Written By: - Date published: 2:29 pm, September 9th, 2008 - 67 comments
Categories: flip-flop, john key, national, united future -
Tags:
Can’t put it any better than Jafapete has:
Seems that John Key has done it again. Announced policy off-the-cuff and back tracked later. TV3 reports that, speaking to an Auckland families forum yesterday, Key ‘veered away from a written speech appearing to announce in off the cuff remarks that National would axe the commission.’
‘He said there was ‘a ton of money being spent on it’, and he would rather give the money to non-government organisations delivering front-line services.’
Someone must have reminded him later that he might need the suport of Peter Dunne and the United Future Party, whose baby it is (its establishment was a key condition of the Party’s support agreement with Labour after the 2002 election).
Today we have the inevitable backtrack:
‘ National would merely ‘rebalance’ the commission and he expected United Future to find the changes acceptable. [Key] refused to comment on the details of National’s policy, but said there was still a place for advocacy for families somewhere in the bureaucracy.’
Inexperienced, muddled, duplicitous. For a righter future, vote National.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“But we all know it will be the 8th of November”
Anita, I really don’t think the 8th is a smart date for Labour – having the election two days after the announcement of what will, in all probability, be a rather nasty unemployment rate announcement just seems really dumb. September quarter is traditionally ‘bad’ because of the seasonal impact.
A lot of people have forgotten that the All Black game on the 1st is in Hong Kong, and will probably be televised around midnight.
I have done it not less than four times a day for 10 months and have not been accused of it once.
It’s all in the delivery.
And I’m not even clever.
Clever enough to be an artist with the possessive apostrophe (recent minor boo boos not withstanding).
On Glenn HS said “maligned and ridiculed by Labour”. I actually missed that in all the excitement (not) – does someone have the actual quotes? Glenn seems to me a very generous person, and I wouldn’t like to think of him being maligned and ridiculed by anyone. I do see, however, why those on the Right would like to create a big enough stink to drive Glenn away from the idea of political donations.
Oh you are too clever Billy – just not as clever as me…
r0b and Billy I agree that people can engage in constructive debate, taking an opposite view here. I’ve done it on numerous occasions as well. I think the moderation that goes on here is quite robust and justified. I get annoyed with trolls from both sides who wander in and add nothing to the debate except abuse and I applaud the Standard’s moderators for dealing with it.
Tane, you might be bored with the Peters saga, and I agree that many New Zealanders probably are. But like it or not, it’s still the biggest game in town. Just because some of us got bored with the Olympics coverage doesn’t mean the media stopped reporting it.
I think the real point is that irrespective of how boring you might find it, there are many more hits against the Labour Party that have emerged from it this week. The big game in town hasn’t been Trevor releasing National Party leaked policy (although he’s made a good fist of trying to distract the media from it, unsuccessfully). The Glenn evidence at the Privileges Committee was really quite stunning. I think you’re dreaming if you think there isn’t going to be any major political fallout from what took place this afternoon.
R0b, I haven’t seen any direct quotes about Owen Glenn being ridiculed and maligned, except from comments Winston Peters, Dail Jones, and Michael Cullen have made in the House suggesting Glenn was “confused”. There are also claims from John Key today that he received a text message from a senior Gallery journalist, stating that a senior Cabinet Minister had claimed that Owen Glenn had received electro-shock therapy, and that his brain surgery earlier in the year had affected his judgement. You might call that hearsay, or second-hand hearsay at best, and you’d be justified in saying that. But it has obviously got back to Glenn, and irritated him no end. If it’s true that Mallard said that, it’s a pretty awful thing to say about your biggest financial donor, and it’s not surprising that he would feel ridiculed and maligned.
[Tane: There may be fallout, it's just I don't find it very interesting. Maybe other Standardistas will.]
In haste and in transit, but if that is all there is to go on then shame on you HS for spreading FUD. Later…
r0b
“I am aware that members of parliament who are members of this committee have questioned the authenticity of the letters that I have written. I am also aware that it has been said that I am ‘confused’ and ‘a liar’.
