Helen Clark on Checkpoint
I’ve just been listening to the Prime Minister’s interview with Mary Wilson this evening and have got three comments I’d like to make. First she said in relation to her not disclosing her knowledge about the conflicting evidence in relation to Mr Peters’ story relating to Mr Glenn’s $100,000 donation:
It wasn’t my job to hold a press conference and say I’ve had two private conversations… This is a matter between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn.
Now, I don’t know whose side of the story I believe or what the Privileges Committee will or should find. But surely the reason the issue is before the Privileges Committee at all is because it is more than just a private matter between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn. It is a matter of public interest. I’m not at all convinced the Prime Minister can credibly run the ‘it was private and it was none of my business’ defense.
Secondly she repeatedly said throughout the interview that this election would be about trust. That worries me, because I inferred from that that she intends this campaign to be a dirty one where Labour will go out to prove that National is not trustworthy (and the PM says as much in the interview). The last thing New Zealand needs after the 2005 election is an attacking, dirty campaign. Labour could still still, if it wanted, run on its record without turning this campaign into a nasty, personalised and muddy one. I hope it will (and likewise other parties).
And, talking about running on your record, the Prime Minister says something like (apologies I didn’t manage to write down the full quote as she was talking):
It frankly isn’t credible for the National Party to spend years attacking Kiwisaver, Working for Families, 20 hours free early childhood education, cheaper doctors’ fees, and then turn around and say ‘we like all that now’. That’s serious. People who do that cannot be trusted.
Except that this is exactly the approach that Labour is taking on important environmental policies. It has spent three terms overseeing increased carbon emissions, deforestation, intensifying industrial dairy and worsening water quality. And is now saying it is the ’sustainability’ party. It may want to be careful about the emotive terms it uses to frame this election.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
C’mon. The only accurate statement made in the house yesterday was horrible Bill English when he said:
“the only reason Clark hasn’t sacked Peters is because he knows where the bodies are buried!”
September 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Excellent analysis Frog. What I want to know is why does the Green party, if they truly are the “sustainable” party, have to be such Watermelons?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I’m still waiting to be convinced that Helen Clark is innocent of wrongdoing in this affair.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
sorry frog..you are talking absolute rubbish..
”key has secret agendas/secret meetings with rightwing financier lord ashcroft..
..privatising..social services cutting..
..cosby textor..
..the list goes on and on..
..highlighting these facts of what a pile of horse-sh*t key/national are trying to flog to us..
..is not ‘dirty campaigning’..
..get some mongrel..!
..frog.!
..this is serious..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I occasionally watch Parliament TV, and it is really tiresome to see the same phrases dragged out over and over again by all Labour MPs, but primarily by Annette King. The phrases go something like this:
- “He is just repeating what Crosby Textor has told him to say”
- “What kind of secret agenda might National pull out after the election?” - in the hope everyone will forget Labours secret agendas that have been put in place without being campaigned on, such as removing the right to appeal to the Privy Council, a major constitutional amendment. This phrase has now become:
- “National’s secret agendas” as if this is now a proven fact because it has been repeated so often.
- “the Exclusive Brethren” - come on, that was three years ago, and it wasn’t even the Exclusive Brethren, just a few businessmen who conveniently happened to all attend that church so they can collectively be branded a bunch of sinister plotters by Labour’s propaganda machine.
Really, don’t they have anything better to say? Aren’t they just repeating whatever their advisors have told them to say over and over and over in the hope the public will forget the real issues and believe them?
There are plenty of real issues to discuss this election without that sort of nonsense.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
BB, Toad - Since you are both keeping score - have you noticed that this post isn’t perhaps the most Labour friendly Post?
September 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
You greens have been Labour friendly since day one , too late to change now and you will be obliterated with them. Good riddance I say.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Mr Dennis !!!
“the Exclusive Brethrenâ€? - come on, that was three years ago, and it wasn’t even the Exclusive Brethren, just a few businessmen who conveniently happened to all attend that church”
ha ha ha ha ha ha !
September 13th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Greenfly, just as a few people who happen to be Green party members are not the Green Party, a few people who happen to attend a particular church are not that church.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Saying it was “the” Exclusive Brethren (still the only group apart from white middle aged males that the Greens discriminate against) is a bit like saying that all Greens are communists.
But our friends the Greens have never let the truth get in the way of their Utu.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
ha ha ha ha ha !!
September 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Mr D, while you’re bit about the Brethren is weird, I agree with the sentiment of your post. The main problem with it is that the Nats do exactly the same thing, so you do come off appearing a bit biased.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
“It frankly isn’t credible for the National Party to spend years attacking Kiwisaver, Working for Families, 20 hours free early childhood education, cheaper doctors’ fees, and then turn around and say ‘we like all that now’. That’s serious. People who do that cannot be trusted.”
And that is also the approach Labour took on hundreds of National Party policies of the 1990s. If you haven’t noticed, aside from a few policies, Labour has hardly reversed what happened in the 1990s. Why? I’ll leave you to guess.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Can’t trust either of them.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Valis,
Mind you the Greens joint leaders ta policy states the following
Can we trust the Greens with the cullen fund and kiwisaver?
September 14th, 2008 at 8:21 am
It should be a public offence for Labour and the Greens to campaign around the word “TRUST”. It’s the ultimate insult!
September 14th, 2008 at 8:59 am
d4j - your continued grating, snivelling presence on this blog could be thought of as the ultimate insult. Go and plot and connive amongst those you do trust.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:05 am
two words for you d4j..
‘lord ashcroft’..
..’trust’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am
greenflee -unlike you back room Labour puppets I cannot “connive” . At least Napoleon Bonaparte got it right when he said ;”in politics , absurdity is not a handicap.” Hence the survival of the meaningless greens.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:10 am
(ahem..!..d4j is a bit ‘confused’..eh..?
..predicting ‘imminent death’ for the greens one minute..
..’survival’ the next..
he’s sorta like that drooling great-uncle you only see at christmas time..
..and are glad of that fact..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 14th, 2008 at 9:18 am
d4j ‘greenflee’ (you meant greenflea?) - quite good
phil u ‘drooling great-uncle’ - brilliant!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I am going to flee the insanity.
I rest my case !!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Good riddance!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Goo drid dance you sneaky Utopian imbeciles.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am
that was relatively easy..eh..?
..he’s a bluffing wannabe bully..
..and flees when seriously challenged..
after being seriously trashed all the time/laughed at..
on that rightwing toxic swamp of commentary..
..kiwiblog..
..he thought he’d try his hand in the minor (’nasty’) league..
(you’re welcome..!..
..let me know if he comes back..
..and i’ll send him off with a flea in his ear..again..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am
it’d make quite a good t-shirt..wouldn’t it..?
“sneaky utopian’..
..wear it loud..!..
..say it proud..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Sorry frog and Toad I didn’t know you have a reptilian tough guy on duty. Stupid comments philu
“let me know if he comes back..
..and i’ll send him off with a flea in his ear..again..)”
What a crackpot loser.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Bugger off d4j. You promised!
September 14th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
phil
I’d definitely wear a “sneaky Utopian” tshirt.
e
September 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
How about “sneaky Utopian crackpot” … That has a certain flair …
September 14th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
nah..i think ‘crackpot’ is self-stigmatising..
’sneaky utopian’ is more open-ended/up to the reader..
..actually..i think a ’sneaky utopian’ movement would have wide appeal..
..and would gain traction/(poliical power..?..)..
..now..what actually is a ’sneaky utopian’..?
..(answers on a card..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 14th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
here are now two ‘Beach’ petitions
The PANZ petition is different from that of the National Party’s ‘Beaches For All’ Petition , which reads-
“That the House of Representatives pass legislation that retains Crown title of New Zealand’s beaches, foreshore and seabed, protecting rights to these areas for all New Zealanders”
If you have already signed this there is nothing to stop you also signing our ‘Beaches for Recreation’ petition. Both petitions will be presented to Parliament. In presenting our petition PANZ should have an opportunity to speak on your behalf, presenting arguments that are free of party political agendas.
National’s ‘Beaches For All’ Petition is hosted by-
http://www.beachesforall.co.nz/
http://www.petitiononline.com/beaches/petition.html
September 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I think D4J’s a gas actually!
September 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
but i’m pretty sure it’s a noxious gas..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Pretty funny gas at the same time tho, depends how seriously you want to take’im.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am
so you see him as a laughing gas..?
others..like me..see him emitting from a lower organ/orifice…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Yes, but I see him more as sometimes foul-mouthed clown, rather than someone to take remotely seriously.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
oh..that’s a given..!
..that he’s table-leg/carpet-chewing/barking wingnut-loon..
..how can he not be..
..he lives on the outer fringes..
..and drinks/socialises with those other fringe pariahs’..
parking wardens..and screws..
go figure..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)