Slippery

15 comments on “Slippery ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mike 1

   4 June 2009 at 9:49 pm

   Slippery – now that tag worked a treat in 08 didn’t it
   Must try harder team – I think this one has a chance of turning bad on you
   • doc whose asking 1.1

     5 June 2009 at 10:11 am

     intemperate.. a nice and polite and honest word to describe your attitude here and elsewhere on matters relating to this episode..

     what gives..? mad, yes I can understand, but really how does expressing it so obsessively assist your side.. how about some of that earlier cool clear cred-earning capacity.. something to answer to and not turn away from..

     hey, i’m trying hard to discern you from say johnty whois plain hothead—no mistake.

     Can do better, mike, see to it!
2. Johnty Rhodes 2

   4 June 2009 at 9:57 pm

   After Goff’s lies today I think there is a change for Labour Leader coming up. I am running a book on who will go first, Goff or Brown, my bets Goff.
   By the way, JK has a harder job than Clark, he has a family as look after as well as run the country.
   • Zetetic 2.1

     4 June 2009 at 10:45 pm

     I love scumbags like this. In a few short lines they show the ugly side of the Tories. Better than I ever could.

     Go on genius. Tell us what lies. Name them.
3. Outofbed 3

   4 June 2009 at 10:02 pm

   I fail to see how a story of drunken national party minister trying to shag any random female for “favours”, is going to be bad for anyone but National
   but hey that’s just me
   However it might explain Paula Bennet’s promotion to minister and and M Lee’s selection as Mt Albert candidate
4. mickysavage 4

   4 June 2009 at 10:06 pm

   Johnty

   The only leader in trouble is Keys. Phil Goff is doing very well thank you very much.

   You wingnuts should exercise some judgment before uttering something rather than saying whatever you think will advance wingnut causes. As Richard Worth said this evening you should not rush to judgment.

   Oh that is right he is one of yours isn’t he …
5. RedLogix 5

   4 June 2009 at 10:14 pm

   Hilarious listening to Griffin and Prebble trying to stick the knife into Goff. Pair of old slimeballs really just making shit up.
6. Macro 6

   4 June 2009 at 10:30 pm

   Why is it that Nat Rad’s Plunkett continues to trot out these two old dunderheads every time there is an issue with their predictable ranting! And then K Ryan trots out Hooten! Give me strength! Are they the only people they have in their phone book? I’ve written to the producers and asked can they please try harder! Why does Nat Rad think that we only want to hear National’s spin?
7. GFraser 7

   4 June 2009 at 10:42 pm

   It really is amazing how the talkback Tories rush on here to defend thier leader when times are tough. FFS I would be a millionaire if I had received a dollar everytime someone has said ” Clark never sacked so and so” yada yada. Key had his chance when Worth bolloxed up his trip to India, missed it. Now he is paying the price.
8. burt 8

   4 June 2009 at 11:12 pm

   I think lprent justifies John Keys so called tardy disclosure in this comment;

   lprent August 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm

   burt: You are just being silly. Looked at the statement and nothing changes.

   She asked Peters if it was true, and he said no. You take the word of ministers.

   Tell me, do you expect PM’s to have a touch of the divine and to be able to see inside peoples heads?

   Reading what the response was to gives it context. Non disclosure over a period of months and months compared to a few weeks.

   Take the ministers word and do nothing was acceptable for Labour eh, but not National.
   • Zetetic 8.1

     4 June 2009 at 11:44 pm

     Was that good enough from Clark, Burt?

     No?

     Then why should it be Ok for Key to do the same?
     • burt 8.1.1

       5 June 2009 at 8:58 am

       I have not defended Key over it Zetetic, so no it is not good enough for Key – just like it wasn’t good enough for Clark.

       Unlike the Clark & Peters show Worth hasn’t defended himself with sideshows holding up signs etc while Key sat quietly not disclosing the truth.

       But I would like to know, do you think it was unacceptable for Clark to not disclose what she knew? If you think what Clark did was wrong then you had better be prepared to argue with lprent who though it was just fine.
       • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1

         5 June 2009 at 9:12 am

         Well there are some differences, that you may not find relevant, but even so.

         Winston’s problems were to do with his role as leader of NZFirst, so Clark may have been more limited in what she could ask him to front with.

         Worth is a National party MP not a coalition partner leader, and Key already had him on his second or third ‘last chance’. Losing Worth had zero cost politically, or in terms of confidence and supply. So he didn’t even have a political excuse, for whatever that is worth.

         Key also, IIRC, thought that Helen’s standards of investigation regarding a Coalition partners affairs were not good enough so he is more on the hypcrisy hook than anyone on the left. Those on the left are asking whether or not Key was just bullshitting back then. Apparently he was.

         Glad you think Key is no better than what you percieved Helen to be though. Is it kosher for ACT to prop up such a government in your view? Or were their protestations back then in the same vein as Key’s?

         Interesting comparisaon too, about how Goff and Hide approached the issue. Both had evidence of wrongdoing. Goff gave Key plenty of oppurtunity, in private, to do the right thing. Hide was Mr leaky, playing the politics for all it was worth.

         So yeah, plenty of percieved hypocrisy all round. That’s politics.
   • lprent 8.2

     5 June 2009 at 7:43 am

     The difference here is the level of evidence. In this case Goff had access to supporting e-mails. Presumably the police have as well.

     Quite different from the case where you don’t have any evidence to act on. Then you have to get assurances.

     In the NZF case, all there was were some receipts of donations that didn’t show as being declared. BUT this was done when the use of anonymous trusts was the norm in NZ politics and used extensively by parties of the right to hide their pay-masters. So there was no way to have any evidence.

     The only reason that any came out subsequently was because NZF released stuff on the Spencer trust, when they actually had no legal requirement to do so. What that showed was lousy book-keeping. It also showed that Peter’s assurances to Helen were correct.

     So you how long are you going to carry on acting the clown and trying to rewrite history? Face it – you and the other members of the lynch mob acted in an appalling manner. Accept that and figure out how to act in a more civilized manner in the future.
9. Ianmac 9

   5 June 2009 at 10:31 am

   And Remember that John Key declared Winston Peters was a guilty goner before he was “tried” by the Privileges Committee. Waiting for due process????

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS