RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
joblow

Our Prime Minister

Recommended Posts

Richard Worth was not even the subject of police enquiries. Key just said]

There is no comparison and every instance is different. But you are wrong. Worth was the subject of Police inquiries and the allegations against him by the woman concerned were later published. They were eventually dropped and the police inquiry discontinued but Worth's resignation/sacking was not over whether he was guilty of a crime or not but in Key's words, his conduct did not befit a Cabinet Minister and he had lost confidence in Worth as a Cabinet Minister & an MP. There were also other incidents that Worth was involved with earlier that contributed and it would seem he virtually admitted to Key privately actions unbefitting a cabinet minister or gave key good reason to believe that. There is no evidence at present that Hughes has done the same for Goff to reach that conclusion yet. But things change quickly in politics.

At present unlike Worth, we know nothing of the background of the allegations concerning Hughes' and until we do the concept of innocent till proven guilty applies.

Goff acted quickly on Chris Carter and he was not the subject of any police inquiry but like Key said of Worth, his actions were not those befitting someone in his position.

Things may not look good for Hughes at the moment but not looking good is not the same as guilt or proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU Are an idiot

:D

How people can still find flaws in John Key has me bemused as well as amused! He's outstanding. A smooth and effective operator who has first hand knowledge of economics as well. So many of you are saying you'd prefer that evil dimwitted creature Clark back at the helm?? Watching her clutch at straws and pathetic tactics during the last election was a wake up call to both Labour and National followers. Goodbye and good riddance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

How people can still find flaws in John Key has me bemused as well as amused! He's outstanding. A smooth and effective operator who has first hand knowledge of economics as well. So many of you are saying you'd prefer that evil dimwitted creature Clark back at the helm?? Watching her clutch at straws and pathetic tactics during the last election was a wake up call to both Labour and National followers. Goodbye and good riddance!

John Key has no flaws? Are you retarded or do you have a blue eye-patch on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

How people can still find flaws in John Key has me bemused as well as amused! He's outstanding. A smooth and effective operator who has first hand knowledge of economics as well. So many of you are saying you'd prefer that evil dimwitted creature Clark back at the helm?? Watching her clutch at straws and pathetic tactics during the last election was a wake up call to both Labour and National followers. Goodbye and good riddance!

A very objective assessment of the party leaders uncoloured by partisan philosophical or ideological leanings.

What absolute bollocks. Key is no more perfect, unflawed and unblemished than many other PMs before him. Working in a part of the financial sector does not necessarily prepare someone as an economic wiz. It means he has one particularly narrow experience of economics, which incidentally dovetails with national's ideology.

If he was such a brilliant economist then perhaps he should have taken the finance portfolio himself. There is a precedent in our recent history of the PM also being the Minister of Finance and also at least twice, a deputy PM being Finance Minister.

Cullen was just as adept at financial management as anyone the opposite side can put up, simply they did not agree with his policy direction. That comes down to philosophy and ideology.

If you swapped the leaders from their respective parties and had Goff leading the Nats, Clark as an ex Nat PM, Cullen as an ex nat Finance Minister and Key and English leading Labour; it's almost certain people like you would be personally denigrating Key and English and claiming Clark and Cullen as examples of political perfection.

You forgot to mention that key's sh*te don't smell as bad as that of his opponents either.

The argument as I said earlier should be about what the parties do, did, will do or have done, not who looks the prettiest doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

How people can still find flaws in John Key has me bemused as well as amused! He's outstanding. A smooth and effective operator who has first hand knowledge of economics as well. So many of you are saying you'd prefer that evil dimwitted creature Clark back at the helm?? Watching her clutch at straws and pathetic tactics during the last election was a wake up call to both Labour and National followers. Goodbye and good riddance!

Fran O'Sullivan not known for her left wing views to say the least wrote in the NZ Herald in Nov 2008 "...Prime Minister John Key shows every sign he has the ability to fill Helen Clark's place on the world stage..." So I take it from your post that she must have meant Key is an evil, dimwitted creature who clutches at straws and employs pathetic tactics.

