National’s culture review shambles redux

32 comments on “National’s culture review shambles redux ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   15 April 2019 at 9:37 am

   On hearing the Bridges interview it occurred to me that Bridges believes that the
   report would be so bad that it is wiser for him to deny, procrastinate and divert.
   Suffer the ridicule from the public because the content of such a report, if it has been done, would be terrible for National.
   • JanM 1.1

     15 April 2019 at 11:06 am

     Do you honestly think he hasn’t read it? Come on!
     • Sacha 1.1.1

       15 April 2019 at 11:08 am

       What would be the point of the grown-ups letting him read it? Better deniability this way.
2. Dennis Frank 2

   15 April 2019 at 9:47 am

   Yes, your highlighting of the key points is accurate and succinct. Listening to him, it seems he has a clear internal idea of the process, yet cannot explain why it is so obscure. Is it by design, by result of operational obfuscation, or a bit of both?

   The party review is intended to be interpreted in the context of the parliamentary review. He kept explaining that he’s waiting for the latter process to complete before evaluating the total picture both reviews paint.

   His lack of info re female participation is appropriate inasmuch as the process would have been set up to insulate him – a point Guyon seemed reluctant to grasp. Simon’s reluctance to point out that the JLR saga put him & his deputy in a dodgy position, requiring that the process kept him out of the loop, compounded the lack of clarity.

   However we don’t know why the review is deemed unsuitable for public release by the Nats, even when the overall process is done, and only carefully-crafted highlights will be used as propaganda to frame the outcome. If caucus is prevented from getting the review by the Nat hierarchy, the process will seem suspect.
   • Tiger Mountain 2.1

     15 April 2019 at 10:22 am

     “the process will seem suspect” –no shit…

     is anything about this NZ National Party Review credible?
     • Dennis Frank 2.1.1

       15 April 2019 at 11:25 am

       Perhaps I ought to have specified to whom, eh? The caucus, primarily. If they don’t perceive the process as credible, they will feel the Nat hierarchy are treating them with contempt. Obviously Wayne could opine on this with more authority than me (I suspect he will choose not to), but if Nat MPs aren’t even allowed to see the review for themselves, how can they be confident the process was conducted properly?

       If women involved don’t volunteer to participate in the review, how can they media see the process as credible? So the caucus, then the media, and the general public insofar as swing-voters only swing to the Nats when they get alienated by the left alternative. Those are the relevant groups to whom a suspect process will become politically significant.
3. Peter 3

   15 April 2019 at 9:56 am

   You have to give Bridges credit for identifying with that sport which has featured in our history – rugby.

   He’s like the little halfback who gets the ball behind the forwards and has to decide what to do, which way to go.

   There was a caucus leak. Head. down, bum up, pick up the ball, ah, um, which way? Right, up the blindside. Whammo!!! Didn’t spot the four big bristling, muscly forwards waiting to smash some insignificant little wannabe into smithereens.

   Now the internal review from October. With his own assurance from the time to “make sure women feel absolutely safe in the workplace and feel they can confidently come forward on all matters” still in his mind and women MPs not invited to contribute, he’s picked up the ball again …
   • Sacha 3.1

     15 April 2019 at 11:07 am

     The coach has hollered from the sidelines that the lad with the smooth hands has to grab the pigskin again.
4. Gabby 4

   15 April 2019 at 10:22 am

   Sounds like he’s hoping the parliamentary review will enable him to say, ‘see, it’s systemic, it’s not just us’ franko.
   • Dukeofurl 4.1

     15 April 2019 at 10:44 am

     I think its his Chief of staff Gray whos the puppet master here- maybe his copy book is blotted.
5. Sacha 5

   15 April 2019 at 11:06 am

   Bridges showed who is actually in charge here – Goodfellow and chums.

   The ‘review’ seems to have been carefully framed as a health and safety exercise destined for a dusty shelf. If it did not even interview women MPs then I doubt there is much scandal to leak from it.
   • tc 5.1

     15 April 2019 at 11:21 am

     Totally. Bridges will remain till someone not related to the plunder under team shonky arrives IMO.

     JK wasn’t in politics whilst Shipley and bolger were throwing NZ on the rocks.

     Much easier sell to the sheeple that way. Perhaps Jude knows this and looks so constantly sour !
6. Rapunzel 6

   15 April 2019 at 11:16 am

   Nuk Korako is leaving the Natz in a month – it could be wondered if he jumped or was pushed but that seems likely given the variable credentials of the person replacing him on the list. My opinion is that others will be going to fresher fields too and that the standard of replacement candidates for the National Party will be so low it will cause them a lot of problems convincing anything over the hard-wired 40% of voters they get as of “right” by 2020, especially given the way their “leader” has described some MPs on the “list” in his very own words.
7. marty mars 7

   15 April 2019 at 12:53 pm

   lol “lets not get hung up on this” yeah nah let’s simon you dim bastard

   man this guy is so bad – liar and weakling

   “… have you seen it???” “No I haven’t” oh simon you tool for the most part
8. Cinny 8

   15 April 2019 at 12:59 pm

   Noticed something last night on the telly, an advert for political soundbites via Newshub….

   Interestingly, there was a shot of Jacinda speaking and then one of mark mitchell speaking, but not a soundbite or video shot from simon in sight…. has newshub already picked a leader? Looked like it to me.

   Also his morning presser on the newshub was a disaster, haven’t listened to the morning report interview but it looks like simon is on a roll today lolololz.
   • Graeme 8.1

     15 April 2019 at 2:59 pm

     On a roll, rolling, or being rolled…….
9. Peter 9

   15 April 2019 at 1:06 pm

   Mitchell’s being teeing things up for a long time. One normally thinks of slimy rats and weasels as slender things with the ability to get into the tiny cracks and crevices to get about their weaseliness.
   • Cinny 9.1

     15 April 2019 at 1:14 pm

     His background should raise alarm bells for any voter.
     • Wensleydale 9.1.1

       15 April 2019 at 1:45 pm

       We can tick off pathologically dishonest banker.
       If we get Mitchell, that’ll be mercenary.
       What’s next?
       Pirate?
       Zombie?
       Cthulhu?

       Come on National. Dig deep. Really explore those bowels.
       • Gabby 9.1.1.1

         15 April 2019 at 7:17 pm

         Drug dealer surely. Unless we’ve had one already?
     • Lettuce 9.1.2

       15 April 2019 at 3:45 pm

       “His (Mitchell’s) background should raise alarm bells for any voter.”

       Au contraire! His resume will be like catnip to disaffected gun nuts.
   • tc 9.2

     15 April 2019 at 2:44 pm

     Mitchell would be an ideal leader for national.

     Yes please.
   • ianmac 9.3

     15 April 2019 at 3:50 pm

     Should Mitchell become more prominent do you think that researchers might delve into his security activities in Iraq?
     Could be rougher than those of the SAS.
     • SpaceMonkey 9.3.1

       15 April 2019 at 5:26 pm

       We’ll get an airbrushed “official” account in the same way John Key’s history was presented.
   • Sacha 9.4

     15 April 2019 at 4:22 pm

     Mitchell being assisted into his seat by Lusk and Slater’s dirty machinations should be all that the public need to know.
     • Graeme 9.4.1

       15 April 2019 at 4:33 pm

       “assisted into his seat by Lusk and Slater’s dirty machinations”

       Now, just what could go wrong here
10. patricia bremner 10

    15 April 2019 at 4:53 pm

    Mitchell was who Lusk and Slater wanted. He is a mercenary, that says it all!!
    Follow the money….. .
    • Michael 10.1

      15 April 2019 at 5:32 pm

      So is Crusher. She may be too compromised however, even for the Nats. Is Mitchell any better?
      • Sacha 10.1.1

        15 April 2019 at 5:56 pm

        He may be more palatable to non-radical voters.
11. Peter 11

    15 April 2019 at 5:32 pm

    Mark Mitchell’s main achievement is making a big deal out of Ron Mark using Air Force helicopters and planes.

    The fact that in historical terms there was nothing untoward about it didn’t matter. The fact that in terms of there being logical explanations didn’t matter. The media picked it up and gave Mitchell the attention he sought.

    That was early in the term of the new Government, Mitchell was trying to make his mark (pun not intended) and the media were crawling around for anything, any sign of scandal. His mark was that of a scuzzball.

    Granted Mitchell wasn’t in Parliament when J Key used Air Force helicopters for private use and convenience but he would have been well aware of those situations.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10607974

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4925090/John-Keys-use-of-helicopters-practicality

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12013507
12. peterlepaysan 12

    16 April 2019 at 12:27 am

    I heard the RNZ interview. I could not believe it.

    Bridges was on the back foot all the time.

    He is hiding something. ( to be fair which politician has not been economical with the truth?)
13. Michael 13

    16 April 2019 at 10:29 pm

    Sounds as though Crusher’s making her move – or has been bounced into making it.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS