Eleven questions about National, English and the Barclay affair.

Written By: - Date published: 6:15 am, June 28th, 2017 - 22 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, national, Politics - Tags: ,

 

 

22 comments on “Eleven questions about National, English and the Barclay affair. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Penny Bright 1
    28 June 2017 at 6:31 am

    If Parliamentary Servuces are covered by the Public Records Act 2005 and ‘tapes’ are part of the ‘public record’ – how can they NOT have a copy of ‘the tape’?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti- privatisation / anti-corruptiion campaigner’.

    2017 Independent candidate for Tamaki.

    Exposing the $1.6 billion Tamaki ‘Regeneration’ -GENTRIFICATION $CAM.

  2. Ed 2
    28 June 2017 at 6:53 am

    11 questions.
    But we don’t have a media that will ask.

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    28 June 2017 at 6:58 am

    Hillary Barry asked Bill English how he could be casting doubt on the existence of any tapes, while at the same time a huge payout from the Government had been made because of them.
    He didn’t answer the question.

  4. Muttonbird 4
    28 June 2017 at 8:25 am

    5. Why is English not handling this well? It’s as if he is trying to protect someone, but who is more important to protect than the PM? 5/

    John Key, that’s who. He, or at least his reputation, is more important to the National Party than the PM. If it were to come out that Key acted in a corrupt or criminal fashion it would tarnish National by confirming to the public what some already know and most suspect – that they are dodgy as hell.

    • ianmac 4.1
      28 June 2017 at 9:26 am

      Agreed Muttonbird. The decision to settle on a payout must have been Key’s. He must have known that it was important enough to do so. He would believe that the issue was buried. English may have been involved and may have disagreed with the Key actions.
      Now English is committed to his position of “not being involved.” To now detail the Key machinations would show Key to have been unscrupulous and corrupt.
      So English is mired in a mess originating with Key.
      However English did apparently support the re-selection of Barclay. Mmmm?

      • Richard Christie 4.1.1
        28 June 2017 at 3:35 pm

        However English did apparently support the re-selection of Barclay. Mmmm?

        Once the cover up was entered into, even Barclay holds the goods on his superiors.

    • ianmac 4.2
      28 June 2017 at 9:33 am

      No 2:”Why did Key authorise settlement payment from his Leader’s Fund if he didn’t know any details, hadn’t asked any Q https://t.co/qLERZa5DFG”

      “Key told RNZ he had seen media reports of the resignations, but had not been formally briefed about it.

      They have used that “formally” tactic before and recently from English. Doesn’t mean that they didn’t have intense discussions though.

      • Muttonbird 4.2.1
        28 June 2017 at 9:41 am

        Yep, it’s a device use to stop further questioning.

        And as for this…

        “He’s a young guy, he’s on a steep learning curve, and I’m sure he’s going to do a great job for us.”

        – Key

        Lol.

  5. Jenny Kirk 5
    28 June 2017 at 9:22 am

    Good questions. And good answer from Muttonbird on #5. And a further question :
    When will the mainstream media ask some of these questions ?

  6. mpledger 6
    28 June 2017 at 9:27 am

    This
    “10. Why did English et al let Barclay get away with repeatedly publicly lie about not having made recording(s)?”
    and also
    Why did English et al let Barclay get away with repeating publicly it was an employment dispute with the implication that Glenys Dickson (as the employee) had been at fault when no complaint had ever been made about her with her employer.

    ~~~~~
    Given that there was no complaint against Dickson and it has been confirmed that noone has broken confidentiality*, who was the employment complaint against and who was the confidentiality agreement between? Did Dickson make a complaint against Barclay?

    And if the confidentiality agreement was between Dickson and Barclay, what were they having to be quiet about, if it was not about the illegal taping?

    *prior to the “sex and drugs”/”drug dealer” comments.

  7. Nick 7
    28 June 2017 at 11:08 am

    If natzis had a clear majority, they would have been able to let Barclay go. So they were protecting that, not specifically Barclay. Power is all to them.

    • Gabby 7.1
      28 June 2017 at 11:36 am

      Given the near certainty of National winning any by-election in Clutha Southland that’s unlikely.
      Maybe the Toddger knows the whereabouts of some interesting buried bodies.

  8. Stuart Munro 8
    28 June 2017 at 1:46 pm

    @ question 5 – thus far Dickson has confined her comments to Barclay’s illegalities. But if anyone knows where all Bill’s skeletons are buried it will be her. So while Bill wants to slap her down, he can’t afford to. Cue efficacy crisis.

  9. Cinny 9
    28 June 2017 at 2:50 pm

    $100k ??!!! Hushhhhhh… wow!!… Q6 from today…

    RON MARK to the Prime Minister: In his Prime Ministerial capacity, does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue; if so, how does he do that?

    • McFlock 9.1
      28 June 2017 at 3:04 pm

      Introduced as prime minister, addressed as prime minister, asked as prime minister, answered as something other than prime minister.

      love it

    • Cinny 9.2
      28 June 2017 at 3:40 pm

      Yup pick a ‘hat’ any ‘hat’

      It’s at around 4:09 if any are interested re the $100k

      The outgoing PM rejects the Members assertions..(what a surprise lolz) then goes on to delude and distract, using techniques from the national party thesaurus of propaganda.

      $100k is a very large sum to pay out to one person for an ’employment dispute’

    • Cinny 9.3
      28 June 2017 at 3:57 pm

      Ron Mark telling it like it is re Barclay in the general debate….well worth a listen.

      He shines more light on the $100k that he mentioned earlier.

      • ianmac 9.3.1
        28 June 2017 at 4:54 pm

        So Mr Marks says Mike Williams says it was $100,000 payout. That is pretty big money! Why so big?

        • Anne 9.3.1.1
          28 June 2017 at 8:13 pm

          Assuming it’s true, that has to be the revelation of the day! I imagined it to be around the $50,000 mark. For money like that to be paid out then Glenys Dickson must have become privy to something very damaging to someone senior inside the National Party. And maybe that something was enough to bring down the government.

    • weka 9.4
      28 June 2017 at 8:18 pm

      “You can run but you can’t hide, Bill”

      Lol.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.