Besides no one has said they want Clark back as PM, quote one recent post that has said that. We would not be looking at her returning to the job any more than we'd look to Kirk, Nash, Fraser, Palmer, Rowling, Tizard, Lange, Moore or Savage.

We have to move on and look at the party leaders we have, not the past. She is highly regarded internationally and always was and from what I hear doing a good job in her role at the UN, so why would she need to come back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john key like all politicians, can not and should not be trusted.that goes for helen clark...

how can any one trust political leaders that bull**** the normal every day working man ,woman and child. with corruption of earth quake magnatude.and it is not just a national /labour thing as some on here would suggest.. now we even have a labour chief whip being looked at by the police...

think we should take a leaf out of the arabs book and have riots and over throw the government no matter which party is in power...... run the bastards out..... yaaaaaaaaa...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you prefer Frilly Philly?? "Oh on my way to the Chch CBD I had to hitchhike from the airport. It took me a couple of hours to hitchhike. I was so nervous at what damage I would see from the earthquake that while hitchhiking it dominated my thoughts. My asistant and I were feeling the same way....blah blah bloody blah"

Two things Phil: Id say your assistant actually gave you a ride to the CBD or, if you actually DID hitchhike the reason it took you so long is because no one wanted a loser from the Labour Party in their damn car!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

How people can still find flaws in John Key has me bemused as well as amused! He's outstanding. A smooth and effective operator who has first hand knowledge of economics as well. So many of you are saying you'd prefer that evil dimwitted creature Clark back at the helm?? Watching her clutch at straws and pathetic tactics during the last election was a wake up call to both Labour and National followers. Goodbye and good riddance!

John Keys employment before politics was investing and making money,today his position is to run a country heavily in debt.And I don't think his gvt has any idea how to achieve this,after all,Labour lost the election through the people wanting change from a nanny run gvt.National came in with bugger all policy,we WON"T increase gst,we Will make everybody better off,we WILL make electricity cheaper,I WON"T allow ministers to rip off the public by abusing their Wgtn accommodation claims(Tisch&English caught with their snouts in the trough)and the list goes on.Yes,he's done a good PR job with the people of Ch-ch&Greymouth,but I wouldn't expect anything less from the leader of our country.And he's relying on a major sport event to turn this country around.Sorry,only bold,ruthless leadership will do this,and I don't believe this leader has those qualitys.In closing,I will admit that at this stage I am not sure that there is anybody of the quality needed,to replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goff's action is perfectly consistent with that.

No, it is not, Phil...

The word 'consistent' and the name 'Phil Goff' don't deserve to feature in the same book, let alone the same sentence.

The Internet is wonderful, Phil]'consistency':

Richard Worth

Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth would have been stripped of his portfolio over the conflict of interest controversy if he had been a Labour MP, Opposition leader Phil Goff says.

"I think that if you breach the cabinet manual in terms of conflict of interest, you're gone.

Interestingly, today Mr Goff 'admits' he was wrong to call for Prime Minister John Key to sack Richard Worth soon after a police complaint was made against him.

Mr Worth resigned soon afterward and no charges were laid.

Mr Goff said he had now learned some things about the complexity of such situations.

"I'm going to be the first to admit I was wrong in the judgment I made at that time. People are entitled to be regarded as innocent until they are proven guilty. I believe I got it wrong, in hindsight, yes."

In other words, it is now important that we back off Darren even if I did no such thing re Richard.

Hypocrite!

Pansy Wong

Pansy Wong needs to front up & explain herself to taypayers - she has clearly breached the rules.

Meantimes, Darren hides...

Hypocrite!

Darren Hughes

'Mr Hughes deserves to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.'

Mr Hughes, of course, is now hiding low and refusing to comment.

Phil Goff, if consistent, would be demanding he (Hughes) front to the public...

Hypocrite...

It's good to see the hypocrisy surfacing before the election.

And I including the sucking-up-to-Winston-because-we-need-all-the-help-we-can-get bit there, too!

From John Armstrong:

The Labour Party will not be judged by what Darren Hughes has or has not done in his private life.

It will be judged according to how Phil Goff handles the crisis which has enveloped one of Labour's bright young rising stars and consequently the party as well.

Goff's management of the crisis has already begged a major question. Why did the Labour leader not immediately stand Hughes down from his roles as Labour's chief whip and education spokesman two weeks ago when the MP told him he was the subject of a police investigation?

Had he gone on the front foot then - rather than being forced to fess up yesterday in the face of rapidly snowballing media inquiries - Goff would have got some plaudits for being upfront.

He would also have got marks for consistency. Back in 2009, Goff launched into John Key for not immediately stripping Richard Worth of his ministerial warrant after the Prime Minister had been apprised of allegations of a sexual nature made against the then National MP.

Goff now risks being marked down for double standards. At his press conference yesterday, he said he had opted not to relieve Hughes of his shadow portfolio responsibilities because he had felt the complaint was "not relevant" to his ability to do his job.

That jars awkwardly with Goff having now granted Hughes leave from Parliament for the very reason that he cannot carry out his normal duties.

By not standing Hughes down immediately, Goff has also risked Labour looking as though it has been trying to hide the fact that the police have been investigating one of its senior MPs.

That investigation was always going to become public knowledge simply by virtue of the police having already interviewed a number of people in connection with the case. When it comes to politics, Wellington is a very small town.

Goff's political management accordingly starts to look misguided at best and downright stupid at worst.

Goff isn't stupid. He and his close advisers obviously weighed up the pluses of front-footing the problem.

Watching Mr Goff squirm re a man who, don't forget, is the Education Spokesman (I sure as hell wouldn't want a kid of mine having any contact with him) and is No. 8 on the Labour Party list, I'm not 100% sure re that second-last statement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am delighted to see the intelligent and in some cases brilliant comments in response to my initial post.

I don't agree with many of them but hey -they have stimulated some good debate.

My faith in the 400,000 odd NZers who aren't sheep is somewhat restored.

A couple of comments in response.

1. I agree with Phil that just because Mr Key may have traded some currencies and equities in his day doesn't make him an economics expert.

2. However, please remember what economics is. It's a bit like the story of the young student who went into the library at the University and asked where the books on economics where. The librarian's response - "down the aisle over there next to the fiction section".

3. Economists do not have the faintest clue where things are headed. They rely on statistics and trends and as they say -there are three sorts of lies - "lies, damn lies and statistics".

4. I disagree with the comment connecting the late great Rob Muldoon with not actually doing things and being a dictator. True - he was a bit of a mad, dictatorial, Machiavellian character. But he was also a bit of a mover and shaker and he did make decisions. Most NZers wouldn't mind seeing his policies around wage and price freezes at the moment.

5. Since Rob, we have had close on 30 years of indecisive leadership and decision making and I am sorry to say that under Key it is continuing. Ok - he makes decisions around who is going to be in his Scout and Girl Guide group - but very little else.

6. NZ is up to its neck at the moment in debt and ****e and decisions are needed fast.

7. Shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic by trying to save a million here and a million there won't work.

8. The only way we will get through the next 3-5 years with the shirts on our backs, rebuild the economy and rebuild Christchurch will be by the Government having the balls to to increase revenue through raising taxes, even if it is only temporary for 2-3 years.

9. The people to hit the hardest here will be the high income earners who have had it sweet for the last 10-20 years. Nail them with an additional tax of say 5%-7% on every dollar over $100,000. This would probably raise an additional $3b-$5b depending on how it is structured.

10. I fall into that bracket and would be happy to contribute whether it be compulsory or voluntary. It is the only solution.

