Hard News: Key Questions
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
ChrisW, in reply to
It's bad enough that National has Shearer's non-declaration of a sizeable offshore bank account (which he knew he had, since he declared it for tax), without taking the PM to the Privileges Committee on less than a concrete case of misleading the House.
I see I'm mistaken in asserting a plain lie to the House -
Grant Robertson: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: His appointment was made by the State Services Commissioner,That was a genuine lie of omission. Misleading the house, surely, but ...
The plain lie was to journalists outside Parliament. Not a matter for the Privileges Committee, but is it really business as usual?
Shearer and Labour are not the entirety of the Opposition, but still, he/they should take an opportunity sooner rather than later to have another go at front-footing the New York bank account matter, if not to be hobbled forever. He had no possible motive for deliberate non-declaration of this financial asset. It would have been of no political consequence whatsoever. And easily overlooked, especially if his tax returns are prepared by an accountant or such-like.
-
Paul Brislen, in reply to
I thank you kindly. My code-fu is well, let's face it, non-existent.
-
Sacha, in reply to
over errors of memory
my what a durable line that one's proving to be.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
it's in Geneva, or Hawaii...
Or the British Virgin Isles. Nicky Hager helped in this very exposé.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Shearer and Labour are not the entirety of the Opposition, but still, he/they should take an opportunity sooner rather than later to have another go at front-footing the New York bank account matter, if not to be hobbled forever.
Indeed. And even though they're not the entirety of the Opposition, my caveat about being future ministers applies just as much to the Greens. A Privileges Committee complaint against the PM is pretty much the nuclear option, and this is really not the kind of issue where it's worth pursuing. They could try a complaint to the Speaker for misleading the House, but I can't see Carter supporting such an action.
Ultimately this is not a hugely significant matter. Yes Key gave a less-than-frank answer. Yes he probably knew he was lying when he gave it. But the action was still one that had to be backstopped by the SSC before it really got anywhere. It's not like he lied about knowing Fletcher after emailing him a contract for the role without any kind of vetting.
-
“It is becoming hard not to see John Key as a man who not only regularly fails to meet the standards expected of a Prime Minister, but who does not even understand what those standards are.”
I think this is exactly John Key’s problem. He sees himself as CEO of NZ Corp and behaves like a man who has been hired to do a job, and to do it his way. So far, this has been very successful for him, as demonstrated by polling. He’s perceived as a guy who will make the tough decisions and just get on with it, and not get bogged down in red tape. But it is clear that his values are warped or he wouldn’t be the man he is today having made his fortune as a trader and banker in the days that led to the 2008 downfall of the world economy.
The real problem, as I see it, is that he is the leader of the country and he should be offering an example of leadership that is not slightly dishonest and forgetful and deceitful. I think it does set a tone for the country if he behaves that way.
This is really a repeat of the values he demonstrated with the Skycity dilemma. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
it is clear that his values are warped or he wouldn’t be the man he is today”
A wonderful comment on Your Views yesterday summed it up pretty well. Supposedly from Key’s trader days, it was said of him "Great radar, poor compass."
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
100% correct
For me this is the issue. I don't expect the person behind the counter and the local council office to be 100% correct, it simply is OK for them to make mistakes, especially if when we work out a mistake has been made they apologise (see Emma's rules for being an adult).
But when you accept a job like say Mayor or PM and accept the salary and perks that come with that job - then you must accept that part of the salary is because you now have to perform at a higher standard. Perhaps not 100%, maybe say 95% (I'd hope for higher). And even more importantly, if you get it wrong you must absolutely acknowledge and apologise - like an adult.
And yet the public love him.
-
His ratings would go through the roof if he actually acknowledged and apologised but I don’t think it is in his makeup to do so.
-
He is a smarmy little weasel with as much moral conscience as that implies.
He is a disgrace to the country and makes me slightly ashamed to be a NZer whenever I see him dissembling/lying and making his little stomach-churning smirk.Sorry - needed to get that off my chest. He is a source of great derision in our household, but it goes deeper and less pleasant than just that.
But he will lead us into war against N Korea? FFS! -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Hopefully bureaucracy will save us.
By the time the Army have painted the LAVs the right colour, found the key to the ammo store and fixed the boat's engine, NK will have fired off one nuke against Seoul and been consequently reduced to a radioactive desert.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Hopefully Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang will sit him down and give him a healthy dose of reality.
And I very much doubt things will play out as you say - you think China, South Korea and Japan want all that fallout floating around?* Little Kim might be crazy, but do you really think the regime would deliberately bring about its own destruction? Any actual shooting will be small, conventional skirmishes which might blow up into full-scale war, but probably won't. Neither China nor South Korea wants the flood of refugees war would bring them, nor do they want the massive cost of rebuilding North Korea.
*When that tsunami destroyed Fukushima Daiichi there was a massive run on iodised table salt in China - rumour was the iodine would protect you from the radiation headed our way. Of course, it was all bollocks, but that's what happens - people hear "radiation" and panic.
But I'm just happy our inglorious leader's visit to the PRC has sparked off a massive flood of writing on NZ-China business in the NZ Herald. Finally.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought that war with/against N Korea was at all likely (I don't). Just metaphorically shaking my head at (sarcasm alert) Our Glorious Leader and his willingness to go to war.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Any actual shooting will be small, conventional skirmishes which might blow up into full-scale war, but probably won’t. Neither China nor South Korea wants the flood of refugees war would bring them, nor do they want the massive cost of rebuilding North Korea.
The impression I get is that North Korea has some kind of Walter Mitty complex.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
But he will lead us into war against N Korea?
Could that “story” have been beaten up any further? My opinion of Key is hardly any secret, but I just cannot read his reported words and muster outrage. It’s not even really speaking out of turn, given that the US is openly considering conflict as a possibility and spent over $5m on flying two B2s down to send a message. Key saying that – if the very worst happens and a series of extreme events cascade into war – NZ will examine its position, is, IMO, pretty measured. I saw Bomber’s tirade on FB and thought Key had said something that was actually stupid and outrageous, and then went and read what he’d said and realised that Bomber was just being Bomber.
ETA: I also want to know the precise wording of the question that lead to his comment. What he said looks very much like it was fomented.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
reduced to a radioactive desert
Unlikely. There is no reason for the US to use Nukes. Far better for them to obliterate all manufacturing and military capacity using high precision conventional weapons. This demonstrates the superiority of the US weapons manufacturers thus guaranteeing significant upturn in sales.
The consequence of course will be a North Korea that is even more of a basket case than it is now and requiring huge amounts of aid to recover.
That said the consequences of a conventional obliteration are by no means “clean and green”. But don’t worry John Key will be happy to send in our boys and girls in khaki to clean up.
-
Get his son into the military & see if his tune changes.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Get his son into the military & see if his tune changes.
But that's a job for poor (usually brown) people. The Parnell latte set don't have offspring in the military. It's just not the done thing.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
But that’s a job for poor (usually brown) people. The Parnell latte set don’t have offspring in the military. It’s just not the done thing.
"Julie Nixon was hanging around with David Eisenhower, and you just had the feeling that none of these people were going to be involved with the war. In 1968, the majority of the country thought morale was great among the troops, and eighty percent of them were in favor of the war. But to some of us who were watching closely, we just knew we were headed for trouble."
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Not a new issue either…
Nope. The ethnic constitution of the US military is very skewed away from the population as a whole, and also away from the wealthy. It's poor black and white kids from deprived states who compose the enlisted ranks. I have no particular illusion that NZDF is more representative and egalitarian, though our opening of the officer corps to people who don't have a degree (it's preferred, but not mandatory) does even things up somewhat.
-
David Hood, in reply to
Hopefully Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang will sit him down and give him a healthy dose of reality.
Are you talking about Kim Jong-un or John Key, I can't tell. But based on the way John Key moved away from his initial comments after meeting Xi Jinping I assumed the later had happened already.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Are you talking about Kim Jong-un or John Key
Both. I agree it seems Key has had his talking to already.
-
As Russell said:
But what can’t be denied is that this whole affair indicates further that when he is questioned about his actions, the first instinct of Prime Minister John Key is to dissemble, divert and develop amnesia. This isn’t good enough.
It really is not. Key has made a virtue out of not being 'a politician', I can understand how that might appeal, but this not being 'a politician' seems to have drifted into not accountable. Not accountable to Parliament, not accountable to the Speaker, not accountable to the media either.
FWIW, if you want to know where this inevitably leads, just look at the last NSW Labor Government. Utterly corrupt.
-
To quote myself
On the "Oh Grow up" side of things - goings on in the house yesterday were telling:
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/audio/1303/parliament_today_270313.mp3
Bleah - John Key - infantile - David Carter - dense.
The management of the economy and the country as a "whole"(or should that be "hole it is about to become") - has been set aside as the government pursue items of special interest to themselves - Conventions Centres and selling stuff, etc, etc, etc..
Talking to a friend who knows things and looking at Education and the way Auckland is going to grow - there is apparently nothing in the planning pipeline to address the growth in Auckland Schools rolls as regards - you know the big stuff like buildings, spaces to put those buildings and staffing levels.
Shearer, who is effectively Key's main opponent, hasn’t done the opposition cause much good – with the bank account issue he has effectively tarred himself with Keys brush.
I see Key and National getting a third term – that will create a problem in that it will be entrenched in the fabric of society that the only people (class of people) who will have access to a comprehensive range of services as regards health and education will be the wealthy, successful professionals and those connected to the major political parties – everyone else will be left fighting for diminishing “resources”.
Key's behaviour makes it hard to respect the office of Prime Minster - it is hard to work out whether Key is a dum arse who attempts to make wise cracks or a smart arse that makes dum cracks.
Either way Key comes across to me as witless, unaware and self absorbed..
Shearer, who is effectively Keys main opponent, hasn’t done the opposition cause much good – with the bank account issue he has effectively tarred himself with Keys brush.
I see Key and National getting a third term – that will create a problem in that it will be more entrenched in the fabric of society that the only people (class of people) who will have access to a comprehensive range of services as regards health and education will be the wealthy, successful professionals and those connected to the major political parties – everyone else will be left effectivley fighting amongst each other for diminishing “resources”.
-
Russell, the PM's answer that "[his] appointment was made by the State Services Commissioner" cannot possibly have been true because under section 9 of Helen Clark's Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 the appointment can only be made by the governor-general (which means, under our constitution, the governor-general acting under the advice of the prime minister.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.