Which hat John?

Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, March 22nd, 2016 - 42 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, john key - Tags: , , , ,

Looks like Key’s backdown and payout to Bradley Ambrose over the “teapot tapes” is going to run for a while in the media. This TVNZ piece is a typical summary: John Key paying for teapot tape saga out of taxpayer’s pocket. See also: Why John Key’s backdown on the teapot tapes is a bigger deal than you think. Graeme Edgeler asks: The Teapot Moan Scandal Ends; or Who will Broadcast the Teapot Tape?

Key is obviously on the back foot, his lines are the last refuge of the cornered rat. He doesn’t want to “get into the rights and wrongs” of whether the taxpayer should pay for his settlement. Yeah I bet he doesn’t. It’s “within the rules” he says. Andrea Vance disagrees: “Speaker’s rules show definitively that leaders fund can’t be used for damages or payments used to settle legal action”. Graeme Edgeler isn’t sure. John Drinnan asks: “The police e prosecution. The media raids, The court prosecution. The payout. How much has obsession with Teapot-Tape cost taxpayers?”. Good question.

As is often the case, Winston Peters gets to the nub of the matter. Key was at the teapot meeting with his Leader of National hat on. He’s paying for the legal consequences of his own personal mistakes and obsessions with money that comes to his PM’s hat. Clearly Key is keen on distinguishing between his various hats when he’s trying to dodge responsibility, and just as keen on ignoring the differences if it lets him dip into public money.

42 comments on “Which hat John? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    22 March 2016 at 7:21 am

    What a difference a year makes.
    The tone and directness aga:nst key from our 4th estate is refreshing.

    Also, as a side issue, perhaps this shows that Winston is the real leader of the opposition.

    • roy cartland 1.1
      22 March 2016 at 8:38 am

      I’ve been waiting for the worm to turn too – I thought it would happen last term, but for the first time this government, I’m feel in’ it.

    • gez the rev 1.2
      22 March 2016 at 9:54 am

      bang on gsays

    • Lanthanide 1.3
      22 March 2016 at 11:31 am

      +1

    • aerobubble 1.4
      22 March 2016 at 11:39 am

      There is a very good reason for Labour to pay incompetent.

      As for Keys victim play that is now shown up for the self abuse it was.

      Key should pay the compensation, not parliament (not happening as then we’d all know how much). Not the party, since every candidate is likewise tainted, instead of letting democracy debate, the dotcom and now keys of the world distract elections with their fake lies for their own pecular ends. Imagine history writing this era, of politics reduced by politicians to farce, exemplified by Key’s double barrel characteristic of the turd blossom, a fake meeting with a managed crisis that turns the pm into a victim and the media twist and take every turn in the ongoing police raids.

      Key should not only pay the compensation, he should resign in shame that he was so easily caught, how are future cynical politicians going to go to work and pass lies of as truth, when the populsus are so aware of their tricks and so appreciative of their inability to fall in their swords. The nats are going to pay out of the leadership party fud, oh joy, they cant keep the rotting stench of ethical corruption from smearing their whole loo pants party. John Key leader of the wad lad loo party pants.

      NZ party politics is joke when the opposition cant take Key out because the Nats, nasty pooh panty, have stacked media wih yes sir how far do you need us to bend ver for Mr Loo key.

    • mosa 1.5
      23 March 2016 at 8:41 pm

      Dont get your hopes up
      They didnt bother with Labours work confrence untill much later in the bulletin -TVNZ
      They wont turn on the great Messiah

  2. burt 2
    22 March 2016 at 7:38 am

    So if using the leaders budget is against the rules I’m picking that you will be calling for him put parliament into urgency and retrospectively validate his spending. You’ll be claiming it shows strong leadership and that it’s the correct thing to do – surely…

    Or perhaps because he wasn’t warned ( in writing ) that it’s a corrupt practice to use the money for that purpose you might not be so quick to defend him, after all he may have made a mistake rather than a deliberate decision to be corrupt and that wouldn’t be nearly as special as our previous dear leader and therefore worthy of criticism rather than praise.

    • Matthew Whitehead 2.1
      22 March 2016 at 10:08 am

      I think anyone with a degree of sense can tell that unlike using the leader’s budget to promote party policies, using the leader’s budget for a payoff related to the PM’s private legal liabilities can’t even be confused for a reasonable use. At least when Clark screwed up, you could arguably see the logic for why they thought they were in the right. Key just doesn’t seem to give a fart about ethics, political convention, or even legality, so long as he thinks he can get away with it.

      edit: To be clear, I agree with you that they shouldn’t have retroactively legalised what they did. But these are very different cases of abusing the leader’s budget in my view.

      • burt 2.1.1
        22 March 2016 at 10:54 am

        At least when Clark screwed up, you could arguably see the logic for why they thought they were in the right.

        Yes, they only had a written warning from the Chief Electoral Officer telling them it would be viewed as a corrupt practice. Of course with a written warning prior to the event they thought they were right because they are entitled to do what the hell they want.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          22 March 2016 at 11:49 am

          Ah good old Burt. Can always be trusted to raise the pledge card which was money set aside for Labour to communicate with the electorate and which was used for this actual purpose.

        • aerobubble 2.1.1.2
          22 March 2016 at 12:16 pm

          So because Key has conceded but no crime was committed, it was all a civil matter, that the party had no hat in, Key has to pay himself. Like a person whose working for a company, slanders a passerby. It was his campaign not the parties.
          His company setup the hustle, hired the situation manager. So i suppose my question is, where is the white line, when does a employee going to far loose the protection of his employer. The truck driver taking drugs to keep his job due to the excessive hours turns into the truckie doing drugs. So for the party to pay out surely they need to show Key was their responsibility, not a MP going on a spendup on the credit card, or hazing a waiter while drunk. Does the National party want the smear that it will raid media without justificatiin just because Key thought he was under attack unfairly. Key will retire sometime, probably soon, the Nats have to ask themselves do they want to be the party of John Keys leavings.

  3. Incognito 3
    22 March 2016 at 7:41 am

    I fully expect the Taxpayers’ Union to blast Key for misappropriate use of taxpayers’ money.

  4. grumpystilskin 4
    22 March 2016 at 8:28 am

    He was very clearly wearing his national party leader hat so I expect the party needs to cover this one. listen to the audio, link posted in teapot tapes thread.

    • Anne 4.1
      22 March 2016 at 9:36 am

      My comment from teapot tapes thread:

      Excerpt from audio link:

      Banks: He’s a horrible fellow, that candidate. Nasty, nasty.
      Key: He is, ooh, nasty. They’re a nasty party in a lot of ways.
      Banks: Yeah, well, you know they’ve been putting stuff in letterboxes about me. Shocking stuff.
      Key: Yes, that’s nasty. That’s what they do, they play the person the whole time. We never do that stuff.

      Talk about projecting their own behaviour on to the Labour Party!

      1) I presume “He” is Michael Wood – thoroughly decent guy… honest, upstanding, intelligent and literate.

      2) The stuff in the letter boxes was someone who did it independently of any political party. Nothing to do with the Labour Party.

      3) Listen to who is talking? John Key has spent 7 years playing the person and not the issues.

      And then of course he chose to believe the recording device was deliberately left there because it was politically advantageous in the middle of an election campaign.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1
        22 March 2016 at 9:46 am

        2) The stuff in the letter boxes was someone who did it independently of any political party. Nothing to do with the Labour Party.

        And all it did was quote what John Banks had said. Apparently that’s nasty.

        3) Listen to who is talking? John Key has spent 7 years playing the person and not the issues.

        As I say. The right-wing have to lie because reality doesn’t conform to their delusions.

        • gez the rev 4.1.1.1
          22 March 2016 at 10:07 am

          oh yes they live in reality all right, that’s why they lie
          they rip off nzders as they like, because they can, this is reality
          they play the man and woman as they like, because they can, this is reality
          they play dirty politics, because they can, this is reality
          they fuck over anyone who exposes them(nzders), this is reality
          they use the msm to fuck over nzders, this is reality
          they allow mass immigration to line their pockets and fuck over nzders, this is reality
          they allow immigration scams to bring down wages and fuck over nzders , this is reality
          they allow banks to fuck over nzders, this is reality
          they allow housing bubbles to fuck over nzders, this is reality
          they give our(nzders) money away to foreign corporations, this is reality
          they are selling our(nzders) country underneath us, this is reality
          they fucked over the dairy farmers(nzders, most of them) this is reality
          they fuck over chch(more nzders) this is reality
          they fuck over beneficiaries(not all are nzders) this is reality
          they are fucking our health system for nzders, this is reality
          they TRIED to fuck over me and my wife(nzders) , failed thank you
          NZDERS please fucking wake up to your REALITY

          • Mike Bond 4.1.1.1.1
            22 March 2016 at 2:10 pm

            It is comments like this from gez the rev that turn most honest and decent people away from the left. So glad it makes you feel empowered to see the filth you posted on line.

      • Chuck 4.1.2
        22 March 2016 at 2:58 pm

        Ambrose accepts it was Key’s genuine belief that he thought the recording device was deliberately left on the table. And Key likewise accepts Ambrose version of events (it was a mistake).

        Key was the defendant in the proceedings, Ambrose did not have to settle and could of stuck to his guns and taken it to court…However Ambrose did the sensible thing in backing down and settling for his current legal costs.

        • the pigman 4.1.2.1
          23 March 2016 at 8:02 pm

          “Ambrose did the sensible thing in backing down and settling for his current legal costs.

          In better days, someone would have called you up for a link to justify your claim.

          Of course you have no idea what the settlement amount was because it was a confidential settlement.

  5. gez the rev 5
    22 March 2016 at 10:11 am

    his little [r0b: deleted – no need for that] firemans helmet, that’s what hat

    • joe90 5.1
      22 March 2016 at 10:29 am

      Go fuck your bigoted self, quietly.

      • gez the rev 5.1.1
        22 March 2016 at 11:18 am

        yep joe 90, what a fucking hero he is
        working for those bankers in USA, oh yeah who owns them?
        supporting Israel, who the fuck are they
        circumsized penis because of religion
        whos the fucking bigot

        • joe90 5.1.1.1
          22 March 2016 at 11:27 am

          Bigot, conspiracy nut, semi-literate cretin, congratulations, you’ve hit the trifecta.

          • gez the rev 5.1.1.1.1
            22 March 2016 at 11:35 am

            bigot, cool, if the cap fits I will wear it
            conspiracy nut haha you are joking eh, I live in reality man, travelled and worked a lot of the world, so my eyes are open, seen a lot, especially from the people you say im bigoting
            semi literate … yes, left school at 14 because of my abusive violent father(national voter, cop)no school C, but didn’t stop me from getting good jobs, and now a successful business, raising good kids and getting a lovely wife
            don’t let those three things stop you
            what else ya got
            oh yeah cretin, seems like a quadrella to me, whats it paying?
            well your opinion means jackshit to me bro

    • gez the rev 5.2
      22 March 2016 at 11:22 am

      sorry rob

      [Just looked through all of your comments and you really need to tone down the violently toned vitriol if you want to be allowed to continue commenting here] – Bill

      • gez the rev 5.2.1
        22 March 2016 at 11:51 am

        I havnt advocated any violence, just telling the truth,
        anyway i will sign off then
        see yas tomorrow

  6. ianmac 6
    22 March 2016 at 10:11 am

    Was Key exercising good judgement in having a tea-party?
    Given the recent nit-picking aimed at Andrew, you would think that there would be burst of even handed nit-picking aimed at Key.

