then I don't see a problem until you start twisting the facts.
-
I'd add before the wellingtonista mafia lay into me. :)
We're above that sort of thing personally, we'd send Sir Brian Lochore around to have a chat with you.
-
really hate the term 'the beltway'.
Yup. Fortunately it so often is a reliable marker that it's safe to ignore anything that comes after as being largely worthless.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.