“These remarks are damaging to my reputation. These comments are wrong, as the documents I have produced show,” Mr Glenn said.
and from the Herald
Mr Glenn earlier today indicated he was offended by the way he had been treated by Mr Peters and Prime Minister Helen Clark, who he told of the donation in February. Helen Clark did not reveal she was told until recently, instead saying she took Mr Peters at his word that he had not been given a donation.
Asked if he was offended, Mr Glenn said “well, wouldn’t you be?”
The Glenn interview on campbell live was the most explosive interview I have ever seen.
Clark, Williams and peter’s will go down as people completely without honour over this.
eshilly (sic) this is the best show on tv at the moment. a whole lot of dancing fleas on a hot plate arguing over a few grand here and there, getting exposure on teeev and resolving nothing. the kayonedoubleyewone way! never fails.
BarnsleyBill: “The Glenn interview on Campbell Live was the most explosive interview I have ever seen.”
Well, let’s face it, anything that can be construed in some way as detrimental to Labour is going to get you wetting your pants, BB. I’ve just now checked the Herald, Stuff, TVNZ, RadioNZ and TV3 — just in case there was something explosive in the interview — and… nothing. Not a mention.
Oh, and Darren, having someone run something past you doesn’t put you at the centre of anything. At that point Williams would have known that Glenn was seriously considering donating to Peters. Maybe even that he intended to. Send the lynch mob home, please someone, before they hurt themselves.
If you want a more balanced account, BB, you know where to find it: http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/peters-gone-on-the-evidence/
jafapete, really.
the reaction to this by the left is amusing to say the least
Hi JP, I shall look shortly, however perhaps this link might be more usefull.
Reader advisory. Contains hatemongering.
http://barnsleybill.blogspot.com/2008/09/dedicated-to-ogglen-of-monaco.html
sorry for the link whoring guys, however it is a fantastic interview. Even more so when you consider it is the ponsonby communist conducting the interview
That’s pretty shocking Tim. If true I want to know who said it. That Rovian smear artist wishart shit pisses me off. Are key’s comments online anywhere? Hooten is making similar, but even more disgusting, claims. Though he flies off the handle as per his style.
The whole scenario is pretty fishy though, and no-one comes out of it with any credit. For all we know Key is making it all up, which would be just as disgusting I’m sure you’ll agree. And a textbook Rove ratf*ck operation. C/T likes them some Rove. Just sayin.
If he’s not making it up he should tell us who said it, who his journo source is and so on. It’s a pretty serious allegation to just put out there, and I’m wondering if Key provided any evidence that it took place. I suspect he might be inventing things after the fact. (To use a phrase I heard recently, and responded to, to no avail. sigh)
PB, John Key did mention a name in the House today, if my recall is correct. I cannot remember specifically which name he used, but it was either Michael Cullen or Trevor Mallard. That will be revealed obviously when the questions for oral answer are published.
Guyon Espiner wrote in his blog this morning: “Labour interests have been privately discrediting Owen Glenn, painting him as befuddled, confused and unreliable.” I would link it, but it will get caught as spam.
The SST reported on Sunday: “It can hardly have helped when Labour’s deputy, Michael Cullen, started describing Glenn as “confused’, and when rumours began to circulate in political circles that perhaps Glenn’s memory wasn’t quite what it was since his surgery last year to treat a life-threatening subdural haematoma (bleeding on the brain), something Glenn had openly discussed with the Herald in February.”
There have been rumours circulating for weeks that Labour ministers have been putting around that Glenn is a drunk, confused, losing his memory. In Parliament the other day he was reported as being “well into his 70s”. The clear inference from the line of questioning from Labour MPs at the Privileges Committee–that Glenn didn’t know who he was talking to on the phone–confirm the line that they’ve been pushing, that Glenn is gaga.
Rumours I have heard, and again I agree that they’re just hearsay, are that Labour ministers were putting around the news that Glenn was drunk when he was at Karaka, and confused Howard Morrison with Winston Peters. Utterly preposterous, if you read the evidence Glenn presented to the Privileges Committee: Morrison was clearly an old friend of Glenn’s. You have to be very, very, very drunk to confuse somebody you know very well, with somebody else.
I would like to see some documentary evidence of this smearing of Owen Glenn as well. I would like to see affidavits from reporters who were allegedly told this, with the ministers named. If it’s true, it is an utterly vile and contemptuous way to speak of your largest donor.
“I would like to see some documentary evidence of this smearing of Owen Glenn as well.”
Indeed. Without evidence it’s just another smear of it’s own. So much crap gets peddled under the guise of rumour. Put up or shut up I reckon.
Tim Ellis,
1) I put in links all the time and they don’t get trapped as spam. Perhaps there’s a threshold for how many you could try one and see how it goes?
2) I’ve only heard rumours about Glenn from the right (told as stories about the left smearing Glenn).
Plenty of rumour HS, but then rumours are a dime a dozen. No actual confirmed quote however, beyond a mention of possibly “confused”. It’s a long way from suggesting that someone may be “confused” to “maligned and ridiculed”, hence you are spreading FUD.
Looks to me like a Crosby Textor play to drive a wedge between Labour and its biggest donor. Spread rumours that Labour MPs are badmouthing him privately (which, let’s face it, would be a daft thing for them to do). Glenn takes offence, no more donations to Labour. Very cynical, very smooth.
rob, that argument would only be valid if it weren’t the journalists saying they had heard the rumours from Labour MPs. Guyon Espiner and the Sunday Star Times have already confirmed it.
Tim Ellis,
Refs?
Sorry to be a pain, but I know that Hooten wrote it in the SST, I’m not sure whether an actual journalist did.
Well Tim I’d be fascinated to know if these journos actually heard Labour MPs saying such things themselves, or are repeating what they have been told by Nat MPs.
Maybe Labour MPs have been running off at the mouth, though it would seem like a chronically stupid thing for them to do, and quite uncharacteristic of such a well disciplined team. Whereas National have abundant motive to spread these rumours, to try and piss Glenn off so that he washes his hands of donating to NZ politics.
But I do know that all that can be factually attributed so far is one mention of possibly “confused’. It’s a long way from suggesting that someone may be “confused’ to “maligned and ridiculed’.
Anita, I ignored the Hooton quote in the SST. The SST quote is at http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4683825a6619.html .
Rob, Guyon Espiner is pretty clear that it is Labour insiders who are peddling the Owen Glenn is confused line. He says that Labour people are privately spreading it around. I very much doubt he has reason to rely simply on National MPs saying that Labour MPs are privately saying it. These are journalists. They don’t take things that politicians say about politicians at face value. A credible journalist simply wouldn’t rehash that nonsense without hearing it themselves. It’s a nice idea that the National is peddling this “Labour MPs are privately saying this…” stuff around, but it simply doesn’t wash.
John Key stood up in the House today and said he’d had a text message from a journalist who had heard it. You might not take John Key’s words in the House very seriously, but if what he said was untrue, don’t you think a journalist would have pinged him for it already?
DPF has said on his blog several times that he has heard this as well, that press gallery journalists have told him that Cullen and Mallard have been smearing Glenn, by referring to him as “well into his 70s”, “confused”, suggesting he’d been suffering memory loss since his brain surgery at the beginning of the year, and again we saw at the privileges committee today an attempt from Fairbrother and Cullen to suggest that Owen wouldn’t know the difference between Wayne Peters, or Winston Peters, on the other end of a cellphone.
I understand that you will take Farrar’s information with a grain of salt. Fair enough. But you were quite happy, the other day, in presenting your argument that John Key is slippery, by providing 90% of your evidence through links back to articles published at the Standard, so fair’s fair.
Glenn is loving the attention. He wanted to be honororororary consul so he could get a bit of oddball glory in Monaco. Now here he comes a-rolling into town, the biggest story.
Showboating, that’s what I call it, and I would know.
The SST quote is at
What quote? Seriously – what in that article is the proof of these rumours? The article describes the relationship as “sceptic”, but doesn’t provide any proof of this opinion. It repeats Cullen’s “confused” comment, but that’s hardly a vile personal attack (and as the article notes itself: “In fairness to Cullen, some of Glenn’s statements about the timing and motivation of his donations to Labour have been demonstrably incorrect”). So where’s the evidence Tim?
Guyon Espiner is pretty clear that it is Labour insiders who are peddling the Owen Glenn is confused line
Source please? And if it was true, is “confused” – which Glenn apparently has been on occasion – the same as “maligned and ridiculed’?
DPF has said on his blog several times that he has heard this as well
Has he indeed. Heh. Pardon me I do often link to facts cited on The Standard. Facts don’t become untrue just because they appear here. But the rumours spread by DPF I will take with more than just a grain of salt.
So I’m no further ahead. There are rumours and rumours of rumours, but still no verified quote from a Labour MP maligning and ridiculing Glenn. Maybe they have been doing such a thing, but I see no motive for it. I do see a motive for Nats such as yourself to push this line though.
“Whereas National have abundant motive to spread these rumours, to try and piss Glenn off so that he washes his hands of donating to NZ politics.”
I think the best exchange from todays hearing was:
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen asked whether the person talked like Mr Peters usually did.
Mr Glenn repeated that he was very sure.
“I knew it wasn’t you Dr Cullen…you already had your $500,000.”
Absolutely priceless! I guess it just goes to show that one shouldn’t set about to annoy one’s foreign bag men aye r0b?
to annoy one’s foreign bag men
That’s a rather mean spirited way of describing a generous philanthropist don’t you think Dean? Seems to that the ones disparaging Owen Glenn are those on the Right.
Oh! So if he donates to the left, hes a generous philanthropist, but if he donates to the right, hes a foreign bagman.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Glenn is a generous philanthropist not because he donates to the left, but because he donates to many causes.
As to donors to the right, no one knows if they are philanthropists or not, because their identities are hidden behind secretive shell trusts. Who are National’s donors? The public don’t know – while Glenn cops all this flack from mean spirited nonentities like yourself simply because he makes his donations openly and publicly. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Sure, glad I could help.
Tim:
“These are journalists. They don’t take things that politicians say about politicians at face value. A credible journalist simply wouldn’t rehash that nonsense without hearing it themselves.”
Ah hah! AhHHAHAHAHAHA!
I take it you live in a parallel universe NZ in which journalists aren’t being over worked and thrown out onto the street as fast as Fairfax can print off dismissal notices.
Dean: “Oh! So if he donates to the left, hes a generous philanthropist, but if he donates to the right, hes a foreign bagman.”
Fair call.
I think Glenns response to Cullen was pretty whiny though. Simply plays on the fact that people seem increasingly unable to differentiate between money donated, and money donated in secret by special interest groups. Probably the same people who vote for NZF in the first place.
“while Glenn cops all this flack from mean spirited nonentities like yourself simply because he makes his donations openly and publicly.”
How about the open and public donation he made to NZF? You know, the one the deputy PM today suggested was asked for by Winston’s brother?
Give me a break, r0b. There’s no way of spinning out of this one.
You mean the one that NZF/Peters didn’t disclose right?
Since when were Glenn or Labour responsible for the actions of NZF w.r.t electoral funding? Oh, that’s right, since never. Glenn is a donor, and Labour championed a law ensuring transparency. So maybe you should direct your ire where it belongs.
Hey Tim, look, it’s a journalist not taking something a politician says about another politician at face value and instead doing some analysis and citing sources!
comments that National says senior ministers including Michael Cullen and Trevor Mallard have been spreading socially and among journalists.
Oh wait, nevermind, false alarm, they just took it at face value.
Not to say it’s not true, but you’re deluding yourself if you think the average journalist in this country these days bothers to fact check… well… almost anything.
I know. I flatted with one. Wrote most of their stories at the 11th hour and didn’t even bother spell checking, let alone fact checking. Plenty of fact embellishing. Facts can be so boring if you let them chain you down. Sad part is I think they were probably not too bad by most standards – editor was much worse.
I’m sure there are some fantastic reporters in NZ, but I don’t think they’re in the majority. And I’m not even really blaming the ones who are – as I said earlier, accuracy is no longer a priority of the organisations paying them; staff cuts are.
We have a lovely bed ready in the ward for Miss Clark and a toilet for Peter.
Hi Dad.