There is something very odd going on with the Heatley resignation. It seems John Key has said in his media conference that he did not think he should have resigned. I was beginning to question my view that he was pushed. From Mr Key’s own words this would seem to be so.
More to come I am sure, but it is clear this is not decisive leadership from Key.
I wonder what will happen next…
Stay tuned to the continuing story of …
“The Wine Bottles Affair”
LOL
“More to come I am sure, but it is clear this is not decisive leadership from Key.”
Three names…
Taito Phillip Fields
David Benson-Pope
Winston Peters
1) Phil Heatley was sacked.
2) Phil Heatley resigned for the reason he said.
3) Phil Heatley resigned for other reasons.
4) Phil Heatley will be stood down for a spell, but can return.
5) Or not.
I have no idea which of these is true, because John Key is doing his usual obfuscation job with the media (part deliberate ploy, part linguistic incompetence) so I guess everyone will just read whatever they want into it.
Pro-gov’t commentators will spin it as leadership, the rest of us will wonder what the hell’s going on.
Absolutely on the nail, Sammy!
Makes me wonder how much of it is going on – or is it a smoke screen to cover up others or something else…
Nothing like a good mystery or conspiracy to get the blood flowing.
He’ll be back after the AG’s cleared him…
Take note Bill English.
This has to be part of a smokescreen to divert us away from more important matters.
Key has a cabinet full of incompetent ministers but why resign over two bottles of wine ? why not pay the money back like the others?
Key probably really didn’t want him to resign. The fact that Key suddenly turned back from Christchurch indicates that Key was caught off-guard by the surprise resignation. Could it be the he was pushed under duress, not by Key, but by some others? Is he one of the first casualties of a palace coup that will play out over the coming months?
When I talk to my friends who have supported Nats over the years, many of them moaned that Key has got no vision and they don’t agree with a lot of what he has been doing, like cosying up to the Maori Party, etc. Maybe he’s too much Labour-lite to their liking.
I suggested to my Nat friends that Key and his government’s downfall may not come from the voters at large, but from within. And they agreed that’s a real possibility. Consider also many right wing commentators have been a lot more vocal against Key this year.
Mmmmmmmm….
yea…. Don’t suspect a coup but I reckon he mustta done something quite bad. I assume it’s got nothing to do with his credit card fiasco becaues he handed it over to the AG…. Key is becoming sloppy, 1st the GST increase debacle where he thought he was being clever and now the “I don’t want heatly to resign” statement. Maybe Crosby/Textor are on holiday…..
Isn’t also funny that no members of the opposition have really stuck the knife in on this. It makes me wonder no matter what side of the house you are on that most of them are taking the cream off the top. At least John Key doesn’t do a Helen trick like with “Taitogate” or “Winstonegate” and just keep denying things hoping they will go away when you just end up digging a bigger hole for yourself.
It was 2 bottles, what is he wineing about?
Beepee of Auckland says “Isn’t also funny that no members of the opposition have really stuck the knife in on this.”
Well, they have, and are twisting it slowly…
“It just seems strange and a mystery as to why a minister would stand down when his Prime Minister said he didn’t need to,” says Annette King, Labour MP for Rongotai. [TVNZ news]
I wouldnt go looking into conspiracies where there are one.
He probably quit before we found out what else he put on the credit card.
As for people in National wanting to get rid of Key, I dont think they want to get rid the only man who is capable of leading their party.
Commentators are staggered that Phil Heatley would resign over two wine bottles. Responding to suggestions from Sammy above:
1) Phil Heatley was sacked. [I dont think so]
2) Phil Heatley resigned for the reason he said. [Most unlikely]
3) Phil Heatley resigned for other reasons. [The reason stated is the official reason but it is surely not the whole reason! Either there is more scandal in the wind, or Phil Heatley has had enough for some reason]
4) Phil Heatley will be stood down for a spell, but can return. [My guess is that Key won't need him]
We’ve only just begun
My suspicion is that heatley has had enough for some reason. Perhaps he is not well and things got on top of him, perhaps it’s an excuse to distance himself from Cabinet on ideological moral grounds?
Winstonegate was a PR masterminded beat up on Clark BeePee. Crosby Dexter all over that. You reckon Key has never had information that contradicted something his people have said and kept it to himself – Yea right.
OwenGlen and Winston were made for each other, egoes on steroids The idea that Owen Glen is so much more credible because he… isn’t Winston was a beat up, and if you hang onto the belief that Clark was a really really bad person because of it then how do you countenance Key even appointing Worth to a Cabinet position given what Key KNEW about Worth’s character and conduct????
And so like “Portia Faces Life” the idle speculation continues.
This is where people with shallow lives and even shallower intellects judge another’s actions by their own standards and, without a hint or a shred of evidence to back them up publicly raise scenarios about someone’s personal life thinking that somehow it is clever/smart/cutting edge but in reality is baseless innuendo that reflects more on the standards of the speculator than on the character of the subject.
But if the Labour Party wishes to associate itself with that sort of activity (and judging by Annete King’s mouth before brain comments about something more behind it it does) – live with the consequences.
“This is where people with shallow lives and even shallower intellects judge another’s actions by their own standards and, without a hint or a shred of evidence to back them up publicly raise scenarios about someone’s personal life thinking that somehow it is clever/smart/cutting edge but in reality is baseless innuendo that reflects more on the standards of the speculator than on the character of the subject.”
David, that is a perfect description of the right-wing blogosphere and their vicious, constant, baseless attacks on Helen Clark’s personal life. Day after day, year after year.
I do hope you condemned them all thoroughly, at the time. Being such a principled chap, and all.
Commented on Kiwiblog much?
I’m willing to say that I think my initial instinct is looking like it was off base. I don’t know if there actually is much more to this than a principled politician living up to a high standard – one that more politicians could live up to (Brownlee, Groser, English, Hide to name some of the latest examples)… and I’m sure the left has its fair share of guilty people as well, it’s just that the records are more public now.
There could possibly be more to this, but for now, I’m going to give Phil Heatley the benefit of the doubt and say good on him. If this is honestly about him maintaining an ethical standard that he holds himself to, then Whangarei can be proud of their MP.
Sammy, I am not really interested in anything that looks like it comes from the pages of Women’s Day unless it is illegal or there is a flow-on impact into the person’s public life where they might be accountable. An example might be the conflict of interest that the Greens had with their Super Scheme investments in Windpower Technology while vigourously campaigning against Project Aqua.
If you are talking about Helen Clark’s marriage of convenience, that was an admission from her own lips and as such became legit for public comment where the focus became a question of her standards to have participated in the sham.
Sleaze in the form of idle speculation doesn’t do it for me, how about you?
I think if you know any thing about politics Labour or National you know people don’t resign from a cabinet position because they signed a form in which they have described 2 bottles of wine as food and beverages when it was only beverages ( wine). Being naive is neither righteous nor a character trait that makes you better than others DAVIDW. Describing others as shallow for not choosing to believe what you have, some would say is just childish!
Going back to the original posting:
‘ John Key has SAID in his media conference that he did not think he should have resigned ‘
But is this the reality?
John Key was safe to say this, because Phil could hardly un-resign!
Craig, I’m more of an evidenced-based sort of fella and as such try not to anticipate other’s motives based on my own standards. You don’t and seemingly prefer to speculate, that is your right to be so. The evidence is out there and I will continue to feel free to comment on what the evidence says about your standards.
Yup DavidW I got it right with my response to your Superior patronizing post first time. What you fail to recognize is its your standards that have been shown up.The exact thing you have accused others of you have done your self.
No one resigns for this kind of trivia but I think you know that only too well.
Key himself has said he wouldn’t have fired him. So that being the case and given Key has refused to say why he fired Worth (when it had been proved Worth had a conflict of interest) we are all left rightly saying this does not make sense.
WE must not let the “Heatley Affair”disappear ,there is something very smelly going on and I hope we do not let this sleazy lot get away with it. Slippery Key is already wriggling don’t lt him get away.
The body language of Brownlee is interesting ,he is looking very uncomfortable ,let’s keep the heat on.
OMG Craig, you have outed me.
Point one … you will only see me as superior if you consider yourself inferior. That is not my call, it is yours
Point two .. on the question of judging standards, what does it say of the standards of the Labour Party when the deputy leader is open about the fact that she would not resign on such matters of principle. That is not a judgement made relative to my standards, it is one that can be made by reference to the actions of one and the statement of the other. Key said he wouldn’t have fired him on the evidence, Heatley has felt obliged BY HIS STANDARDS to act. what is so difficult to understand about that?
Point three – patronising is purely in the mind of the beholder – refer to point one.
Consider this: National are about to look bad because of revelations of misuse of ministerial credit cards. A strategy is decided that can turn the whole thing into positive PR for the Nats.
One of their ministers (obviously Heatley) who has made relatively minor errors (but big enough to make the rest of the scheme plausible) is nominated to ‘fall on his sword’ over the situation, even though it seems he doesn’t need to. He appears to be a man of high principle, and throughout NZ many people are saying ‘he didn’t need to do that, what high principles he must have’. Cue those on the left who simply can’t believe the situation to be as it appears – and Annette King getting on TV saying there must be more to it and no Labour minister would ever have resigned over a technicality like that.
But there isn’t more to it, the AG does the investigation and everything is just as Heatley said. So he is re-instated to Cabinet and gets his portfolios back and carries on.
Who is the winner? National and Heatley – for showing that their government adheres to high standards.
Who went on national television and frankly admitted they’d do anything to keep their ministerial salaries if it was them in the same position?
crazy. if this is about honesty what over wine? then key should be sacking smith over allowing this emissions fraud to continue!
So Davidw now more facts are out, it is as many thought here and rightly so “their has to be more to this than two bottles of wine”.
Heatley was repeatedly warned about innappropriate spending. He didnt take the advice and kept spending tax payers money. So not only were you wrong but you owe us all an apology. Dont worry I wont hold my breath waiting.
Craig can you rephrase. Clare
Interesting piece by Fran O’Sullivan in the Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-political-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502734&objectid=10628722&pnum=2
Some quotes:
“National’s spinners and some news media have since tried to portray Heatley’s resignation as the act of a man of principle, when all along he has flagrantly flouted the rules.”
“Key could not afford to keep him on in Cabinet. But by allowing this affair to play out over several days, the Prime Minister succeeded in putting clear water between Heatley and fellow Cabinet Minister Gerry Brownlee, who also shouted his electorate staff lunch on his credit card.”
“..the spin has largely succeeded – until now.”
“If you are talking about Helen Clark’s marriage of convenience, that was an admission from her own lips and as such became legit for public comment where the focus became a question of her standards to have participated in the sham.”
Admission? DavidW, please supply a link to back up this claim.
Yeah, I heard the opposite on Q and A last week!
LabRat
Intersting hypothesis, and it is worth considering.
DavidW
How do you reconcile Heatley with Brownlee… is brownless, as he says, simply too stupid to be trusted with a credit card and system he doesn’t understand, whereas Heatley understood and broke the rules?