Garth George: The Great-Grandfather Of NZ Journalism
Garth George, allegedly the only nonagenarian working in New Zealand journalism, reminds me somewhat of Victor Muldrew from One Foot In The Grave, longing for a return to the good ol’ days while the world continues to move forward without him. Poor guy. The latest issue to get Garth’s Y-fronts in a knot is the controversy surrounding the “secret” recordings made at National’s recent conference. Decrying this incident in today’s Herald, Garth says:
“Politics in New Zealand, despicable as it has been for decades, has reached a new low with the secret taping of private conversations at last weekend’s National Party conference”
Well actually Garth, I thought that low would have been reached when National’s mates the Exclusive Brethren decided to wage a secret campaign against Labour at the last election. Or when National’s mates the Exclusive Brethren paid private investigators to follow Helen Clark and dig up dirt on her. Or when National’s mate Ian Wishart launched his vicious attack on Helen Clark and her husband. Or when secret recordings of Mike Williams were made at Labour’s election congress earlier this year. But then again, it is well known that, like the National Party, geriatrics do have a relatively short and selective memory, so we’ll let you off for that one Garth.
Garth then takes a swipe at those media scoundrels, even his own employer, saying:
“And why the media, including this newspaper, would deign to use word for word such questionable material, and in addition do their damnedest to attribute to the victims, deputy leader Bill English and party veteran Lockwood Smith, some hidden and sinister political programme”
It seems that under that stern exterior, Mr George has a rather soft spot for poor National Party MPs caught, albeit “questionably”, lying to the public. They are, after all, simply “victims” of some bigger scheme to ensure the public is properly informed before they decide New Zealand’s next government. Garth then rambles and rants a bit about “principles”, “turncoats”, “odiums” and other such 17th century phenomena, before finishing up with a nice little anecdote from MacBeth.
You’ve certainly earned your super wine biscuit and afternoon nap today, Garth. Good on ya mate!
Powered by Qumana
The Truth Really Does Hurt……If You’re National
Having had a couple of days to think things over, John Key has gone on the attack over the “secret” recordings of Bill English and Lockwood Smith telling the truth at National’s annual conference over the weekend. On Breakfast this morning, Key tried to shift the focus from the content of the recordings to the fact they were made in the first place. He first tried to blame Young Labour, saying they tried to “infiltrate” the conference (which wouldn’t be all that hard – just put on a suit and act like an arrogant wanker and even Key himself would think you’d been a supporter for life) . Next he tried to pin it all on Helen Clark and Nicky Hager. Then, showing his desperation to make this whole issue go away, Key suggested the tapes might not be “actually sort of completely real”, afterall there are many Bill English imposters out there.
Of course the real issue here is that National has clearly been lying to the public and continues to do so, and it is somewhat ironic that Key has assured voters that he would be an accountable Prime Minister, yet has failed to take any responsibility for National’s indiscretions. And as if to confirm that National has an outbreak of “the lies” within its caucus, Key stated this afternoon:
“We don’t speak in sound bites, we don’t speak in press releases but effectively if every single word you say is going to be recorded then that’s the way you have to speak.”
Now, John Key knows as well as anyone that sound bites and press releases are all the public has had from National for the past year or so; after all, it is the golden rule of the Crosby-Textor handbook. Key also indicated National may complain to the police over the recordings, and they are already picking through video surveillance of the conference in an effort to reveal the culprit. This simply begs the question: why was National secretly recording their own delegates? Seems even National doesn’t trust its own.
In a display of hypocrisy, Key also called on Helen Clark to take some responsibility and state publicly whether or not she condones “secret” recordings. That is quite ironic given Key did no such thing when secret recordings of Mike Williams were circulating earlier this year. In fact, his deputy made the following statements at the time:
“Mike Williams has been caught red-handed saying one thing behind closed doors and another thing to the public…Mr Williams can’t be relied on to tell the public the truth, yet Helen Clark is defending him. This is an indictment on her judgment.”
That is the ultimate proof that National is nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites.
Powered by Qumana
National Plays Follow The (Deputy) Leader
It seems Lockwood Smith has taken a leaf out of Bill English’s book and has decided to use some “loose language” as well. Tonight TV3 released a “secret” recording of Lockwood at National’s conference over the weekend and like English, he too lets the truth slip out. Of particular interest was the following comment he made:
“If you try to do everything differently you’ll scare the horses and under MMP it’s very hard to win.”
So is it simply a coincidence then that John Key announced one of his 10 priorities should he become Prime Minister is to hold a referendum on MMP?
Powered by Qumana
Speaking Of “Media Beatups”….
Kiwiblog certainly seems to have got itself all worked up over an item that featured on One News last night, labeling it a “puerile and almost offensive” media “beat-up”. The item focused on apparent denials of climate change made by Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith to public audiences in recent times, which appear to put the two offside with National Party policy as well as John Key. Judging by his strong language, this is an issue which Kiwiblog obviously holds dear, but although he attempts to enlighten us on the political realities of decision making, he conveniently overlooks the somewhat unsubtIe distinction between “private” opinion and public statement.
It is obvious that there will never be an absolute consensus on an issue within a large group, and political parties are certainly no exception to this. The nature of political decision making often requires compromise, concessions, and the sacrifice of personal opinion and beliefs in order to promote the wider collective interests of the party. Indeed, it is often the case that MPs simply tow the party line and put their own views aside, and I doubt this fact is lost on the New Zealand public. Thus, given the range of opinions within a political party, it would be most unhelpful if the media were to go around each MP seeking their “personal” opinion once a party had decided, collectively, to take a particular course of action, as Kiwiblog correctly points out.
However, things change when opinions, which are privately held and have supposedly been set aside in the interests of the party, are expressed publicly by an MP acting in the capacity of a party spokesperson, especially if those statements seem to contradict their party’s policies. In such a situation, there is likely to be both confusion and apprehension within the electorate as to how such opinions will ultimately influence a party’s policies, and it is thus right for the media to seek clarification on behalf of the public. Such clarification is particularly important in an election year when the public is entitled to know how genuine a party is being when they release policy on a particular issue.
It is certainly curious when an MP claims they are committed to party policy, while at the same time dismissing the very foundations on which that policy has been formed. In the case of Williamson, his remarks were allegedly made during a presentation to an Automobile Association meeting. These statements were not made by Maurice Williamson the private citizen, but rather Maurice Williamson the National Party spokesperson for transport, and as such they are open to scrutiny by both the media and the public. To suggest otherwise, as Kiwiblog appears to, is nothing short of idiocy, and it is surprising that Kiwiblog’s rather enthusiastic advocacy of freedom of speech does not quite extend to freedom of the press. Or at least not when the National Party is shown in a negative light.
Powered by Qumana
Espiner On National
Guyon Espiner has a good piece in this month’s North&South, taking a look at what a National government may look like if they are successful in this year’s general election. Espiner quite rightly points out that National still has a large number of MPs who were part of the 1990s National administration that pushed through many far right policies:
“Say these names aloud: Nick Smith, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Tony Ryall, Tau Henare, Georgina te Heuheu, Clem Simich, David Carter, Bill English and Murray McCully. If those names sound eerily familiar it’s because they were all ministers in the 1990s National-led government that New Zealanders were thoroughly sick of by the end of that decade.”
It is hard to imagine a National government in which these MPs would not play a significant part, and that should be worrying given their role in National’s policy agenda during the 1990s. Indeed, Espiner makes exactly that point when he says:
“The trouble for National is that many of those with ministerial experience are the same ones who were pushing for the far right agenda which found the party so off-side with middle New Zealand last time they occupied the Beehive”.
I am very sceptical that, given such personalities still being present in the National Party caucus, National can really pursue a more centrist agenda post-election. Espiner mentions two such personalities. Of Lockwood Smith, Espiner says:
“Lockwood Smith, if he had his way, would end nuclear free policy by morning tea time”
This would appear impossible given Key’s emphatic affirmation of New Zealand’s current nuclear free policy and his assurances that the status quo will continue under any National government he leads, but that may change once National is in power.
Then on Tony Ryall, Espiner states:
“Jenny Shipley used to joke that she had to check daily with State Owned Enterprise Minister Tony Ryall to see which assets he’d sold”
National has been trying to stay clear of any policy announcements on privatisation, but their slow response to the Government’s moves to block the sale of Auckland Airport indicates that their 1990’s agenda is still alive and well. Although this is unlikely to be a portfolio managed by Ryall, his deceitfulness over National’s plans to remove the cap on doctor’s fees shows he is not to be trusted.
All in all, a supposedly fresh, new National government would still contain many of the worn, old faces of the 90s, and New Zealanders need to decide whether they want to keep moving forward with Labour, or return to the 1990s with National.
Powered by Qumana
