Hard News: The Spiral of Events
198 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Thought you might want to talk about this ...
-
Glenn, successful businessman and excellent philanthropist that he is, had been demonstrating that he was not necessarily a reliable witness. Clark did, we now know, take the matter seriously enough to place an urgent call to Peters in South Africa. But we can perhaps understand her reluctance to pull the pin by calling her minister a liar.
Fair enough, but you know something -- if you run an identical scratch-and-sniff test over Winston (and would this guy actually have a political career without allegations reported on page one that, somehow, never quite stack up), Glenn still strikes me as more credible.
-
Anyone else noticed Key's been pushing the "secret agenda" meme all morning .... or rather I suspect he's simply attempting to tar everyone with the label so it wont seem so strange on him
-
Glenn still strikes me as more credible.
Even if you assume one is as credible as the other, I still don't get how Clark sits on this until yesterday. Except that the SFO inquiry followed so quickly that it dissipated some of the heat around her - so I see how the timing would have worked to her advantage.
-
Fair enough, but you know something -- if you run an identical scratch-and-sniff test over Winston (and would this guy actually have a political career without allegations reported on page one that, somehow, never quite stack up), Glenn still strikes me as more credible.
And I'm sure Selwyn Cushing would agree.
But Clark chooses her words carefully, and they were: "he's never lied to me". She bought a different kind of trouble by not volunteering the information, but seems to have calculated that ignoring the vehement denials of her own minster while not being quite sure of Glenn's recall would have been worse.
-
Even if you assume one is as credible as the other, I still don't get how Clark sits on this until yesterday. Except that the SFO inquiry followed so quickly that it dissipated some of the heat around her - so I see how the timing would have worked to her advantage.
And if that's what happened, it would be quite the ballsiest bit of spin in a long time.
-
I still don't get how Clark sits on this until yesterday.
She didn't did she? Just because she didn't go public does not mean she sat on it. Also, the SFO investigation has nothing to do with the Glenn donations as far as I can tell.
Ultimately she is not responsible for the behaviour members of other parties in the coalition if they are doing the job assigned to them capably. I think the recent visit by Rice and the thawing of the NZ/US relationship and the raising of the profile of the Pacific region demonstrates that, to many peoples' surprise, Peters was doing his job well.
-
Glenn still strikes me as more credible
Leaving aside personalities for a minute. Don't you think a thirty year career as an MP and Cabinet Minister in three separate governments gives you some degree of credibility? Even if you don't agree with his politics.
-
that interview with plunket this morning really was something.
i don't think i've ever heard the foreign minister sounding more tired. he only even managed to fire up about twice.
-
I think Peters & Clark have missed a trick here. Peters allows Clark to fire him. Clark gets to look principled. Winston gets to fight the election with a bit of distance between him & the government. Peters doesn't have to bring the government down as there's only a few weeks before they rise for the election. Both sides win.
And to clarify my earlier comment, I don't agree with his politics, and I'd rather see the back of him. If he's a corrupt old hypocrite, the sooner the better.
-
Do you think that John Key's endless virtuous comments might come to haunt him?
-
"So if you'd been wondering -- as Messrs Farrar and Hooton have been doing very loudly -- how Clark could possibly have doubted the recollection of a prominent party donor over the word of her foreign minister, that's it. Glenn, successful businessman and excellent philanthropist that he is, had been demonstrating that he was not necessarily a reliable witness."
I have wondered no such thing. What I wonder about is why, when Clark was told by Peters that he received no such money, she didn't go back to Glenn (or get someone else to) and say, "Hey, Owen, Winston says you didn't give him money. What's the story here?'
And when Peters held up his "No" sign and said someone was fabricating emails and that Audrey Young was making up stories and should resign, along with her editor, Clark (or one of her staff) never went and said: "Ah, Winston, this is getting a bit hot. Are you sure that he never gave you money?"
Again, when the matter came up again in July, it seems incredible Clark (or her staff) didn't say: "Come on Winston, what's the story here, because Owen is adament he did give you money."
And, Russell, your claim that Glenn was not necessarily a reliable witness should surely be balanced by the fact that the Foreign Minister is hardly a reliable witness either. Remember the Russian submarines he reckoned were operating off Great Barrier Island in the 1980s? Or the ferry that scraped its bottom in Tory Channel. Or that Selwyn Cushing tried to bribe him? Or that the SFO and the IRD were involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover up the winebox issue? Or that he would never serve in a Cabinet with Birch and Shipley?
When it comes to reliable witnesses, it is not obvious to me why you would back one over the other perhaps, but to back Peters over Glenn after a single phone call, and then stay silent for six months while Peters was making such strong attacks on people like Audrey Young seems to me to be an extreme case of "see no evil". Helen Clark is hardly someone who does not gossip and exchange information very widely.
Also, I have noticed an extraordinary trend by so-called liberals to almost go on the defence for Peters. As usual, the people at thestandard.org.nz are the worst offenders, but I understand from one genuine liberal who attended Drinking Liberally this week that there was alarming levels of support for one of the most reactionary, illiberal and racist MPs we have seen in recent times, and one who has done tremendous harm to the integrity of our political system (and continues to do so this very day).
When are Labour-leaning people going to say no to Peters in the way many National-leaning people, particularly those of us on the socially liberal wing of the party, did some years ago?
-
i don't think i've ever heard the foreign minister sounding more tired. he only even managed to fire up about twice.
I was put in mind of a broken-down robot, croaking out its lines as its batteries died.
-
Leaving aside personalities for a minute. Don't you think a thirty year career as an MP and Cabinet Minister in three separate governments gives you some degree of credibility? Even if you don't agree with his politics.
Well, Paul, I'll open it to the room. How much cred would you give someone with a resume like this, that stretches back almost forty years:
Vice President of the United States (eight years)
United States Secretary of Defense (four years)
House Minority Whip (January 3 – March 20, 1989)
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (ten years)
White House Chief of Staff (two years)By the way, his full name is Richard Bruce Cheney.
-
Very interesting to hear Peters state that he will not let what happened to David Parker happen to him. I'd argue Parker is better off now.
-
@Matthew:
I have wondered no such thing.
That was my recollection of what you said on The Panel yesterday.
And, Russell, your claim that Glenn was not necessarily a reliable witness should surely be balanced by the fact that the Foreign Minister is hardly a reliable witness either.
As I said above: see Selwyn Cushing. But Glenn had been expressing demonstrably barking recollections of the actual matters at hand. He apparently couldn't remember when or why he donated to Labour (or for that matter, when he met Clark), when those things were a matter of record. Perhaps she could have launched an investigation into the finances of her minister's party (even though there was no indication the law had been broken) but even then it would have been quite a step to have publicly called him a liar, not to mention the end of her government.
Also, I have noticed an extraordinary trend by so-called liberals to almost go on the defence for Peters.
Really? You can hang that on Chris Trotter based on that bizarre "gang-rape" claim, but, for goodness sake Matthew, I wound up by praising the journalists who have brought to light the matters that will probably finish off his career. If you thought I gave any indication I'd be sorry about that, then it was quite unintentional.
I think it's just that I'm a bit calmer than you are.
-
And Mr Rowe, I've held Peters in utter contempt for the best part of twenty years. Take it as read that I don't think he deserves any respect whatsoever; and I'm not going to give him a cookie for being a competent Foreign Affairs Minister. Competence is a baseline expectation not a reason to pat someone on the head.
-
Peters doesn't have to bring the government down as there's only a few weeks before they rise for the election
i found plunket crowing "Clark government fails to run full term!!" a little... ridiculous.
forgive me if i'm mistaken, but hasn't it been almost three years since the last general election?
his full name is Richard Bruce Cheney
known affectionately as "dick".
-
She didn't did she? Just because she didn't go public does not mean she sat on it.
Seriously? What Matthew said at para 3 and 4.
-
Very interesting to hear Peters state that he will not let what happened to David Parker happen to him. I'd argue Parker is better off now.
Well, Josie, even if you abonimate the source ('Investigate") as much as Helen and I do, the allegations made against David Parker were incredibly serious. They certainly had a direct impact on Parker's ability and credibility to do his job as Attorney-General. He promptly resigned, while an investigation was conducted.
And, from my recall, Parker's conduct was measured, temperate and actually did his reputation no harm at all. I think the only viable comparison between him and Peters is a NA test. They're both more or less human. :)
-
Glenn still strikes me as more credible.
Of course you do Craig. That's probably because he gave $500,000 to your favourite party.
-
Parker's conduct was measured, temperate and actually did his reputation no harm at all
Exactly. And it's Jose.
-
Of course you do Craig. That's probably because he gave $500,000 to your favourite party.
OK, Don... if I ever make sense of that, I'm sure I'll be horribly offended. Hey, if Owen Glenn wants to piss away him money on Labour and Winston First instead of hookers and coke, that's his business. Winston Peters and his consigliere think the law is for other people -- well, that starts becoming a problem for me.
-
Craig, it was a genuine question, and really demonstrates how far our estimation of politicians has fallen, not one designed to defend Peters. Your points about Cheney are accepted (I said leaving out personailities cos I wouldn't trust Thatcher's word further than I could throw her scrawny carcass).
It's quite a lot of fun to light a touch fuse and watch you jump, sometimes Craig, but a considered response from you would be welcome as well.
-
And it's Jose.
Ouch... my bad. Sorry about that, because I get rather pissy when people FUBAR my name and it's nice to repay the courtesy.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.