Comments on: Heatley resignation- Key did not want him to resign

By: Tracey

Tracey — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:25:44 +0000

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?

By: Spud

Spud — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:20:16 +0000

Yeah, I heard the opposite on Q and A last week!

By: Sacha

Sacha — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:36:04 +0000

“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.

By: I dreamed a dream

I dreamed a dream — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:58:03 +0000

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.”

By: Craig Gleneden

Craig Gleneden — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:15:59 +0000

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

By: simon

simon — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:55:57 +0000

crazy. if this is about honesty what over wine? then key should be sacking smith over allowing this emissions fraud to continue!

By: LabRat

LabRat — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:38:05 +0000

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?

By: DavidW

DavidW — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:32:46 +0000

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.

By: the pinkpostman

the pinkpostman — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:59:27 +0000

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.

By: Craig Glen Eden

Craig Glen Eden — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:27:37 +0000

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.