All posts tagged John Key

The Gilmore damage

Aaron Gilmore has been back in Parliament just a few months, and is as low and ineffectual as National MP could be. But his drunken stupidity and his subsequent dishonest apologies and possible dishonest assurance to the Prime Minister could have a significant effect on our politics, albeit mostly negative.

Gilmore has damaged his own political career, possibly terminally.

There is also some damage to his party, reinforcing a belief by some that that all of National see themselves as privileged rich pricks. Some critics on the left are trying to inflate this damage.

And there could yet be damage to the National Government. If John Key has no choice but to have Gilmore excommunicated from National and Gilmore remains in Parliament as an independent MP (Key can’t remove him from being a list MP) that could be problematic for a Government that frequently has a majority of one.

There is also wider damage.

Many people outside politics view all MPs in the same light – dimly. Gilmore reinforces a wider impression that all MPs are arrogant and full of self importance.

Gilmore has also highlighted another problem, in two ways.

He is a symptom of the lack of depth of quality of MPs in Parliament. All parties with multiple MPs suffer from this, from NZ First and Greens to Labour and National.

And second, he be helping discourage people putting themselves forward to be an MP.

One probable reason it is hard to recruit quality political candidates is the exposure it gives the people and often to their families. If an MP makes a mistake or few, as Gilmore has, the media switch to over exposure mode. Criticism of Gilmore has now also become ridicule, with Campbell Live running showing Gilmore in a very unflattering way, going through things he has said about himself in the past.

Gilmore has not only trashed his own reputation, he has also impacted on the reputation of National and of Parliament.

Some people may be prepared to put themselves forward to be considered as MP prospects because they think they could at least do better than Gilmore.

But more people are likely to be further warned that the life of a politician can expose you to sometimes extreme scrutiny and criticism.

I’ve had a taste of this, I only operate in a small way on the very periphery of politics, but I have experienced targeted abuse and attempts to discredit simply because of being seen as a potential threat to someone or some party who thinks i could be competition, or could be critical of them.

On a bigger scale media give super exposure to MPs given any excuse. The Gilmore gaffs gave them a license to shrill.

Such is the vagaries of modern society, where one night getting pissed and in this case flaunting political power can potentially cause a lot of flow on damage.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on May 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/04/the-gilmore-damage/

Conflicting Gilmore claims

Did Aaron Gilmore threaten he would get the prime Minister to end a waiter’s employment?

According to Andrew Riches’ statement:

I felt compelled to leave a private note of apology directly in relation to one incident at the conclusion of the night where Mr Gilmore attempted to use his status as a Member of Parliament to his own advantage once he had been denied further alcohol service.

He threatened to have the Prime Minister’s Office intervene and end the waiter’s employment.

His business card was presented to verify his identity.

John Key’s statement:

“My Chief of Staff has rung Mr Gilmore this afternoon and Mr Gilmore refuted the allegation.

Mr Gilmore indicated that he did not believe that he used the words claimed in Mr Riches statement.”

One person’s word against another.

Without the waiter giving his version it may remain at that, Key has said that he has to accept Gilmore’s assurance without getting a formal complaint. Presumably Andrew Riches could make such a complaint. There is no indication that he will.

How convincing is Gilmore’s denial? From the original news report (Aaron Gilmore – dickhead unapologetic):

Gilmore told The Press restaurant staff had unfairly blamed him for the behaviour of the whole group, and there was “no story” in what occurred.

He said he had apologised to the hotel staff after two members of the dining party became “grossly intoxicated”, with one needing to be escorted away.

However, he was “not aware” of being rude or making the alleged comments to the barman.

He could not be sure if he or another member of his party told the waiter to “stop being a dickhead” while discussing liquor-licensing laws.“I don’t know if that was said by me or another colleague. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t me.”

He later said, “It may well have been me.”

However, he later retracted the comment.

Take from that what you like.

1 Comment
by Pete George on May 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/04/conflicting-gilmore-claims/

Key’s poll reaction

A curious headline in Stuffs’s Today in Politics:

KEY CHOOSES NOT TO REACT TO NEW ROY MORGAN POLL

Prime Minister John Key is not counting his chickens too soon after a Roy Morgan poll on Thursday had the Nats up 6 points to 46.5 at the expense of Labour, which had slipped down.

Mr Key said the Roy Morgan poll tended to ‘‘move around a hell of a lot’’ and he would wait and see what other polls said.

However,  he was not surprised that people had seen through the Labour and Greens’ power policy.

That sounds like a political reaction to me.

The poll had National Party on 46.5%, Labour on 31.5% (down 4%) and Greens 11% (down 2.5%).

One bouncy poll – see Roy Morgan poll bounce – doesn’t tell a whole story but it does look likely that National up and Labour and Greens down by significant amounts can be at least party attributed to the NZ Power announcement and subsequent publicity.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on May 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/04/keys-poll-reaction/

Paid Parental Leave – timetable to rule out a veto?

One of the strongest arguments against the Paid Parental Leave extension is the economic situation – the country can’t afford it at the moment. David Farrar at Kiwiblog:

That cost is misleading, as it covers the transition period. Once fully implemented the cost is around $150 million a year. When we are still struggling to get out of deficit, it is too large a commitment.

But according to National we will get out of deficit soon. And the Paid Parental Leave plan was always to phase in the change and therefore the cost. The Dominion Post explains in Labour keen to discuss parental leave:

The bill originally planned to introduce the change from April 1 this year and to increase the allowance by four weeks a year for three years.

Obviously April 1 this year can’t happen. But the plan was always to phase the changes in over three years so the immediate financial impact would be smaller than some people think. Yesterday on Breakfast John Key said:

“I think paid parental leave will increase one day, it’s just not today, because we just don’t have the money”.

A comment at Kiwiblog: “For voters in the centre and left the “We don’t have the money” argument is insincere, the truth is more like “All the money is allocated to stuff we consider more important, mums and babies didn’t make the cut.”

National are promising a surplus soon, so it won’t be long before we do “have the money”.

Parents would have to wait until at least 2015 for the government books to be in surplus before National would consider increasing the leave.

So starting to phase in the extension from 2015 would be politically difficult to veto.

The select committee considering the legislation is already looking at the impact of changing the implementation dates.

Labour says it will agree to delay extending paid parental leave to get the Government on-side after Prime Minister John Key made the first concession yesterday.

Ms Moroney said she would happily discuss a timetable with Mr Key.

Smart concession from Key, and smart response from Labour. Investing in more support for babies is more important than minor political pointscoring.

If a sensible timetable can be agreed to then the support of babies, parents and families will win.

Richard29 explains:

The 26 week figure was not plucked out of thin air. That is the age at which the World Health Organisation recommends weaning off breastfeeding and introducing solids and is a natural transition point for mums to go back to work if they want to. http://www.who.int/features/qa/21/en/ 4 months is a little early and 14 weeks is even earlier.

As I’m sure you are aware there are a bunch of health benefits for the child in breastfeeding to 6 months if that is possible. It’s not ideal to be losing those health benefits (which can last for years) just because mum and dad’s financial circumstances in that three month period didn’t allow it.

I know it seems hopeful for government to make policy based on evidence and research, but that is what the 26 week increase is trying to do.

That adds to a strong argument for increasing paid parental leave, and a sensible timetable – phasing in the extension from 2015 – that National can agree too (and can’t refuse) will mean a veto isn’t necessary.

1 Comment
by Pete George on April 30, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 30, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/30/paid-parental-leave-timetable-to-rule-out-a-veto/

Armstrong on Labour, wood and trees

John Armstrong has written about John Key’s ever-changing story and refers to Key’s very confusing explanations about how he got Ian Fletcher’s phone number, the latest bit of trivia Grant Robertson and Labour seem obsessed with.

Labour’s Grant Robertson asked Key whether he could understand why New Zealanders were struggling to believe anything he had to say on the matter when he could not even say how he came to have Fletcher’s phone number. Key’s response simply added to the confusion.

In some respects, the Prime Minister is his own worst enemy. Having warned the news media last week that he would be much more careful about how he will answer questions, he yesterday threw caution to the wind.

Key seemed to not care about how vague he was.

But quite possibly with good reason. Most people could not really give a toss about how Key got hold of Fletcher’s phone number.

The very real danger for Labour is that in building a case against Key it is thus seen to be fixated by relative trivia; that Labour is so obsessed with destroying Key as a political force that it can no longer see the wood for the trees.

Robertson in particular does seem fixated on trying to discredit Key.

There is some risk to Key, but Robertson’s obsessive attack strategy is risking his own credibility and his political future. Labour has enough problems with leadership credibility with Shearer as it is.

