The silence of the lambs

51 comments on “The silence of the lambs ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco T Bastard 1

   4 September 2010 at 11:34 pm

   There’s something fishy going on with the SFC entry into and being able to stay in the GGRDI considering it’s business was, by all indications, quite dodgy and Labour and the Greens should be investigating as deeply as they can.
2. just saying 2

   4 September 2010 at 11:41 pm

   Key’s best charm offensive and msm has been unable to shut this down. NZanders have woken up. they are angry and want answers. This could be exactly what we’ve been waiting for. Labour probably doesn’t even deserve this second chance, and if they don’t use it I don’t see any alternative but to hunker down until 2015. Forget about politics, get a life. Start seriously thinking if i could stand the Aussie climate.

   Would a red-greeen bipartisan assault be too much to ask for?

   Your post is a beauty MartyG, why aren’t you on the opposition front bench?
3. Loota 3

   5 September 2010 at 12:05 am

   Nail on the head again Marty.

   Why are we waiting, we’re all suffocating
4. BLiP 4

   5 September 2010 at 12:15 am

   Who are the foreign investors for whom John Key bent the rules to accommodate within the agreement, when did they become involved in SCF, and how much were they paid out?
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     5 September 2010 at 12:57 am

     Yep, those are the questions that need answering. Another question is: How many blind trusts are involved?
5. ak 5

   5 September 2010 at 1:11 am

   Too true Mart – the biggest gimmee lobbed up in years and the silence is ear-shatteringly deafening.

   Billions for fat-cat bailouts on top of tax cuts for the rich – just as home-help, childcare, health, et al are slashed – and both cockies and ACToids squealing “nanny state” and mouthing “Corrupt! Corrupt!”

   A perfect earthquake for the Left – but where the hell is it?

   It’s here: plaintively issuing press-releases but ignored by the totally-captured MSM on anything effectual since 2004 and buried on Scoop.

   Ignore the privately-owned MSM. It’s the enemy. Always was; but now utterly, irrevocably blatant.

   It’s down to the ‘net and the street.

   Remember Mt Albert and Mining:

   Rejoice, celebrate, learn, and ACT!
6. Salsy 6

   5 September 2010 at 1:20 am

   The key person Labour need to push to the front on this issue is David Cunliffe. Goff cannot wade into this, he just cant compete with English and Key on finance issues.
   • Lazy Susan 6.1

     5 September 2010 at 7:24 am

     Completely agree. Cunliffe’s performance on The Nation a while ago was exemplary. Complete grasp of his subject. Clear, concise, straight answers and did not allow himself to be cornered or bullied. John Roughan, right winger from Granny, was thankfully speechless. I’ve seen Cunliffe perform several times and am always impressed.
7. Cactus Kate 7

   5 September 2010 at 5:04 am

   Cunliffe has no balls. I even did the reading for him, posted the specific DoG’s, outlined the breaches and yes still Cunliffe has his hand up his backside in Auckland while Rome burns. Little wonder Goff isn’t getting rolled anytime soon.
8. Jenny 8

   5 September 2010 at 6:35 am

   I have been coming to the conclusion lately, that the Labour Party are reluctant about winning in 2011. And would be happier sitting in opposition for another 3 years.

   This is probably a good strategy for Labour, because by the end of that time the National Party will be so hated that Labour will win by a Landslide and won’t have to bother talking with with third parties like the Greens or the Maori Party to make a government.

   A number of things have formed my opinion on this.

   But I might say to Labour Party supporters and members it may be all very well staying pure and sitting out the next National Party led term, but is this in the best interests of the constituency you are sworn to champion?
   • Lazy Susan 8.1

     5 September 2010 at 7:16 am

     Maybe you’re right Jenny but, judging by what they’ve done so far, give NAct another term and it will take at least a generation to undo the crap they will unload on us.
     • tea 8.1.1

       5 September 2010 at 9:28 am

       If this is the strategy- and I’ve seen no indication it isn’t- then they are no party of mine. Fight to win all the time. Who knows what damage might be done in 3 more years. Fight the issues with moral consistency and state our beliefs- don’t talk about maybe another term…
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     5 September 2010 at 11:29 am

     If that’s the case then everyone on the left will just have to vote Green. I have no issues with Labour becoming a minor party.
9. Jenny 9

   5 September 2010 at 7:13 am

   Over at Red Alert.
   Commenting on a post on this issue by Trevor Mallard, Anne warns us of another possibility that could arise from the right of the political spectrum, if Labour continue to do nothing.

   Anne says:
   September 4. 2010 at 10:18 am
   Please Labour don’t drop the ball on this one. And don’t let Winston Peters get there before you. There are many of us who can smell the stench and with the facts starting to emerge, we expect Labour to be on the front foot – RIGHT FROM THE START.
   • john 9.1

     5 September 2010 at 11:00 am

     A comment made by someone I fully agree with is “Labour are Centrist Tossers”. They and Nact are almost like a Two-headed one party system.The same trick has been foisted on Americans for 65 years and they are paying big time now.
     • Loota 9.1.1

       5 September 2010 at 11:14 am

       You have a point, maybe this is why when someone needs to pull out a powerful Lefty quote or example from a Labour leader they have to go back 40 frakkin’ years.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

         5 September 2010 at 11:32 am

         Yeah, been noticing that myself. The left truly crumpled when Labour went RWNJ in the 1980s. They’ve moved to the centre since but they’re still more right wing than left.
10. Lazy Susan 10

    5 September 2010 at 7:55 am

    Completely agree Marty.

    Here are some questions the Opposition should be asking:

    1. Why was the scheme rolled over in April 2010 and why was “interest” included when the company was clearly in trouble?

    2. What questions were asked about the huge expansion of SCF’S loan book from the start of the scheme in November 2008?

    3.Why did the government just “hand-over” $1.7 billion when the amount of their obligations was not clear? Wouldn’t it be more usual business practice to unwind the company then decide who is obliged to pay what.

    4. Where is the $1.7 billion coming from – borrowing, cuts in public expenditure, increased taxes?

    5. Why have the government paid money to people they are not even obliged to ($20million to foreign investors)? Imagine the uproar from MSM if they paid extra money to the unemployed to stop them being a nuisance at the benefits office.

    6. Why was Kerr given preferential treatment?

    7. Who’s behind the “sharks” that are now circling the carcass?

    8. Finally, where are the skeletons? as there are bound to be some.

    There’s a stink around this matter and it crosses the political divide. Many of the right ideologically oppose the states involvement, many others will smell a big fat rat and don’t like their money being wasted.

    I do hope Labour/Greens are keeping there powder dry rather than rolling over. This issue will not go away and expect some real skeletons to show up in the run-up to the next election.

    Believe me, Winston will be all over this, it’s playing on his home ground. Didn’t issues of trust and honesty, whipped up by NAct, bite him at the last election? Revenge is sweet as they say.
    • Jared 10.1

      5 September 2010 at 7:38 pm

      Kerr wasn’t specifically given preferential treatment. Torchlight had provided a loan facility to SCF, and by nature, preferential creditors considering the receivership structure, Torchlight would have been first in line under the receivership to be paid out. Remember, you are confusing the receivership and the deposit guarantee scheme. One is an incredibly regulated process to ensure creditors get paid according to their priority, the other was provided to reassure investors they wouldn’t lose their money.

      Now, you might argue there is a lack of congruence between the Retail Deposit Scheme and the Receiverships Act, but, Torchlight would have been paid out irrespective of the Retail Deposit Scheme, its how creditors are prioritised in a receivership. What the government did was utilise the Receiverships Act and paid out Torchlight so that they had clear rights to SCF’s assets. Plain and simple. Not paying Torchlight and other priority creditors OTHER than bond/debenture holders out when there was clearly the assets in the business to pay them (as they are entitled to under the Receiverships Act) would have been incredibly messy as Torchlight could have just called in their own Receivers and sold the assets off themselves in a fire sale.

      But hey, whats logical about that.
11. Juan Manuel Santos 11

    5 September 2010 at 7:56 am

    Stop press!

    Goff has spoken out… on an issue that really doesn’t matter at all.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10671155
    • Jenny 11.1

      5 September 2010 at 8:33 am

      Well, in his defence, It was a rather shocking hat.
    • The Voice of Reason 11.2

      5 September 2010 at 8:36 am

      It may not matter to you, Juan, but it matters to me. I’d prefer my head of state to be a kiwi, not some German pensioner or her Greco/Germanic son. Bloody foreigners, coming here, putting their faces on our money. Next thing we know, they’ll be making us fight their wars for them.
      • Loota 11.2.1

        5 September 2010 at 11:50 am

        Pretty sure there are about four million kiwis out there who think that the price of petrol, meat and milk are more important than who we have minted on our coins.

        There is a new self appointed Aristocracy rising in this country which needs to be fought tooth and nail. But its not based in Buckingham Palace. Just ask the Right Honourable PM and his mates.

        captcha: million
      • Lanthanide 11.2.2

        5 September 2010 at 2:09 pm

        Next thing we know, they, and the rest of their little commonwealth, will be defending us if we’re invaded from abroad.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.3

      5 September 2010 at 11:37 am

      I’m going to disagree with you there. Becoming a republic does matter but, at this moment in time, doesn’t matter quite as much as NACT giving $1.8b of taxpayer money to their rich mates.
    • Ari 11.4

      5 September 2010 at 11:43 am

      It matters, but it might not be the most pressing issue right at this moment.
12. tc 12

    5 September 2010 at 8:52 am

    Nice work Marty, Jenny’s got it sussed….a disinterested lazy opposition who seem to be doing nothing to win back power in 2011.

    Labour have the talent but it’s being suppressed by the old guard who are enjoying their turn with the leadership titles. Carter had a point but went about it all wrong damaging the entire partys chances in the process.

    As I’ve said many times to some party faithful …..you know what it takes as the game’s changed but you persist with outdated tactics and people because that’s the Labour way….the public service of NZ politics….slow/process focused/too many factions all having their 5c worth.

    When Goff speaks he’s boring when he should be setting the place alight on any issue….FFS !!
13. the sprout 13

    5 September 2010 at 8:53 am

    Have a listen to this interview with Goff on the matter…

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/fop/2010/09/focus_on_politics_-_finance

    Warning: It’s a depressingly lame, amateurish effort 🙁
    The nadir is when a reporter explains to Goff the Labour party’s policy on the guarantee scheme.
14. mickysavage 14

    5 September 2010 at 9:06 am

    I disagree with you Marty on this issue (I know, pretty predictable).

    Here is what Mallard posted yesterday on Red Alert. I will repeat it in full.

    At some stage an inquiry is going to have a look at the government’s actions in the Hubbard group case.

    Back in June when contrasting Hubbard and the Auckland wideboys I counselled caution until facts were known.

    I don’t want to get into too much detail while there are ongoing investigations, and hopefully even new investigations to be opened.

    and on Power :-

    I don’t think he had a real choice. Received advice. Could not ignore it in my opinion. Needed to pass regulation. Then it must be announced and he was Minister responsible. Statutory management can never be a secret.

    Bernard Hickey got into the Hubbards yesterday. He asks some fair questions.

    But the blogger who has got closest to the core issue is Cactus Kate. She points out :-

    “Bill English is incorrect (well let us face facts – teling porkies) in this interview. The taxpayer did not have to pay SCF anymore than they would have had to for Hanover or Blue Chip. SCF took deposits for and moved $700m (or 41% of total) of their lending to more risky criteria even into the the hyper-risk of mezzanine lending. They breached the guarantee and their own CEO said so.”

    It seems that English knew that SCF did not meet the criteria when its guarantee was renewed. If that is the case he is gone.

    Parliament sits this week. OIAs have been lodged. Expect to see something very soon.
    • the sprout 14.1

      5 September 2010 at 9:13 am

      Mallard putting a post on Red Alert is a thoroughly limp response Micky. It’s telling that that’s where to have to point to for evidence of a response from Labour, don’t you think?

      Someone should tell the Labour PR team about TV, newspapers and radio – they’re great for reaching a slightly larger and broader audience than the fawning few who bother reading Dead Alert.

      It’s pathetic.
      • tea 14.1.1

        5 September 2010 at 9:33 am

        If they can’t fight this, then there’s not much hope of them actually running a government
        • the sprout 14.1.1.1

          5 September 2010 at 9:36 am

          and if they’re getting responses like this on a site like this, what do think their chances of winning an election are?
      • The Voice of Reason 14.1.2

        5 September 2010 at 9:39 am

        Yeah, sprout, the MSM are just gagging for the opportunity to publicise Labour’s position on everything, eh. Now that you’ve so succinctly nailed Labour’s failings, dya wanna tell us why the Greens are MIA?
        • the sprout 14.1.2.1

          5 September 2010 at 9:47 am

          who knows about the Greens, perhaps they’re similarly gutless or incompetent.

          i am vaguely familiar with the possibility the MSM are not especially interested in publicizing Labour’s position, but there’s one thing the MSM love more than neo-liberal policy, and that’s a ratings boosting, populist, fat cat ripping off the little guy story. especially when it has a whiff of senior politicians’ blood on it.

          there are nearly 2 billion reasons why Lab and Grn should be able to sell this story – so far there’s no evidence of either barely lifting a finger.

          here’s an angle: the same amount of money needed to rebuild our second largest city after its ravaged by a massive earthquake is being spent on English’s southland farmer mates and Key’s financial speculator mates. 2 billion for each. think that might fly in the media if either Lab or Grn could give a fcuk?
          • pollywog 14.1.2.1.1

            5 September 2010 at 12:50 pm

            there are nearly 2 billion reasons why Lab and Grn should be able to sell this story – so far there’s no evidence of either barely lifting a finger.

            Whose job is it to rark up the press and write cutting soundbites ?

            Hope its not Fa’afoi…but if it is, then that explains why they’d want to move him on to the patsy role Laban vacated and get someone with some cojones in there, even if she be a female.

            I wonder if Cactus Kate would be up for a bit of moonlighting 🙂
      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.3

        5 September 2010 at 11:47 am

        Yeah, that post by Mallard would have been better as a guest post on here. Red Alert isn’t dead but I’m sure that The Standard has more readers and a broader base.
        • mickysavage 14.1.3.1

          5 September 2010 at 12:00 pm

          This is a slow burner of an issue and the public response is going to get worse and worse as the details emerge. Labour cannot go for it right now, after all they set the scheme up. When the “due diligence” analysis emerges there will then be an opportunity to go on the offensive.
15. Anne 15

    5 September 2010 at 12:31 pm

    You’re right mickeysavage, but what concerns me is that Labour will still miss the boat if they continue to be too cautious. I’m not suggesting they jump in at the deep end without the relevant material at their fingertips – and that takes time – but in the meantime it’s up to them to keep the issue alive and kicking. You can be rest assured Key, English and co. will do everything in their power to bury it.

    I see some (note some) parallels here with the Winebox Affair. Interestingly, that one also rumbled on under the radar for months before the shit began to hit the fan. Indeed, it was a satirical piece in the now defunct ‘Independent’ in 1992 that first brought that matter to public attention.
16. Red Rosa 16

    5 September 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Well said MS above, this is indeed a slow burner. Rod Oram really gets stuck into Hbbard in today’s SST

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion/4096745/The-harsh-truth-on-Hubbard

    and there is more background here

    http://www.lostsoulblog.com/2010/08/let-finger-pointing-begin.html

    SCF is just one part of the Hubbard house of cards, though. The statutory managers have found serious ‘shortcomings’ in the Hubbard-managed investment funds – HMF and Aorangi Securities. Investors in these are not covered by the GG and may get 50c in their $ back, or even less. It’s anyone’s guess at present, and there are hundreds of investors and serious money involved.

    And now we find something like 500 (!) registered companies owned or controlled by the Hubbards. Again, it’s anyone’s guess at present what has gone on with these. Then there are the charitable trusts……….

    It will take weeks of work by the SMs for all this to be fully examined. But the biggest political question remains -why was the GG rolled over in April, when alarm bells had been ringing publicly for months?
17. Jenny 17

    5 September 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Labour is not finished.

    If Labour come out strongly and make a stand on the things that really matter to their target constituents as well as agree to start talking to any other party that could help them form a majority to turf out the Nats.

    Even on current stats the possibility of forming a Labour led coalition in 2011 is a real possibility.

    All that is missing is the political will.

    capcha – “actions”
18. Craig Glen Eden 18

    5 September 2010 at 2:26 pm

    While I share everyones frustration, the attack on this needs to be managed well and Cunliffe will want to have all the info before he wades in.
    The msm are not exactly Labour and the Greens mates to be fair so they will probably only get one crack at getting it right. As Marty has pointed out the leaders of both parties did not do well on the first attempt, I just hope they leave this to Cunliffe to deliver, Goff needs to keep out of this.
    • just saying 18.1

      5 September 2010 at 2:38 pm

      quote:”Goff needs to keep out of this”

      Remind me, why exactly is Goff leader?

      It’s a bit unheard of to hand the really big populist issues to someone else to front.

      If all else fails maybe and intensive course of acting lessons and a script might help.
      • Craig Glen Eden 18.1.1

        5 September 2010 at 2:56 pm

        Goff needs to stay out of it because this is not his strong area (finance). A good leader (just saying) knows when to go to his or her team. Goff is the team captain he is not the team.

        As others have pointed out this will slowly unravel and then Goff can lob acid into the wounds created by Cunliffe and others.

        Leaders don’t have to be in the front of everything all the time. Its important that both Labour and the Greens work constructively together on this.If this opportunity is lost then the Nat’s will almost defiantly get three more years and if that happens this country is stuffed. Goff needs to show that he has a cabinet that can do the job, this strategy of Goff fronting everything has not and will not work.

        Labour and the Greens have to show they can work together and that they can govern this is just the kind of issue the opposition needed.
        • just saying 18.1.1.1

          5 September 2010 at 3:19 pm

          Sorry that was a cheap shot. Just feel so damn frustrated about this.

          I agree with you about the team focussing on the matters in which they have portfolios or particular expertise. It’s just that Goff has particular powers as leader. For example it would look a bit strange if it was Cunliffe that called a press conference and demanded an independent inquiry.

          Would LOVE to see a red-green unified front on this.
19. Jum 19

    5 September 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Red Rosa,
    “Why was the GG rolled over in April, when alarm bells had been ringing publicly for months?”

    Reply: You know why…
    Land and assets. This is a wonderful way for Key to flick off our land and assets to his mates, both foreign and home-grown, while declaring with a bigger smile than usual, showing his shark teeth to their best advantage, that he’s SAVING us that money, that $400 per Kiwi, by getting a great portion back of the $1.7billion he’s given to the people who just stick it in their overseas banks along with their other billions.

    And everyone, every stupid New Zealander that will vote him back in, come 2011 unless we stop it, will think ‘what a great guy’. It makes me puke how stupid NZers are when it comes to the rich white male who turned us into serfs in our own country.
20. KJT 20

    5 September 2010 at 7:32 pm

    If it was an insurance scheme it is like offering insurance on a car after it has crashed.
21. mickysavage 21

    5 September 2010 at 8:54 pm

    If people want a headline it is this:

    The amount paid to SCF financiers will be comparable to the cost of reconstructing Christchurch.

    Pretty chilling …
22. Kleefer 22

    6 September 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Well, the fact Labour set up the guarantee scheme in the first place makes it kind of hard to be holier than thou about the bailout, does it not? Hopefully it will teach them a lesson to think things through before they make rash policies… nah, doubt it.
23. Anne 23

    6 September 2010 at 7:39 pm

    You’ve gotta be a RWNJ with a pseudonym like that Kleefer. And you’ve gotta be uninformed ,stupid and ignorant to qualify as a RWNJ. Congratulations on both counts.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 4 September 2010 at 10:16 am
2. Gabriella Turek: posted on 4 September 2010 at 11:22 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS