Posts by Chris Waugh
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I see a call for legal accountability as an obvious move.
Yes, but it's things like this:
Liu hurls accusations behind cover, protected by others and process,
that have me wondering.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Such spin
Makes about as much sense as anything else in this saga.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Jared savage says Barker up the Yangtze River. I think Barker’s stand is a good one too.
Thanks for the link. It’s interesting – from Barker’s description, it sounds like a purely opportunistic invite from Liu, as if he’d heard Barker was in town, decided it’d be a good idea to meet, and invited him along to a work do that was already scheduled. Not a whole lot to see here.
As for Barker’s tone, I’m curious as to the sudden increase in aggression. Should I conclude that Liu is a bit miffed at having been used to bash National and has decided to bite back, albeit from somewhere shadowy and out of direct sight of the public?
ETA: Has anyone outside the Press Gallery been speculating about Cunliffe’s leadership?
-
Good timing, Felix. I just read this article, which has a quite reasonable explanation for how the various National ministers had the letter.
But what has me going WTF? now is this:
Mr Woodhouse learned of the letter just a day after the Herald requested Immigration NZ's entire file on Liu's residency application.
Emphasis added, obviously. But really people, the entire file? Do you* have any idea of the kind of intensely personal stuff you have to put into such applications? Is there really any legitimate journalistic reason to request somebody's entire file?
*that particular 'you' directed at the Herald staff who did that particular bit of OIAing.
Oh, and Felix:
What’s interesting is the material he got covered Cunliffe’s letter and also Chris Carter’s letter, but not material involving former assoc’ immigration minister Damien O’Connor. We haven’t, as yet, got an explanation for why it wasn’t covered
I'm curious about that, too. After all, the Carter letter did actually advocate, and it was O'Connor who approved the residence application. I'm struggling to see how Cunliffe's letter is evidence of anything more than an electorate MP's electorate office doing its job.
-
Hard News: Sectarian Bloodlust 2.0, in reply to AndrewJ,
The obvious example is China, which made the transition from a tribal to state-based society about 1,500 years before western europe, but still hasn’t experienced anything resembling liberal democracy.
Except on Taiwan. Lucky little Republic of China.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
the Labour minister and the chartered boat trip up the Yangtze River.
Ooooh, I'm looking forward to this one!
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And you may well be right, Mr Ranapia, but there's something about the way this story has broken that just smells bad to me.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Um, wait a minute Russell you’re saying there’s something somehow untoward about a department promptly responding to a ministerial request?
Considering that this is no ordinary immigrant, that Donghua Liu's relations with various National people had been used to cause the government a bit of trouble, and that David Cunliffe is a big, juicy target, I think the question is more about Woodhouse's motives in asking for that particular letter than the department's speed in fulfilling his request.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Russell Brown,
Confusing, complicated indeed.
Did Woodhouse OIA his own department? If so, why?! And why does his office seem to be communicating with Key's office without his knowledge?
And am I reading too much into this, or has National been busy using its status as government raking up mud on the opposition? If so, is that legal or ethical?
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
My view of Williamson – and his “move on, nowt to see here” defenders – is perfectly clear and well on the record. That doesn’t make him a human shield for Cunliffe’s own words, actions and IMO (which you’re not obliged to agree with), at best, serious lack of judgement.
The problem I have is National and the media trying to draw some kind of equivalence between Williamson and Cunliffe. Cunliffe probably should be handling this situation better, but so far as we know he did not interfere in a police investigation, lobby for somebody to be given citizenship contrary to official advice and then personally perform that citizenship ceremony and apparently a couple of other things besides. Compared to that, Cunliffe's letter is somewhat less than underwhelming, and yet the likes of John Armstrong and the anonymous Herald editorial writers have worked themselves up into a froth of rage and called for his resignation. And I don't recall any such spittle-flecked flurries of rage over Judith Colliins/Oravida or John Key's "charity" golf with Stone Shi. I do note the media is happy to repeat John Key's rumours of bigger donations to Labour without any obvious attempt at requesting evidence.
So, sure, "But Williamson did worse" is not a defence. But if it's corrupt relationships with between business people and MPs we're looking for, there certainly seems to be a much richer vein to be mined in National ranks. Going by the information that we have so far, that is.