Robertson can speak more coherently and has far more political nous than Shearer, but he seems to be as blind as Shearer to the amount of self inflicted damage he may be doing, to himself and to Labour.

If he keeps hacking away at the wood he may not be noticing which tree is most at risk of falling.

—

UPDATE: Robertson will be still banging on about GCSB by the look of question 12 for Question Time in Parliament today:

GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on 24 September 2012 in relation to the work of the GCSB, “I think you can take confidence in the fact that to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never been informed or ever had reason to believe there’s ever been an error before”?

by Pete George on April 17, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 17, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/17/armstrong-on-labour-wood-and-trees/

“No clue” and “lying by omission”

The Opposition focus on John Key’s “no clue” comments (referring to how he had Ian Fletcher’s phone number) says more about how trivial politics and politicking can be than it says about Key.

Closely associated with the same issue is another phrase that the Opposition have used – see 3 News and  Key ‘lying by omission’ – Labour

John Key says he “forgot” about a personal phone call he made to his childhood friend, Ian Fletcher – a phone call that led to Mr Fletcher’s appointment as Mr Key’s chief spy.

It’s seen Labour accuse Mr Key of “lying by omission”.

There are no surprises though that Labour’s striking out, laying a complaint that Mr Key breached Parliamentary privilege by not fully answering questions in the House.

And Stuff with Key forgets tip to friend over spy job:

Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson said Mr Key “lied by omission” and said his explanation was not credible.

And in addition from John Armstrong at NZ Herald:

Key was deemed guilty by opponents of lying by omission, prompting calls for all manner of official inquiries and breach of parliamentary privilege hearings.

Robertson sees the lapses as part of what he calls Key’s “diminish, divert and demean” modus operandi. Faced with being caught out by some action or statement, Key’s response is to diminish the significance of the issue or his role in it, divert attention away from it and, especially in Parliament, demean whoever is raising it.

Last night Grant Robertson tried his own “demean whoever is raising it”:

For those who missed #cluelesskey in Question Time, here is the video. The fun starts at 4.05…

David Shearer staffer Mike Smith with a rare post at The Standard: “I genuinely have no clue”

Finally, John Key comes clean. Watch this!

And Metiria Turei omitted Key’s whole response:

Metiria Turei ‏@metiria
“I genuinely have no clue.” John Key, Prime Minister. Thats a keeper. #nzqt

I queried that:

Pete George ‏@PeteDGeorge
@metiria Is that a full quote?

Metiria Turei ‏@metiria
yep. He didnt say anything else but watch this space…

As detailed in Key and “no clue” he did say something else:

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I genuinely have no clue. I do not know how I got the number.

So it could be said there is some hypocrisy and lying by omission going on here.

This whole attack line by the opposition is trivial. In isolation it could be seen as a bit of light hearted taking the piss, although in the context persistent trivial attacks it is trying to trivialise politics with petty personal attacks.

The biggest omission in all of this is Robertson et al are omitting serious political discussion and holding to account. They keep obsessing over trivial single issues and gotcha politics.

This suggests that Robertson, Shearer and Turei, with their “lying by omission”,  have “no clue” about how to present themselves as credible Government in waiting politicians and parties.

(This may be harsh on Turei who is more in the jocular camp here but in the context of being co-leader with Russel Norman who has been persistently attacking Key and the GCSB I think it is a fair association).

And just as bad – there are important issues with the GCSB that deserve serious attention, but by continually focussing on personal attacks Labour and Greens cloud and divert attention from the wider more pertinent issues.

by Pete George on April 17, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 17, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/17/no-clue-and-lying-by-omission/

Split vote on Intelligence and Security Committee

Unusually a vote of the Intelligence and Security Committee public has been made public.

@RusselNorman

historic moment. I can tell you something that happened on the Intelligence and Security Cttee tonite: I moved a motion for an inquiry into appt process for Fletcher. Key recused himself. Vote was tied 2 each so motion lost. That’s it.

It was agreed by the committee’s chair (the Prime Minister) that the vote could be disclosed.

It’s not hard to work out how the vote was split (between Dunne, Banks, Shearer, Norman).

Shearer and Norman could be painting themselves into a corner on this, putting petty party politics before serious security matters.

The Auditor General has already ruled that an inquiry into Fletcher’s appointment is unnecessary – see Auditor-General will not investigate GCSB appointment:

 The Auditor General has turned down Labour’s request to investigate the appointment of Ian Fletcher as head of the Government Communications Security Bureau, saying the Prime Minister was entitled to have “considerable discretion” over how the appointment was made.

Labour had asked the Auditor General to investigate it after Mr Key confirmed he had sounded out Ian Fletcher – a childhood family friend – for the post himself before directing him to speak to the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

However, the Auditor General said that the Prime Minister had responsibility for the appointment and, unlike chief executives of other government departments, there was no specific process set out in making that appointment.

“The person appointed serves at the Prime Minister’s pleasure. As with many other ministerial appointments, the responsible Minister therefore has considerable discretion about how appointments are made. He or she is accountable to Parliament and the public in the usual way for those decisions.”

Last week State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie said Mr Key had done nothing wrong.

The Intelligence and Security Committee and the security services of the country require a high degree of secrecy which in turn requires a high degree of bipartisan responsibility from the MPs on the committee.

Shearer and Norman seem to put more effort into attempting political point scoring on things they have already failed at.

Today Winston Peters agreed to back Government changes to GCSB law and oversight, leaving Labour and Greens out on a limb on this issue.

by Pete George on April 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/16/split-vote-on-intelligence-and-security-committee/

Key and “no clue”

Opposition MPs have been greatly amused by John Key’s “no clue” comments in Parliament today and seem to think it’s the news of the day, but it’s worth lo0king at the context:

Grant Robertson: How did he come to have Ian Fletcher’s phone number when he called him in July 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No clue.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! It was a reasonable question, which I do not think should be difficult for the Prime Minister to answer. How did he come to have the phone number?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I genuinely have no clue. I do not know how I got the number.

And for further context here is the video and full question transcript:

10. Government Communications Security Bureau—Process for Appointment of Director

[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:14. Text is subject to correction.]

10. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : As I have publicly stated before, I agreed with the State Services Commissioner’s advice that a potential short list of people identified by a recruitment consultant for the job should not be considered by an interview panel. I agreed with Iain Rennie to look elsewhere to fill the position. I rang Ian Fletcher and said that if he was interested in the position, he would need to go through a process and should call Maarten Wevers in the first instance. The interview panel was unanimous that Mr Fletcher was suitable for the position, and Mr Rennie then recommended his appointment to me. I took his appointment to Cabinet and it was agreed. I then recommended the appointment of Mr Fletcher to the Governor-General.

Grant Robertson: Why did the Prime Minister not give that information in his correction that he gave before the start of question time today?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it was not necessary.

Grant Robertson: Why did he not tell New Zealanders the truth about his role in the appointment process when he was asked direct questions about it in this House and by the media?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said on numerous occasions, when the member asked me, it was a supplementary question to question No. 12., I was not expecting that particular question, and frankly the phone call was so unmemorable I had not remembered it. But I was the not the person who filled in my tax return—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That adds nothing to the quality of the answer.

Grant Robertson: Why did he say 2 days after the question in the House “I didn’t undertake the recruitment, that was fully done by the State Services Commission …”, when he was the person who rejected the short list, he was the person who suggested Ian Fletcher, and he was the person who made a phone call to Ian Fletcher—2 days after the question was asked in the House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because in the context of the question I was asked I believed that to be correct. The recruitment was undertaken by the State Services Commissioner, and that is actually accurate in terms of the way it was done.

Louise Upston: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what reports he has seen of the Auditor-General’s view about the appointment of Ian Fletcher?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Funnily enough, I can. I have seen the Auditor-General say that he does not intend to carry out an inquiry into the appointment of Ian Fletcher. Let me quote from the Auditor-General: “The Prime Minister has responsibility for this appointment. Unlike for chief executives of other government departments, the relevant legislation”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect to the House and to the Auditor-General, if she has had a gender change, we should know about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has every right to answer the question that was put by Louise Upston, if he wishes to continue.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To continue: “The Prime Minister has responsibility for this appointment. Unlike for chief executives of government departments, the relevant legislation does not prescribe any particular process that has to be followed before making that appointment. … The State Services Commission provided support to the Prime Minister in this appointment process. … It is relatively common for recruitment processes to adapt as they progress …”. [Interruption] The members might not like it, but the Auditor-General says “No problems.”, the State Services Commissioner says “No problems.”, and, in fact, there is nothing wrong with the appointment. Ian Fletcher was the best candidate for the job.

Grant Robertson: How did he come to have Ian Fletcher’s phone number when he called him in July 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No clue.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! It was a reasonable question, which I do not think should be difficult for the Prime Minister to answer. How did he come to have the phone number?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I genuinely have no clue. I do not know how I got the number.

Grant Robertson: In light of his last answer that he is clueless about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that will only lead to disorder. Would the member just ask his supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants a supplementary question, he will ask it.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a perfectly reasonable question. The Prime Minister said he had no clue—

Mr SPEAKER: As to how he got a phone number.

Dr Russel Norman: Mr Robertson said he was clueless. That is the same thing.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! That is not a helpful comment from Dr Russel Norman. Would the member please ask his supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister understand why New Zealanders are struggling to believe anything that he has got to say on this matter when he cannot even answer the question of how he came to have Ian Fletcher’s phone number?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, because I did not, at that point, have Ian Fletcher’s mobile phone number. To the best of my knowledge, I actually rang the directory service to get the Queensland number. I do not actually have his number.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Parliamentary question time will become a total waste of time if the Prime Minister can make it up as he goes along. He told the House that he happened to have Ian Fletcher’s number. Now he explains, weeks later, that he went and found it somewhere else; he did not have the number. What is the truth here? That is the purpose of question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is pretty clear to me that on reflection he had time to remember how he now recalls that he got the number. I do not think that is unreasonable at all. [Interruption] Order! The most important thing—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is not important whether it is strictly clear to you. What is important is that it is not clear to the rest of the country or anybody else in the House how you derived that understanding.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister has now given an answer that has made it a lot clearer.

Grant Robertson: In light of the Prime Minister’s last answer, can he tell the House how he managed to get a mobile phone number from a directory service when you cannot get mobile phone numbers from directory services?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because when I rang the Queensland service, it was redirected to that mobile.

by Pete George on April 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/16/key-and-no-clue/

Shearer to meet Key on GCSB

David Shearer continues to insist that Labour won’t agree to any changes in GCSB legislation unless there is “a full independent enquiry”, report Newstalk ZB:

Labour leader David Shearer is accusing the Prime Minister of “sexing up” the threat to New Zealand of cyber attacks and weapons of mass destruction.

John Key say such threats are very real and that us why the laws governing the GCSB need a total overhaul.

Mr Shearer will meet with John Key tonight to discuss the Government’s plans.

But he is still refusing to back the law change.

“Mr Key is trying to sex up his policy to put through legislation.

“I’m asking why can’t we have a full independent enquiry?”

There is obviously plenty of politicking going on. But Shearer is meeting John Key tonight to discuss Government plans on the GCSB.

This will be a test of whether Shearer can rise to a level of responsibility that’s required to lead a Government and look to seriously at what is required to maintain adequate security services, or if he will remain in the sandpit of petty politics.

by Pete George on April 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/16/shearer-to-meet-key-on-gcsb/

Hide on Key, GCSB and less openness

Rodney Hide on Key and the GCSB dramas:

The Prime Minister in the moment forgot about a call he had made months previously. Big deal. Prime Ministers shoulder-tap people for jobs all the time. The correct process was followed once Fletcher applied. And no one is questioning Fletcher’s suitability for the job.

Key’s opponents are declaring cronyism, lying, cover-up and incompetence. They have landed a punch and keep on hitting. The media are reporting the stoush and appear not to accept the PM’s assurances that he had simply forgotten about the call. They see his momentary memory lapse as all too convenient.

So Key has declared he won’t in the future be so casual. He will check and recheck before giving answers.

He will sacrifice immediacy for accuracy. It’s the way it has always been with politicians and it’s a little sad. I liked it that Key answered on the spot and didn’t weigh and calculate his answers for their political effect.

It felt like we were getting the real deal. Key was different from other politicians. Well, not any more. The PM is promising to be more cagey. I think it’s the country’s loss.

So the media may get a more cagey Key and have already grizzled about it, but they can blame themselves (actually they won’t, but they should).

And the opposition may get a cagier Key in question time, but they persistently grizzle anyway.

In reality this shouldn’t stop a lot of Key’s on-the-spot responses, he’s very well informed about many things, but he should take more care with gotcha questions from both media and opposition MPs.

by Pete George on April 14, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 14, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/14/hide-on-key-gcsb-and-less-openness/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers