Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to Tom Semmens,
The thing that shocks me the most is the way Key outsourced his relationship with the SIS – of which he was the responsible minister – to a politically ppointed National party hack
Got it in one Tom. That is the main issue. Jason Ede and Cameron Slater did exactly what I or pretty much any politically involved person would have done when they obtained such information about their opponents. And even de Joux can defend himself to some extent that way, although when you are appointed Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister you should put those responsibilities well ahead of your partisan ones. Previous prime ministers made sure that people like them (or me or, I suspect, you) never got near such information. That is the reason the PM and his Chief of Staff are ultimately responsible for this scandal, even if their stories of not knowing anything about it are correct.
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to nzlemming,
No, I think Ede was parliamentary services - but, you're right, this is what it turns on.
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Sorry to be a bit Graeme Edgeler about this, but I'm not sure Ede has personally done anything legally wrong. He worked for the Office of the Leader of the National Party, which is the same constitutionally as the Office of the Leader of the Labour Party etc so makes him a private citizen with a political job rather than an official.
The official information was given to him by the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's Office and then he used it politically, by giving it to Whaleoil. I don't see this is any different from an official leaking information to, say, Matt McCarten, and the McCarten using it politically.
I know this is splitting hairs but we have de facto state funding of political parties, through parliamentary services, and that is where Jason Ede worked and he did what any political staffer would do if they received official information that would damage their opponents. The fault lies with De Joux (and his bosses) who should at least have said to Tucker: "you know this is illegal under 4AA(1)(c), pull your head in".
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Yes. He's violated the Public Records Act.
I don't think Ede has at all. He was aways employed, as I understand it, by Parliamentary Services, in the Office of the Leader of the National Party. His emails are no more subject to the OIA or similar laws than Matt McCarten's. Which raises the question, of course, of why he didn't just use his parliament.govt.nz account.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Hilary Stace,
agree
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Hilary Stace,
Not really Hilary.
In 1980, Reagan was fresher and newer than Carter despite being 13 years older.
In 2003, Brash was fresher and newer than Bill English despite being 21 years older.
It is more about how long you've been in people's living rooms each night.
As for wisdom, sure: but that doesn't mean the people with experience need still be in parliament. Palmer, Moore, Bolger, Shipley, Clark, Cullen etc are never more than a text away. I think Key still takes advice from Jim McLay who was deputy PM to Muldoon. -
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Kumara Republic,
After the Nats slumped to the low 20s in 2002, the recovery process started with Michelle Boag clearing out the ‘dead wood’.
Not quite the sequencing.
Many of those who would have become deadwood having made important contributions to the party (Bolger, McKinnon, Birch, Graham and others whose names I and probably everyone else have forgotten) left at the 1999 election. This was part of an attempt (that obviously failed) to present the party as fresh and new for that election, with the promotions of Shipley, Creech, English, Sowry, Smith and Ryall,
So much of the deadwood clearing was complete the day National went into opposition.
Then there was a further process of clearing out deadwood that contributed to the 20.93% result in 2002. In that election, National got only four new MPs while others were chucked out by the voters. But the four were Don Brash, Judith Collins, John Key and, um, Brian Connell (no one gets everything right). Three out of 4 were potential prime ministers and of course one of them has become a three-term and probably four-term prime minister.
Clearing out deadwood therefore has a cost associated with it - public blood-letting, internal anger, some local members refusing to campaign, a slump in the polls etc. But this should be seen as an investment - as long as the new people coming in are in fact better than the ones leaving .
The trick is to do it as early in the term in opposition as possible (or even beforehand as Key has done getting rid of 14 MPs (14!) at the last election. With the exception of Clark and Cullen (am I missing anyone?, Labour has left it six years. Still, it has to be done. I like Goff, King, Mallard, Dyson etc (just as I liked and admired Bolger, McKinnon, Birch, Graham etc) but it would be absolutely ridiculous for them to be seen as part of a future Labour Government in 2017. Currently, the longest serving National MP is McCully, elected in 1987 - six years after Goff! And watch this space for whether he will be around in 2017.
Now I must do some writing for someone who actually pays …
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to warren mac,
What people need to do is actually give the guy a chance.
No one is going to "give the guy a chance". This is about who will be prime minister of New Zealand, not a giving a troubled teen a go at a job making fries at McDonalds.
No one gave Muldoon or Lange or Bolger or Clark or Key "a chance". To the contrary, powerful institutions (including the Labour or National party depending) did everything they could not to give them a chance.
If Andrew Little wants his name to be the next in that line, then he has to achieve it despite the fact powerful institutions will be doing everything they can to stop him.
And none of this is sinister. This is how competitive democracy works and it serves us better than any alternative I am aware of.
-
David Slack is not at all happy with the name of this event.
-
Speaker: David Fisher: The OIA arms race, in reply to nzlemming,
I was also told my an MBIE source the same - that every contact I have with the (mega)ministry had to be notified to beehive. (I assume this doesn't mean run of the mill Companies Office stuff)