You can see how riled up the right are that no less than three Tories are doing spin in the first hour this was up.
Get back under your bridge, Rich -- can't be bothered today.
But the paragraph you quoted was about the Adams questions, which I think are of a wholly different nature.
It’s on some bizarro spectrum of cluelessness – I think what smacks people’s gobs about all three cases isn’t so much the events themselves, but the high levels of disingenuous cuteness when perfectly legitimate questions were asked. Perhaps I’m getting soft in my old age, but I don’t believe Cunliffe, Collins or Adams are Putin-esque monsters of sleaze and graft. But we shouldn’t have to take that on faith – we should know, and be able to make our own judgements. As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing preventing any politician or political party voluntarily over-sharing instead of trying to game already weak rules. It’s not only bad on principle, but as you say bad politics.
Because they don’t seem equivalent to me.
The political Alzheimers that miraculously lifted the instant it became clear the media weren't going to get bored and go away? Seems two faces of the same worthless coin to me, in that respect, and why we all need genuine transparency politicians can't game, and face meaningful consequences if they try.
I'd also note, Russell, you're very generously drawing a distinction for Cunliffe's legal but unwise leadership campaign financing he and his own party weren't generous enough to extend to National when they were *cough* lightly rinsing donations through trusts. I guess we can agree to disagree on this Russell, but that "internal party election" was for someone who'd go on to present themselves to the nation as a potential Prime Minister. Perhaps I'm on old crank, but if parties want to have US-style leadership primaries I'd like then conducted without US-style backroom chequebook politics.
But the questions would be relevant no matter who asked them. When a government takes an extraordinary step like this one did over ECan – dismissing an elected council and appointing its own commissioners – which manifestly benefits a particular group of businesses, it must expect this kind of scrutiny.
No, Russell, all politicians should expect exactly the kind of scrutiny and transparency they demand from everyone else in the public sector all the fucking time. And to entirely cynical, it’s not if politicians of all parties exactly hold themselves to terribly rigorous standards of disclosure, so I’ve got very little sympathy when that comes back to bite the likes of Collins and Cunliffe in the arse.
I know this is blasphemy for pols and their enablers, but I think it's in politicians' own best interests to strengthen not undermine disclosure and genuine transparency around campaign financing, lobbying (I've long argued for a lobbyist register) and pecunary interests.
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.