Simon Cunnliffe in today’s ODT has taken a look at Phil Goff’s response to the Hughes issue.
He starts :-
Pardon me for swimming against the tide, for presuming to contradict the commentariat’s bellowing consensus, but the whole Darren Hughes-Labour debacle, as it has been claimed to impact on the leadership of Phil Goff, is not quite as clear cut we would be led to believe.
And he concludes :-
Outside the beltway, Mr Goff might have received a better hearing had anyone heard what he had to say: he maintained he put the interests of “justice” and “fairness” before politics.
Insiders would say this is unconscionably naive.
Others, who are neither students of politics nor blooded on the mere whiff of scandal, might say: actually, that’s honourable.
Worth a read. Moderation will be tight.
I think that’d be a far more fruitful strategy for all Labour supporters.
By refusing to let such a damaging issue wither and die I’m beginning to suspect that some of those who claim to be backing Phil are really just trying to throw more logs onto his funeral pyre.
The Labour MPs have only commented on it twice on this site. The only public comments I’ve heard or read were from Labour MPs have made has been to deny there is any leadership challenge.
Seriously George, who is in this conspiracy that you claim exists? And what evidence would you accept to enable you to give up this idea? Given you are not prepared to take statements from the people who would be involved, if there was anything to be involved with, as evidence.
Yep, I agree with your 12.41 comment George, and of course Ianmac sentiment, to who you were replying.
That comment was more than a little tongue in cheek. I’m not suggesting any sort of conspiricy, at least not a co-ordinated one.
It’s just that I really can’t see any value in a Labour supporter doing anything to keep this issue in the public eye. Honestly and sincerely.
On the other hand I can see plenty of reasons why a Labour supporter who didn’t like the current leadership, and who had already given up hope of Labour winning in November, would want to draw as much attention as possible to the way in which Phil handled the issue.
As I know little about you I’m not for one minute suggesting that you personally fall into this category.
Thanks for the honesty Monty. It makes sense to me now why you are so upbeat about everything. You are part of the less than 5% who are truly represented by this Govt policies. We ought to be honoured to have you here because the odds of one of that 5% being here is small indeed.
I’ve often thought that Whale and Farrar and obviously Hooten serve their preferred parties well because they say all the things the party is thinking but knows would get them into trouble if revealed. So they sit back and watch these guys rolling out their rationalisations, justifications and deflections. I suspect it is with some smugness that they never really have to express a real view about anything at all, and nothing that could taint them because of the mouthpieces. It’s clever.
Richard: great we agree. I hope you join me in urging all opposition MPs to keep bringing the shambles of this government economic performance out into the light at every opportunity.
Absolutely. The current government is terrible.
That doesn’t excuse Goff for his handling of Hughes, however.
As I know little about you I’m not for one minute suggesting that you personally fall into this category.
And certainly not taken that way George. My point is, I remember the 90s. For about a two-three year period Helen Clark was publicly written off as a potential Prime Minister every week by the media. Until 1996 election seemed to surprise the ‘commentators’, and their narrative had to be changed.
Taught me just because journalist, or some online commentators since we are in the 21st Century, say or write something doesn’t make it true. So let’s move from the non-story, and talk about 6.8% unemployment and a growing, and pointless, government deficit.
I suspect it is with some smugness that they never really have to express a real view about anything at all, and nothing that could taint them because of the mouthpieces. It’s clever.
Agree Tracey it’s very clever and the Nats have always been good at it. I think it is due to the fact they have the money and – it follows – the resources to set up their mouthpieces in such a way they can earn a good living at the same time. In other words, while there won’t be any paper trail to prove it, they are really Nat Party employees masquerading as independent political commentaters.
My hope is that sooner or later the voters will recognise that this govt. and their lackeys are empty vessels, who are in the game only for power and prestige. There are exceptions to the rule, but they don’t seem to hang around for long eg. Katherine Rich and Simon Power.
that should be commentators
@ Sean: Until 1996 election seemed to surprise the ‘commentators’, and their narrative had to be changed.
Yes exactly. And just imagine the shambles those journalists and commentators have to change the narrative when John Key ceases to be the Golden Boy. Vernon Small for instance would end up in hospital. And National would have to fire David Farrar! Oh no!
Actually, from what I have seen, it was that JK infatuee, John Armstrong,(NZH, where else)that kicked the whole thing off.
The usual suspects in the media followed (of course).
No thought required just churn out a “story”.
Has anyone established any facts about Darren Whose?
How Goff’s leadership became the story is beyond me.
When, and if, anything is established about Darren Hughes then maybe discussion about Goff’s actions become possibly interesting.
I have a lot more respect for a street walking hooker than I have for so called journalists.
Hookers would have to be more honest than the language warning Trevor that call themselves “political journalists”.
I must say when I heard John Armstrong strongly defending his posiition of making this a big deal, I was surprised at how puritan he sounded, for a guy who has largely allowed ACT and National to skip along with thei rflip flops, mistruths and misdemenaors etc