My experience is that inviting someone outside is not career enhancing with colleagues but goes down ok in large sections of the electorate depending on the invitee.
My experience is that inviting someone outside is not career enhancing with colleagues but goes down ok in large sections of the electorate depending on the invitee.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 7th, 2009 at 5:27 am and is filed under act party. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Not sure I understand what you’re saying. Is it that, given the invitee—apparently Cosgrove—, you think Garrett’s onto a winner with the electorate?
He hasn’t got one. No the point was that the balance of views differs depending on the circle in which one is moving. But not career enhancing.
You gotta say that David Garrett has to be the Alf Garnett of the Beehive. [Edited, abuse - admin]
The ACT caucus is not the Labour caucus, perhaps it is a career enhancing move for an ACT MP.
I hope not, but it’s a bit hard to read ACT sometimes.
That’s good advice Trevor!
Athough I don’t see any problems if it’s an ACT members career going down the tube.
it is good advice and given from someone who knows!
There is a difference in being a man and offering to take it outside when you disagree over something, and simply smacking a guy because you couldn’t control your anger problem at him doing the exact same thing your party had done on a previous occasion.
If you cant handle the jandal …..
also – I note that this labour members on this blog have actively raised this a couple of times now.
One would think that you have some pride in your
assault.fight Trevor So much for the “its not OK – ever” campaign.Get a Tui bikerkiwi
To be fair, Clayton Cosgrove does look pretty sturdy and I wouldn’t be surprised if Garrett was all talk, and no walk!
Also, Clayton’s wikipedia profile is absolutely hilarious:
Criticism
In August 2007 Cosgrove voiced detest towards a nondescript portion of youth culture; calling “boy racers” “thugs” and “criminals”, accusing the group of criminality. This caused a groundswell of public backlash, notably exhibited by a peaceful protest one Saturday evening when over 200 cars drove around the streets in a block around his house. Some protesters brought with them sausages and a barbecue, espousing the point that it is pointless to decry youth culture. [1] In New Zealand, Boy racers are not a problematic demographic.[2]
Kyle, Garrett doesn’t have a ‘career’. With ACT on 1% he’s a gonner.
bikerkiwi wrote:
“There is a difference in being a man and offering to take it outside when you disagree over something, and simply smacking a guy because you couldn’t control your anger problem”
Maybe, but it’s miniscule. Both actions are pathetic and infantile. Still, this sort of stuff goes down well with some people.
By the way, just in case some people get confused I will clear this up ahead of time: Boris isn’t a Labour party supporter. In fact, Boris can’t see anybody worth voting for in the NZ parliament right now.
One more thing. Boris happened to bump into Helen C when she was campaigning last year. She was flanked by none other than Chris Carter and the cherub-faced guy. Anyway, Boris started to ask HC about something who was starting a response when CC rudely stepped in and started blabbering.
Now, Boris is of the opinion that this shows, out of the media spotlight, something of the real HC and CC. HC appeared engaging, and willing to (briefly) discuss the issue. Chris Carter came across as a blathering idiot. Maybe he had a bad morning? Who knows, but these impressions stick.
Hmmm. Seems like the ACT party has an anger management issue. Both Hide and Garrett seem to be motivated by revenge.
It doesn’t appear to take much for Garrett to burst blood vessels. Garth McVicar probably stokes him up before select committee meetings… perhaps by bending over in front of the water cooler!
And ‘Twinkletoes’ Hide may have won over the Woman’s Day brigade by cavorting/mincing around the dance-floor, but he’s showing his true colours as the Mussolini of Local Government. There is an uncanny resemblance….
@ boris – its not a miniscule difference.
One gets you in court – they other dosnt.
Banksie, Hide does indeed bear a striking resemblance to ‘Il Duce’ the fascist dictator. Even the mannerisms are the same. Spooky.
Boris can’t see anybody worth voting for in the NZ parliament right now.
Neither can LabRat
Garrett is a fool. Act have made a mistake and next election he will hopefully be gone. He will not be missed.
Banksie,
[Edited - admin]
Take the homophobic bullshit back to your basement, where it belongs. [Edited - admin]
On reflection, please delete ‘Retard’ from my previous comment; it wasn’t an appropriate term to use, and may cause un-meant offence.
[Done - admin]
You would say that Trevor [Edited - admin]
Trevor – might I say that it’s very charitable of you to offer advice to David Garrett based on your own bitter experiences – you are taking caring and sharing to new heights
I’d pay to see a bout between Mallard and Garret.
Just had a chance to have a proper read of the Herald item.
Seems that he didnt actually say “lets take this outside”
- The complaint is thought to centre on claims that Mr Garrett used a phrase along the lines of “let’s take this outside” during his discussion with Mr Cosgrove.
There are comments that the actual words were “this isn’t the place for this”
Of course someone in labour took offence (as they do) and lodged a complaint.
It will be interesting if labour have feed this story to the media and it turns out to be somewhat exaggerated (which is probably why ACT and co are not worried about it).
Could be yet another attempt from labour to discredit that backfires
Oh just let Garret go for it! If anyone wants to take it outside with him then bring an audience and some cameras and watch the stories pour in.
correction to my post above.
apparentley he said “let’s just leave that outside”
Herald detail below – raising a good point about leaking to the media as opposed to following the complaint thru proper channels.
food for thought …..
ACT leader Rodney Hide says his MP David Garrett did not threaten a Labour MP.
Labour alleged Mr Garrett suggested he and Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove “take this outside” during an argument in a closed session of Parliament’s law and order select committee.
However, Mr Hide says he said “let’s just leave that outside”, meaning “let’s get on with the work.”
Labour has complained to Speaker Lockwood Smith who will decide whether the issue needs to go to the privileges committee or not.
Mr Hide told NZPA he was angry and accused Labour of making up allegations, laying complaints that would fail in order to get media attention; and abusing the process by making public details of a closed session of a parliamentary committee.
He said Labour leader Phil Goff had set a bad example by putting out partial stories to grab headlines.
“If they thought they had a case against David Garrett, and the allegation is a serious one, they would have done it properly, put it to the Speaker and shut up,” he said.
“If someone had threatened another MP in a way that was a breach of privilege it would be very serious indeed, and be sent off to the privileges committee to be handled properly. You wouldn’t be running off to the media.
Bikerkiwi, keep up. Gripper Garrett has finally written to the Speaker today saying “I replied: `Save your insults for outside the precincts of Parliament Mr Cosgrove’, or words to that effect.” This idiot cannot even remember what he said himself. Game over, I would think.
Bikerkiwi wrote:
“@ boris – its not a miniscule difference.
One gets you in court – they other dosnt.”
Well, last time I heard, threatening somebody with violence will indeed land you in court in normal circumstances. Try tapping a cop on the shoulder and suggesting that they might like to step this way to get their lights punched out.
See the relative difference? Not so huge in the scheme of things.
bikerkiwi,
“This is the truth because Rodney Hide said so” is about as convincing as “This is the truth because Chris Hipkins said so”.
I would’ve thought that for any of us who weren’t there to say we knew what happened, given that it is still under dispute, would only be a sign on uninformed partisanship
If Cosgrove is the one I am thinking of ( punch’n'grow, Sopranos type) there would be money to be made on a bit of a stoush. We could put it towards Bill Englishs’ accomodation expenses. Probably not enough to cover Carters travel though.
This man, this Dave ‘The Goliath’ Garrett is so fab @ generating diversions for The Cabinet.
Is this what he’s for?