Far be it for me to argue with a “decent journalist, trained and skilled” but it looks like the 1996 and 1999 elections were all part of some sort of conspiracy to hide reality from the whole of New Zealand.
Now I know Wikipedia isn’t acceptable as a source, Bryce Johns said so. However Wikipedia shows the results of both the 1996 and 1999 elections. It is clear there that Helen Clark didn’t become the Prime Minister until 1999. Read more »
Did you spot Audrey Young’s howler in this morning’s Herald?
In her interview with back-bencher Eugenie Sage she informed us that the novels Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies (well worth reading I might add) were about Oliver Cromwell. Read more »
When Hekia Parata was promoted to the education portfolio, she was pegged by some as a future leader, ruffling a few feathers among her colleagues.
All the ingredients were there – a rags to riches back story, professional success and powerful mentors, including Finance Minister Bill English and Prime Minister John Key, who saw in her an echo of his own rise to the top.
But she also had the all important X-factor – supreme self-assurance, an engaging personality and a guffawing laugh that could fill a room.
As blunders mounted one on top of the other in the education portfolio, however, Ms Parata’s poise deserted her. Hard questions were met with obfuscation and, when under stress, she reached for the bureaucrat’s trick of papering over the cracks with jargon.
The pressure began to tell in other, more personal, ways. Beehive insiders talk about a tense and poisonous atmosphere within her ministerial office, brought on by an increasingly demanding minister, who was out of her depth and casting around for others to blame.
The only part Tracy Watkins left out was that Hekia lobbied hard for the Education portfolio, she elbowed Tolley out of the way believing and selling the PM that she could do a better a job.
Why Hekia being a total disaster as Education Minister surprises anyone is a shock. She is an arrogant, unpleasant bully, and was called out by this blog on November 14th 2010 when Audrey Young, who should know better, wrote a hagiographic article about Hekia.
Fairfax and APN editors should start asking a few questions of their political journalists. They have really dropped the ball on this one. They should ask the following questions:
After losing five parliamentary Executive Assistants in the first two years in parliament, do they think Hekia will front the next CTU anti 90 day advertisement?
Are they aware that if you lose four EAs in around a year Parliamentary Services remove your right to recruit your own office staff?
Do they know why the Maori Affairs select committee had a change of personnel? And was it because Hekia was publicly yelling at Tau Henare, who was actually in the same party as her, for those press gallery reporters who were in some doubt?
Have they scrutinised her employment record in her career before she entered parliament?
Are they confident she would be able to run a ministerial office, and work with departmental chief executives and staff, or would they need a special golden handshake fund for her department?
Hekia Parata might make a good person to be the MP for Mana, but being one of Bill English’s acolytes and having a rotating door on staff at a rate equal to or better than McCully doesn’t make her a good prospect for cabinet.
There are better choices and ones who would be more effective.
The omnishambles that has been Hekia’s tenure as minister of education was clearly predictable. The questions above should have alerted enough the most bovine journalistic intellect to the problems Hekia would face.
The only real question for John Key is will he let someone he would have instantly fired at Merrill Lynch continue to pull him down in the polls?
I see the Horrid is rehashing a non-story from the weekend Horrid this morning with this
“During that time representing Lindy Chamberlain, I used to think ‘this wouldn’t happen if I was in New Zealand’ but … in the Bain case I think he has been subjected to actually worse injustices than the Chamberlains.”
He claimed that Collins’ actions were “basically painting a picture that she believes he’s guilty”.
“That’s how she’s viewing the Binnie report. She’s actually not accepting the jury verdict – which is: You are not guilty David Bain, you are innocent.
“It’s so inappropriate for a Minister of Justice. She should be accepting that the jury’s verdict as binding.
“I just find her conduct on the whole matter appalling and I’m ashamed. Deeply ashamed.”
Australian-based New Zealander Stuart Tipple said he’d followed the Bain case closely. He’d been aghast at Ms Collins’ criticism of the independent report written by Justice Binnie while she’d kept it confidential for months without handing a copy to Bain’s lawyers. Those actions were a bad enough breach of natural justice but her continued attacks against the judge this week continued the vein where Ms Collins was acting as judge and jury, he said.
“I’m really disturbed there’s not more legal people in New Zealand that are standing up and saying this is just not good enough.
“I used to think … during that time representing Lindy Chamberlain, I used to think ‘this wouldn’t happen if I was in New Zealand’ but having seen what happened in the Bain case I think he has been subjected to actually worse injustices than the Chamberlains.
“I just find her conduct on the whole matter appalling and I’m ashamed. Deeply ashamed,” he said.
Yvonne Tahana has interviewed her typewriter and her colleague, must be a slow news week. This ambulance-chaser clearly raised the average IQ of both countries when he went to Australia – yet another lawyer that doesn’t know the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”.
Jane Clifton gives us a fascinating insight into what the Press Gallery girls gossiped about at the water coolers photocopier in the “old days”.
The new member for Te Tai Tokerau was slim and fit, had a full head of wavy hair, and was generally agreed to be the most attractive male specimen to hit the lobbies in a long time.
How does Tau rate now? May we ask?
It is pretty damn hard for a proud Maori to go red but Tau may be blushing the next time he comes into contact with the Cougars of the Gallery – Jane, Audrey and Fran knowing they once had a giggle the same way the Gen Y’s now do for Simon Bridges, Gareth Hughes and Chris Hipkins.
I don’t know what Tau has done to offend a lady but Clifton has now publicly shanked him as her “wild card” choice and bet heavily for Maurice as the next Speaker.
Following on from yesterdays posts about undecideds the Herald publishes a poll. Audrey Young finishes her article with:
The poll of 750 voters was conducted from April 19 to 29. The party vote results are of decided voters only. Of those polled, 7.1 per cent were undecided. The margin of error is 3.6 per cent.
Good on Audrey and the Herald. Some commentary on the low level of undecideds from a polling expert would be interesting.
Audrey Young picks up on the whisperings of Nick Smiths mates and talks about his possible return to cabinet just two weeks after he resigned.
John Key’s reshuffle yesterday promoted Simon Bridges and Chris Tremain and leaves the way open for Nick Smith to come back if the Prime Minister deems he has been punished enough.
Frankly anyone who is touting that hypothesis is dreaming.
David Farrar lists a soft sell reasoning about why Nick Smith probably won’t return to the ministry.
He has however left off two other possible reasons:
John Key is unforgiving of people who lie to his face. He axed Richard Worth when he caught him out and it was one of the reasons Nick Smith had to go. This reason alone would prevent Nick Smith returning.
Who knows what other documents or letters of information is contained in the ACC files relating to Bronwyn Pullar from Nick Smith. The Privacy Commissioner and the Police are currently investigating and I can well imagine that numerous media agencies have dropped rather complete OIA bombs on the Minister’s office for correspondence between Boag, Pullar, and Smith, not to mention Collins. If even a single new letter emerges then refer to my point above regarding the lying.
My good mate Cluster Farrar got it badly wrong on the ACT coup, running the lines of a bitter and twisted Bill English when it was obvious to those in the know that Rodney was rooted and just needed a good push.
After Rodney got pushed he then ranted about how people didn’t like the way Don got rid of Rodney, mainly because he did not follow a text book path that is approved within the beltway.
Brash is Act at heart, but the ruthless way he got rid of Hide has damaged him.
Really Audrey? Where have you picked that up? Long cups of soy latte watching Farrar chug Quarter Pounders? From members of the National Party who have having a sook about Don Brash running for another party? From inside the beltway where people care about these things? Or like Cluster Farrar have you been thinking that the general public are actually interested in politics?
I believe most voters didn’t read anything more into the coup than that little prick Hide who was rorting tax payers dollars and got caught got replaced by an older guy who nearly became PM for another party a few years back, and seemed to have a few good ideas on Maoris?
If damage means receiving a flood of donations to the empty party coffers, or increasing membership at a rate that would make all political parties very, very envious, and building a good team to fight the election with when voters are actually listening then Don Brash most certainly is damaged.
The MSM repeaters and churnalists seem to have spent a lot of the last few days interviewing their keyboards, anointing Hekia Parata the new cabinet minister to replace Pansy Wong. Audrey Young in the Herald seems to be on the point of ringing Pope Benedict to speed up her sainthood.
Key has some clear choices: promote Parata before the byelection; promote Parata after the byelection; or promote no one and give Wong’s portfolios to existing ministers. But promoting Parata before a byelection – even to a minister outside Cabinet – would tell the Mana electorate something of the calibre of the National candidate.
He is set to make a decision this week on Wong’s replacement and could use the opportunity to promote Mana by-election candidate Hekia Parata – in parliament on the list – who has been talked about as a cabinet prospect before, although promoting her days before the by-election could be seen as a bid to grab votes.
Fairfax and APN editors should start asking a few questions of their political journalists. They have really dropped the ball on this one. They should ask the following questions:
After losing five parliamentary Executive Assistants in the first two years in parliament, do they think Hekia will front the next CTU anti 90 day advertisement?
Are they aware that if you lose four EAs in around a year Parliamentary Services remove your right to recruit your own office staff?
Do they know why the Maori Affairs select committee had a change of personnel? And was it because Hekia was publicly yelling at Tau Henare, who was actually in the same party as her, for those press gallery reporters who were in some doubt?
Have they scrutinised her employment record in her career before she entered parliament?
Are they confident she would be able to run a ministerial office, and work with departmental chief executives and staff, or would they need a special golden handshake fund for her department?
Hekia Parata might make a good person to be the MP for Mana, but being one of Bill English’s acolytes and having a rotating door on staff at a rate equal to or better than McCully doesn’t make her a good prospect for cabinet.
There are better choices and ones who would be more effective.
I am fast becoming a fan of The Weekly Standard. Today’s is the Anatomy of a Smear and examines the growing list of smears on Sarah Palin. Given that she has been the candidate for less than a week the left are really working overtime to get the count up to 54. At that rate we should see the hundred mark pass sometime before Friday. The technique outlined is strikingly similar to Labour’s lap-blog’s preferred method od operations as well.
Thus, the method of the smear mechanism reveals itself – print a lot of speculative crap, all while maintaining a malign indifference as to whether or not you can prove said speculative crap. Actually nailing down a story before running it? That’s so 20th century, at least in the virtual pages of the Atlantic. Doing actual reporting to confirm life-damaging rumors before circulating them? Such quotidian tasks are obviously beneath an Atlantic blogger’s pay grade.
Yep, it seems that leftist lap-blogs the world over use the same techniques.
