Darren Hughes was the electorate MP… for Otaki
He was but he lost that seat and by the time of his resignation he was a list MP. He is mentioned in Slater's correspondence with, I think, Aaron Bhatnager, but there's no hint of any set-up, just very explicit details of Hughes' behavior which were totally unacceptable for an MP.
If Corkery did do that on purpose to get the lead spot on the news then she's an idiot. National couldn't have asked for anything better than a reminder to wavering centre voters that the alternative to Key - dirty politics or not - is a government propped up by a bunch of nutty, angry activists.
It’s nice that Odgers isn’t going to write a column any more. But it is so weird that she was asked. The Herald already have a bunch of libertarian/ACT cheerleaders writing copy for them. They’ve got Bob Jones and Rodney Hide and Damien Grant.
Politically these people are represented by a party currently on 0.1% in the polls. In the last few by-elections ACT have been beaten by Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis. No one takes these people seriously EXCEPT the New Zealand Herald, whose first instinct when they’re looking for a right-wing columnist is to find another hateful, deranged libertarian headcase.
Weirdly, most of the correspondence seems to be Facebook chats, which I can't quite see how would possibly be hacked using a DDOS attack on the WhaleOil site.
Seems like a dream set-up for Internet/Mana. There are zero votes to be won from that electorate and good media coverage to be won by getting thrown out for failing to observe an utterly pointless rule like not mentioning the PM's name.
It’s a curious that ACT feel the need to say anything at all to the electorate when the party will be gifted Epsom at the very least
They're on 0.6% in the polls and Whyte needs about 1.2% to get into Parliament.
She’s misled Parliament. There’s no way around it. Ministers who do that are customarily sacked.
I'm guessing the line is 'The Cabinet Office has already looked into that allegation and completely cleared the Minister of any wrongdoing.'
Steady on. No one was asking John Key whether he wanted to campaign jointly with Colin Craig, were they?
No, I am aware of that thanks. But National doesn't have a large potential coalition partner who just asked them to campaign with them so I used the Conservatives as an analogy.
Mr Cunliffe told the Herald tonight he envisaged that Labour would try to negotiate a formal coalition agreement with the Greens after the election,
“The Labour Party will be the core of the incoming Government working co-operatively with the Green Party who are our longstanding friends.
That’s not the same thing at all. If the press goes to John Key and asks him if he’ll give the Conservative Party a seat this election he won’t say, ‘No. We’ll talk to them after the election. My job is to maximise the National vote.’ He’ll say. ‘We haven’t made any decisions either way yet.’ Maybe it’ll be a smart thing to do six weeks out from the election. But maybe it won’t. He’s keeping his options open because he has no idea what’s going to happen and because he’s smart and likes winning elections.
Labour doesn’t know what the election campaign will look like either! Six weeks out from the election it might be a good idea to campaign in tandem with the Greens - just as it was for them to team up with the Alliance during the 1999 campaign - at which point it would have been helpful to have had three months of preliminary discussions. Sure, it might also look like a terrible idea, but now they don’t get to choose. And they risk losing soft-Labour voters to the Greens.
Good conspiracy theory, but isn’t it vastly more likely that Jones is simply pleasing himself in the knowledge that any public censure would be politically out of bounds for Cunliffe?
That’s possible. But (I think) the sensible thing for Labour to do in this situation would be to say to the Greens ‘We’ll think about it. Maybe closer to the election. Let’s keep talking.’ Because keeping your options open is what politicians do. It’s what National does with its potential coalition partners and I’m pretty sure that’s what the Greens expected Labour to say. Instead Labour gave a flat refusal and went and leaked the talks to the press galley.
I don’t think that’s all a big accident. It’s because they think there are votes to be won by openly distancing themselves from the Greens. Maybe they’re right. I kinda doubt it, but National certainly thinks that linking Labour with the Greens is good politics and those guys know what they’re doing.
But you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think its strategic.