- Date published:
3:06 pm, May 24th, 2020 - 62 comments
Categories: australian politics, Dirty Politics, Economy, education, immigration, International, labour, national, political parties, Politics, Social issues, tertiary education, The Standard, todd muller, tourism - Tags: matthew hooton
I’m kind of shocked at the conuptions in the National party this week. Plus all of the soft focus bumf that the media have been pushing out since Simon Bridges announced that Todd Muller would be challenging.
However the thing that really has me aghast is that it is The Standard that several National Party insiders have been sending information to. This is something that usually doesn’t happen. The nearest I can think was in the days prior to and after Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics book. But they were attacking Cameron Slater and his dirty tricks business inside of the National party political structures.
The most interesting current ‘leak’ to date came in an email this morning.
Now I can’t verify any of this. But I also can’t dispute that most of it fits the facts as known. So I’ll leave it for readers to make up their own mind. I corrected a couple of spelling mistakes, split paragraphs and inserted images at the appropriate places. I also removed exif information from the images.
Todd is on record the day before Simon called his bluff saying he supported Simon and did not want to be leader. National MPs have done the numbers many times over and Muller won by a majority of 1 vote. Caucus is very, very divided. Leaks even happened during the vote with media knowing prior to them coming out, Bishop is the key suspect, but they have accused Simons side.This will literally be a white washed with most of the brown faces being pushed down the list for Mullers wealthy white metro supporters.
Todd, Amy Adams, Nikki Kaye, Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop had been planning this for the past year and deliberately leaking information to the media, much untrue to destabilise Simon.. Caucus know this and you will see lots of fluff pieces saying they are united.With a majority of support of only 1 I would say 50/50 we will have another leadership vote before the election if polling isn’t in the mid 40s.A quick look through Nationals Meme Working groups website will see sexist and racist material that his team is linked to (Its thought to come from Chris Bishops office) although one MP photographed Amy Adams laptop with Muller, Kaye branding weeks before the coup. You will see 10 days prior posts with almost identical branding to the actually branding once selected, these were done by the same person.
These guys carried out a full smear campaign that ran for a month. Polls were just an excuse to roll Simon.Amy Adams is now planning on staying as a list MP and will be the new Steven Joyce at number 3. She was toxic after losing to Simon, this is all about UTU. Matthew Hooton who is best mates with Muller and writes his speeches is to be chief of staff.Muller is a white male elitist who believes it is his destiny to rule, he is a dangerous man. Even when he started he refused to share an office with Simon in Tauranga.The good news for Labour is he and Hooton are still blamed by MPs from 2002 when they were staffers for many of that elections worst stuff ups. They are even talking about recruiting Boag. I can see National down to 30 MPs in September.Use what you want but a quick look at the meme page will give you enough to prove Tricky Todd tells porkies and cannot be trusted by his own team, let alone New Zealanders.With a caucus majority of 1 he may not last long, certainly not past September 20th
As Bomber said this morning, in an excellent (and for a change rational) political analysis, in “Todd Muller as Leader of the National Party – Winners & Losers” Matthew Hooton does appear to have been deeply in the mix, and we’re really not sure from when.
Matthew Hooton: The four things Hooton has repeatedly said in his columns and media platforms is that the Auckland Port needs to move north, Jacinda Ardern’s Government was on the perpetual verge of collapse, leadership rumours against Simon Bridges and that the Auckland Port needed to move north. Now I just suspected that Hooton had property north of Auckland that would be very profitable if the Port moved, but his constant push against Bridges, him suddenly disconnecting his Twitter account and rumours swirling that he has a job in the new Muller team all suggest a grotesque conflict of interests that Radio NZ and the NZ Herald will have to explain.
Not to mention the soft soap pieces being written through various media feel like his promotional style. I see that Stuff has published a RNZ article today “Prominent pundit Matthew Hooton pulls back over Todd Muller link” where he claims that his actual involvement was recent. However while I’d hesitate to call him a liar over this, I can’t rule that out either. He has form with me for blatantly lying whenever he finds it convenient.
The motivation behind the roll is classic National party. Basically terror at being unemployed in lousy job market. Or as Bomber puts it:-
Selfish Cowardice and naked ambition: This coup was driven by National Backbenchers terrified they would lose their job. This isn’t some great re-ordering of National Policies, this is selfish cowardice by desperate people clinging onto their jobs and sense of power. National MPs have all the ethics of hungry piranha.
Essentially like the roll of Bolger by Shipley in the 1990s as National were pretty obviously crashing towards a defeat in 1999. The mechanics of a MMP election mean that safe seats are all very well and good for those in them, but it is hell for the list MPs without a very high list placing. Having a leadership roll before an election is a good way for shadow ministers or ministers down on the list to move up it.
But this isn’t exactly good timing to try an untested team. Toddy is a consensus kind of guy. As Catherine Delahunty said in a post this morning here, we don’t exactly live in those times right now..
Consensus has its place for sure, but I am bloody glad that a Parliamentary consensus wasn’t required over Covid lockdown. I am glad that Todd and friends were not the Government responding to the highly efficient and necessary iwi checkpoints. There are times to make watery agreements to build trust, and times when powerful white men who agree with each other are just not much use.
Personally I can’t see anything in this National lineup that looks like anything that makes them look any better than Simon and his lineup. Fewer brown people to satisfy the racists, and a few ‘true’ establishment faces further up the list.
As for competence in government, I can’t see much that is better than the freshers who have been receiving their on-the-board education as ministers in the Labour / NZF caucus. There simply isn’t any real expertise that will remain in the National caucus after this election – most of it has already retired or is retiring. Sure, having Amy Adams deciding not to disappear will help. But basically, the ‘experience’ like that of Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee have been notable disaster areas. Or it is invisibly unproven like Goldsmith.
When you look relative to the actions of this Labour government in the covid-19 crisis, I simply can’t see a National government of these inexperienced dimwits being capable of making the rational decisions required to stave off slow disasters. They’d be like the business-as-usual ditherers like the Conservatives in the UK, the Republicans in the US, if the federal National/Liberal coalition in Australia. Countries with late or ineffective lockdowns. In the Australian case, they seem to have mostly been saved from their own stupidity by the state governments not screwing up as badly as they did.
With conservatives and slow evolving situations, I’d expect to see the frog in the warming pot of water problem. Meaningless statements of general intent designed to allow voters to read their own meanings into it – because that is what governmental ditherers do. Just look at Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. Or look at any of the soft-soap waffle from Muller yesterday or this morning.
What ditherers looking at short term business-as-usual or electoral advantage don’t do is act appropriately as a government at the proper time. Which is why the US and UK will have long outbreaks with people sick and dying for another year or two. They’re so busy trying to do business as usual, running ideological idiocies and to get reelected that they forget that that primary role of government is to make rational and decisive decisions that take into account the whole of their population over the long term.
The kinds of decisions that the current government actually took in the face of a potential disaster, and which I don’t think that Toddy could have taken. Curiously enough I think that Simon Bridges could have actually have made the right decisions. I just suspect that the National caucus would have acted as whimpering drag on his legs as he took them. And I don’t think he could have taken the country along with him because he was shit at expressing what the issues were in broadcast communication.
Which in our case, post the immediate covid-19 issue, is that we don’t want to have the kind of governmental ideological based dithering that happened in and after the Canterbury earthquakes and resulted in that mess still being dealt with a decade later.
Imagine opening up tourism from Australia for only the benefit of the tourism industry, and then having an outbreak of this sneaky covid-19 virus from it. Well, that is what Muller was advocating this morning... Back to business as usual without looking at the requirements to do it safely. He wants a ‘plan’ and a timetable. When that has already been clearly expressed as a set of conditions that need to be met – one of which will be getting the aussies federal and state governments to agree with it first. It is meaningless dithering by someone who doesn’t know what in then hell they’re talking about and who is only interested in electioneering rather than the people of this country or australia.
As someone who has worked in private industry my entire working life as a manager and various types of tech ‘engineer’, and one who knows (and avoids) politics, there is bugger all skill that carries across from business to politics. Business experience simply isn’t useful in running a government. It is rare to be able to point to any business person in history who did a really good job in politics, when you look from 20 years after their service.
John Key demonstrated that pretty well – at the end of his government is it hard to see anything that was done well or made NZ better. We got ramshackle investment into making tourism bigger, overseas student underpinning the viability of our education sector, and a domestic economy dependent on high levels of immigration. All of which just fell over because they depend on air-transport.
It was a short-term gain by ignoring long-term and inevitable risks. Air travel gets easily disrupted by kerosene prices, volcanos, terrorism, recessions, technical climate change changes and plagues at least once a decade. It was a short-term gain that has damaged our long-term economy quite badly. Just like the excessively rapid development of dairy damaged our waterways long-term for short term gains. Or putting in badly thought through irrigation and water usage ideas do long-term damage to water tables and catchments. Something that Muller is also proposing for a small set of minority interests.
So why bother touting business experience? Muller in my opinion is just demonstrating that – this time safely in opposition. Like any business person his immediate priorities are all about short-term gains, while completely ignoring the longer-term issues. Just read his statements in Stuff… Just another gormless well-meaning idiot.
I can’t see Muller and the National caucus post-election being able to make the kinds of long-term decisions required in the modern world. Not with the internecine factional warfare that is lurking below their party surface. Or with their severely inexperienced ministerial and hopeless team. Can any of you?