Still no apology

Written By: - Date published: 3:42 pm, April 10th, 2008 - 19 comments
Categories: bill english, election funding, national - Tags: , ,

english-100.jpgLast Tuesday Bill English stood up in Parliament and accused the CTU and the PSA of breaking the Electoral Finance Act. Problem for Bill was he’d got it completely wrong, and as we noted at the time the appropriate course of action was to make a formal apology in Parliament.

Well to Bill’s credit he’s set the record straight for the CTU, but he’s still refusing to apologise to the PSA over exactly the same thing despite being clearly in the wrong. According to PSA national secretary Brenda Pilott,

“Bill English called me about an amendment to the Electoral Finance Act that he was proposing and in that conversation he claimed the PSA had made a mistake in its third party application. I replied that I understood the application was correct but that I would check to make certain. I’ve done that and the Electoral Commission has confirmed the PSA application is in order.

“It’s disappointing that Mr English did not ensure he’d got his facts right before he made his false allegation about the PSA. I expect Mr English to admit his mistake and apologise to the PSA in Parliament”

One week on and still no apology from Bill. Why the double standard?

19 comments on “Still no apology ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Steve Pierson 1
    10 April 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Was that picture of Bill taken after he got wasted in that boxing match?

    God, that was really the most desperate publicity stunt ever – basically it’s entire point was ‘look I’m not a girl!’. And he was nearly knocked out within 20 seconds, only his opponent going easy on him saved us a pretty embarrassing scene.

    And what would have been the optimal outcome politically? Bill getting knocked off his feet and looking weak, or Bill beating the other guy up and looking like a thug?

    captcha: ‘asked monopolists’. I did but they refused to share the answer

  2. rjs131 2
    10 April 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Well maybe Trevor mallard has set the standard for speed of apologies? How long did it take him? How come you didnt criticise him for that?

  3. Tane 3
    10 April 2008 at 4:20 pm

    You’re talking about the Erin Leigh thing? I didn’t really follow that, found it kind of dull. But you won’t find me defending Mallard’s behaviour, I think the guy’s a liability.

  4. Scribe 4
    10 April 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Good question rjs131.

    Tane,

    I found the Erin Leigh episode very interesting and Mallard’s behaviour disgraceful. Conversely, I find this quite dull. But there ya go.

    Aren’t blogs swell! 🙂

  5. mike 5
    10 April 2008 at 5:02 pm

    ” didn’t really follow that, found it kind of dull.”
    lol – what a surprise Tane. Funny how the msm thought the opposite but then they are against you too eh

  6. Tane 6
    10 April 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Interesting to see the extent to which Tories like Mike have to rely on misdirection. Tell me Mike, do you think English should take responsibility for his false allegations against the PSA?

  7. IrishBill 7
    10 April 2008 at 5:13 pm

    I know what you mean Tane, “quick! Look over there” is becoming a regular line amongst our wee blue friends. I wouldn’t expect a straight answer from them if I were you.

  8. rjs131 8
    10 April 2008 at 5:30 pm

    If ballsed up then it woudl be the decent thing to apologise, however any ‘mistake’ is certainly not on the same scale as Mallard who took advantage of parliamentary privilege to defame someone then refused to apologise for a very long time despite public pressure to do so. In this instance i hardly see the same clamouring of public pressure

  9. Tane 9
    10 April 2008 at 5:38 pm

    So rjs131, Trevor Mallard down in the dumps and at his worst is now the standard by which you judge the conduct of National MPs?

  10. mike 10
    10 April 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Bollocks Tane. Bully Mallard smeared the reputation of a defenceless woman and took weeks to correct it.
    There is no comparison to Bill English questioning the validity of a left wing organisation proping up the labour party . He’s just doing his job.

  11. IrishBill 11
    10 April 2008 at 6:04 pm

    But Mike, he has already apologised to the CTU for making exactly the same false claim about them. Surely if he was “just doing his job” he would not have felt the need to do that?

  12. Tane 12
    10 April 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Mike, does ‘just doing his job’ involve falsely accusing your opponents of breaking the law, and are you okay with that?

  13. rjs131 13
    10 April 2008 at 6:21 pm

    So are you saying mallard was just doing his job? While there mallard’s personal life may have been shot at the time that is no excuse for not apologising (which made his act all the more worse).

    I certainly cant recall steve maharey, under far mroe regrettable circumstances acting in such a poor manner as mallard

  14. randal 14
    10 April 2008 at 6:26 pm

    sex is to american politics like cheese is to cheeseburgers and like pimply faced puerile nyah nyahs is to the national party

  15. Dean 15
    10 April 2008 at 6:43 pm

    “I know what you mean Tane, “quick! Look over there’ is becoming a regular line amongst our wee blue friends. I wouldn’t expect a straight answer from them if I were you.”

    Given the outbursts you’ve been a party to in the past, I’d hardly think any of the “wee blue friends” were in any danger of feeling like you had a point.

  16. insider 16
    10 April 2008 at 6:45 pm

    there was a big thing in Parliament today on this. Bill denies the charge, so is there any point promoting this school playground type ‘he said, she said’ debate?

  17. Tane 17
    10 April 2008 at 7:05 pm

    insider, I didn’t watch Parliament today so I don’t know what was said, but the established facts appear to be these: English accused the CTU and the PSA of breaching the EFA. Neither did in fact breach the law. English has apologised to the CTU, he has refused to apologise to the PSA. I’d be interested to see which part of that he denies.

    rjs131, I’m not defending Mallard at all, I made my views of him quite clear earlier in the thread. I’m just suggrsting that “It’s not as bad as Mallard when he was at his worst” is not a very high standard of conduct.

  18. Tane 18
    10 April 2008 at 7:17 pm

    The question is now up here: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/1/6/a/48HansQ_20080410_00000596-9-Electoral-Finance-Act-Third-Party-Registration.htm

    Bill English makes a fool of himself once again:

    1) Labour did not remove details of its affiliates from its website over the weekend, according to my sources it happened months ago as part of the separation of party and parliamentary websites and will be rectified after the new party website goes live.

    2) His scaremongering that party branches could become third parties is untested and absurd as branches are wholly subsidiary bodies.

    3) Unions have always run campaigns on workers’ rights and generally in favour of Labour and other left-leaning parties, just as business and conservative organisations have always helped National. There is nothing new about this, and it is entirely consistent with the intent of the Act.

    4) Members of affiliate unions are not full members of the Labour Party. They do have limited voting rights, if they choose, through what’s called ‘affiliate membership’. Affiliate unions don’t affiliate based on their full membership either – usually it’s about a third of the figure.

    5) English is again making stuff up about the PSA. Their statement, which was refused leave to be tabled, was linked to in this post and is available here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00053.htm – They’re quite clearly asking him to apologise.

  19. Rebel Heart 19
    13 April 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Was that picture of Bill taken after he got wasted in that boxing match?

    God, that was really the most desperate publicity stunt ever – basically it’s entire point was ‘look I’m not a girl!’. And he was nearly knocked out within 20 seconds, only his opponent going easy on him saved us a pretty embarrassing scene.

    And what would have been the optimal outcome politically? Bill getting knocked off his feet and looking weak, or Bill beating the other guy up and looking like a thug?

    Hey cunt, it was for suicide awareness.

    [lprent: good point – but stupid language makes your comment pointless]