Will Key and English have the gonads to make that decision? I doubt as they have the blinkers on at present and are only interested in pandering to their loyal right wing supporters to vote them in for another term.

Irony is that I will vote for them if they made such a decision to raise taxes and won't if they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not, Phil...

The word 'consistent' and the name 'Phil Goff' don't deserve to feature in the same book, let alone the same sentence.

The Internet is wonderful, Phil]'consistency':

Richard Worth

Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth would have been stripped of his portfolio over the conflict of interest controversy if he had been a Labour MP, Opposition leader Phil Goff says.

"I think that if you breach the cabinet manual in terms of conflict of interest, you're gone.

Interestingly, today Mr Goff 'admits' he was wrong to call for Prime Minister John Key to sack Richard Worth soon after a police complaint was made against him.

Mr Worth resigned soon afterward and no charges were laid.

Mr Goff said he had now learned some things about the complexity of such situations.

"I'm going to be the first to admit I was wrong in the judgment I made at that time. People are entitled to be regarded as innocent until they are proven guilty. I believe I got it wrong, in hindsight, yes."

In other words, it is now important that we back off Darren even if I did no such thing re Richard.

Hypocrite!

Pansy Wong

Pansy Wong needs to front up & explain herself to taypayers - she has clearly breached the rules.

Meantimes, Darren hides...

Hypocrite!

Darren Hughes

'Mr Hughes deserves to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.'

Mr Hughes, of course, is now hiding low and refusing to comment.

Phil Goff, if consistent, would be demanding he (Hughes) front to the public...

Hypocrite...

It's good to see the hypocrisy surfacing before the election.

And I including the sucking-up-to-Winston-because-we-need-all-the-help-we-can-get bit there, too!

From John Armstrong:

The Labour Party will not be judged by what Darren Hughes has or has not done in his private life.

It will be judged according to how Phil Goff handles the crisis which has enveloped one of Labour's bright young rising stars and consequently the party as well.

Goff's management of the crisis has already begged a major question. Why did the Labour leader not immediately stand Hughes down from his roles as Labour's chief whip and education spokesman two weeks ago when the MP told him he was the subject of a police investigation?

Had he gone on the front foot then - rather than being forced to fess up yesterday in the face of rapidly snowballing media inquiries - Goff would have got some plaudits for being upfront.

He would also have got marks for consistency. Back in 2009, Goff launched into John Key for not immediately stripping Richard Worth of his ministerial warrant after the Prime Minister had been apprised of allegations of a sexual nature made against the then National MP.

Goff now risks being marked down for double standards. At his press conference yesterday, he said he had opted not to relieve Hughes of his shadow portfolio responsibilities because he had felt the complaint was "not relevant" to his ability to do his job.

That jars awkwardly with Goff having now granted Hughes leave from Parliament for the very reason that he cannot carry out his normal duties.

By not standing Hughes down immediately, Goff has also risked Labour looking as though it has been trying to hide the fact that the police have been investigating one of its senior MPs.

That investigation was always going to become public knowledge simply by virtue of the police having already interviewed a number of people in connection with the case. When it comes to politics, Wellington is a very small town.

Goff's political management accordingly starts to look misguided at best and downright stupid at worst.

Goff isn't stupid. He and his close advisers obviously weighed up the pluses of front-footing the problem.

Watching Mr Goff squirm re a man who, don't forget, is the Education Spokesman (I sure as hell wouldn't want a kid of mine having any contact with him) and is No. 8 on the Labour Party list, I'm not 100% sure re that second-last statement...

Similar accusations of inconsistency could also be aimed at Key for a range of things he said especially prior to the election and then went back on.

What is so wrong stating you made a mistake and error of judgement and learnt from it? Apparently you are suggesting that one should never admit you are wrong even if you know you are and carry on regardless. The comments made are partisan and have to do with political leanings of the participants not an appraisal of the handling of it.

Goff has said why he did not sack or stand down Hughes at the time but has done so now for the period of the inquiry. It had nothing to do with whether the MP was guilty or not but whether the inquiry was made public because if the latter it would interfere with his work as an MP. Do you have to give up your job if someone alleges something against you?

Whether Hughes is guilty of the allegations whatever they are will determine the next course of action and whether Judith Tizard comes into parliament again or Hughes stays there. However it is possible Hughes might go even if the police inquiry does clear him. You can ruin the career of anyone in public office with an allegation whether there later proves to be any substance to it or not.

It's becoming a case of pots and kettles at present. Key held on to Worth for as long as he could until it became untenable for him to continue. Goff's call for his resignation while maybe wrong was not the reason Key got rid of him. Key made the point then that it was for behaviour not befitting his position. So Key obviously had other information from his discussions with Worth and others than just the police investigation and there other incidents involving worth prior to and around that time as well.

Pansy Wong's case is quite different. She was clearly found to have breached the rules and later admitted to it. Again she stayed around till it was no longer tenable to do so and was later found to have breached the rules on more than one occasion. Pansy Wong was asked to front up because it had already been established she had broken parliamentary rules. Nothing has been established against Hughes as yet.

I said Goff's actions were consistent with the practice of innocent till proven otherwise, why would they not be?

Like I said earlier, these allegations and claims against Goff have more to do with the political colour of the allegers than the actual situation.

The time for action is on the outcome of the inquiry if nothing else surfaces prior to that. It is possible that Hughes may elect to go anyway if his position becomes untenable. However at present none of us really know what the allegation is and whether there is any substance to it until the inquiry is complete and released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you prefer Frilly Philly?? "Oh on my way to the Chch CBD I had to hitchhike from the airport. It took me a couple of hours to hitchhike. I was so nervous at what damage I would see from the earthquake that while hitchhiking it dominated my thoughts. My asistant and I were feeling the same way....blah blah bloody blah"

Two things Phil: Id say your assistant actually gave you a ride to the CBD or, if you actually DID hitchhike the reason it took you so long is because no one wanted a loser from the Labour Party in their damn car!!!

Your thinking is so shallow that if the water in my fish ponds and tanks was twice as deep as it, my goldfish would still suffocate and die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for over $100,000,I would be willing to contribute over 2-3 years on a couple of conditions.

1/No more immigrants or refugees who do not have permanent employment on arrival until our unemployment figure is below 40,000.

2/Consideration given to all beneficaries recieving coupons instead of cash,if they want cigarettes,drugs,alcohol,go and find some work or gvt supply it and not like recent failure like community max scheme.

Before the beneficiary bashing claim starts,I pay a lot of current tax to support SOME lazy recipients of the benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for over $100,000,I would be willing to contribute over 2-3 years on a couple of conditions.

1/No more immigrants or refugees who do not have permanent employment on arrival until our unemployment figure is below 40,000.

2/Consideration given to all beneficaries recieving coupons instead of cash,if they want cigarettes,drugs,alcohol,go and find some work or gvt supply it and not like recent failure like community max scheme.

Before the beneficiary bashing claim starts,I pay a lot of current tax to support SOME lazy recipients of the benefit.

1. Our immigration policy already requires new immigrants to have employment on arrival, with some exceptions such as the Pacific where we have some historical obligations that cannot be invoked and ignored when it suits us. If we do then other countries will feel free to treat us equally shabbily.

With refugees, how on earth are they to arrange a job here when they usually have to flee their country in a hurry, spend time in refugee camps and travel on forged passports etc and evade officials of the regime they are fleeing from if they are to survive. One can plan to be immigrant but planning to be a refugee contradicts the whole concept and definition of being a refugee. resettling refugees usually means establishing them in a new place with everything they need as they have usually lost everything in their hurried departure and it's too dangerous to return.

2. Your voucher idea is unrealistic. The whole concept paying cash from the first benefits issued - the old age pensions - of the late 1800s and early 1900s onward involved cash to avoid the stigma attached to the old workhouse/poorhouse and public charities schemes which did just that and stigmatised those who through no fault of their own found themselves in difficult situations. You'd penalise, humiliate and stigmatise a large section of the population who are responsible but find themselves in unfortunate circumstances just to get at a small minority of abusers who always will be found no matter what the system.

Such punitive and targetted schemes seldom actually get at the lazy persons you want to hit, because while they might be lazy they are usually wily and can usually get around the system. the ones such systems usually hook are the innocent who don't deserve to be treated so.

Benefit abuse still accounts for a tiny percentage of the system despite the use of it as a catch-cry by vote seeking politicians at election times. How often have wee seen them make a song and dance about it at election time and then quietly drop it once elected. The reason is it is not as widespread as people believe and for the amount of abuse stopped or recovered payments, the resources spent will not match the fiscal or social costs.

There is already a fraud investigation section within the ministry of Social Devpt and they recover a certain amount every year but too punitive an approach will hit the wrong people.

Unless you want a system that sets out to socially stigmatise certain classes & groups of people then we should stay away from the voucher concept. It already applies to the idea of emergency grants for groceries etc and that is sufficient. Extending it is impractical. We spent a great deal of effort moving away from the concept of the poorhouse & workhouse and dependence on charities and arbitrary rules that decided entitlement based on what someone defined at any one time as "good Christian character." I don't think we want to go back it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for over $100,000,I would be willing to contribute over 2-3 years on a couple of conditions...

Good to see some here are prepared to look at that option even if I cannot agree with the conditions you attach to it.

Making the tax system less & less progressive from the 1980s onward has been the biggest setback to our development as a society, along with shortsighted abolition of good investment schemes and organisations such as the National Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund, Ministry of Works & Devpt and the sale of many essential key assets, services and infrastructure. If the old MOW had still been around today things may have been able to move much more quickly after the Chch quake.

The NPF was a valuable source of local govt lending for major infrastructure projects at affordable rates. That option is no longer available at great cost to ratepayers. There are numerous other examples where the ill thought out changes from that period through to about the early to mid 90s cost us dearly as a nation.

We have probably spent more money reinventing the wheel than any gains made in a lot of the so called restructuring including restructuring of the tax system.

As I've said before Treasury's (and lately ACT's) idea of restructuring is to destroy a perfectly good working public service or utility, because while it may work really well in practice, it does not work in theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so wrong stating you made a mistake and error of judgement and learnt from it? Apparently you are suggesting that one should never admit you are wrong even if you know you are and carry on regardless.

I'm surprised at you, Phil...

Timing is everything...

Let's do the timeline:

June 2009. Richard Worth resigns. Phil Goff is silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

April 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

May 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

June 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2011. Darren Hughes stands accused of thinking with his penis. Phil Goff admits he made a mistake and now thinks it is only fair that the presumption of innocence should apply until someone is proven guilty.

That is pure hypocrisy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Props , Do you think that it could only be a coincidence that it was fortuitious that the shock horror story broke on the morning of the passing of the contentious foreshore and seabed legislation? It seems that Tory press is more interested in plastering their front page with a sleasy gossip story than informing the country of what is really going on with this government. There is a real stench of dead rodents emanating from the beehive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised at you, Phil...

Timing is everything...

Let's do the timeline:

June 2009. Richard Worth resigns. Phil Goff is silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

April 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

May 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

June 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2011. Darren Hughes stands accused of thinking with his penis. Phil Goff admits he made a mistake and now thinks it is only fair that the presumption of innocence should apply until someone is proven guilty.

That is pure hypocrisy...

:D

Now THATS funny! Wrap your trainspotting jacket with that one Philo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Props , Do you think that it could only be a coincidence that it was fortuitious that the shock horror story broke on the morning of the passing of the contentious foreshore and seabed legislation? It seems that Tory press is more interested in plastering their front page with a sleasy gossip story than informing the country of what is really going on with this government. There is a real stench of dead rodents emanating from the beehive.

May I remind you that the Hughes affair actually happened over 3 weeks ago?

Well before the foreshore legislation was due to come before the house.

Now Mr Goff has - for his own reasons - sat on the news in the (naive) belief that either it would all blow over or that no-one would notice...

For you to attempt to blame the National-led Government for Labour's inability to control their own members (and, remember, this happened in the house of the Labour Party Deuty Leader) is plain laughable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised at you, Phil...

Timing is everything...

Let's do the timeline:

June 2009. Richard Worth resigns. Phil Goff is silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

April 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

May 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

June 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2011. Darren Hughes stands accused of thinking with his penis. Phil Goff admits he made a mistake and now thinks it is only fair that the presumption of innocence should apply until someone is proven guilty.

That is pure hypocrisy...

No it's not except in partisan pointscoring. The Worth affair was done and dusted at the time and things moved on. If one thought in hindsight that one's judgement was wrong at the time, it's highly unlikely that you would resurrect the issue just to announce that unless something arose to bring it back into focus which is what has happened. Political pointscoring on such issues is not a good idea for any party - many MPs from both sides are fallible enough to fall into such problems. Some do and are lucky that they don't get caught out, others not so. Both parties have a long list of such lapses. Having a member or two unable to keep their penis in their pocket is not a guide to how good your policies are for the country.

Many leading politicians interviewed long after events have candidly mentioned in interviews that in certain events they think they got it wrong and would do it differently with the benefit of hindsight. But that is often the first we hear of their misgivings. They don't keep announcing it regularly after the event and it often only comes out as the result of an interview or suchlike.

People usually say that admitting your mistakes and accepting and learning from them is a sign of strength. But obviously that depends on whether partisan politics is involved or not.

You agree with Goff on his call on Worth being wrong but now seem to suggest that we continue to treat future transgressions the same way for the sake of consistency. That verges perilously close to hypocrisy.

If you admit a mistake then it is not possible to be consistent in your treatment of the issue the next time something like that happens. I'd suggest that realising an error and continuing to repeat it is knowing the consequences is hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You agree with Goff on his call on Worth being wrong but now seem to suggest that we continue to treat future transgressions the same way for the sake of consistency. That verges perilously close to hypocrisy.

Incredible thinking, Philocon.

If you can't accept Phil Goff is a hypocrite that's your problem, not mine.

His revelation that his actions in the Worth affair were wrong, I will stress again, and that natural justice must apply, only came after he was suddenly landed with the Hughes affair.

Why then, eh?

Why not in any of the (detailed in my post) umpteen months before?

The mess (re the cover-up) is entirely of Mr Goff's own doing.

What he should have done, on Day One, was stand Hughes down, tell Parliament he had been stood down, and say that he would take further action if and when further developments occurred.

He did nothing.

Nothing.

For two weeks at least. Probably three because I am sure that since this happened in Annette King's house she at least would have known about it from Night One.

Laughably, I see someone is suggesting that National 'leaked' this story just so they could get the Foreshore legislation passed 'on the quiet'.

What is National expected to do when future contentious legislation comes up?

NOTICE

This is to advise the Labour Party that on June 25 we will be putting the (Name of Contentious Bill) through Parliament. The Labour Party is hereby given three months notice that they should conduct themselves honourably for that period so as not to queer their leader's speech opportunities when he objects to that bill.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I remind you that the Hughes affair actually happened over 3 weeks ago?

Well before the foreshore legislation was due to come before the house.

Now Mr Goff has - for his own reasons - sat on the news in the (naive) belief that either it would all blow over or that no-one would notice...

For you to attempt to blame the National-led Government for Labour's inability to control their own members (and, remember, this happened in the house of the Labour Party Deuty Leader) is plain laughable!

No one has tried to blame the Nats for what has happened. How do you suggest political parties control their members private lives? Unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be all parties have to trust their MPs to behave to certain standards etc. Now and again that trust is breached as humans are infallible although you seem to only concede that point on humans on the left of the political spectrum - even the sh*te of the right don't stink.

They are not in a positon to monitor their bedrooms and where they sleep and with whom.

What is clear from what press gallery journos have revealed to Goff and others in the party is that the leak of the information came from the Beehive. My experience of these sorts of issues is that both sides get hold of the info fairly well in advance and if someone chooses to release it they can choose their timing. The press coverage has been over the top as usual on this and this has been commented on in other media. key may well not have any prior knowledge of the release by someone in his office, but that doesn't mean no one there did it.

National MP Simon Bridges who was with Hughes on the night said "I certainly didn't see anything inappropriate happening. I think it's a matter we've got to leave to the police to investigate as thoroughly and quickly as possible now."

Goff was not necessarily hoping it would blow over, because everyone including him knows that never happens. he was letting the police get on with their investigation which surely is the right thing to do. If the police investigation shows the allegation to not have substance, does the attention then shift to view that MPs are not allowed to have a relationship or sex with anyone else, or same sex relationships are only allowed for the general population not MPs?

Judging from the thread on the Thoroughbred forum (exactly what it's relevance was there I don't know), latent homophobia is starting to emerge over this and we are not as tolerant and enlightened a society as often try to pretend we are.

Your references to it happening in the deputy leader's home are irrelevant also. Hughes stays there when in Wgtn on parliamentary business. She is not his mum and he is over the age of consent. Maybe she should wait up for him every night and monitor his nocturnal activities and ban him from bringing any friends home to his room. Is that what you expect of other landlords too. The fact she is his landlady is coincidental.

Hypocrisy on this issue is rampant but not from the leaderships of the parliamentry parties or their MPs but from many supporters and in the media. However what is more worrying than that is the blatant bigotry and homophobia that is emerging amongst some people.

Ultimately the issue will blow over like Worth and all those other events but it proves an untimely distraction from the real issues in an election year when the country can least afford such distractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More incredible stuff, Phil...

IN the one breath you say:

No one has tried to blame the Nats for what has happened.

And in the next you say:

What is clear from what press gallery journos have revealed to Goff and others in the party is that the leak of the information came from the Beehive.

Now, last time I looked, The Beehive was still occupied by the National-led Government.

Goff himself said 'the leak came from the Beehive'

Ipso facto, he is blaming (well, attempting to) National...

And it ain't working...

I mentioned Annette King's house, Phil, becuase she was in the house at the time.

Darren would have mentioned what had happened to her.

She would have reported that to Phil Goff.

So when Phil Goff says he has only known about this a fortnight, I think he's telling porkies.

He's likely known about it three weeks.

And

done

nothing

until

his

hand

was

forced

.

No homophobia from me, Phil. All I see is an older man forcing his attentions on someone younger.

Spin it all you like, Hughes is a creep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philicon

you are defending the indefensible, and it would appear that is due to your own political bias.

We all are influenced in how we view events by our own self interest/views.

I have no problem stating that I am not a Labour voter so I know I have a bias. But I can also work out that my view that Goff is a hypocrite in this instance is a valid one. Even Goff has come out and said it.

The fact it is in King's house is of course relevant. No she is not his Mum, BUT both her and Clark have taken this guy under their wing and if he is guilty of an error in judgement (or worse), then they have some guilt by association. That may not be fair, but they chose to be politicians.

Any party which regularly unleashes Hodgson and Mallard can not expect sympathy when the boot is on the other foot.

One interesting aspect of this is that Key showed remarkable restraint in not putting the boot into Goff after his acknowledgement he got the Worth thing wrong. Still Philicon no doubt you will not acknowledge that fact becasue of your own leanings (and yes I bring it up because of my leanings !)

So Labour are minus a shining star. Their leader once again looks muddled, and any leverage they may have been able to generate on economy, foreshore etc etc is lost. All good then;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.