Armstrong on Calamity Nick

Written By: - Date published: 11:59 am, November 25th, 2009 - 10 comments
Categories: national/act government - Tags:

Wrapped in a bit of fluff, John Armstrong has some pretty damning things to say about Nick Smith today:

He can be headstrong. He can be unpredictable. He can sometimes be the veritable bull in the china shop. He is prone to saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. His cockiness can land him in trouble.

I think it’s his tendency to lie through his teeth that lands him in trouble.

He can also be a particularly slippery customer. He repeatedly fudged yes-or-no-answer-type questions

Watching him twist in the wind to trying to hide the lies that underpin his position is like watching a clown performance – hilarious for some, scary for others.

Smith was more intent on staying on-message and repeating National’s line

I’m yet to hear him say anything of substance that doesn’t later turn out to be a lie or misrepresentation.

nickfiredthere is a difference between annoying everyone a little bit and angering everyone hugely. When the tide of opinion is vehement on both sides, what looks like safe ground can suddenly seem less than solid. The measure of that erosion were remarks made by Richard Long, a former National Party chief of staff. The politically astute one-time press galley journalist had described National’s emissions trading legislation as a “dog” which, resulting in part from a race-based deal and lacking across-the-board backing, was akin to Labour’s death-rattle, the Electoral Finance Act.

One year in and you’re in your death rattles. Jesus.

He even took time out to congratulate himself on being the first Climate Change Minister to have introduced a price for carbon after 15 years of failure by predecessors in the portfolio.

A lie, of course. Labour’s David Parker introduced the original ETS last year.

Smith did have a brief queasy moment. But it was of his own making. He quoted a legal opinion. Charles Chauvel, Labour’s climate change spokesman, demanded, as is his right, that Smith table the official document from which he was quoting.

Smith suddenly realised other contents of the document – written for ministers in the previous Labour Government – could be prejudicial to the Crown’s interests. His plea that he not have to table the paper was not helped by Labour happily giving its permission for him to do so. Smith’s afternoon was turning to custard.

Yeah, it’s one stuff up after another with this guy. It’s only the fact that he’s an incompetent minister in a sea of useless ministers that has saved his job, so far.

10 comments on “Armstrong on Calamity Nick ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    25 November 2009 at 12:16 pm

    I read this intently for one piece of policy analysis, just one, to see what Armstrong thought of the merits of what Smith ws saying. There was none.

    When the major NZ newspaper reports on style without a shred of substance you really have to get concerned.

    • Bored 1.1
      25 November 2009 at 12:52 pm

      Bloody hell Mickey, why do you think I read the blogs? Atleast from commentary by yourself and the rest of the bloggers we get some real “news”. If we had to await jornos, their editors and the owners of the media to give any valid “news” we would all be finding page 3 models on every page (except the sports page) and be watching TV reporters with huge white shiny smiles who moonlight as fashion models.

  2. Craig Glen Eden 2
    25 November 2009 at 12:26 pm

    I did the same, and I am still looking micky.

  3. DavidW 3
    25 November 2009 at 12:58 pm

    One thing Mickey/Craig, you sure as hell won’t find what you are looking for in this echo chamber.

    • Bright Red 3.1
      25 November 2009 at 1:15 pm

      who is a grumpy little boy then?

      I like this post, taking Armstrong’s puff piece and turning it against him. Nice.

  4. felix 4
    25 November 2009 at 1:12 pm

    First rightie to wheel out the old “BUT YOU DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING ELSE ARMSTRONG SAID SO YOU HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THIS TOO DUH” fallacy wins a subscription to Kiwibog (value negligible).

  5. outofbed 5
    25 November 2009 at 1:20 pm

    .Smith was referring to the adage that if you are being attacked from both left and right, then you have probably staked out the correct position.

    The correct position then, is a very bad law which does nothing whatsoever to reduce emissions. It is simple astounding that this is going through parliament.
    If you accept the AGW theory.,The whole point of an emission trading scheme is to reduce emissions so the planet does not warm.
    We could still be subsiding emitters in 90 years as the Ganges dries up (as one of the Mp’s said last night, think it was Kevin Hague).
    There is no middle ground, either you accept AGW is real and a great danger to our planet and drastic measures have to be taken. or you don’t and you do nothing

  6. lukas 6
    25 November 2009 at 4:34 pm

    “Labour’s David Parker introduced the original ETS last year” yes, but his carbon price was just as ridiculous…. he goes from $15 to $30 to $50… where did he set the price?

  7. todd 7
    25 November 2009 at 5:08 pm

    No ones going to get this right,throw a dart at the board!.
    Nick Smith IS a complete prat.Makes me want to piss every time I hear him speak.