- Date published:
6:32 pm, May 24th, 2018 - 120 comments
Categories: phil twyford, transport - Tags: accountability, civil aviation, ministers, scandals
Minister Phil Twyford has offered his resignation today, after revelations from the opposition that he took a call on an aircraft after its doors closed and devices were supposed to be switched to flight mode.
The Prime Minister has declined to accept his resignation as Minister of Transport, but has sanctioned him by taking the intermediate step of transferring all his responsibilities for the Civil Aviation Authority to his Associate Minister, Julie Anne Genter.
It is an interesting study in contrasts. As you all know, I am on record as wanting a high degree of accountability for Ministers, even when they come from Governments I support. It is also raises the spectre of the so-called “GateGate” incident, where Brownlee barged past airport security and
never offered any sort of resignation. I’m inclined to say in this case that the Minister has received the appropriate slap on the wrist, especially as he was humble and put his head on the block voluntarily. Being prepared to be accountable, rather than being defensive, makes a huge difference for Ministers, in my view.
National is being… understandably quiet about this issue so far, as the counterbarbs are obvious, but it’s good to see the government working a bit more like it promised to in Ministers being accountable and holding themselves to high standards, not just making the PM enforce discipline.
UPDATE: Quick correction as I’m updating this story- as per Alwyn’s comment 22.214.171.124, it appears Brownlee was reported as offering to resign by RNZ. Thanks for the correction.
The saga continues with the next piece of sad dripfeed from Judith Collins.
If you’d like to join us in making fun of the severity of the second accusation that Twyford stowed an item that he potentially might have had trouble securing safely in his hands after the safety light went on, (seriously, you don’t even have to let go of a coat for it to hit someone during turbulence) #twyfordaccusations is active on Twitter, and I’ve even submitted a few myself. Here is a sampler:
@PhilTwyford lined up before his row was called #twyfordaccusations
— TristanRS (@TristanRS) May 25, 2018
Hmm I’m seeing some people saying Brownlee did resign as Transport Minister after this, but all I can tell at the moment is that he had Transport stripped from his portfolios after the next election. If anyone has a substantiation or refutation of that point I’d appreciate it. 🙂
“The Prime Minister did say that he was going to hold National Party ministers to a higher standard of accountability, so I would have hoped that the prime minister would have waited for the facts to be on the table about what regulations Mr Brownlee might have breached,” he said in 2014.
I’m going to guess that the embarrassment caused will be greater than any fine imposed 🙂
Did I miss something relevant in that article I linked? Because I thought all it said was that he had the portfolio stripped after the election, something which is very much not a resignation.
Well there is the bit where you state that ‘..Brownlee barged past airport security and never offered any sort of resignation’
and the article states that “..Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee has offered his resignation after skipping airport security while running late for his flight.”
In the stuff article you linked to Gerry Brownlee was specifically asked by a reporter if he had offered his resignation, his reply was “we had a discussion” he never said he did.
Thanks Louis. I could have sworn I had never seen Brownlee actually confirm an offer of resignation was made.
He also offered to resign from Cabinet immediately he was made aware of the breach.
“On Thursday, Mr Brownlee offered his resignation over what he described as a thoughtless incident “.
There were any number of other reports of his offer of resignation at the time.
He didn’t offer to resign even after he was fined the maximum by the CAA.
He didn’t wait for the investigation.
He had offered his resignation much earlier and it had been turned down by the PM.
Twyford at that time had jumped up and down at the time and demanded that Brownlee should be stood down until the investigation was over.
He should now demand the same thing for himself if he is going to be consistent.
On the other hand consistency and this Government don’t go together do they?
“He should now demand the same thing for himself if he is going to be consistent.
On the other hand consistency and this Government don’t go together do they?”
So what part of Twyford offering to resign and the Pm removing the aviation responsibilities from him did you not understand?
Twyford wanted Brownlee to be sacked from Cabinet, and complained when it didn’t happen.
If he was “consistent” he wouldn’t just offer his resignation when he knew it wouldn’t be accepted. He should just quit.
But I suppose you think his behaviour is alright because “National did it too”
Quit over a 60 second phone call? Over the top dont you think?
Does it even rank in comparison to Gerry barging through security? Is being stood down while the incident was investigated the same as “sacked from Cabinet”?
I see very little to distinguish them frankly. And I personally don’t think they were sacking offences.
You will see that I never called on Twytford to resign for what he did. I think he should resign because HE clearly regards such actions as unforgiveable.
Phil clearly did think it was a sackable offence, at least when it was done by someone on the other side of Politics. HE was the one demanding a sacking. If he thought so then he can hardly claim that when he does something wrong he should be treated differently without demonstrating that he is a hypocrite.
He really doesn’t seem capable of controlling himself does he? Only 8 months in Government and his arrogance is overwhelming. Sitting down while the plane is taxiing is not for important people like Phil it seems. That is only for the commoners.
It does seem very worrying that Phil claims “not to remember”.
Is that just trying to cover up his misdeeds or is it early onset Alzheimers?
There’s quite a difference between a 60 second phone call and Gerry knowingly barging through security when the report said he had plenty of time to board the flight if they had followed the usual security protocols, he even bought chewing gum and a soft drink at the bookshop after he did it. So what was his excuse again? Your comment “He really doesn’t seem capable of controlling himself does he?” describes Gerry Brownlee. I dont see a 60 second phone call is “overwhelming arrogance” in comparison to Gerry Brownlee. And isn’t asking for the then minister (Brownlee) to step down while the matter was being investigated standard procedure? Even The Green party called for that so whats hypocritical about it?
It’s “alleged” he stood up, so what Alwyn? Getting pretty petty and ridiculous don’t you think?
Indeed, Matthew. After Brownlee was given the maximum fine of $2000, the article says Brownlee “spoke to the Prime Minister last night and although he did not formally offer to resign…” So no offer of resignation despite breaking the law! It’ll be a silly Tory who complains about Twyford.
Brownlees official parliamentary bio gives this:
Transport Minister 14/12/2011 6/10/2014
This seems to indicate after the 2014 election which was Sept 2014
Doesnt say directly about the CAA role though whether that was with an associate minister
Yes you are right Matthew. In the interview that I watched on Stuff, Brownlee never said he offered his resignation.
Umm… Brownie points to Phil Twyford for coming clean immediately but given his workload, I expect he is more than a little pleased to be rid of Aviation responsibilities. 😉
I’m sure Julie Anne Genter can handle it with ease. 🙂
I told Labour in October to asign a portfolio to again another minister for ‘minster of rail’ as that transport and housing are very big portfolios so maybe you are right,.
Phil should suggest to Jacinda to place another MP as “Minister of Rail” now since we own the asset now as we did when we owned it last during the 1980s.
We always had a minister of Rail then when we owned the rail system, so why not now????
The direct answer is that Rail has its own board so has a responsible minister.
Responsibility for matters relating to the Crown’s purchase of services from KiwiRail, for the purposes of regional economic development that are not covered by equity support for its operations (which are the responsibilities of the Shareholding Ministers)
As dukeofurl says, Shane Jones in his role as one of the two Associate Ministers of Transport, in in effect “Minister of Rail” as detailed in the “View details” entry for Shane Jones in the DPMC link provided by dukeofurl.
The transfer of responsibility for the Civil Aviation Authority from Phil Twyford to Julie Anne Genter, in her role as the other Associate Minister of Transport, is very much in line with her other current delegated responsibilities which already include all forms of transport safety, and maritime transport. See the “View Details” entry for Genter in the DPMC link immediately under that for Jones.
This transfer makes sense regardless of the reason for the transfer – in other words, it would make sense just to take some pressure off of Twyford in light of his overall responsibilities including the massive housing portfolio.
Given that she’s more qualified to be primary Minister than Twyford is, I’m sure she’ll do great, even though CAA isn’t the sort of thing we usually hear her talking about. 🙂
“she’s more qualified to be primary Minister than Twyford is”
Is that the highest praise you can offer?
Talk about damning with faint praise.
I think my pet dog is more qualified to be the Minister of Anything than Phil Twyford is. David Bassett described him most accurately as
“Phil Twyford, Minister of Transport and of Housing, is an accident in slow motion”
And Bassett was qualified for what Ministers roles when he was a minister ?
hes ACT aligned for some time anyway.
hes ACT aligned for some time anyway.
I don’t think Michael Bassett was ever a member of the ACT party. I knew him quite well in the 70s, 80s and part of the 90s. The last time I had any communications with him in the 1990s he told me ACT was way too far to the Right for him. However he maintained his friendship with the likes of Roger Douglas and other former Rogernomes.
He is an enigma of a man. On the one hand he was an ardent admirer of Michael Joseph Savage (had the obligatory framed picture of him in a prominent place in his home) and yet on the other… he was always feuding bitterly with someone or another in the Labour Party – the most famous being Helen Clark in the early 1980s and David Lange later in the same decade.
I never did manage to work out why he chose to fall foul of people with whom he was closely associated. An arguable sense of intellectual superiority may have been partly to blame.
I heard him speak a number of times but I never had any one-on-one conversations.
Your description of him does fit in with the impression he gave me though. I am glad to see that someone who knew him well has the same opinion of him. I could never be sure whether my detached opinion was accurate.
Mind you, you never can certain about MPs. I’ve never met one yet, with the possible exception of Geoff Palmer, who wasn’t personally appealing. Richard Prebble was one of the most pleasant in that way.
You could never be sure that what they were saying was what they really meant of course.
No, it’s me restraining my fanboying over Genter, actually, lol. I don’t really have anything unkind to say about her, she is a standout member of our caucus, an excellent Minister, frankly the most qualified commentator on Transport I know, and several other things, but I am cautious about unnecessarily putting the boot in to Labour because I want to save my criticisms for when they’ve most richly deserved it.
Yes, Twyford is becoming a bit of an Achilles heel at the moment, but he’s also been given the two hardest portfolios in the new government. I’m willing to cut him a bit of slack in his first year, assuming he makes his way through it.
Phil Twyford is and honest bloke Matthew. Worthy of respect and admiration. If he has a fault it is his wholesale enthusiasm for everything he does which sometimes lands him in a bit of trouble. He is one of the most brilliant organisers and campaigners I have come across in a lengthy history of political activity. For these reasons I have no doubt he will be able deliver well in his portfolio responsibilities.
I’m just glad he has been divested of one of them and it has been handed to yet another very competent minister.
I’ve always thought he was an honest guy who listens hard to good ideas and tries hard but had a bit of a habit of getting over-stressed and running his mouth.
His time as Minister has reinforced that impression, not that I haven’t been impressed with his performance relative to the difficulty of his portfolios, which is IMO how we should judge Ministers. I think perhaps Labour have overloaded him with difficult portfolios and scaling back a bit won’t hurt.
immediately after Judith Collins asked him more questions he couldn’t answer you mean
I’m beginning to feel mildly sorry for Twyford. He’s making such a hash of everything he’s touching, and every QT he has to try to keep up with Collins. One portfolio down.
I’m surprised how ineffective Collins has been, actually, aggressively chirping away like a hamster that thinks a chihuahua is a big, imposing dog, and that it is one of them. It’s curious how often it happens that someone who looked quite well on top of things and hard to nail down when in government, with their own advisers and the ability to enact policy, just ends up floundering about and seeming a bit washed up in opposition. I doubt Twyford will be going anywhere for a while.
Hang in there Phil.
It’s your policy delivery that will make or break this government (no pressure 🙂 )
Twyford needs to do the job. It’s a key portfolio. Give them nothing. Dead bat everything. Release endless pictures of built homes.
Endless pictures? They have to start building them first, what National should be doing every question time is asking how many kiwibuild houses have been built and how many trees have been planted.
Actually I’d be focusing on having positive stories around the transport portfolio if I were him. 😉 Of course I think he’s doing pretty great there atm, so maybe you’re right that housing is the area he can improve on, but I think to do that he would need to sell his party on a more radical agenda on housing.
so, it seems twyford answered his phone….crappy reporter on stuff leads with…twyford made phone call. big difference. one is responding to anothers actions. one is iniciating an action.. about time these drivers of public opinion were given a rocket….
You say that
“it seems twyford answered his phone”.
The story in the Herald says that, in a direct quote from Twyford
“Twyford made the call after the aircraft doors had shut in preparation for take-off.
“I recognise that I made the call when I shouldn’t have,” he said in a statement.”
If Twyford says that “I made the call” who are you to claim he didn’t?
You sound just about as bad as Helen Clark was when she told the Press that it was Henare who attacked Mallard in Parliament rather than telling the truth and admitting it was Trevor who started the fracas.
Why is it so hard for people on the left to admit the truth about things?
By the way. Why did you never answer my question the other day about how you could arrange anything with ANZ in Australia when you lived in New Zealand.
To remind you here is my comment.
We need some better problems, hasn’t someone got a tummy ache?
Yes Alwyn, you are relishing this we can see.
your national angels are so pure and honest of course arent they?
‘To err is human to forgive is to Alwyn is disaster.’
Many Politicians may have erred in making calls or texts that you and I will never know so we should not pass such a critical judgement on any politician as you seem now to be doing.
Sitting that day through Parliament today was mayhem as your National Party was disrupting evberyone at parliament in one of the most ugly days I have ever witnessed so you should think about your own MP’s actions in Parliament trying to disrupt the peoples bussiness.
I was disgusted by the attitude of your national Party today as they were not doing anything for our good.
They aren’t my National Party Charlie.
Never have, never will be a member of any Political Party.
You should try that yourself. Don’t you feel somewhat grubby mixing with those sort of people?
Maybe you should send the message of forgiveness to Twyford
“It is inexcusable for any minister, let alone the then-Transport Minister, to flout airport security rules in the way Gerry Brownlee did. By giving him the maximum fine the CAA has rejected Mr Brownlee’s initial attempt to play down the seriousness of his offence,” Transport spokesman Phil Twyford said.
“Mr Brownlee made a tonne of excuses at the time, most of them hard to believe. The only way the truth will come out is if the report is released. Either Gerry Brownlee should publically ask CAA to release it or the new Minister of Transport should order the Authority to do so.”
So? All true though eh Puckish Rogue
Ministerial accountability? Start with Curran
I am on record as agreeing, FWIW. Ardern should have demoted her to the backbench and replaced her with someone more talented, but now they’ve decided to defend her and see if her problems will go away, dropping her before anything new happens would be a bigger story than just waiting and seeing. It’s not right that that’s how government works, but it is how it works.
I also think I’m being very hard on Curran in asking that she resign or Ardern fire her, however, and the modern National Party would never uphold a standard that high IMO.
National is bereft of any ideas as to how to proceed so resorts to rabble rousing. Brownlee is hilarious in his huffing and puffing. Sanctions arise out of parliamentary rules being broken. That’s what National did. Tried to get away with rule bending. Didn’t work.They have to suffer the consequences the same as Labour did under tCarter’s abysmal time as Speaker.Paula Benett needs to learn to shut up. She is nowhere near as clever as she thinks she is. If she’s going to pound the podium she needs to be correct in everything she says and is following proper procedure. AS for comment Mallard says he heard, I believe him. He had no reason to make that up. Brownies clutching st st
Well said, ffloyd.
Except when a National Minister did resign as a result of doing something that was minor but still a breech of rules/laws many people here couldn’t accept someone would resign over something so trivial.
Did you read that post before linking it?
Iwant to know who was the shifty little tory nark who dropped the dime.
So basically Labour MPs don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else, not very egalitarian is it
TO; R.P Mcmurphy
“I want to know who was the shifty little tory nark who dropped the dime.”
My guess is;
Leader of National or Deputy probably.
They had the motive most of all.
whats more important, passenger safety or Twyford ringing an 0900 number to get his daily horoscope…gee thats a tough one
Mobile phones are not, a hazard to aircraft.
They are not known to be a hazard, correct. That does not mean that using them in certain ways during a critical incident couldn’t create a hazard, however. A lot of aviation policy is precautionary.
If they were a hazard, all mobile phones would be confiscated at check in.
Why? Twyford is right he shouldn’t have made(/taken?) the call, and there’s nothing wrong with narking on someone who does something seriously wrong in a public place.
It took national a couple terms before the arrogance took hold but with Labour its less than a year and the born to rile mentality has already taken hold
I bet he also said don’t you know who I am 🙂
The last government was arrogant before they even got in.
Seymour and Richardson proudly continue with arrogant, snobbish, and regressive nimbyism today.
So you don’t disagree with me that Labour are already arrogant
Disagree with you.
More lies from a RWNJ.
National are born arrogant. If they weren’t they’d never get into power as their actual capabilities are far below that needed. Their arrogance allows them to persuade people that they’re better than they are despite their ignorance.
As I’ve said – their all perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Pure ignorance portraying themselves as capable through lies.
All that codswallop about economic rockstardom? They haven’t released so much as a metaphorical single. No-one in the serious side of economics has even heard of them.
“The common theme in Twyford’s two slip-ups is arrogance – a worrying trait so early in his Government’s first term.”
I’m not the only one to see it happening
One is arrogance – the other likely to be simply human error. People make mistakes without really thinking of what they’re doing.
well there’s that, there’s the calling treasury kids and theres still the Chinese sounding names things as well, starting to become more the norm
Wonder what will happen next week
And wasn’t he 100% right about the Chinese sounding surnames. No sooner did the Chinese dictatorship limit the flow of money out of the country than the NZ housing market stopped exponential growth.
Well done Phil for drawing attention to a problem, keep it up.
David Carter has protected NZ from future raids also with much increased scrutiny of non-resident buyers. Woe betide any NZ lawyer or agent complicit in offshore housing speculation by proxy…
No, he wasn’t right. The problem with chinese investment in NZ property is not about how their names sound, it’s about our general vulnerability to overseas capital in New Zealand, and our need to actually own at least a little of our own bloody country. We can do that without tactics that are othering to asian New Zealanders.
Pretty much the definition of arrogance then. Thoughtless, careless behaviour from one in a position of power.
What a load of bollocks.
Changing the language to suit yourself is, as a matter of fact, an act of arrogance.
Oh the irony of your comment Draco.
No, the irony of your false claim of irony, Tuppenny Shrew.
So I think what you are saying is when a Labour MP stuffs up it is a “mistake” and when a National MP stuffs up it is arrogance..
National MPs are arrogant even when they don’t stuff up. Which they do. Often. Due to their ignorance.
“It took national a couple terms before the arrogance took hold”
With who; – National or Labour?
Define that commment clearly.
All governments become arrogant, National took two terms to become arrogant whereas its taken Labour less than a year
That way (Blue babies).
Didn’t take you for a Lady Gaga fan
I must say that I prefer the Lady to your current adored one, PR. Judith Collins can not sing, nor can she compose music, nor did she volunteer to join her natural soul-mate David Seamoor in DWTS… Why does she not let her talents shine forth like a beacon in the darkness for all to behold?
Twyford would have to be one of the most arrogant, smarmy and conceited politicians of all time. It will be fun watching his demise, with his personality he can’t do anything to stop it
I think you are talking about John Key.
Do you really believe he offered to resign – how naive can you be?
If the Prime Minister is happy to say he offered to resign, I am happy to take her at her word for now. She hasn’t exactly made a habit of lying to the public, unlike her last two predecessors.
get some raid and flush all the fleas looking for someone to jump on. this whole thing is a nonsense and one little rule is not enough for this amount of public gumflapping.
This comment marks the point at which I updated this story to include the second allegation from Collins.
As Twyford has already offered to resign and this allegation is absolutely weaksauce, I don’t really believe it merits serious discussion, so I have instead included some jokes for you all. 🙂
” have instead included some jokes for you all”
I started to read this sentence and read the words “As Twyford has”.
I did wonder for a moment why you were bothering to mention him. Then at the end you put the bit about including a few jokes.
All was now clear. Of course you had to mention f**k-up Phil.
He is the biggest joke in New Zealand Politics.
Is the reason they keep him is so that the other members of Cabinet are only seen as weak, whereas considered on their own they are clearly useless?
I honestly don’t think Twyford has merited a resignation just yet. The first allegation was serious, but not SO serious that it actually merited the PM accepting his resignation IMO, and the fact that he offered it regardless speaks well of the fact that he’s genuinely still here for the right reasons. And you know from Curran that I don’t give a shit that this is a government I support- I will go after a Minister if I think they’re making it look bad. I don’t Twyford is there yet, but he needs to be really careful going forward.
And unlike Brownlee, who did something more serious and far more arrogant IMO, and didn’t really apologize to the public at any stage, he got a real and public slapping on the wrist by pulling CAA out from his responsibilities. Brownlee’s story was carefully managed in the media and his portfolio quietly reshuffled after the next election.
Labour always has to be ultra careful, cautious and held to account, that is something that the National party never has to worry about.
I don’t think Twyford’s actions here merit a resignation. I didn’t think that Brownlee’s did either.
Twyford’s problem is that he appears to be incapable of actually accomplishing anything. This is particularly the problem in housing where everything he seems to attempt just seems to leave the Government looking foolish.
Look at his effort on supposed Chines buying of Auckland houses. There might have been something in the story but his arguing that his case was proved by purchasers having Chinese sounding names was simply risible. That would have led to him claiming Denise Lee, MP, was Chinese.
No evidence that I can see but Lee is an Asian name.
Now look at his Kiwibuild. When you start looking at buying private development properties and reselling them as Kiwibuild houses don’t you make yourself, and your Government look stupid. How does something like that increase the number of houses?
When you give inflated price targets, and even when they are queried you repeat them and finally claim you just made a slip of the tongue you look useless.
When you talk of putting 4,000 houses on 29 ha, and don’t even think of where the people in them are meant to send their kids to school you look stupid. Particularly so when the local schools hurriedly change their zones to exclude this land.
Is there anything he has done properly?
Sorry, but New Zealand deserves better. He is simply a joke.
Me thinks you doth protest too much Alwyn. Gerry Brownlee knowingly barged through security when the report said he had plenty of time to board the flight if they had followed the usual security protocols, he even bought chewing gum and a soft drink at the bookshop after he did it.
So what was his excuse again? Quite different from a 60 second phone call.
Twyford was vindicated re Chinese “buying of Auckland houses” National refused to do a registry, they collected data but refused to share it publicly, opposition could only rely on what data was available.
You’re incorrect re Kiwibuild. He did not buy “private development properties to be resold as Kiwibuild houses” There were no new houses, the govt bought the land.
“The site for the 18 homes became available for KiwiBuild after private developers were unable to finance purchasing the land, Twyford said. “We seized the opportunity to build KiwiBuild homes, rather than just watch the grass grow.”
$650 is the cap, not the price. The media and opposition and its supporters are being continuously misleading. Dont you lot want Kiwis to have roofs over their heads?
The govt just bought the Unitec land in Mt Albert, way too early for you and others to make such gross assumptions.
Phil Twyford has done a lot more than National ever did in 9 years. “New Zealand deserves better” that’s why the clowns, the sore loser National party got kicked out and are currently having tantrums just because of that. National playing victim, now that is the joke.
I wish you might read what I say more carefully before you comment about my views.
As an example I don’t see any “gross assumptions”
Stuff certainly thought he said 4,000. He may have come to his senses a little but even then he only went down to at least 3,000
Schools have been altering their zones to exclude anyone living in these houses from going to them.
“Ministry of Education’s Deputy Secretary in enablement and support Katrina Casey confirmed Gladstone School and Kowhai Intermediate had already changed their enrolment zones in anticipation of the development.
“Mt Albert Grammar is in the process of consulting with the community about their proposed zone amendment.”
“Twyford was vindicated re Chinese “buying of Auckland houses”.
Really? To be vindicated he would have to be shown to be right.
What evidence do you actually have that he was?
“He did not buy “private development properties to be resold as Kiwibuild houses” “. I never said he had bought them. I said that he has proposed that the Crown should buy, off the plans, properties Developers were planning to build. If they are planning to build them anyway what extra houses are going to be realised?
I’m afraid you have been brainwashed by the fool from Te Atatu.
And, Louis, regardless of alwyn’s perpetual greasy, eely twisting of logic, reason, history and semantics, more importantly – correct Olde English is ‘thou dost’, not ‘you doth’. Please be more careful in future!
Thank you for the correction In Vino.
The one here thats brainwashed is you Alwyn. Dont you want Kiwis to have a roof over their heads? Politicians have no control how the media frame the news. Other sources said 3000 – 4000 etc. Re: school zones again if schools want to do that, their choice. Twyford was vindicated, not a hard guess as to why National were so secretive. So you have changed your comment now. What you said was “buying private development properties and reselling them as Kiwibuild houses don’t you make yourself” then you ended in an insult. You were factually incorrect. BTW Insults are not an argument.
In Vino has had one try at correcting your English.
I also had an attempt but you didn’t even realise the point of what I was saying.
You quoted me as claiming “He did not buy “private “. That is proposing that I had said it had already happened. You seem to think that I had proposed that the purchase had already taken place.
What I actually said, and pointed out to you a second time was that I had said “you start looking at buying private development properties and reselling them”. I certainly said that he was looking at doing this purchasing but NOT that he had already done so.
Are you incapable of understanding the difference?
Or accepting that I am factually correct?
If you think that Twyford has been vindicated you are claiming that there is evidence that his story, that if a lot of house sales are being made to people who have names that might be Chinese, proves that non-resident Chinese are buying a very large percentage of the houses in Auckland.
The word “vindicated” means, according to the dictionary I consulted, (Collins) that you are saying that they were proved correct.
“If a person or their decisions, actions, or ideas are vindicated, they are proved to be correct, after people have said that they were wrong”.
Well people certainly said he was wrong.
Neither you, nor anyone else has proved he was right. Just saying that IF National had collected some statistics it would have proved I was right just says you believe something. It no more proves that it IS true than does the fact that my children, when very, very young, thought there were fairies at the bottom of the garden PROVES that the fairies were really there.
Abraham Lincoln said “”You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
You are, when it comes to statements from Labour Party politicians clearly among the group of people he referred to as “some of the people”.
And yes, you really do seem to have been brainwashed.
Did they say he was wrong? I don’t think they did. Some people didn’t like the way he went about it but they are the same people who stood to lose from cheap Chinese money no longer entering the country.
No-one said he was wrong because those same people didn’t want the actual stats on foreign speculation of NZ residential housing to come out.
There is vindication aplenty because PHIL TWYFORD IS NOW THE MINISTER! That’s right, people actually voted for him to do the job.
There is also vindication because as I have said many times, when cheap Chinese money was no longer available the market stopped the run. It’s not rocket science.
“There is vindication aplenty because PHIL TWYFORD IS NOW THE MINISTER! That’s right people voted him to do the job.”
That is a truly fascinating claim. For the life of me I can’t remember anything among the ballot papers for the election that gave me a choice for picking the Minister of Housing. I remember a question on who I wanted as my electorate MP and which party I wished to vote for but nothing about any vote for a particular person as Minister of Housing or anything else.
Can you find a copy of such a question?
I would love to see this vote that I have clearly forgotten about.
Really Alwyn, you need some remedial help with politics.
The country voted for change. They got change. Phil Twyford was opposition spokesperson on housing and now he is minister of housing.
That’s what the country voted for.
Really Muttonbird. You need some remedial lessons in real-politick.
You appear at least to accept that nobody voted for Twyford as Minister of Housing, at least among the public. That is a start. There are some more stages you should consider.
I am willing to accept that we can accept the shorthand of voting for change for the people who voted for the Green Party, or for Labour. We can also agree, I think, that the people who voted for National were voting for the status quo.
There are about equal numbers therefore on each side of that divide.
I have no idea what the people who voted for New Zealand First wanted. Neither, I imagine, does anyone else, including the voters themselves. I certainly don’t think there was any consensus for or against a change in the direction of Government among the NZF voters.
We have the Government now in power because Labour were willing to offer Winston more in the way of baubles than National were. They are willing to accept Winston as the de facto PM even while Ardern remains the de jure one.
National were never willing to be that pliable. Thus you have Winston on the side he is. It had nothing at all to do with whether his voters wanted a change or the status quo. It was all about what was in it for Winston, both immediately and in the future.
Twyford was not, as you suggest, the Opposition spokesman on Housing. He was the Labour Party spokesman. If Winston had wanted someone in his own Caucus to have the job Twyford would have been looking forlornly through the window. I think Winston was keeping well clear of the job though. He knows that real progress over the next 4 or 5 years is going to be negligible and he is keeping his own reputation well clear.
Umm. Every single NZF billboard all over the country was emblazoned with two words. “Had enough?”
Every single NZF voter therefore had had enough.
It’s telling that whenever you and your fellow travellers get into a pickle on a forum you resort to the coalition negotiations being NOT FAIR!
I realise that you find this very hard to do but why is it so difficult for you to accept that I find nothing at all unfair about the negotiations?
Labour were desperate for power. The would give anything to be able to have some place in a Government. Nine years on the Opposition benches is very hard.
Winston wanted the biggest bag of baubles he could get for himself. That was what Labour was offering and he took it. There was nothing at all unfair about the deal.
What Winston put on his billboards is meaningless. He said the same thing in 1996 and then went with National because they gave him more.
As Wiki says about the 1996 campaign
“In fact, he harshly attacked his former National colleagues during the campaign, and appeared to promise that he would not even consider going into coalition with them.”
Much the same thing happened in 2005 where, shortly before the election Peters made a speech
“Peters’ “Rotorua speech” on 7 September 2005 at a public address at the Rotorua Convention Centre, which had spoken of sitting on the cross-benches (and thus staying out of government) and eschewing “the baubles of office”.
We all saw then what that meant didn’t we.
Why do you believe anything Winston says prior to an election? Can you really be that naïve?
Muttonbird is right in all the posts made Alwyn, you must live in an alternate universe as others have correctly pointed out, you cheery pick and rewrite history to suit. You sound like a sore loser, much the National party that cant get over the fact that they lost.
In Vino corrected my error of Olde English. You made no correction, you just kept changing what you posted. Why would you think National keeping its data from public scrutiny will support your view? Obviously it wouldnt have or else why keep it secret? They could have done a slam dunk on the opposition, but didn’t. They tinkered with a few concessions eg IRD number & NZ bank accounts as pressure from the public mounted, but still refused to release data from that information. You are in denial re Chinese property investors in the NZ market that enjoyed the advantages of NZ’s tax haven status under the National government. Singaporean radio station promoted Auckland as “an investor’s dream”, with no land tax, stamp duty or capital gains tax. In 2013 a Chinese TV producer offered local sellers commercial spots in Asian markets “to get the attention of the majority of the affluent Chinese community”
Ray White has expanded its agency services to China, signing an agreement to list new and old properties for sale with China’s largest real estate agency
No surprises then that Chinese websites pushed NZ house sales ahead of the new Government’s crackdown.
You appear to have been fooled Alwyn, your posts are waffle.
So, Louis, you see what I meant about greasy, eely twisting, etc? Alwyn is an over-garrulous troll, who needs a healthier pastime.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions there isn’t any law that requires you to read what I say. I am only trying to help you appreciate the Bible verse at John 8:32.
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”.
If the truth is too much for you then you are free to follow the other path and remain in the slough of ignorance rather than being led into the light of the upper world, as Plato put it.
It’s all the same to me whether you read what I say or not.
It would be nice if what you write were not selected, twisted half-truths.
You need a healthier pastime.
You do a convincing I-couldn’t-care-less routine, Alwyn. Unfortunately, you give yourself away as soon as someone replies to you and especially when they challenge you.
Maybe take a leaf out of your own book and practice the following:
But I do care about what replies I get. The people who reply may be able to provide me with a fresh perspective or they may be open to enlightenment.
Or not, as in your case.
It wouldn’t worry me in the slightest if you didn’t read what I said, and never replied to me. That is the difference. I suggest if it makes you feel better you should take a leaf out of my book and adopt the creed you have just expressed. At least I will have taught you something.
Illogical, as usual, and inconsistent, as usual. Either you care about other people, or you don’t. In your case, you only care about replies, which is exactly what I said. In other words, you only care about yourself. That is the difference. At least I have learned something, thank you, Master Alwyn.
Well said Incognito.
Valid or not, any criticism at all brings a virulent, nasty reply. No care for people; just a person who needs a healthier pastime.
You seem to have developed a new fetish Vino.
This must be about the fourth or fifth time in the last couple of days when you insist on telling me I should get a “healthier pastime”.
I think you are another person who is trying to rationalise their own problems by indulging in Psychological Projection. What on earth has happened to you? It sounds as if you have recently been to the Doctor. Did he, or she, tell you that you must lose a lot of weight and give up your bibulous life-style?
It certainly sounds like that. It must have been hard to hear but you should take that advice. Cold showers and no booze, together with reducing your Calorie intake will work wonders. Worry about your own health and adopt immediately the healthier lifestyle being recommended.
I shall worry about myself. I really have no need for your advice on the subject.
“trying to rationalise their own problems by indulging in Psychological Projection” which is what you are doing Alwyn. You’re a hypocrite.
That’s nice dear.
Yes he does, I see what you mean In Vino.