  7. Enough is Enough 7
    22 March 2016 at 10:28 am

    Key is a brilliant politician. A scoundrel – but brilliant politician.

    He will take the hit on this now rather then let the story run for the next 12 months with negative headlines for him.

    He will take the nasty medicine now and trust the compliant media to forget about it by the easter break (which they will).

    • crashcart 7.1
      22 March 2016 at 10:51 am

      It would have been slightly more brilliant to pay for the settlement himself. He would have still worn some flack for the loss but at least it would have removed the attack about who is paying and it’s not like he can’t afford it.

      • Enough is Enough 7.1.1
        22 March 2016 at 11:13 am

        Agreed – but as I said he’s a scoundrel.

        He didn’t get rich spending his own money on anything.

      • AB 7.1.2
        22 March 2016 at 11:23 am

        True – but wait for the token tut-tutting from the tame media to stop after a short time. Then it will be, “Key’s enduring popularity has allowed him to shrug off the teapot tape issue with no impact”.
        Of course they are complicit in creating that popularity and in ensuring there is no impact. It is a circular, self-reinforcing process that works very well for them.

  8. Jester 8
    22 March 2016 at 10:58 am

    I cant see what all the fuss is about. Its not as is there is no previous examples of the use of taxpayer money to settle court cases involving the Prime Minister of the day.

    • gez the rev 8.1
      22 March 2016 at 11:21 am

      that’s the bloody problem

    • mickysavage 8.2
      22 March 2016 at 11:52 am

      Clark clearly made her comment while acting as PM. And the suit was a nuisance suit. I scratch my head at the agreed level of payout.

      Key here was clearly acting as National leader.

      One other difference. Clark did not go around and terrorise the media immediately after the incident occurred.

  9. aerobubble 9
    22 March 2016 at 12:35 pm

    When a PR team is bidding for a contract, and in order to gain the contract orcastrate police to raid media and si throwup smoke, and now we find that the parties deem compensation payable, exposing thir how decrepidand torrid campaign

    Shock horror PM wasn’t a victim of media, no he slandered the poor cameraman! Used the police to raid off a misunderstanding of his own mind. Weak and callous, he had Police run around media looking for the tape!!! Thats not their job. Media censureship. Key was wrong to slandar the cameraman but if he hadn’t would Police have looked for the tape. So is that to be the new norm, you have a fear that a tape maybe expose you, though you managed the event invited the press, even invited them to film while lip readers watched, all on the prepostuous notion that all the negoiations had not already happened, that there was nothing to do but be seen together!
    Do police now protect politicians ineptly constructed farces speach. Surely its the prpose of an election to expose politicians to rigious tests, like inapprioate statements less they gain power and expose national security secrets.

    The Police should have stayed out, this was a test of Key’s ability to shutup, and instead he used it to pkay the victim, mess with press freedom. crap on demicracy.

  10. ianmac 10
    22 March 2016 at 2:08 pm

    Funny timing:
    “Prime Minister John Key will not pay his “teapot tapes” settlement with public money, his office confirmed this afternoon…….
    However, his office said today that after taking advice from Parliamentary Service, this would no longer take place.”

    But: “The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had already come out of his leader’s budget….
    It was not known how much he spent on his legal defence.”
    1000s of thousands? Legally? For a personal Vendetta?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923

  11. Chuck 11
    22 March 2016 at 2:21 pm

    It should come out of the National Party bank account, as Key was there to shore up support for the National Party.

    On a different note: Winston Peters owes John Key an awful lot…after all Winston’s bluster on what was on the tape (reference to degrading the old folk as I recall) propelled Winston back onto the gravy train that is the beehive. Winston does also wear a few different hats, for example when he is collecting donations off wealthy individuals like Owen Glenn.