Field to be expelled from Labour
Was leaving Parliament at 545 pm and Duncan Garner next to me got a call from the PM announcing that Taito Phillip Field was being expelled from the Labour Party and would become an Independent.
At long last!! Finally.
So Kiwiblog has the scoop by a few minutes thanks to Vodafone datacards!
More info as it comes to hand. About to fly to AUckland so may not be until late tonight.
Well done to Labour for finally booting him, but absolute shame for taking so long.
UPDATE: Hold back on the congrats for Labour. They are not expelling him for being immoral or unethical. They are not expelling him for exploiting vulnerable constituents. They are not expelling him for slave labour. They’re expelling him because he speculated that he might stand for Mangere even if not the Labour candidate. Nice set of priorities.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
What’s wrong with those priorities, David. It’s fine to be corrupt. It’s only opposing Dear Leader that’s a problem.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Listening to Close Up, it seems the key crime was cutting across the Sun Queen’s speech. Sainsbury asked her if that was really a such a crime and she tensed with anger.
So – get caught red-handed lying to a corruption enquiry. No problem. Take the Sun Queen’s spotlight. Whammo!
February 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Great! Now I hope and pray he goes postal on Labour.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
No, I will not put up with this crap Farrar. That’s rubbish and you know it. And why is it rubbish? Because in this country you are innocent until proven guilty, so until Field is found guilty in the Court of Law for “immoral or unethical” behaviour, “for exploiting vulnerable consitutents” and “for slave labour” he’s NOT GUILTY.
You thus do not expel someone from your party every time they are accused of something otherwise you’d find yourself in a situation of litigious lunatics making outlandish claims and then expecting that member to be kicked out their party. What a load of shit.
This was the first chance Labour were able to expel him.
God you people with your overly developed sense of party identification make me effing mad. STOP PLAYING THE MOTIVATION FALLACY. A lot of you lot champion George Bush for removing a dictator, but his motive for invading was the WMD. There were none, thus was the invasion wrong and unjust in your eyes? Hellllll no. As long as a good came as a result it doesn’t matter to you lot. And yet hang on, in this instance, the motive is incredibly important.
Bloody hypocrites.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
You are out of line David C. Field was protected by a hamstrung enquiry that did not investigate his conflict of interest as an MP. Nonetheless, witnesses did not turn up, or told lies, and Field himself was caught lying about the the Thailer – TV One showed earlier footage of him contradicting what he told Ingram. The whole thing stunk about as much as it is possible to stink. The police inquiry is investigating NONE of that, but only fresh allegations of bribery. So your point of view tolerates witness tampering, intimidation, slave labour, lying and using your position as an MP to exploit vulnerable people.
The only reason he is NOT GUILTY is because Helen Clark has bent over backwards to avoid holding him to account for it. You have a twisted view of justice. Perversion of an enquiry does not excuse corruption. You weasel.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
David C
My how things change quickly, a few months ago Klarke and the Labour party were more than happy to tell us that Field (who is guilty as sin by the way) was totally exonerated by the Ingram inquiry, well we now know that inquiry was a set in such a way that Klarke got the result she wanted, it was not about justice (the same justice you moan about)
Labour had plenty of chances to expel the man, they could have got rid of him for telling porkies in the house, they could have got rid of him for behavior unbecoming of a minister yet they CHOSE to keep him on for the simple reason they needed his vote.
The only “crap” David is the endless bullshit we are fed by the Labour party.
Shame on Labour and shame on Labour supporters for not pushing this earlier, their once proud party has lost all sense of what is right and what is wrong in the naked pursuit of power, great Labour leaders like Kirk and Lange must be turning in their grave.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
To take it to the extreme, by your logic David C, an MP could go on a shooting rampage, kill ten people all while being caught on television, but should not be kicked out of the Labour caucus until he has been proven guilty by the Courts??
Give me a break.
Helen Clark has said on several occasions that in her opinion, Field’s actions were immoral and unacceptable. As Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, she is fully within her rights to request the caucus and Board review Field’s membership of the Labour Party.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
So Dear Leader gets angry! She might even dish out a whipping such as the kind the DBP would enjoy!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
He’ll go postal for sure.
He knows about all the rorts and vote rigging in South Auckland and now has no reason to keep quiet.
Shades of Marilyn Waring here I think.
I can’t see a way out of this for Labour…it is all going to be very interesting the next couple of weeks.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Hay this is neat, just what we need a very nasty public divorce. I wonder who will get the kids ( sth auckland voters ), I wait with baited breath for the next wonderful instalment to this story.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Kiwi Donkey,
Kudos for the first 9/10 of your post. Reasoned and well fashioned. The “You Weasel” was unneccessary and somewhat detracts from the argument.
Anyway, I shall respond, I do not for a second disagree that Field should have been expelled from the Labour Party. Labour using his vote for the last wee while smacks of desperation (I’ve already posted on Labour’s madness for power over policy). My beef is with comments like “Nice set of priorities”. He’s gone right? Yes. So why are you bitching? Bitch because it took so long, fair enough, but to bitch about the motivations of his expulsion smacks of hypocrisy to me. If you are going to preach any means to a good end for most policies then surely you should maintain consistency.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Whale
Vote rigging?..rorts?..tell us more please
February 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
So why are you bitching? Bitch because it took so long, fair enough, but to bitch about the motivations of his expulsion smacks of hypocrisy to me.
What!!! Hypocrisy!!!
Here’s one reading of the expulsion – the sin lay in opposing Helen Clark.
Here’s another reading – the sin lay in the whole sorry saga of exploiting immigrants, heavying witnesses to the inquiry, lying to the inquiry, and Labour was longing to get rid of him, but was just waiting for an excuse.
How is either of these motivations in any way defensible?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
David C… so you’re saying that anyone who supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq even after WMDs weren’t found has essentially posited that the ends justify the means. And thus those same people are being hypocritical when critising Clark for expelling Field over an internal party matter rather than the damage being done to the integrity of Parliament by the perceptions of his immorality?
Fair enough. But doesn’t that somewhat obscure the point – that Bush and Clark both did the right thing while justifying it with the wrong reasons – reasons invented, in fact, to further their own agendas and which they quite probably knew/know to be untrue/facile?
Two hyocrites don’t make a… a… non-hypocrital person.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Bloody excellent – Labour could hardly have played this any worse.
They’ve spent all last year and the summer recess defending the indefensible and finding reasons to avoid expelling him, so they can use his vote in Parliament.
Then on the day Parliament reopens, he upstages Helen’s big speech and walks out on them!
So Labour doesn’t get to keep his vote, and they don’t get to play principled by using a prosecution or trial as an excuse to dump him closer to the election.
Instead they get to go down in history as having protected a crooked MP until he dumped them.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Or could it be, that Labour have wanted to expel him for some time because of these unproven (but probably well-founded) corruption charges, and now these comments provide a good excuse to get rid of him.
I think a lot of the commenters on here are just pretending to take this press release at face value because that allows them to keep on spewing bile at Labour.
The fact is that it would have been very hard for Labour to expel him based on unproven allegations of things that happened outside of parliament. These comments are a heaven-sent smoke screen.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Or could it be, that Labour have wanted to expel him for some time because of these unproven (but probably well-founded) corruption charges, and now these comments provide a good excuse to get rid of him.
I think a lot of the commenters on here are just pretending to take this press release at face value because that allows them to keep on spewing bile at Labour.
The fact is that it would have been very hard for Labour to expel him based on unproven allegations of things that happened outside of parliament. These comments are a heaven-sent smoke screen.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Carl
In an earlier thread on this same subject (and there has been many months for them to accumulate – so don’t ask me which one it was) somebody posted the relevant part of the Labour party constitution re: Expelling members.
Basically it is at the discretion of the executive if it is deemed that an member has brought the Labour party into disrepute.
There is no valid excuse for not taking action further, as for dragging it out – Labour have done a great job. The dragging out scale you talk about (the last few hours) is possibly less than 0.001% of the picture.
Let’s keep it in perspective eh.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Ooops – typo. I must remember – preview is my friend….
Make that:
There is no valid excuse for not taking action sooner.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Young Luke is commencing his attack run and is lining up the thermal exhaust port which leads to the reactor core of the pinko death star.
The evil pinko empire is coming to an end. Liberation at last.
Game On.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Or could it be, that Labour have wanted to expel him for some time because of these unproven (but probably well-founded) corruption charges, and now these comments provide a good excuse to get rid of him.
I think a lot of the commenters on here are just pretending to take this press release at face value because that allows them to keep on spewing bile at Labour.
The fact is that it would have been very hard for Labour to expel him based on unproven allegations of things that happened outside of parliament. These comments are a heaven-sent smoke screen.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Or could it be, that Labour have wanted to expel him for some time because of these unproven (but probably well-founded) corruption charges, and now these comments provide a good excuse to get rid of him.
I think a lot of the commenters on here are just pretending to take this press release at face value because that allows them to keep on spewing bile at Labour.
The fact is that it would have been very hard for Labour to expel him based on unproven allegations of things that happened outside of parliament. These comments are a heaven-sent smoke screen.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Burt, good point, but i would argue that Field would plausibly say that he could not be proven to have done anything to bring the party into disrepute, if the charges were not proven. He could say it was all media fabrication, and it would be pretty hard to prove otherwise.
PS, sorry for the multiple postings.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
To quote Bill Lawry:
YESSSSS!!!! Got ‘em!!!!!! Marvelllous delivery!!!!
Even better……Labour will now have to rely upon the Greens to ensure a majority…..
It will be interesting to see how NZ First and United Future deal with that. Breaking away from Labour could give both parties the opportunity to drag themselves back from pending extinction.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Carl
At the time when the toothless inquiry (which the TOR were set to exonerate him) was started, he had already brought the party into disrepute.
It is not everyday that corruption inquires are conducted.
Then at the point where (13 months after the initial allegations) the Police raided his office and did forensics on his computer – he once again brought the party into disrepute.
And we must not overlook the fact that setting ther TOR for the inquiry the way H1 did brought the party into disrepute. As did using the vote of an MP on garden leave.
All in all it’s one of the shabbiest examples of putting power before principals – once again more disrepute.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“To quote Bill Lawry:
YESSSSS!!!! Got ‘em!!!!!! Marvelllous delivery!!!!”
Or to quote The Twelth Man, doing Bill Lawry
“Got ‘im, yes, piss off, you’re out!”
This decision though might require the intervention of the third umpire!
In the meantime, however, Dear Leader must be livid that TPF chose today of all days to rain on her parade. Obviously TPF doesn’t meet the “sustainablilty” criteria!!
February 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Inventory2
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, but she has only herself to blame. I hope she has a sleepless night going over what she could have done differently.
Perhaps set the TOR for the Ingham inquiry in a way that wasn’t designed to keep him in his seat. Perhaps she will be sorry she didn’t call the Police to investigate herself – perhaps before the inquiry so that he didn’t have time to clean his office and replace his computer.
She made her own bed on this one, put a pile of rose thorns in it and now she has to deal with it. Perhaps we could say she made a few minor errors of judgment.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
David C. Fair enough to take umbrage at the last two words. I withdraw and apologise.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
You should know by now that Duncan Garner is a bottom feeder and at least a day behind Rodney Hide. Duncan only gave you the impression he knew it first because Duncan is self absorbed!
February 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
David C –
Some facts for you David – Field underpaid workers and abused his position as an MP for personal gain, he lied to an inquiry or to the NZ public, and he refused to cooperate with a police investigation into his alleged corrupt practices – it may not be proved illegal in a Court, but any simpleton can see it was “immoral and unethical”. But I expect you think that that is OK for Labour Party MPs to behave that way?
This affair is a superb illustration of the Clark Labour government – a Labour MP can behave in an outrageously unethical and immoral fashion, but the Labour Party will stand by him. But cross Helen Clark and WHAM!
February 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Corruption? Lies? Fraud? Could this follow the lines of the the old maxium …As ye shall sow, ye shall so reap…??
February 13th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Whilst I can understand all your vitriol at Field being sacked for crossing Clark, what you lot seem to forget is that Labour adheres to “collective responsibility”; thus if you disagree with party line you are no longer acceptably a member of that party. The rights and wrongs of this can be debated for hours, but the point remains that this is the status quo. Field did cross that line and so in line with party rules he was expelled. And if you all say how awfully wrong it is remember Neil Kirton from the first MMP Government. Disagreed with National/NZ First policy and was removed as Associate Minister of Health.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
David C
Is there anything about this Field debacle you are not going to defend ?
All them months ago when the spotlight first hit dear Mr. Field. Dear leader said that a committee would be set up to advise on ‘Ethics training’ for MP’s. She said something along the lines of – MP’s are regularly faced with tricky ethical decisions and I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they make the occasional error of judgment. blah blah blah, the Govt is doing something about it.
So has there been ethics training ? Was it just a bit of spin to give the impression something was being done ? Was it the intention at the time but once she realised the nature and strength of the allegations decided it was way too late ?
Or am I being unreasonable and there is a good reason why it hasn’t been done (que David C).
Or is I’m just a dork for not noticing the MSM articles about it ?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Burt, if you re-read my posts, you’ll see that I wrote “I do not for a second disagree that Field should have been expelled from the Labour Party”.
I’m not defending Labour from anything , you could name me a-political here, my point is this:
There are a number of zealots here who have jumped up and down and squawked about how Field should be sacked and how much Labour are a pack of shits for not doing it, so then they go and do it but that’s not good enough, their reasons for doing it aren’t good enough and this makes them a pack of shits squared.
I swear that if Labour came out with a dramatic set of tax cuts, a number of you lot would cry that Labour are just ripping National off and haven’t they got an original bone in their body.
On the plus side, this has been one of the better threads in that other than an accusation of weasel-like tendencies (withdrawal noted and appreciated Kiwi Donkey), it’s been interesting, well argued and for the most part civil.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
David C
I won’t entirely disagree about some making a meal out of it. But it is delicious and it took Labour a long long time to make such a fine pudding.
Please, just avert your eyes while we feast if it offends you
February 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Burt
I understand entirely
But remember, we’ll all be waiting for the next Exclusive Brethren with similar glee
God bless human frailties huh?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Retaliation, the weapon of choice for lefties. Saw it today. Bye bye Mr Field – you can do anything you want but don’t cross me….
David C. Why do you shoot yourself in the foot like that ? You had a valid point. All that good work – undone.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Hahaha,
I was joking sir.
I (mistakenly?) believed we’d reach an agreement of sorts so was having a laugh for a bit of an exhale.
As soon as National releases some policies I’ll be a happy camper when politics can get back to politics and not personalities/scandals.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Hahaha,
I was joking sir.
I (mistakenly?) believed we’d reach an agreement of sorts so was having a laugh for a bit of an exhale.
As soon as National releases some policies I’ll be a happy camper when politics can get back to politics and not personalities/scandals.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:07 am
In an earlier thread on this same subject (and there has been many months for them to accumulate – so don’t ask me which one it was) somebody posted the relevant part of the Labour party constitution re: Expelling members.
Burt – my comment is at http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/12/field_was_unethical.html#comment-145345 – and it is particularly interesting to revisit it in light of today’s comments…
February 14th, 2007 at 12:10 am
David C:
1) Do not address me as Farrar, thank you
2) Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the criminal justice system, not to political judgements of behaviour.
3) Have you even read the Ingram Report?
4) Are you aware Field is criticised a total of 33 times in the Ingram Report and his evidence demeed unreliable (= false)
5) It is Helen who has judged him immoral and unethical. I merely say she should act on her judgement.
6) Acting unethically or immorally is not a criminal offence so your suggestion of needing a conviction to call someone that is silly.
7) Your claim that this is the first chance Labour could expel him exposes you as someone with no interest in reality
You appear very desperate when the best argument you can dreg out is something to do with Bush and Iraq, when the debate is on Field.
9) How old are you?
February 14th, 2007 at 12:16 am
David, my apologies if you took offence at me calling you Farrar – I meant nothing by it. Fingers flying faster across the keyboard than the mind can follow
My point with the innocent until proven guilty is this (Carl said it a little more eloquently than I), had Labour kicked him out at an earlier stage it would have been a hard PR spin to make it acceptable – particularly to his electorate. Thus they waited until such time as they could legitimately (in the eyes of people) expel him, to do so on the basis of accusations without conclusion would have been both unjust inwardly and to a lot of their supporters – so yes it’s politicking but it’s smart politicking.
I raised Bush and Iraq as an example of praised machiavellian means to an end behaviour – you have praised Bush for his removal of Saddam but his motivations were found to be lies/baseless, so this is an example of wrong motivations, so my point here is why do the ends justify the means there and not with this situation?
I freely admit I have not read the Ingram Report indepth so had not gone through and individually counted the times Field is criticised.
I’m not quite sure how to answer point 7 as it’s not really a backed up statement
and also I’m not sure why my age matters? I try to limit as much personal info as I can.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:18 am
DPF
Don’t forget David C also proved ‘Noddy’s Law’. A phrase which (a commenter who’s nick I have forgotten) coined.
Noddy’s Law – stated as the number of comments in a thread increased the likelihood of somebody mentioning the EB increased rapidly toward 1. ( ‘Noddy’ being an avid raver about National and the EB’s at the time – in any thread)
This was based on the same concept as Godwin’s Law
February 14th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Et Tu Burt?
February 14th, 2007 at 12:43 am
DPF
We should also not forget that the speaker acted in a most partisan way during the 9 long months that the Ingham inquiry dragged on. Many questions were not well answered and there was apparent assistance from the speaker to derail any debate on the Field matter. Rodney Hide was the lone voice (well the lone one I was hearing anyway) for many months. Regularly bringing it to the attention of the house only to have poorly deflected questions deemed to be answered by the speaker.
If there is going to be a post mortem, lets make it a thorougher one.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Be fair DPF; Clark can hardly expel every Labour MP accused of malfeasance because there are simply too many of them.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:20 am
If there is going to be a post mortem, could we at least wait until the corpse has stopped breathing? Trouble it is difficult to identify the corpse. The PM looks more cadarvourous at each public appearance and Mr Field – well he looks like the ceremonial pig about to be clubbed by the chief at a Papua New Guinean village feast. Come to think of it, just now Labour looks a bit like a tribe from Garoka.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Quoting from the press release:
Prime Minister Helen Clark and President of the Labour Party Mike Williams say that Mr Field’s public comments amount to an announcement of intention to run against Labour at the next election and so have invited expulsion.
Uh oh – this has all the hallmarks of a rushed and ill-considered statement.
To work this through…
Rule 302 of the constitution states the grounds on which disciplinary action “shall be applied for and ruled upon“:
i. contravention of the Principles, Rules and policies of the Party as contained in the current Constitution and policy documents of the Party;
ii. and/or for bringing the Party into disrepute;
iii. and/or for standing as a candidate in opposition to, or publicly campaigning against, an official Labour Parliamentary candidate or candidates or a Local Body candidate or candidates selected pursuant to the allocation of campaign rights under Rules 97-105. Any such person standing as a Parliamentary candidate shall, from the closing of candidate nominations, have their membership of the Party automatically suspended or be not permitted to join the Party for a period of two years unless the NZ Council specifically makes a different decision in that case. Any such person standing as a local body candidate shall have the suspension or the ban on joining the Party as set out applied by resolution of New Zealand Council.
If I were in Labour’s shoes, which I’m not, I wouldn’t be invoking rule 302(iii) of the constitution as they appear to have done. Taito Phillip Field isn’t standing as a candidate in opposition to the Labour candidate. We’re not in an election period. One might also argue that he hasn’t even announced any such intention, though he’s certainly alluded to that possibility.
But – and this addresses David C’s comments – I suppose Labour considers it politcally unpalatable to play the “bringing the Party into disrepute” card now, when they’ve sat on this for months – but that’s surely their trump card. Nothing has really changed in the last 24 hours, except that Mr Field is now in a more talkative frame of mind.
It may be a stretch of imaginative reasoning, but Mr Field may want to argue that, if anything, he’s brought himself – not the Labour Party – into disrepute! Now wouldn’t that be the sigh of a repentant man in tune with public opinion?
February 14th, 2007 at 5:50 am
TPF is accepting calls from freelance ghostwriters.
His Labour Party expose is scheduled to hit the shelves in April/May 2008.
But it can also be ramped up for an earlier launch if necessary.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Any truth in the sighting of Nicky Hagar in Apia recently?
February 14th, 2007 at 7:30 am
The funny thing is, this is being treated as great news for the right. On the contrary, I think it is great for the left.
Field should have been expelled a long time ago. I can understand why he wasn’t, but in keeping him in the party, Labour have allowed this particular sore to fester for far too long. Frankly, this whole fiasco has been allowed to damage the party for too long, and it has been handled poorly. Now that the sore has beenexcised, maybe we can move on.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:41 am
David C.:
While I can’t speak for the rest of the VRWC, I think the legal doctrine that anyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law is a fine thing. OTOH, I wonder if Clark will track down then expel and/or fire the ‘political sources’ who were leaking to the Sunday Star Times about an ongoing Police investigation last week?
Whatever I think of Field (and you can measure that in large negative numbers), I think he’s also entitled to due process. Instead what is happening (and what I predicted a few days back), is that Field is painting himself as a martyr to a politically inspired witch-hunt who will never get a fair trial. Good job, folks.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Well that’s just nonsense – Labour have maintained all along that Field is entitled to ‘natural justice’, insisting that they cannot expell someone from their party simply because they have been accused of corruption on the grounds that in our democracy people are innocent until proven guilty.
And sometimes even criminal convictions (Nick Smith) and gross political treachery (Brian Connell) are not enough to get someone expelled from a party. The only reason Connell is still a member of National is because the party needs his vote in the house.
That said, Field is not a popular MP in the Labour ranks. He is socially conservative and disliked by many of his peers. I suspect the only person in New Zealand who wanted him sacked more than DPF was Helen Clark.
As David well knows, it was impossible for Labour to expel Field – partly because none of the charges against him had been proved, but mostly because other MPs – including the Prime Minister – have made highly questionable ehtical mistakes and not been sacked. If Field were fired then the Pacific Island community would have been rightly outraged and he would have enjoyed a huge advantage in running for his electorate as an independent, while painting himself the victim of racism.
Fields comments are the pretext for sacking him – the real reason is that Clark and Williams were just waiting for an excuse.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Nicely said Danyl. That’s precisely the point I was trying to make earlier before being accused by DPF of not being grounded in reality.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:07 am
But you have to hand it to Helen Clark that she has managed the sordid mess of Phillip Field with skill. She needed his vote until she felt that Peters and Dunne could live with the Greens. She announces a lightweight Green agenda in her state of the national speech hoping that would get the Greens on board. She could even afford to lose Dunne providing Peters remains on board. Dunee is in the middle of a very long drawn out tax review so he is not going far while that is being worked through. Peters is enjoying his new first class jet-set lifestyle to walk, so she holds it all together. BUT. John Key is proving a worry but her strategy is to just ignore him until he does something silly and then pounce.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Well, Daryl and David C., so it all boils down to there’s no reason that hasn’t existed for a very long time but a splendid pretext?
*sigh* As I’ve said before, I would have swallowed hard and put my hands together if Clark had shown some real political courage and 1) given the Ingram Inquiry real teeth, 2) made a simple statement that all Members of Parliament and their staff – regardless of ethnicity – are expected to treat their constituents better than serfs in a Ruritanian fiefdom, and 3) called Field’s bluff. Sorry, but I don’t think Field would have been willing to pull down the Government.
Respectfully disagreeing with Daryl, I think a genuinely courageous Clark would have been pleasantly surprised how many PIs would have found nothing ‘racist’ in any of the above. But once again, politics bitch-slaps principles into a coma and nobody really wins.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:26 am
For all the back slapping and cheering about Labour finally dumping Taito Phillip Field all you right wingers seemed to have missed the point that the Greens are now supporting the government. The Greens will want some concessions for this and therefore New Zealand will move a bit more to the left and a bit more pro-environment.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:43 am
… bit more to the left and a bit more pro-environment
and… and bit more likely to fall off the edge of their flat earth
February 14th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Oh Danyl – wrong in so many ways.
“Well that’s just nonsense – Labour have maintained all along that Field is entitled to ‘natural justice’, insisting that they cannot expell someone from their party simply because they have been accused of corruption on the grounds that in our democracy people are innocent until proven guilty.”
Of course Labour maintain that – but they are not neutral in this. You quoting Helen does not make Helen right.
The criticism of Field in the Ingram Report was more than enough grounds to take action against him. That is regardless of whether any laws have been broken. This is about ethical conduct of MPs, not laws.
“And sometimes even criminal convictions (Nick Smith) and gross political treachery (Brian Connell) are not enough to get someone expelled from a party. The only reason Connell is still a member of National is because the party needs his vote in the house.”
Absolute nonsense. Danyl states things as facts which exist in his imagination. The Smith myth I have debunked in other threads. And Connell has nothing to do with unethical behaviour. Trying to compare Connell to Field is ludicrous and desperate.
There are several examples of where a party has acted against an MP for unethical behaviour. Apart from Donna Awatere-Huata, we also have Winston Peters in the early 1990s.
“As David well knows, it was impossible for Labour to expel Field – partly because none of the charges against him had been proved, but mostly because other MPs – including the Prime Minister – have made highly questionable ehtical mistakes and not been sacked.”
The charges have nothing to do with it. This is not to do with whether he broke any laws. The reason Field survived so long is the PM made a political calculation she needed his one vote more than the odium it attracted. As that odium increased her views changed. This is pure politics and nothing to do with being “impossible”.
“If Field were fired then the Pacific Island community would have been rightly outraged and he would have enjoyed a huge advantage in running for his electorate as an independent, while painting himself the victim of racism.”
Maybe so. Peters tried to paint himself as a martyr also when he was sacked in 1992. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do though.
“Fields comments are the pretext for sacking him – the real reason is that Clark and Williams were just waiting for an excuse. ”
I agree. But they have had plenty of previous excuses. The refusing to co-operate with the Police was a perfect excuse. She chose not to use it. It was in fact a stronger excuse than merely musing over standing as an Independent.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Yup, while the dogs fight over scraps the fox takes out the chicken house.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Don’t need to worry Rocket Boy, the Greens already prop up the Government, and to withdraw that support would be to invoke the wrath of Helen.
Remember what happened in 02 when the Greens walked out of Parliament in a fairly symbolic gesture demonstrating their unhappiness with where Labour was going?
And with the opening of Parliament yesterday, the Government looks to be moving in a conciliatory direction, although hardly near what the Greens would hope for.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Rocket Boy:
Perhaps someone’s been slapping you in the head instead of on the back, but precisely nothing has changed from yesterday – the Greens negotiated an agreement to abstain on confidence and supply votes they couldn’t actively support after the last election. Much as I hate to say it, the Greens have been pragmatic about not over-playing their hand and I don’t see that changing. After all, do you think the Greens want to go into a snap election having brought down a left-leaning Government? I think many inside Labour would relish the chance to put the boot in.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:10 am
David C
Having read the Ingram Report, Ms Clark should have sensed there was a problem when TPF considered himself exonerated by it.
Even the least cynical among us would tend to agree that the Ingram report was hamstrung by lack of power and terms of reference so tight that only one outcome was possible. We must never lose sight of who set those terms of reference, The Labour government.
The fact that the report was still highly critical of TPF should have raised alarm bells within the labour caucus and it would have been more politaclly expedient to ditch him then, but the report did not go far enough and left Labour with no justifiable reason to do so.
Well done to the National party, and Lockwood Smith in particular, for keeping up the pressure to ensure something was done, even if the final blow to Ms Clark seems to have been administered by TPF.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Slightyrighty, DPF, and all the others who have had a good at me for “defending” TPF.
I haven’t.
I defended Labour’s position and motivations for yesterday’s actions.
At no stage did I say Field has been treated unjustly.
In fact if you’d go back and read what I wrote you’ll see that I have said that he should have been expelled.
That is all.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:22 am
had a “go” at me. Not a “good”.
Not sure that’s actually a noun.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:23 am
had a “go” at me. Not a “good”.
Not sure that’s actually a noun.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:48 am
That was quite a post David – I think you deserve an award.
The Jordan Carter Prize for Political Lickspittelery
An occasional award granted for outstanding political loyalty in the face of all known facts, common sense, legal arguments and the laws of the universe.
Mr Carter is, of course, not eligible for nomination in order to allow other pundits a chance.
I feel DPFs recent post richly deserves this prestigious prize and will forthwith attempt to show why:
Of course Labour maintain that – but they are not neutral in this. You quoting Helen does not make Helen right.
Field isn’t entitled to natural law because Helen Clark says he is – it’s a basic cornerstone of our democracy.
Danyl states things as facts which exist in his imagination. The Smith myth I have debunked in other threads.
It’s not ‘my imgaination’ that Smith was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching confidentiality and pressuring witnesses, and your ‘debunking’ simply consists of you insisting that Smiths conviction has nothing to do with the Field issue. Well that’s correct, in that Smith was found guilty in a court of law while Field hasn’t even been charged yet.
Jonathan Hunt decided that contempt of court wasn’t a grave enough conviction to sack an MP, but as you pointed out ‘This is about ethical conduct of MPs, not laws.’
Connell has nothing to do with unethical behaviour. Trying to compare Connell to Field is ludicrous and desperate.
As is clear in my post I didn’t compare Connell with Field, merely pointed out that National have also failed to expel MP’s from their party, even though they have excellent grounds to do so merely because they prefer to maintain their numbers in the house.
It’s pretty clear that Clark has been itching to expel Field for months, but that merely being accused of a crime, or exercising your democratic right not to speak to the police is simply not an acceptable reason to throw someone out of the party – especially when that person is a Pacific Islander and European Labour party members have been kept on board under similar circumstances.
I also suspect that Clark is now aware that Field is about to be charged by the police and doesn’t really rate his chances of running as an Independent if he’s on trial for fraud or languishing in prison. And she now has the luxury of answering any PQ’s regarding Field with ‘that person is no longer a member of my party’.
And congratulations on your award David
February 14th, 2007 at 9:51 am
David C,
“That is all..”
Your statement, but its not correct.
You have had a good series of comments but in the long run you have only one vote. (just like me)
Your dialog has already had an impact on a good number of voters who may change their vote in 2008.
What will those people you were able to influence do at the next election.??
This is a question that you seem to have overlooked.
Since the “average punter” likes to be on a winner the odds on result of your influence will depend, not on whether you think you have done a good job for H1 in your dialog, but more on what the readers perception is of the likely outcome of the latest political drama.
Just at the moment you are on a hiding to nowhere, the shit is too deep.
Just by attempting to defend a series of political manoeuvers that are perceivied to be
unworthy of support, you will have a few labour voters move to the Greens and an uncountable number of voters WILL NOT VOTE AT ALL..
tough!
February 14th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I got it
Field underpaid his employees
Whilst obviously not legal, i feel his priorities were not with the party of his choosing hence this would lead to his eventual sacking.
Any true Nat or ACT supporter should be defending his right to pay employees what he feels and not be subject to the ridiculous minimum wage legislation.
Go Philip !!!!
February 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Poor PTF, as he feels he has been subjected to a Kangaroo Court and the sordid world of false allegations.
I guess that explains why the our highest Court in the land has spilled it’s fetid corruption and saturated all the lesser Courts.
Who was the ignoramus that said the Judiciary and Parliament are separate. ?
Good luck PTF and by the way , whats in that black book ?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Rattus,
Field was a Union official for many years He knows what the laws are and what they involve but hay why let facts get in the way of a good put down.
What you should be saying is McDonalds supasize my wages.
Labour minister Supersize my pockets
February 14th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I largely agree with DPF. The whole TPF saga has been messy and should have been dealt with a loooooong time ago.
Also, I disagree with David C that Labour were unable to get rid of TPF before now. However, I am not entirely convinced that National would have done things differently under the same circumstances. However, that is just speculation and crystal ball gazing.
What I find most amusing is how much people on this blog seem to overestimate the general public’s horror and dismay over the whole saga. (e.g. The evil pinko empire is coming to an end. Liberation at last.). I agree that most people with a strong interest in politics feel this way, but I am also pretty certain that most of the voting population only have a vague idea of what this whole thing is all about. Now that Labour have expelled TPF, the gen-pub will look at that favourably and Clark’s popularity will increase. Mark my words.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Andrew B
I think you are right, the gen public care very little about this as they are of the opinion that ALL pollies are corrupt anyway.
However, you miss one thing, the public have NOT forgotten about the 880K that the Labour party stole to win the last election, even the most politically ignorant people i know are far from happy about that, if the Nat’s are smart they will keep hammering Labour about this until they pay.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Andrew,
I suspect you may be taking an overly optimistic view.
HC and Labour have taken over long to act against TPF.
It is just another case of them being caught looking reactionary and without initiative.
The Labour have made themselves look weak and fearful (and possibly complicit) in failing to lance the boil earlier. The lancing has not been done with anything like a steady hand, and we have no idea yet how successful the attempt has been, or how much pus will ooz out, and if there will prove to be any secondary infections.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Peter S is quite right. TPF has underpaid staff, alledgedly exploited constituents, attempted to circumvent immigration procedures and failed to fully co-operate in investigations into these matters.
Through all this Labour have conspired to keep a man of this level of ethical conduct within parliament to maintain a one vote majority, until, after having treated so many with contempt, he had the temerity to directly confront Helen Clark and the labour party.
We should remember what he has done to date, and never lose sight of what ultimately got him sacked.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I agree with Anderew, National would have acted much the same. But it just goes to show that no party, left or right, is immune to the temptations of power and why we always need an opposition.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Big Bruv, I agree. The $880k harmed them big time, but I didn’t miss it. That is a separate issue. The inappropriate spending was very straight forward – they took $880k to pay for election expenses. Very simple and easy to get outraged over.
Peter S, my point was that while I agree with you, I don’t think the general public necessarily see it that way. I just had morning tea and asked people what they thought of the TPF affair, and all thought Clark did a good thing. That lasts. Most people didn’t have the slightest idea that this was such a mess.
I am not arguing right wrong, good, bad, smart or stupid here. I am just saying that I don’t think it is seen as such a big issue by most people.
As for secondary infections, I think those will go with Field, not Labour.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Andrew,
Fair enough. (Though it is worth noting that I found few people before the last election who had any time for Labour. But I was living in North Shore rather than Mangare, so the circles within which we mix as an individual are not always a good indication of what the population as a whole thinks.)
I still think you are taking the optimistic view, but it may be the correct one.
A lot will depend upon the tone of reporting, because that has a huge effect on the perception of the general public.
In that light, the timing of this, so hard on the heels of Helen’s thinly veiled threats to the press, is either a master stroke with the press cowering like whipped curs, or one huge blunder, with an outraged & offended press handed the rope with which they may feel free to play vigilante.
It is a bit of a coin toss one way or the other now.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
The Greens should immediatly withdraw support for this corrupt govt and force an election.
There is no time like now for the Greens, Climate change has become the hot topic (wrongly in my opinion) and you can be sure that the only reason that Labour and the Nat’s are talking about it is because they can see votes in it.
The Greens still have the position of strength when it comes to environmental issue’s but they cannot afford to take that for granted, Labour and the Nat’s are going to move into that territory in a big way over the next 18 months, if the Greens are serious about surviving (and an Election now would IMHO increase their numbers in the house) then they need to strike while the iron is hot.
By forcing an election the Greens can come out of this smelling like roses, there is nothing at all to worry about on the ethical front as the Labour party has dumped on the greens from a great height twice now.
This next election will be fought over Climate change, the underclass and tax cuts, while I do not agree with the green parties policy on any of those topics they at least have a strong and robust position, in short it is a position that they can argue from with great strength.
The Greens need an injection of new blood much in the same way that the Labour party is making changes, they have a lame duck co leader who needs to be in the house to be effective.
Jeanette Fitzsimmons has made much of the behaviour in the house and for this I applaud her, she can make a strong statement to the people of NZ by saying that while they are interested in being in government with the Labour party they need to distance themselves from the current crop of corrupt Labour people.
We all know that the end is near for NZ first (thank goodness for that) and Peter Dunne, if we had an election now the Greens would be first cab off the rank if Labour comes calling.
I cannot stress this enough, by waiting another 18 months the Greens run a real risk of being wiped out at the next election, RIGHT NOW they have the support, RIGHT NOW is when they should take that support
February 15th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I wish Bush would come and get rid of our dictator