Doesn’t really sound like staying out of it.
Sounds like a minister of the Crown doing her job in an entirely appropriate and upfront manner unless I've totally missed something in the linked story.
So basically, she was and is part of a government that, as its decided policy, sacked a council, disenfranchised (forever?) half a million Canterbury voters and thus enabled a few thousand farmers (including her family) to make a lot of money.
But because she left the room for the key decisions, she’s Teflon.
No, Rich - voters get to pass judgement on her (and every other MP) at the ballot box on whatever grounds they choose. What you seem to find objectionable is allegations she corruptly abused her position as a Minister of the Crown for her own profit, by failing to properly disclose and manage a potential conflict of interest as laid down in the Cabinet Manual haven't panned out.
Want to argue those rules are weak, poorly enforced and don't have real penalties attached? No argument here. But I don't think you get to throw Amy Adams under a metaphorical bus just because you don't like her or the government she's a part of.
Please refer to the research by Jack Vowles mentioned earlier about voters not bothering if they think the election is a foregone conclusion. And keep your pessimism to yourselves.
Myles: Please don’t do that. It never ends well.
I’m kind of amazed at how vague her ministerial declarations were allowed to be.
Well, what amazes me is everyone clutching their pearls in shock and horror when piss-weak rules operate precisely as they were carefully designed to.
And for all the theatrical outrage we’ve been seeing from all sides over the last couple of weeks, has anyone made a hard pledge to tighten up the transparency rules and give them real teeth? Didn’t think so…
Some may argue its not a lie but a technicality, but to me it makes him a bullshitter.
Which isn't that far off the lesson Judith Collins is learning the hard way. Functionally, telling a flat out lie and "technically" telling the truth, just not quite all of it, is a hair you can't assume people are willing to split.
And a bit more fighting mongrel from the rest of Labour’s useless and lazy frontbench deadwood a bit earlier in the piece and Labour wouldn’t be in the polling pickle they currently find themselves.
If your idea of "fighting mongrel" is going up to Auckland University and trolling overseas students, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But, I guess, whatevs, if Labour's own leader can't - or won't - do more than vaguely wave a moist bus ticket in his general direction.
But if Cunliffe would like to grow a spine where Jones is concerned, Gordon Campbell writes a pretty solid reality check on why Shane isn't helping anyone but himself.
I suspect we will see lots of this sort of distraction
Which nobody is obliged to pay the slightest bit of attention to over the next six months. (The reverse of that coin, of course, is not matter how much you try you can't actually force people to give a shit about your "real issues" if they don't.)
As for how Labour should deal with the Green tainting: They should own it. It’s nearly certain that they will need the Greens as a coalition partner. They can sell it as that they will “keep each other honest”.
Or how about stop treating duly electred representatives in a parliamentary democracy as impertinent interlopers? Oh, and stop treating citizens like they're utter fuckwits. If I can get that Labour and the Greens have substantive policy differences, you go into an election campaign to maximize your vote, and you require a majority to pass legislation, anyone can figure it out.
But respect is a two way street, Ben. Yes, clearly articulate those differences. But you can't tacitly send out Shane Jones to brown-neck the Maori Party and Greens before the election, then clutch your pearls in horror when that doesn't exactly leave them well-disposed afterwards.
I can’t see the connection with a September poll date. They’ll lose by less than if they wait for November?
Um, yeah... I'm not seeing the logic in that either. Clark went seriously early in 2002, because the Opposition was such an almighty mess it would have been churlish not to take full advantage and the Alliance melting-down was a very convenient pretext. (Even Clark wasn't pushing with much conviction the party line that the Alliance/Greens split rendered the country ungovernable. At no point were the Greens talking about denying confidence.)
Shane Jones should give it up and go and be CEO of his slave-fishing operation again.
Well, you know what - I think Cunliffe needs a plausibly deniable Winston Peters analog to do all that icky populist stuff that wouldn't look at all nice coming from a rich white prick. Shame that didn't get a few people people outraged.
but if it’s in the position of having to do the same for Colin Craig and his Conservative Party – and that position is only a matter of a couple of points of support – things might get a little more tricky.
Yeah, sorry… still not seeing Colin Craig being “gifted” East Coast Bays or Upper Harbour anywhere outside the media’s damp and excitable imagination. McCully has one of the largest majorities in Parliament, and a solidly supportive (and very well-heeled) electorate organization. If you think National is going to nuke that for the dubious charms of the Conservatives, I've got a second harbour bridge to sell you.