Russel and Rodney’s chatroom of scandal
Keith Ng from Public Address and David Farrar of Kiwiblog conducted a chat session yesterday with Russel Norman and Rodney Hide on recent behaviour in and around Parliament, which you can read on Keith’s blog. Rodney doesn’t seem to think the small parties’ threatened walkout had much effect, but I disagree.
In a similar vein, National Radio sought to give the smaller parties a say on “dirty politics” on Nine to Noon this morning, with a prerecorded interview with Winston Peters and live discussion with Jeanette and Peter Dunne. You can hear that here.
Meanwhile, Farrar gives the Greens props for Jeanette’s stance on parliamentary spending at the Auditor General’s report yesterday. If you haven’t caught up with that, you can read about it, and view examples of the types of advertising involved, here.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Are you talking about the bombshell on Campbell Live this evening yet? http://www.tumeke.blogspot.com
September 24th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Holy moly! I turn my back for a couple of weeks and the NZ political scene turns to crud!
I had heard this stuff about Peter Davis being kissed by a man on election night, with the insinuation that the man was his boyfriend, and I vaguely thought : is Pete gay? I never knew. No big, either way.
But now I know that the man in question is Ian Scott! What a laugh!
I used to hang out with Peter and Ian in 1982/83… working on Labour Party health policy, among other things. (so maybe I’m gay too!) They were already old friends then (also colleagues I think, at med school), 24 years ago…
Peter and Helen had been married fairly recently, 1980 or 81 I think, after living together for years, I guess they thought it prudent for an MP to be married rather than living in sin, it was important to a lot of people in those distant days.
Ian was the first openly gay man to run for parliament, and we came squeaky close, in 1981 (we were beaten by a couple of hundred votes).
I just mean to say. Peter Davis being kissed by Ian Scott on election night, is the most natural thing in the world, and says nothing at all about Peter’s sexuality.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
alistair Says:
September 24th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
>I just mean to say. Peter Davis being kissed by Ian Scott on election night, is the most natural thing in the world, and says nothing at all about Peter’s sexuality.
He didn’t need to get so stuck in.
Henry
September 24th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Put it this way, Hen. If he’d been kissed by someone else’s wife in the same circumstances (election victory), would that be evidence of adultery?
September 24th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Henry says: “He didn’t need to get so stuck in.”
I saw the video clip several times, it was replayed so often that it would be fairly hard to miss! Peter Davis was kissed by a friend. He certainly didn’t get “stuck in” in return.
What would Henry have liked him to do? Rigidly reject any contact with a long time friend, except perhaps a “hearty slap on the back”? On that evening his friend’s hard work was a part of the Labour victory, his friend was Gay … Peter Davis did the right (and polite) thing, as would many “straight” males in the current younger generations (according to younger men that I have asked).
This “homophobia” that lingers among so many Kiwi males is rather sad.
I wonder what they/you are you so afraid of ?
If you applied the same rules to females we’d almost all be considered “Lesbians”…
September 25th, 2006 at 4:15 am
I’ve just been catching up with the last couple of weeks of NZ political news.
Ew yuck.
Looks to me, as Chris Trotter says, that it was Brash who opened Pandora’s box with the allegations of corruption.
Since then, the crap has hit the fan, everyone came out with all guns blazing. What the heck Don Brash’s private life has to do with the price of fish, I really don’t understand. Then some cruddy little magazine does a cover on Peter Davis, and the rest of the media picks it up, instead of avoiding it like the dog droppings it is.
One hopes they’ll all calm down a bit now.
—
So, to go back to the starting point :
* Is the Labour government corrupt?
* Has Brash opened a new era of nasty politics?
How about a thread on these important subjects?
September 25th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
but the thing there is eredwen..
is that many of those homophobes are turned on (in a major way) by the very idea of lesbianism…(in action..as it were..)
(eh henry..?..whaddayareckon..?..whoar..!..eh..?..)
i’m not sure there are that many women who get turned on by the idea of two men getting it on…..so i guess it’s just another one of those male ‘things’…eh..?
and this whole debate about who is or isn’t rummaging around in whoevers’ underwear has got me rigid..
with boredom…
and asking myself..”..what feckin’ year is this..?..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 25th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
phil u. Says:
September 25th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
is that many of those homophobes are turned on (in a major way) by the very idea of lesbianism…(in action..as it were..)
(eh henry..?..whaddayareckon..?..whoar..!..eh..?..)
It depends on whose doing it
Henry
September 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
q.e.d….henry..q.e.d…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I have been thining about Don’s alleged affair, and I have come to the conclusion it is relevent to his job for several reasons.
1. It is an abuse of power. Don, like Bill Clinton before him, is attractive to the opposite sex, not because of his irrisistible sex appeal, but because of the aphrodisiac of power. If he is prepared to accept power he should also accept it should be used responsibly.
2. As a leader he is, whether he likes it or not, a role model. So we should expect a higher standard of behaviour, again in return for his accepting power.
3. He campaigned on a “family values” ticket. So the issue is one of hypocrisy as much as adultory. If he was advocating free love, and an end to old-fashioned ties of marriage and family, then this would not be an issue. In fact it would almost be expected.
4. It is the wrong image for a future prime minister.
On the other hand I am disgusted with Mallard for dragging this into the open. I know this appears inconsistant, but I can’t think of a plausible explanation for the inconsistancy. Perhaps snitching is an even worse sin.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
September 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
um..kiore…just working on a numbers basis…
a wife..a mistress..who becomes a wife..then another mistress…
over how many decades..?
does not a stud-muffin make…
and the lame leader of our tories…not long for this political world..is an aphrodisiac..?
(sheesh..!..you’d need to get out more…eh..?..)
i can see your point about him banging on about ‘family values’ all the time..and that being a crock..
but i wish we had a more european/grown-up attitude to all this..
i mean..a persons political skills/abilities..aren’t effected by whoever has or hasn’t got their hands in their underpants..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 25th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Kiore :
In my book, 3 is the only valid reason for pointing the finger at Brash. Hypocrisy.
But on the other hand, I believe that respect for people’s private lives trumps all. That’s why Mallard’s (lovaduck) behaviour is disgusting to all decent people.
Your other reasons :
1) Yeah ok, if a rich and/or powerful older guy I know behaves in a predatory fashion wrt impressionable young things, I may well find that distasteful. But in Brash’s case, we’re not supposed to know about it (private life trumps the rest), so our distaste would be illicit. In any case, the woman is a millionaire, if I got that right, so she’s presumably big enough to look after herself. Money is an aphrodisiac too you know. Maybe Don was her boy toy?
3) doesn’t count either, since we’re not supposed to know about it (unless he was shoving it down the nation’s throats eh?)
4) Wrong image : that’s a bit vacuous. Again, private life.
The one element that might be a worry, for a future (ex-future) prime minister, is the idea that sleeping around, particularly with the rich and powerful, might lead him to mix up private and public life. Accord favours to millionaire mistresses. This is a legitimate concern, if he were to be lacking in moral rigour.