Diversion tactics

87 comments on “Diversion tactics ”

• Comments are now closed

1. exbrethren 1

   24 September 2008 at 1:36 pm

   The real question is do you vote for a man that took money off a billionaire or do you vote for a man that used priviledged information to make money at the expense of mum and dad investors?

   Answer is of course neither, but the slippery git cheats the average person the arrogant git cheats the ultra-rich.
2. vidiot 2

   24 September 2008 at 1:47 pm

   [Tane: Don’t cut and past entire articles in here. A link will do.]
3. Tim Ellis 3

   24 September 2008 at 1:54 pm

   SP, I see yet another post on this issue from you, only a day after complaining that people should stop talking about Winston Peters and instead start focussing on the real issues.

   Yes I agree there have been a lot of diversion tactics this week. Those diversion tactics have been from Labour, by dumping this “scandal” on the same day that the Privileges Committee was going to issue its report. Likewise, Phil Goff’s decision last week to leak in advance the US’ inclusion in P4 FTA negotiations, and taking four of the top political editors to the United States with him, and have the PM make the breaking news just half an hour before the Privileges Committee report was issued, is also diversion tactics.

   You could very much say that such diversion tactics from Labour are straight out of the Crosby-Textor playbook. You could also very much say that you accusing National of things that are exactly what Labour is doing, is also straight out of the Crosby-Textor playbook.

   There’s very little news about John Key’s share trading five years ago, from today onwards. Why is that? Because John Key fronted to the media, admitted his mistake, was contrite, provided full evidence that he did not intend, when he made the transactions, to behave dishonestly, and demonstrated that far from intending to make a profit from inside information (which has been the Standard’s accusation), he deliberately traded out of the shares at a considerable loss, in order to avoid accusations of conflict of interest.

   That approach is quite refreshing. Imagine if every politician fronted up, admitted a mistake, apologised, and provided the detail. Imagine how quickly the Winston Peters saga would have blown over if he had done likewise. Imagine if Labour had demanded anything like the accountability from their own governing partner that they have demanded from John Key.

   I feel like a John Lennon song coming on.
4. insider 4

   24 September 2008 at 1:55 pm

   On the other hand he is fronting up. Where was Helen in the debate on the Privileges Committee? Where is Helen in her justification of retaining WP as a minister?

   Why will she not front on these issues and instead snipe and attack the integrity of everyone but Winston? Is that leadership?
5. Pat 5

   24 September 2008 at 2:00 pm

   What a way to get stuck into the Maori Party, your potential coalition partner.

   Why not attack the Greens now, and finish the job? Oh that’s right, Helen Clark did that yesterday.
6. Steve Pierson 6

   24 September 2008 at 2:06 pm

   Tim. If I’m still doing breathless posts twice a day every day on this issue in three weeks, then I’ll concede to being a hypocrite but this is a reaction piece to something new – Key’s excuses and I’m perfectly comfortable continuing to cover an issue as it evolves. It hasn’t stopped us from covering other issues as you can clearly see.
7. randal 7

   24 September 2008 at 2:09 pm

   you guys need a shower and then half an hour in an icebox to cool down. As an allblack once said this is not tiddlywinks and neither is politics. If you cant stand the heat then get out of the kitchen and start reading comics for a hobby instead of reading all that ocnspiracy nonsense. If you have nothing to do but get annoyed at how the political system works then you are in for a lot of disappointments and high blood pressure. I suppose the world would not be at a loos if some of you blew a foo foo valve whydoncha.
8. jaymam 8

   24 September 2008 at 2:12 pm

   I see that despite Key’s lies, two thirds of the respondents in the current NZ Herald poll have said they still trust Key.
   Or is it just someone from National voting 1000 times?
9. r0b 9

   24 September 2008 at 2:17 pm

   SP, I see yet another post on this issue from you, only a day after complaining that people should stop talking about Winston Peters and instead start focussing on the real issues.

   Blogs are now part of the political commentary landscape Tim, they comment on whatever they want to comment on. You’re here reading it. So are many others. It’s a truly democratic medium – and I do understand how that upsets those who are used to owning the media and the mediums of political commentary.

   Yes I agree there have been a lot of diversion tactics this week. Those diversion tactics have been from Labour, by dumping this “scandal’ on the same day that the Privileges Committee was going to issue its report.

   This scandal is far more relevant to NZs political future than Peters (his day is done, and hopefully voters will have the sense to show him to the exit).

   Likewise, Phil Goff’s decision last week to leak in advance the US’ inclusion in P4 FTA negotiations

   And you’re still over reaching there – pretty stupid to imply that Labour can set the timetable for announcements from the US Government.

   You could very much say that such diversion tactics from Labour are straight out of the Crosby-Textor playbook.

   I find it fascinating that so many righties continue to use CT as a shorthand for the dirtiest possible political tactics, when – when only one party (National) is actually employing CT (and still refusing to publicly admit it).

   There’s very little news about John Key’s share trading five years ago, from today onwards.

   What apart from the TV, radio and print coverage?

   Because John Key fronted to the media, admitted his mistake, was contrite, provided full evidence that he did not intend, when he made the transactions, to behave dishonestly

   Can JK please supply full evidence that he did not intend to lie about it afterwards, and to keep lying to Fran Mold, and to only change his story when she presented him with the facts? Key is liar, and as usual it is this coverup that is worse than the crime.
10. Pat 10

    24 September 2008 at 2:23 pm

    vidiot – I think you upset the bad news filter! “Move along – nothing to see here, people!”

    Better just watch the news tonight to see which story is being talked about.
11. randal 11

    24 September 2008 at 2:26 pm

    millken got a hefty jail sentence in the u.s.a. for insider trading but john keys just shrugs it off. I guess its postmodernism and business and your own truths all dressed up as I have got choices and I can do what I like so up yours.

    captcha: clammy minister…that just doesn’t sound good whatever way you look at it.
12. George Darroch 12

    24 September 2008 at 2:31 pm

    I would actually love for the Labour Party to be able to talk about honesty. However, they’re in no position to do so… and that pisses me off . (No, I’m not concern trolling – I am upset that what hope the left has of allying with the major centre party in NZ is quickly evaporating)
13. Scribe 13

    24 September 2008 at 2:34 pm

    rOb,

    This scandal is far more relevant to NZs political future than Peters (his day is done, and hopefully voters will have the sense to show him to the exit).

    Peters is a bigger story not because of his indiscretions, which were sizeable, but because of his role in the upcoming election. NZF on 4.9% versus NZF on 5.1% may be the difference between a Labour-led and a National-led government.

    And the Peters saga gets thrust back in the spotlight with today’s revelations that a senior minister (but who?) tried to strong-arm the Maori Party into supporting Winston in the privileges committee proceedings.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00508.htm

    I mightn’t agree with the Maori Party on policy, but one thing I wouldn’t question is Pita Sharples’ integrity. This will hurt.
14. Tim Ellis 14

    24 September 2008 at 2:36 pm

    And you’re still over reaching there – pretty stupid to imply that Labour can set the timetable for announcements from the US Government.

    Labour didn’t set the timetable for the US announcement. Labour announced the information before the US did, as a direct means to distract attention from the Privileges Committee report.

    What an amazing coincidence that three big stories would all break on the same day. Wasn’t it?

    Um well no, not really. Because it turns out that Labour fed the story about Key’s share trades to TVNZ late on Sunday night for use on Monday, knowing that the privileges committee report was about to blast Winston Peters to smithereens. And Trade Minister Phil Goff leaked details of the FTA announcement to selected media – TVNZ, TV3 and Radio New Zealand – five days ago, on the condition they kept it quiet until yesterday.

    I’d say the Government would be pretty pleased with its work this morning. While Peters dominated The Press and the Herald, the Dominion Post went with the FTA and the Key story on the front. Radio also concentrated on the FTA and Key. The privileges committee report came out too late for the TV news last night.

    Labour’s tactics are not dirty or underhand. They are smart, vicious, and calculated. It’s how you win election campaigns. But it’s still worth pointing out that there was nothing coincidental about yesterday’s yarns.

    Oh, sorry. I should have mentioned before the quote that it came from Colin Espiner.
15. the sprout 15

    24 September 2008 at 2:40 pm

    What do John Key and the Hindenberg have in common… anyone?
16. r0b 16

    24 September 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Peters is a bigger story not because of his indiscretions, which were sizeable, but because of his role in the upcoming election. NZF on 4.9% versus NZF on 5.1% may be the difference between a Labour-led and a National-led government.

    That is a fair point to a degree, but (1) if NZF does make itt back to parliament (which I don’t think it should, but if it does) then it has a mandate from the electorate to be there, and I don’t see either major party refusing to deal with it, and (2) the character of the leader of the party which is odds on favourite to lead the next government is still much more significant than the sunset days of Peters.

    And the Peters saga gets thrust back in the spotlight with today’s revelations that a senior minister (but who?) tried to strong-arm the Maori Party into supporting Winston in the privileges committee proceedings.

    “Strong arm” sounds like a beat up to me. Labour has no leverage over the Maori Party (quite the opposite I would have thought).
17. randal 17

    24 September 2008 at 2:42 pm

    oh god the world is so unfair and full of crooks and everythng is rotten and my peddlecarcar has a flat tyre…boo hoo hoo.
18. Ari 18

    24 September 2008 at 2:44 pm

    SP, I see yet another post on this issue from you, only a day after complaining that people should stop talking about Winston Peters and instead start focussing on the real issues.

    Diverting people from a diversion is no worse than diverting people from real issues. In fact, you could probably argue quite successfully that it’s the lesser of two evils.

    Also, I should point out that Peters is the head of his own party, he’s already been stood down from his role as a minister, and the Prime Minister has clarified why she hadn’t done this sooner. As far as I am concerned, the effects of this story on Labour should be over. That’s no excuse for running diversionary politics, but it does mean that I most certainly disagree with you on what the effects of that story should have been: Voters should be questioning Winston Peters, his trustworthiness, the integrity of our donation reporting system, and any other party that funnels funds through trusts in a similar way to New Zealand First.

    John Key, as a potential Prime Minister and head of government, is actually in a position for personal criticism to have some impact on the overall campaign, unlike Mr. Peters. While I certainly don’t want weeks and weeks of attacks, he deserves to be held accountable for any of his actions that the public might feel have betrayed their trust. That’s not dirty tricks, that’s strong campaigning.
19. travellerev 19

    24 September 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Tim,

    I promised you some links about the Federal Reserve and the private banking cartel that owns it.

    the <a href=’Money masters is a great documentary about the history of modern banking and how they gained control of the US financial world.
    the German scholar William Engdahl has written 5 excellent in debt articles analysing the pending crisis in January and February of this year under the name the Financial Tsunami.

    And to get back to the tread. I think that it is very well possible that John Key with a quick apology is trying to prevent further scrutiny onto his career and finances what with the financial and economic collapse of the western world at the hands of his mates in Wall street. It wouldn’t look to good if it turns out that John Key made his money of the same products that is now causing the super fund to drop in value while he’s trying to become the big Cohuna in this country he wants to bring to greatness. LOL.
20. vto 20

    24 September 2008 at 2:47 pm

    What’s the story with a labour minister trying to strong-arm a partisan vote at the Peters PC???????

    Is that the political tainting that Clark was talking about?

    If true then Clark just dived another notch in respectability. Actually that’s not true – everyone already knew why Labour First PC members all voted one particular way – it merely confirms that low respectability.

    Unfit for practice.

    Such a shame that Clark’s standards have dropped so far. She has some truly immense skills that are being wasted in this way. It just seems that the truism about power corrupting has been truismed again and that few humans are immune from its truist nature.
21. r0b 21

    24 September 2008 at 2:47 pm

    And Trade Minister Phil Goff leaked details of the FTA announcement to selected media – TVNZ, TV3 and Radio New Zealand – five days ago, on the condition they kept it quiet until yesterday.

    “Yesterday” being the day before the official US announcement (which was hardly likely to have been influenced by the Peters saga eh?). You and Colin can spin this one as hard as you like, but you’re both over reaching! The timing of this was just a bit of good luck for Labour.
22. Bill 22

    24 September 2008 at 2:49 pm

    In case you missed it, the really big John Key story is here:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_/ai_n8869409

    “John Key, managing director of debt markets at Merrill Lynch, ……..”

    To understand why this is important one has to understand the sub-prime crisis. This very funny video captures the essence:

    http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=TD5JTPhBhJw

    As Managing Director of Debt Markets, John Key was head of the offending department of one of the biggest players contributing to this crisis.

    I would not be surprised if this is the neutron bomb.
23. r0b 23

    24 September 2008 at 2:50 pm

    What’s the story with a labour minister trying to strong-arm a partisan vote at the Peters PC???????

    Ahhh – it’s a total beat up??????? What leverage did this minister have to “strong arm” with exactly?

    Such a shame that Clark’s standards have dropped so far.

    Why vto your concern is truly touching.
24. Crank 24

    24 September 2008 at 2:53 pm

    the sprout

    “What do John Key and the Hindenberg have in common? anyone?”

    Both represent hope, vision and innovation for their time?
25. forgetaboutthelastone 25

    24 September 2008 at 2:56 pm

    “What do John Key and the Hindenberg have in common.”

    What _don’t_ they have in common? Ball of hot air, going down in flames, Everyone thought he/it was pretty cool but it turns out he/it sucks…

    Labour does have some pretty good timing. I wonder what they have got in store for when National finally tells us about their irresponsible tax cuts. I’ll be a bit disappointed if there isn’t some major skeletons left in the Nats closet.
26. travellerev 26

    24 September 2008 at 2:57 pm

    No Crank,

    They both blew up spectacularly.
27. vto 27

    24 September 2008 at 2:59 pm

    rOb, its true of course, Clark does have immense abilities. And it is a shame that they seem to have been ‘diverted’ (notwithstanding that her policies could have done with improvement as well – he he).

    I consider the Peters situation to be the most grave situation to have confronted Clark (wrt her govt). Peters has effectively been found guilty of perjury. That is so far from appropriate for a Minister to have on their record it is not funny. And that Clark won’t get rid of him reflects like a perfect mirror on her.

    And I suspect the public have a similar view.
28. Tim Ellis 28

    24 September 2008 at 3:04 pm

    r0b, Goff’s leaking of that information prompted the political editors of three major media outlets to travel with him to the US. That took them out of action for the PC’s report. Then Clark called a press conference half an hour before the Privileges Committee report to announce this big achievement, a day before the US announcement.

    And what is the announcement? That the US has agreed to negotiate. Conclusions to such negotiations are two years off.

    The US agreed to negotiating with P4 countries on investment and financial services back in February. That was as ground-breaking as this development. What was the response from the NZ Government to this ground-breaking step? A press release from the trade minister. Suddenly, half an hour before the Privileges Committee is due to report, the PM calls a press conference to announce a day before the US announcement that she is extremely “surprised” with the development.

    Really? “Surprised”? More surprised than any of the trade officials who have been working on this for many years?

    The trade development was a moderate story, which will be a huge story in two years’ time if the P4-US trade agreement comes off. It got pumped out of all proportion by a Prime Minister intent on pursuing diversion tactics.
29. toad 29

    24 September 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Since when were responses to Official Information Act requests “in the public domain”. Seems Key’s been caught with his pants on fire yet again in his Breakfast interview this morning.
30. Billy 30

    24 September 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Hey Ev,

    I think you are onto something. I reckon there is no way the Hindenberg could have been destroyed in 32 seconds unless there were explosives inside it planted by George Bush. Think about it. You know it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
31. John Stevens 31

    24 September 2008 at 3:14 pm

    It seems the fat maori boy Horimea was the fella on the fone to Pita. Bribery & corruption go hand in hand. What was offered for the change in vote I wonder?
32. travellerev 32

    24 September 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Bill,

    it doesn’t seem to get trough to people here that he was right in the middle of the most massive global finance meltdown as he was there when the Wall street went on a derivatives binge. The man worked for 7 years for the Bankers Trust, a bank that was an active developer of the derivatives trading and part of the first derivatives meltdowns with Proctor and Gamble. In fact they went belly up in ’95 because tapes showed that they were aware of the risks and even had the term ROF (rip off factor) for how much they scammed their clients.

    They were coined the bad boys of banking
    John Key is quoted in the (Un)authorised biography as saying,”In 1995 it all went to shit, and I said right I’m out of here.”
    That was the year the scandal broke and the bank went down. So he knew about the dangers of derivatives. Not only that but he was working for Merrill Lynch in this field when the LTCM hedgefund went belly up in which Merrill Lynch had a huge interest. What does John Key next Merrill Lynch as bloody manager for debt “developing all these great new derivatives and instruments, whom Warren Buffet called “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in as early as 2002.

    The foreign exchange trade and derivatives on the level he was working on are just about linked to the hip derivatives.

    Nice one for the Kiwi oldies and mum and pop investors who just lost their money in those finance institutes that went under due to John Key’s and his banking mates irresponsible and greedy machinations.

    Everything of any value in America has been bought up by the big banksters with speculative money and the people are left footing the bill. Perhaps that is why the Smiling assassin has come back to sell of NZ to his greedy mates too.
33. Billy 33

    24 September 2008 at 3:16 pm

    ..and he blew up the Hindenberg.
34. r0b 34

    24 September 2008 at 3:18 pm

    r0b, Goff’s leaking of that information prompted the political editors of three major media outlets to travel with him to the US.

    Well yes, it’s real news you see. Huge implications for our economy. Thawing of a 20 year freeze. You know – stuff that is actually important.

    That took them out of action for the PC’s report.

    You think the editors didn’t know that this was possible (a mild inconvenience rather than “out of action”) when they went? Is it inconceivable to you that they made all big grown up decisions to go and cover the real news? Or are you suggesting that they are willing collaborators in Clark’s cunning plan?

    Seriously Tim, you raise valid points here some times. This isn’t one of them, and trying to push it just makes you look silly. You’re trying to sell a conspiracy between Clark, the US government, and senior journalists…
35. travellerev 35

    24 September 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Billy your a dick
36. r0b 36

    24 September 2008 at 3:23 pm

    I consider the Peters situation to be the most grave situation to have confronted Clark (wrt her govt).

    Oh please. Do you really have your head so far up the ass of partisan political obsessions?

    How about, oh I don’t know – climate change. The war in Iraq. Steering NZ thorough the worst international financial crisis in the last 70 years. Health. Education. And a dozen other things. It’s all wrt her government vto, real issues in the real world.
37. travellerev 37

    24 September 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Billy you’re a dick
38. Crank 38

    24 September 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Billy you’re a very funny man. That really tickled me
39. Go The Right 39

    24 September 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Just a Wee joke to brighten up your day!!

    A man enters a bar and orders a drink.
    The bar has a robot barman.

    The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him,

    “What’s your IQ?”

    The man replies “150” and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, Quantum physics and spirituality, bio-mimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nanotechnology, and sexual proclivities.

    The customer is very impressed and thinks, “This is really cool.”

    He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink.

    Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him,

    “What’s your IQ?”

    The man responds, “About 100.”

    Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time about league, Holdens, racing, the new BIG Mac, tattoos, Nicky Watson and women in general.

    Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test.

    He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks,

    “What’s your IQ?”

    The man replies, “Err, 50, I think.”

    And the robot says …real slowly .

    “So…………… ya gonna vote for Helen again?”
40. randal 40

    24 September 2008 at 3:36 pm

    travellerev (3:15)…that is why this election is a matter of trust…and not Bankers Trust either…hohohohohoho. their word is not their bond.
41. randal 41

    24 September 2008 at 3:37 pm

    travellerev (3:15)…that is why this election is a matter of trust…
42. vto 42

    24 September 2008 at 3:38 pm

    rOb, that is why I said “wrt her govt”. I meant wrt the members her govt, not the actual issues of the world which are obviously what they are actually in govt for. Thought it would have been clear.
43. Tim Ellis 43

    24 September 2008 at 3:41 pm

    You’re trying to sell a conspiracy between Clark, the US government, and senior journalists

    No I’m not saying that at all r0b, and if you’ve managed to construe that as what I am saying, then there has been an error of communication. Either I have failed to communicate my point, or you are deliberately misconstruing my point, or somewhere in between.

    I most certainly did not say that the US was involved in a conspiracy to divert attention from this issue.

    What I said was that Helen Clark called a press conference half an hour before the Privileges Committee report, a day before the US announcement, in order to divert attention from the PC’s findings. Michael Cullen’s decision to dump the information on John Key’s share trading, five years ago, was also part of a deliberate strategy to divert attention from the PC’s findings.

    Those were both diversion tactics.

    This is perhaps the point I have not made myself clear on. I don’t disapprove of diversion tactics. They are smart politics. You want the media and the public to focus on your plan and what you want to say, rather than respond to what your opponent’s plans are.

    Diversion tactics take place all the time in politics, from both sides. Key is questioned about his share trading, he fronts up about it, and then he wants to move on to another topic. What else do you expect of a politician? Do you expect, after he’s apologised for a mistake and provided the explanation, to permanently prostrate himself for that mistake? When the media gets the answers that they are seeking, do you expect him to say: “Hang on. We’re not finished with this issue yet. Please ask me those same questions over and over again, even though you were happy with the answers. I don’t want to talk about anything other than my mistake so that you can all gloat for a while longer about how I made that mistake.”?

    Of course not.

    The difference between John Key’s conduct is that he admitted his mistake and error of judgement, and apologised for it. Neither Helen Clark, nor Winston Peters, have ever done so.

    My point about diversion tactics is that every politician uses it. Helen Clark used it to great effect, and with superb skill, at the beginning of this week. Good on her. What it shows is that it is not a uniquely Crosby-Textor strategy. It is a strategy that all good politicians use to effect. Which makes it very hypocritical for Steve to complain about, when John Key uses it, given the immense skill used by Helen Clark when she deploys that same strategy.
44. r0b 44

    24 September 2008 at 3:43 pm

    I meant wrt the members her govt

    Well no you might have been a little more clear there. But even if you limit it to matters relating to the makeup of the government and it’s stability, the Peters thing is still a storm in a teacup compared to the events surrounding the foreshore and seabed issue, where one of Labour’s own ministers split off to form the Maori Party.
45. vto 45

    24 September 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Well that may be true rOb, in a different manner. But the Peters thing imo is more catastrophic due to the effective criminal nature of Peters perjury.

    It simply defies the laws of joe-public-gravity that someone found guilty of what he has been found guilty of remains as a Minister.

    But hey, thats just my opinion.
46. r0b 46

    24 September 2008 at 3:53 pm

    I most certainly did not say that the US was involved in a conspiracy to divert attention from this issue.

    Pleased to hear it.

    What I said was that Helen Clark called a press conference half an hour before the Privileges Committee report, a day before the US announcement, in order to divert attention from the PC’s findings.

    No Tim, what you said was “r0b, Goff’s leaking of that information prompted the political editors of three major media outlets to travel with him to the US. That took them out of action for the PC’s report.” You were trying to sell a conspiracy theory, that Clark / Goff deliberately lured journalists away to try and minimise reporting of the PC report. And that is such a patently ludicrous claim (only works if the journalists are either stupid or actively collaborating) that you are now trying to back pedal from it to something a little more reasonable.

    The difference between John Key’s conduct is that he admitted his mistake and error of judgement, and apologised for it. Neither Helen Clark, nor Winston Peters, have ever done so.

    Peters and Key have something to apologise for – dodgy dealings and lying about it afterwards. Clark does not (at worst failing to actively volunteer conflicting information part of which was supposed to be in confidence).
47. r0b 47

    24 September 2008 at 3:55 pm

    It simply defies the laws of joe-public-gravity that someone found guilty of what he has been found guilty of remains as a Minister.

    Joe public gravity gets to speak for itself in a few weeks. I await the results with interest. But I fear that WP will actually benefit from all this attention, and claw his way back.
48. vto 48

    24 September 2008 at 3:57 pm

    rOb, Clark should sack him.

    Perhaps you could answer this – what sort of indiscretion would it take for Clark to sack Peters?
49. jtuckey 49

    24 September 2008 at 4:04 pm

    r0b

    The PM should apologise to the Maori party for having the Minister of Maori affairs try to bully them regarding the outcome of the privileges committee.

    She should also apologise to Owen Glenn for the continued smears from the deputy PM.
50. r0b 50

    24 September 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Perhaps you could answer this – what sort of indiscretion would it take for Clark to sack Peters?

    I dunno vto, take your pick. What sort of indiscretion by Key would it take to attract the same media attention that Peters got?
51. randal 51

    24 September 2008 at 4:06 pm

    NO. Prime Minister Helen Clark should not sack Winston Peters. No matter how much the LITTLE PEOPLE clamour for blood. He was accused under a retrospective law and even though the privileges comittee has found him guilty of something (anything) there is no penalty because the misdemeanour has a use by date. time to get past this sideshow and into the election. When are the Nats going to release their hidden agenda?
52. r0b 52

    24 September 2008 at 4:07 pm

    The PM should apologise to the Maori party for having the Minister of Maori affairs try to bully them regarding the outcome of the privileges committee.

    Who said the PM “[had] the Minister of Maori affairs” do anything? And I know the Maori Party are selling this as “bullying” – but what was actually said?

    She should also apologise to Owen Glenn for the continued smears from the deputy PM

    What smears are those exactly? Could you quote them please?
53. vto 53

    24 September 2008 at 4:15 pm

    oh blimmin’ heck – diversion, avoidance, etc.

    “what sort of indiscretion would it take for Clark to sack Peters?”

    If none of you on here will answer this, how about –
    umm, assault?
    drunk driving?
    peeing in a hotel lobby?
    filinf incorrect claims expenses?
    running through parliament in the nud?
    treason?
    perjury?
    kidnapping?

    You fullas take a pick.

    This aint a sideshow, it is a freakin’ joke.
54. Ms M 54

    24 September 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Bill, Key is up to his donkey knees in derivatives pooh.

    From my calculations Key started at Bankers Trust in Auckland sometime in early to mid 86 or 87, which would put him in the hot seat for Krieger’s run on the kiwi as well. However my suspicious, to be confirmed, do hinge on the date Ken Jarrett met with Paul Richard’s of Elders.

    Hinge is probably a strong word, as the share purchase of BHP shares by Beid/Equiticorp and Elders IXL and BHP convertible bonds that instigated the Elders Finance loop to Equiticorp in October 87 and ‘H-Fee’ in the coming months, happened early 1986.

    In 2007 Key states he was lunching with Richard’s in 1987, some three months before the ‘H-Fee’ scheme was realised, and before the sale of New Zealand Steel to Equiticorp.

    Almost a year later in 2008, it is reported “in 1988, [Key] was on the verge of leaving Elders” agreeing to three months ‘gardening leave’, “before taking his job up at Bankers Trust, newly established in New Zealand”.

    Newly? Gavin Walker, CEO for Bankers Trust New Zealand in the 80s and 90s, is currently reported on various websites of companies he is or was a director for, that he was CEO of Bankers Trust New Zealand from 1986 – 1996. At that time you did not have to be a registered bank to trade in fx; Bankers Trust New Zealand Limited did not register as a bank until 1989.

    There is no dispute Key was trading forex for Bankers Trust in Auckland in 1988, but there is a dispute over whether he was trading for them prior, like in 86 and 87, the only years that can give him a significant time period for developing the lucrative Krieger/Key trades Gavin Walker says “it was really the management of that relationship on behalf of the dealing room that John had responsibility for”. Going on to say, “He knew everything that was going on in terms of the orders that Krieger was executing on our desk, this flow on business from Krieger and others at BT in New York soon turned the local branch into the “number one dealing room in New Zealand.”

    Key says he can’t remember where he was, and probably recall what colour flip flops he was wearing on the day Krieger made his run on the kiwi, but he does firmly place himself trading at the time.

    Fact, Andrew Krieger was at Saloman Brothers, starting in 1984, becoming a forex trader and assistant to Bill Lipschutz, the company founder. Krieger/Lipchitz team, over the next two years regularly made early morning trades of $20 million, $50 million; gambling on the rise and fall of the NZ dollar. They made millions at SB.

    Newly floated dollar, the New Zealand forex market was in its infancy and was the first market to open after the weekend. Not many, if any (New York & Europe based) forex traders, were trading in our time zone then. While at Saloman Brothers, Krieger developed strong associations with the forex industry down under.

    In 1985, Key launches his forex career with Elders Finance Group in Wellington .

    In 1986 Krieger moves to New York Bankers Trust.

    If he was not trading at Bankers Trust in Auckland at the time? Where was he trading from? Can’t be Elders he left there in 87.

    No hang on, flip flop ahead, …it was 88, yeah, that’s right 88

    I didn’t understand the question.

    Too many dots, too many connections and yet our media doesn’t seem to be asking too many questions.

    Finally Bill, correct, Bankers Trust are up to their eyeballs in derivatives now and were up to their eyeballs in derivatives from the early 80s, with Bankers Trust described on CNN in March 1995 as the “preeminent purveyor of leading-edge derivatives” after it’s practices were exposed by the banks dealings with the Gibson Greeting and in this quote about the 1987 stockmarket crash “equity derivatives were troublesome back then, and their numbers have since multiplied greatly” firmly cements derivatives during the 1987/8 – 1995 years Key was with Bankers Trust.
55. r0b 55

    24 September 2008 at 4:22 pm

    You fullas take a pick.

    It’s a silly question vto, and it deserves the silly answers that you gave it.
56. vto 56

    24 September 2008 at 4:25 pm

    oh ok then.

    the left deserves the fire-storm coming its way.
57. Matthew Pilott 57

    24 September 2008 at 4:26 pm

    An the last part of Rob’s (the plagiarist currently hiding as “go The right”) joke.

    Man goes back into the bar, and walks up to the robot. The robot serves him asks him his IQ, to which he replies “7”.

    The robot replies…”G’day Rob”.

    VTO – what if I tell you I’m not convinced that an inconclusive report saying he probably knew about a donation and didn’t delcare it, even though if he’d asked, he’d have been told NOT to declare it, suffices.

    jtuckey – so you’re for special favours for large donors then. National will welcome your vote with open arms.
58. jaymam 58

    24 September 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Bill, concerning your link about “John Key, managing director of debt markets at Merrill Lynch”, Deborah Coddington says that John Key didn’t operate in Merrill Lynch’s lending area. Who’s going to tell Deborah she’s wrong?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10533349&pnum=0
    4:00AM Sunday Sep 21, 2008
    By Deborah Coddington

    “More importantly, it’s ludicrous to cast aspersions on Key’s credibility because the crazy sub-prime mortgage nonsense has brought several American financial giants to their knees. Anyway, Key didn’t operate in the bank’s lending area.”
59. r0b 59

    24 September 2008 at 4:38 pm

    the left deserves the fire-storm coming its way

    The left deserves and should be proud of its record of nine productive and progressive years in government. If we lose the next election so be it, we’ll be back! That’s the thing about the political wheel – keeps on turning.
60. gd 60

    24 September 2008 at 4:47 pm

    None of this stuff will matter when the real story behind why Clark wont sack Peters is revealed.

    Reckon it will be about 10 days before election day Just time for even the thickest Socialist supporter to get their heads around the implications

    Clark is sweating big time as her ego and reputation is all about to go up im smoke and the UN job recedes into the distnace

    Even the UN has its standards about the ethics and morals of its employees Low they may be.
61. randal 61

    24 September 2008 at 4:55 pm

    GD…WHATALOADACRAPOLA…do they hand this stuff out at National party meetings or did you make it all up yourself just before you pulled up your socks with the tight garters to stop the flow of blood to your head?
62. r0b 62

    24 September 2008 at 4:58 pm

    None of this stuff will matter when the real story behind why Clark wont sack Peters is revealed.

    Hah – none of that stuff will matter when the real story behind why Key is a space alien from Uranus is revealed.
63. Ms M 63

    24 September 2008 at 5:02 pm

    GD I think you will find the real reason Helen Clark will not sack Winston Peters is already in the public domain, and if it is what I think it is, then I, and I feel the New Zealand public at large, here and oversees, will support her 100%.

    It has nothing to do with political gifts or not gifts or the ETS, no matter how much dog whistling National, Act, Dunne and now the Maori Party do to stop questions being asked of Key and his ilk.
64. Bill 64

    24 September 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Jaymam.

    I will tell Coddington she’s wrong and cite this Nov 1999 article as evidence:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_/ai_n8869409

    ….which names him as “John Key, managing director of debt markets at Merrill Lynch,’

    I know all the other stuff and we all know he was in it but he seems to slide out the door five minutes before the roof caves in every time. This is the first time there is direct evidence that puts him smack in the very room where they were packaging up the dodgy debts into “Structured Investment Vehicles” – that is what Debt Marketers do.

    The problem with the story is that few “mums and dads” will understand it unless they understand the Sub-Prime crisis – which is why I included the link to youtube. Check out the clip, its hilarious.

    Hopefully someone in the Labour strategy room can package the story as well as Wall Street packaged it’s dodgy debts. If your average kiwi punter fully comprehends the significance of this, Key is dead in the water. It would only take one wide-awake journo to run with it.
65. Billy 65

    24 September 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Hah – none of that stuff will matter when the real story behind why Key is a space alien from Uranus is revealed.

    Hey, Ev. I think r0b’s onto something.
66. toad 66

    24 September 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Tim Ellis said: The difference between John Key’s conduct is that he admitted his mistake and error of judgement, and apologised for it.

    No Tim, he obfuscated and lied about it again, just this morning on Breakfast.

    Since when is receiving a response to an Official Information Act request putting information “in the public domain”? The responses to Key’s Official Information Act requests re Transrail didn’t get into the public domain until Cullen put them there this week. Meanwhile, with the information contained in those responses, and possibly motivated by it, Key decides to sell his Transrail shares. Go figure!

    By my standard of ethics, this puts him down in the sewer with Winston.
67. r0b 67

    24 September 2008 at 5:51 pm

    I’m onto my bike Billy – see ya’ll later…
68. gobsmacked 68

    24 September 2008 at 5:54 pm

    What’s really depressing is that the tag for this post is “corruption”, and as usual the post and the thread are all about the Key/Peters/Glenn soap opera.

    On a day when New Zealand’s public service has been found, in the most authoritative global survey, to be the least corrupt in the whole bloody world, it’s not even worth a mention on the Standard. No Right Turn gets it. Why can’t you guys?

    Some time over the next 6 weeks, I hope you can find the time to talk about why New Zealand today is a country to be proud of. Yes, John Key is a joke. Everybody knows that. We’ve got the message. Now, how about the good news? If you won’t tell it, who will?
69. Ms M 69

    24 September 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Ya know all this talk of railways, got me to wondering, if Gary Marino and Rail America had managed to buy Tranz Rail off Toll Holdings, instead of the Government, if they’d painted it blue and served Montana Cabernet Sauvignon in their “value added” carriages?
70. travellerev 70

    24 September 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Ms M,

    Read this about his Krieger year. It is my part 1 answer to the NZHerald propaganda piece. I found some archived NYTimes articles from around that time in their online Archive. Andrew Krieger was a legend because of his attack on NZ. Turns out he left the Bankers trust in February 1988 disgusted to only receive a US$ 3 mill bonus for US$300 mill profit he made with the NZ currency. In fact after a short stint with George Soros from march until June 1988 he left forex trading altogether until 1990.

    The bankers trust according to the NZFR did not register its holdings until late July 1988 and the bank did not open its doors until late August of that year. In the NZH John Key states that he started to work with Krieger after the attack in 1988. According to the time line I established with the help of the Federal Reserve it would have been impossible for Key to have worked with Andrew Krieger (who was head of Forex in NY) as a trader in 1988.
    However you say that they were allowed to do forex trading and that makes sense. In any case he must have done so before February 1988.

    In this interview John Key is portrayed as remembering the following: Key remembers getting a call from Krieger soon after he started at Bankers Trust. The New York trader’s first question was about New Zealand’s GDP and money supply.

    Now if Krieger had already attacked the NZ$ he would have known all there is to know about the NZ$ and NZ’s GDP wouldn’t he. According to the NZH he had already made 300 million dollars after all.

    So in order to have done business with Krieger as his sole account manager dealing with tens of millions of dollars he must have worked with Krieger in 1987. I read somewhere that he started at bankers trust in 1987 but have not been able to find that back but I think the above makes for a convincing case of him having worked with Krieger when Krieger was doing the attack on the NZ dollar.

    Ms M,

    I’m an obsessive, I have had to deal with people like John Key before and people like him make little red lights go off in the back of my head. My husbands supports my research. It took me a year to find out what I did. You have an unusual in debt knowledge of international finance and John Key. I’m glad your sharing it here with us but I wonder what your day job is. LOL.

    The subject of part 2 of the things John key does not want you to know is his involvement in the the Asian crisis, the collapse of Russia, LTCM, and the Asian crisis.

    Part 3 John Key as a derivative trader and the collapse of the western Finance system.
71. Brett Dale 71

    24 September 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Thought Fran Mold was her usual pathetic self absorb self.

    I mean the way she ask him , did he make money from his shares?

    That is actually a good thing, only the liberal media could make it out to be something bad.
72. lukas 72

    24 September 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Traverleve-My husbands supports my research.

    That explains sooo much
73. Go The Right 73

    24 September 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Great letter from a former Labour voter to the Prime Minister posted on Kiwi Blog. Sowing the utter disgust in the way Labour have handled the Peters affair. This Will bite Labour hard on polling day make no mistake.

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Link – don’t copy and paste. You remind me of someone, begins with an ‘R’.]
74. travellerev 74

    24 September 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Lucas you’re a dick too. happy now? LOL
75. toad 75

    24 September 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Brett Dale said: I mean the way she ask him , did he make money from his shares? That is actually a good thing, only the liberal media could make it out to be something bad.

    Yes, if he had no inside information. The Parliamentary Written Questions are okay, because once they are published on Parliament’s website, that is information available to everyone.

    The Official Information Act requests are not okay, because the information obtained from them is at John Key’s discretion to release or suppress, and to use to his personal advantage.

    I’m not saying he did use it to hispersonal advantage, but it is a very bad look – not helped by the fact that he sold his shareholding shortly after receiving the OIA responses.

    As I said earlier on this thread, I think that puts Key down in the political sewer with Winston.
76. DeeDub 76

    24 September 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Brett Dale:

    “I mean the way she ask him , did he make money from his shares?

    That is actually a good thing, only the liberal media could make it out to be something bad”

    TV ONE was NOT saying or implying that making a profit is ‘bad’. Stop avoiding the real issue . . . that Key lied.

    And to call our mainstream news media ‘liberal’ shows just how far right of centre you really stand.

    Key’s campaign is looking more like the movie ‘Bob Roberts’ every day…. wonder if he can sing and play a guitar?
77. lukas 77

    24 September 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Trav…much happier. Can I get a certificate or something from you now? I was thinking of starting up a support group for all us out there who have been deceived into thinking that America was an innocent party in the 9/11 attacks and Al Qaedea attacked them… then I realised that that was what actually happened… dodged that bullet!
78. randal 78

    24 September 2008 at 7:17 pm

    sing sing?
79. Quoth the Raven 79

    24 September 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Lukas – My nine wives, three gay husbands and transvestite partner support everything I do . What does that explain?
80. Brett Dale 80

    24 September 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Deedub:

    And yet he still is and has been ahead of Labour in every poll for what must be a year.
81. Hazel 81

    24 September 2008 at 8:42 pm

    vto:

    It defies the laws of joe-public-gravity that Peters remains as a minister?
    He remains a minister in much the same way that Clint Rickard remained a police chief while under investigation and prosecution. Helen Clark has seen to it that while he remains under investigation and prosecution Peters has no active function in the government. She has no power to sack him as a MP – he is not a member of her party. Even the privileges committee saw no reason on what they had in front of them to recommend more than censuring him and sitting him down to do his sums again until he gets them right.

    One thing is certain: Peters’ sadly tarnished baubles will not remain his for anywhere near as long as Rickards held on to the perks of his position.
82. rave 82

    24 September 2008 at 8:44 pm

    The righties are in a baiting mood. Don’t feed them is my advice.
    There’s no arguments. Its repetition and stupidity amplified by the boss owned MSM.
    Peter’s has been rescued from the posse and lives to fight another day.
    Bill your info is great. I love that about Key sliding out of the rooms before the roof caves in. That’s exactly the direction that Labour needs to go for the king hit.
    Now that Key has showed himself as a little turd gambling with our railway I am fired up to railroad him out of town.
    I want a ride on Cullen’s train no matter what it costs.
83. randal 83

    24 September 2008 at 9:06 pm

    BRETT DALE$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    [lprent: there was a point to that ?]
84. Bill 84

    24 September 2008 at 9:25 pm

    I think a little hard digging might expose some inaccuracies in Key’s timeline. Particularly around the elders/Bankers Trust transition.
85. Brett Dale 85

    24 September 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Randal:

    I don’t understand your post? Are you saying that you want to give me some money? 🙂
86. Lew 86

    24 September 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Gobsmacked: I’d like to buy you a beer, my good sir, for your excellent sense of perspective.

    L
87. Felix 87

    24 September 2008 at 11:18 pm

    Rob (ot)

    burt already told that joke on another thread. Word for word.

    Maybe you guys should hang out.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS