a) retrospectively placing comments/warnings into posts on this thread in a way that places you in a slightly more favourable light.

b) disengeneous about your motives as your recollection of events is quite different from mine, as events occured.

You seem to have spent a great deal of time trying to patch up your unbiaised moderation credibility. Whys that?

[lprent: Don't be daft. I just see the messages differently to you - in a similar order to the right-side bar. I scan comments every couple of hours while I'm working (usually during a compile). I read the comments from most recent to oldest across all threads, back to the time I last left off. I can see a page of messages at a time, and can select to see any particular user. If you figure out the implications of that it means that
a: I see people dropping comments across threads and can see when they do it.
b: Can see what is effectively the same comment appearing in different threads.
c: Because I'm reading backwards and across threads, I don't see comment threads. That means I concentrate on each message individually to judge it on its own merits.
d: It effectively makes it really hard to troll on this system because I see what individual users or IP's are doing.
e. Also I can update my comments as I get more info, and do so.
Also I don't know who you are? expat? If so you're still banned for a week]

AncientGeek, what other ten times this topic has been raised by the media. One part of HC reign, is the absence of leadership whispers, she has, in that regard, run a very tight ship. Play the ball, not the man. My age, young or old is no concern of yours. Your seemingly to denigrate the man speaks much on your account.

Iprent, inane comments/trolls depends on your point of view. If you get rid of everyone that disagrees with you, you end up mirroring many of the reasons why labour is at 20 odd percent in the polls, not listening to anyone.

[lprent: I don't get rid of people that disagree. I get rid of people because of bad behaviour (loosely defined as boorish behaviour). Have a look at Policy, and look around at the relatively polite dissent level here.

You are right that it depends on your point of view. But on this site - that is my point of view. I prefer to read reasonably intelligent (or at the very least amusing) comments, and I don't care too much about from what political viewpoint. I hate spam, and the first 4 comments I saw from expat this morning could have been written by a machine.]

ak: You and my point might like to get in the same room at some point. Change of leadership: News. Speculative (and usually unsourced) story: Not. I’m hardly shocked by the notion that Clark doesn’t intend to die in office, and Goff fancies himself as potential leadership material.

As I’ve said, it’s hardly substantive news. But a ‘beat up’ — stupid answer to a stupid question that drew an entirely predictable reaction. Sorry, folks, but I can’t wind myself up to the required level of outrage either the left or the right seem to require.

I guess the one thing we should be thankful for is that Oliver Driver remained fully clothed throughout. That would have been nasty.

It may well be one quality of a successful politician to be able to deny reality. Probably not of an effective one though.

And certainly not the mark of a good leader imho.

So he answered the question directly, empasising that it would be after Helen decided to step down.

The subsequent ‘journalism’ with a few exceptions, was probably some of the most piss poor stuff I’ve ever seen. It just shows how unworthy a lot of the journo’s are of the label. They should rename themselves to sensationalists.

But just have a look at the interview. It is in the post above.

Which was not what Goff was speculating about. He speculated about “when Helen stands down voluntarily” (or words to that effect), which is rather different.

And both are about a million miles from the Nat press release “Warfare breaks out in Labour ranks” (first comment in this thread), which is why this thread is called “beat up”.

Very few, if any. 5 new leaders? – pshwaah, hardly newsworthy.

I suspect if Bill English was openly speculating about standing for leader… the reaction might be a little different.

Doubt it – on past performance more likely non-existent as far as the press goes. Just like the several instances of English contradicting Key and the endless litany of tory flip-flops (latest this morning) over the past couple of years.

Fortunately, Joe Public is well aware of the fact that a leadership change now would be fatal and will see this beat-up clearly for what it is: merely a press-assisted beat-up by National and a continuation of the empty “they’ll never last the term, corrupt! corrupt!” campaign since 2005. Just another spadeful out of the press credibility’s self-dug grave.

I don’t think it’s a terribly significant story, but if we’re talking about “beat ups” then I guess we’ve got to ask whether (as far as I can tell) accurately and fairly reporting Goff’s rather dopey and indiscreet interview on AltTV is unfair or unethical. And if this is, how many speculative stores have we seen about National’s leadership?

Somehow, I suspect if Bill English was openly speculating about standing for leader if National doesn’t win the next election (or Key got run over by a bus today), the reaction might be a little different.