Power disavows $50 offender penalty

Written By: - Date published: 4:30 pm, April 2nd, 2008 - 17 comments
Categories: john key, spin - Tags: ,

Duncan Garner kept Copperfield diners entertained yesterday by teasing Simon Power about the implications of National’s $50 conviction levy. We’re told that in response Power threw his hands into the air and exclaimed loudly that the policy wasn’t “his”.

What an odd thing for the National Party spokesperson on law and order to say. It also doesn’t fit well with Key’s account of their policy development process. During Key’s press conference he was asked whether the timing of this proposal had anything to do with National’s recent slide in the polls. Key responded:

“Ah, not at all, last year Simon produced a very comprehensive discussion document on law and order. We choose not to release that in that form at that point becasue we thought that it was so comprehensive and was at such a stage then that we decided that it would be better to simply roll it out as a series of policy releases”.

Hard to reconcile this with Power’s claim that he had nothing to do with this particular “gem”.

It certainly makes you wonder where National Party policy is really coming from. Crosby and Texter perhaps?

17 comments on “Power disavows $50 offender penalty ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Hoolian 1
    2 April 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Whoopdie do.

    For all you political novices, most party policy is actually from researchers or ministerial advisors – i.e. that’s where Labour’s policies are from.

  2. Steve Pierson 2
    2 April 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Hollian. Simon Power is National’s Spokesman for Law and Order – he is pubicly saying he does not support National’s policy on law and order, as announced by Key. That is newsworthy and, as a_y_b says, that the policy wasn’t developed with Power suggests it is a political stunt by Key and his advisors.

    It’s like when Brash and his advisors went anti-beneficairy in the Owera II speech against Social welfare spokesperson Katherine Rich’s position – that caused Rich to resign her spokespersonship, I doubt Power is the kind of person to do the same.

  3. Steve Pierson 3
    2 April 2008 at 4:46 pm

    This does show that Power isn’t a total idiot though. The $50 levy is stupid idea and Power wants everyone to know it isn’t his.

  4. the sprout 4
    2 April 2008 at 5:59 pm

    yet another split in the National party.
    Power had better be careful or he’ll go the way of Rich.

  5. Dean 5
    2 April 2008 at 6:40 pm

    “yet another split in the National party.
    Power had better be careful or he’ll go the way of Rich.”

    And of course the other side of the house would only go so far as to call someone a hater and wrecker, or the last cab of the rank, of a chinless scarf wearer.

    the sprout, once again you prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all you can do is regurgitate one-eyed propaganda.

  6. Scarfie 6
    2 April 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Pardon the off topic.

    I just attended a talk at the University of Otago by Finlay McDonald, titled “THE AUDACITY OF HYPE: JOHN KEY AND THE NEW NATIONAL SOCIALISM”.

    What a great talk! Very funny, very incisive.

    I would suggest to The Standard editors that they contact Finlay and find out if the text will be on line, so they can link to it (or even offer to put it on line if Finlay has no other plans).

  7. Pascal's bookie 7
    2 April 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Dean, those comments would all be telling if they were about Labour Party cabinet members, and related to a dispute about their portfolios. But they’re not. They’re just your tired fall back position. Propaganda you might say.

    What do you think about Power having in Key’s words “produced a very comprehensive discussion document on law and order”, that has apparently been chucked in the bin because Leader needed a silly little policy that would get the tongues wagging in talkback land?

    Sounds like what happened to Rich to me.

  8. ghostwhowalks 8
    2 April 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Note that the fluff that Power produced was called a “discussion document”.
    Thats to indicate that senior shadow cabinet members dont produce policy anymore.
    Thats decided by the coterie around Key who take all the work done by others and put it through the micer
    Cant imagine Key running a cabinet at all. hes going to be more like Blair who uses advisers and a tiny inner circle.
    His cabinet will just be a rubber stamp

  9. Dean 9
    2 April 2008 at 9:38 pm

    “What do you think about Power having in Key’s words “produced a very comprehensive discussion document on law and order’, that has apparently been chucked in the bin because Leader needed a silly little policy that would get the tongues wagging in talkback land?”

    I think that Power should do the right thing, and call Key out for being not only a hater and wrecker, but a rich prick to boot.

  10. Pascal's bookie 10
    2 April 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Sorry Dean, my mistake. I didn’t realise.

    ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe

    Your turn.

  11. Ari 11
    2 April 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Why am I not surprised? Even Simon Power wouldn’t propose a tax on criminals that doesn’t pay for its own administration.

  12. AncientGeek 12
    3 April 2008 at 12:09 am

    I was wondering about this policy here when it came up a few days ago where I said:-

    This is the idea of some brainless wonder in the Nats who hasn’t bothered to think what it would mean beyond the immediate headlines. They’re looking for a quick fix and the PR, not a solution.

    What I find really noticeable is that there were about 4 critical comments to that post about the policy and no sign of the defenders of the right.

    When the nat’s spokesperson inherently says that my view was correct and that it wasn’t a considered policy, we get discussion on that with comment from the right. Why, because it sounds like the brainless wonder was probably close to Key? And it looks like another Key PR disaster?

    Says a lot about the viewpoints of the supporters on the right – very interested in PR and less interested in effective policy.

  13. Razorlight 13
    3 April 2008 at 12:38 am

    “Even Simon Power wouldn’t propose a tax on criminals that doesn’t pay for its own administration.”

    One simple question, which part of justice or law and order policy does pay for its own administration???

  14. Matthew Pilott 14
    3 April 2008 at 9:26 am

    Razorlight – which parts of the justice system are supposed to turn a profit? Not the courts, not prisons. You’re being disingenuous here – the point of the policy was to make money (for victims, to be clear) and nothing more.

    I think Anette king got it right – it seems as if it was scrawled on the back of an envelope. Incidentally, Roald Dahl did that on an napkin, I think the end result was Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. This is seemingly equally as preposterous…

  15. all_your_base 15
    3 April 2008 at 10:27 am

    Hoolian, I’m sorry you have such a cynical view of political participation, perhaps we’ll do a post some time on the policy development apparatus within each of the parties.

  16. r0b 16
    3 April 2008 at 12:36 pm

    ayb – excellent idea!

Links to post