Barclay goes to ground as police investigation widens to include Nat board member

34 comments on “Barclay goes to ground as police investigation widens to include Nat board member ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   8 July 2017 at 8:44 am

   Yes hope for proper investigation but politically McClay is so unimportant now.
   • Robert Guyton 1.1

     8 July 2017 at 8:47 am

     Barclay and in himself, yes, has-been, but the story has legs like a Stags No.8.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     8 July 2017 at 10:15 am

     Barclay (I’m assuming misspelling on your part) may be unimportant but the fact that a crime seems to have been committed and that it was then seemingly covered up by National is very important. Especially if it is shown against National’s consistent lying.
     • dukeofurl 1.2.1

       8 July 2017 at 12:23 pm

       One thing they have learnt from the ‘master of consistent lying’- just brazen it out.
       • Robert Guyton 1.2.1.1

         8 July 2017 at 12:26 pm

         That’s it, dukeofurl; eyes-front, smile on, don’t touch your nose, lie. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
         (Remember my children, the end justifies the means!)
   • Matthew Whitehead 1.3

     8 July 2017 at 12:59 pm

     The only remaining fact of importance regarding Barclay is his refusal to resign before the election. He should not be getting paid a dollar more when he clearly committed a crime back in april or whenever it was. He should have quietly gone then so they could have a by-election, which they would have handily won, because it’s Clutha-Southland, and National could run a root vegetable there and still win, but for whatever reason some idiot thought a coverup was the better course of action. Even if you think it’s reasonable to behave in a politically self-interested manner, there is no justifying either Barclay’s or Key’s/English’s behaviour.
2. Robert Guyton 2

   8 July 2017 at 8:45 am

   Front page of The Southland Times this morning, Todd’s evasive/elusiveness.
   Also on the front page, more on the Community Trust of Southland affair, starring Margot Hishon, National Party branch chairman for Clutha/Southland, and another impenetrable circumstance where the heavy hand of the Government has stirred serious resentment, even in it’s own heartland. There’s a full page article as well, on the history of The Community Trust of Southland and it’s much-respected but now ex-CEO, John Prendergast. Then there are the letters to the editor, oh dear!
   Southland’s stirring!
   • Cinny 2.1

     8 July 2017 at 9:08 am

     Dang Robert it’s all on like Donkey Kong down your end of the island, going to find myself a copy of that paper, sounds like an informative and interesting read, especially the letters to the editor.
     • Robert Guyton 2.1.1

       8 July 2017 at 9:12 am

       Here is a link to the letters, Cinny (we’re on-line down here 🙂

       https://i.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/94508626/a-right-from-two-wrongs
       • Cinny 2.1.1.1

         8 July 2017 at 12:05 pm

         Thank you so much Robert, that’s the bit I wanted to read, the letters 😀
   • Matthew Whitehead 2.2

     8 July 2017 at 1:02 pm

     Cherie Chapman must have that odd feeling an underdog candidate gets where they’re not sure whether to be horrified at her opponent’s stupidity and behaviour, or pleased that she might have a fighting chance if this disgusts the locals with the National Party enough to push her into competitive territory against whichever Young Nat they decide to throw into this mess after the re-selection.
     • Graeme 2.2.1

       8 July 2017 at 4:31 pm

       The debarclay is more likely to benefit Mark Patterson from NZ First. I’d say he and his boss will be feeling pretty happy with developments. I know a few nat regulars who were looking that way.

       I don’t think Cherie will figure much in the electorate vote, might go from 7000 to 10000 votes, which won’t be enough. It’s a very rural electorate, and a successful candidate will need, or be able to manufacture as in toddles’ case, good rural credentials. The only booth Labour regularly wins is Kaitangata and that’s rather small.

       The really interesting race will be Invercargill with Liz Craig and Ria Bond ganging up on Sarah Dowie. Somehow I don’t think Dowie is going to be the winner.
       • Michael 2.2.1.1

         8 July 2017 at 10:43 pm

         I’m almost certain Dowie will win comfortably; although she has a skeleton in her closet, it will remain there and won’t damage her. And Dowie has done a reasonably good job as an electorate MP. The Party Vote outcome will be more interesting (and more important, under MMP). I think Winston First will increase its share, largely at the expense of Labour but at some cost to the Nats. The Don’t Vote share will also increase but I still think the Nats will score the most PV, followed by No Vote, Winston First, then Labour.
         • Graeme 2.2.1.1.1

           9 July 2017 at 12:18 pm

           The Don’t Vote part will be the decider. I know a few in that camp, ex national voters too. Had enough of the bullshit.
         • Gabby 2.2.1.1.2

           9 July 2017 at 1:00 pm

           Unless she diddled an elderly couple out of their farm, skeletons would have to be of bonier than Shadders proportions.
         • Robert Guyton 2.2.1.1.3

           10 July 2017 at 5:18 pm

           Dowie’s skeleton’s making some rattling noises just now, what with all the attention the Southern Buddy MPs have been getting lately.
       • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.1.2

         10 July 2017 at 4:52 pm

         You could well be right on both those fronts, Graeme, cheers.
     • Incognito 2.2.2

       8 July 2017 at 5:08 pm

       Two votes: one for the party and one for the candidate.

       Will they ‘punish’ the National Party in the party vote or will they show their disapproval preference for the new National candidate?

       Or will the #debarclay largely be ignored by the voters and will they only base their votes on the here & now?
       • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.2.1

         10 July 2017 at 5:11 pm

         Hahaha I’m willing to bet very few if any will reconsider voting for the Nats because of this.
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   8 July 2017 at 10:09 am

   Since then Barclay has continued to receive his $160,000 annual Parliamentary pay. However, he has not made a single official public appearance and has taken leave from Parliament – though the National Party could not say when he would return.

   Can you imagine the cries of theft and anti-unionism that the RWNJs would engage in if one of their employees did that?

   Seems that it’s all Ok if it’s one of their own screwing over the public though.

   Is it too much to hope that the police are running a genuine investigation this time?

   I’m not about to hold my breath.
   • Vaughn 3.1

     8 July 2017 at 11:21 am

     In respect of Barclay continuing to draw a salary while being all but invisible: Have Jordan Williams and the Taxpayer’s Union had anything to say on this matter? The cynic in me says, probably not.
     • Enough is Enough 3.1.1

       8 July 2017 at 11:31 am

       They were pretty critical of the payment made

       http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1706/S00280/barclay-payment-not-the-first.htm
       • Vaughn 3.1.1.1

         8 July 2017 at 12:13 pm

         Thanks E is E but payment to the staffer is one thing; Barclay’s ongoing salary payment whilst being absent for no good reason is, in my opinion, unjustified. Just the kind of scenario ripe for comment by the TPU. That they appear not to have done so suggests bias – the howls if this kind of situation existed among the ranks of the political left? We all know the answer to that.
4. Doc 4

   8 July 2017 at 11:19 am

   There’d be a lynch mob looking for a suitable piece of rope and a decent tall tree if his name was Hone Harawira. the lynch mob would consist of factions from right/left and centre, just a thought.
5. adam 5

   8 July 2017 at 11:22 am

   So his vote is on hold in the house?
   • Gabby 5.1

     8 July 2017 at 11:24 am

     Andy could decline a pair but that would be very non-establishment. Can’t see it happening.
     • alwyn 5.1.1

       8 July 2017 at 11:48 am

       A pair is not required. That went out when MMP was introduced.
       The vote of an absent member can be cast by proxy, usually by their own party.
       However they can be cast even if the person has resigned from or been kicked out of their original party.
       Someone, probably National, had Alamein Kopu’s proxy after she left The Alliance.
       The Green Party cast Brendan Horan’s vote after he was kicked out of New Zealand First.
       https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features-pre-2016/document/00NZPHomeNews061120091/voting-in-the-house-of-representatives
       • red-blooded 5.1.1.1

         8 July 2017 at 12:39 pm

         Yeah – Alamein Kopu did give her proxy to the Nats. It was a travesty of democracy – her vote was consistently cast against the party she was elected to represent as a list MP, and cast in her absence with no input from her at all. She should have been honourable enough to resign, but I guess the salary was too alluring.
   • Matthew Whitehead 5.2

     8 July 2017 at 1:52 pm

     Hah, if his vote didn’t count for National as-is he would be gone by lunchtime. It’s the only reason they’ve been covering for him: they need every single vote so they can still pass things without the Māori Party’s support.
6. Michael 6

   8 July 2017 at 11:59 am

   I’m not sure Barclay is actually “hiding out”, except from the Wellington beltway scene. All it took was a decidedly average provincial journalist to catch up with him at a Queenstown pub – surely a natural habitat for an arrogant, self-entitled 20-something “earning” 170K a year?
7. dukeofurl 7

   8 July 2017 at 12:14 pm

   I saw one story about Barclays absence from parliament – but not from a Queenstown pub- which said that ‘the rules’ allow up to 25% of a partys caucus to be absent but their vote still counted ?

   Is this true and when did the rules change as I thought ‘absence from the chamber’ was limited to the ‘parliamentary precinct’ for a vote to count ( proxy voting ).
   • Matthew Whitehead 7.1

     8 July 2017 at 1:57 pm

     Have a look at https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand/chapter-17/

     Basically, being present on the precinct means you don’t even count as a proxy vote, (otherwise the chamber would be much fuller during evenings) the whip just gets to cast your vote as a matter of course. Proxies are only required for people who aren’t present on the premises or are absent on unapproved or unofficial business. (official business being things like inter-parliamentary delegations, etc…)

     So basically, Barclay will count against that 25% quota and the nats will be very careful that they get to cast his proxy on anything that all three of their support parties aren’t in complete agreement about.
8. Mosa 8

   8 July 2017 at 3:00 pm

   What a sad inditmet that we can’t rely on the police to be impartial when it comes to investigating a National government
   • Michael 8.1

     8 July 2017 at 10:45 pm

     There’s a good reason why their uniforms are coloured in that fetching shade of National Party blue.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS