What the bloggers say!
Three well known bloggers have their say on the Mallard affair. Okay they’re actually press gallery journalists, but I’m quoting from their blogs. First NZ Herald’s Audrey Young:
There has to be a punishment to fit the crime. He should not do anything rash like quit the cabinet or Parliament. That would be an overreaction. But he can’t do nothing.
He should relinquish his sports portfolio, apologise to the House, and then take a decent break.
Violence on the job is not compatible with fair play or any of the attributes with which good sportsmanship is attributed.
Then Martin Kay from the Dom Post:
As Labour’s bovver boy, senior Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard is well-known for twisting the knife in the rawest nerves of his political opponents.
It was he, remember, who first alluded in Parliament to rumours that former National leader Don Brash was having an affair – a move which caused deep and continuing resentment among National’s ranks.
Now, it seems Mallard is much less prepared to take the medicine he has so readily dished out over many years as Labour’s main attack man.
He should have expected some mud to be slung in return. Parliament’s debating chamber is, after all, oval: what goes around inevitably comes around.
And finally Colin Espiner from The Press completes the Axis of Bloggers:
Mallard has also been employed as a bovver-boy by Labour with Clark’s full backing, so it could be argued it would be a little hypocritical to sack him for getting carried away. The owner must take some blame when an attack dog goes feral, after all.
Clark will also have to consider the fact that Mallard, like Maharey, has been a stalwart of Labour’s Left, which won’t be best pleased to see the pair replaced with the centre-Right crowd banging on the door for promotion.
One thing is sure. Mallard can kiss goodbye to whatever hopes remained of taking over the leadership of the party. And he’ll get a serious dressing down. It’s another setback to the party’s recovery in the polls and the public won’t be impressed.
Indeed the balance is shifting within Labour. David B-P, Maharey and Mallard are all from the left faction. Two of the Ministers most likely to be promoted are not with the left faction. The front bench may be quite different in a week.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Yes, Goff could not have had a better two weeks.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:27 am
yes, he couldnt have planned it better, the only two serious rivals fall at the first fence. Goff is good isnt he? Just wait to see what hospital pass portfolios he gets in the reshuffle to try and hose him down. I expect him to get corrections, CYFS, and probably climate change – that should slow him down a bit…
also good to see our own little sam turning up in the comments on Espiners blog as the sole defender of trevor – it wasnt his fault you know, he’s not having an affair, and common assault on a work colleague isnt really an issue at all.
God knows I would have liked to have decked some of the prats i’ve worked with over the years, but something about the immediate sacking, the prosecution, and the conviction for assault seems to have prevented me…
October 26th, 2007 at 7:27 am
“Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, except for you Steve, Ron and Winston, and especially you Trevor – just do what the the bloody hell you want, as long as you don’t embarrass Helen, and even then you may be okay if she hasn’t much wriggle room – through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
October 26th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Where’s the problem here? Mallard noticed Tau Henare talking trash about him in the House, and stepped him outside for a smack in the head. They’re both blokes – they know the drill. It’s certainly hard to imagine Mallard adopting Brash’s approach of standing there blinking, like a surprised owl. If Brash had taken a leaf from Mallard’s book, he might well have proved electable.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Only demoted?!? Why is he not sacked – completely? if an employee assaulted another, then their job would probably be on the line. a second assault (this is mallards second!) must make sacking mandatory.
if it’s right and proper for state or private employers to be tasked with such an obligation then why oh why is he simply demoted?
October 26th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Yvette’s purposeful mangling of a prayer to the Only God is even more offensive than the Mallard v Henare.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:53 am
True. And that drill requires them to be subject to the same laws that they enact. Goose, gander and all that
October 26th, 2007 at 7:54 am
David I’m not sure what you’re playing at here, but there are no clear-cut left and right factions in the Labour Party. Sure, some are more conservative on social issues, and a few are more centrist on economic issues, but there’s certainly no great cleavage as you’re suggesting.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:59 am
course not Tane. and who we supposed to believe huh? you who are a union activist with an agenda and an axe to grind, or our own lying eyes?
must be feeling pretty sick there on the left? panty slut boy, smarmy, and now duckman all out. where is the new “fresh” leadership coming from now eh?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:01 am
OT: Kevin – to utter the Lords prayer every day while inwardly scheming attacks, insults and the next lustful grab for power makes a blasphemous mockery of what amount to a wonderful prayer. I’m not offended by what Yvette wrote – it’s a wry commentary on what actualy takes place.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Of course, having a bit of biffo is a strong union tradition. It’s how you keep the troops in line. It’s also very popular amongst communists. And lmost mandatory among combined groups, such as the weasels.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:03 am
“Yvette’s purposeful mangling of a prayer to the Only God is even more offensive than the Mallard v Henare.”
KevinOB – read the prayer itself more carefully and consider the general actions of Parliamentarians’ everyday behaviour and contemplate just who is being offensive. QED.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:04 am
And Tane, if there are no factions in Labour, does that mean the unions simply have free rein over policy?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Just checked with the CEO of a professional services firm where I’m consulting; If an employee biffed another onsite and during work hours then he/she would be instantly dismissed if (a) it was a serious injury-inducing offence or (b) a second less serious offence.
Why is Mallard still employed?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Tane …. your latest posting requires me to ask just what tree you inhabit. Of course there are factions within Labour just as there are in every other Party.
But please keep doing your King Canute stuff.
Next year we’re going to see how well you can swim.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Mallard should be ‘gone by punchtime’ !
October 26th, 2007 at 8:20 am
PM
It is amazing how the pacifists and the anti smackers (Although PM was against the anti-smacking bill) now think it is cool for a scum bag to sucker punch some-one. Why do those on the left profess peace and love, yet are the first to resort to violence? But the Mallard had great heros to aspire to. History shows that as with unions (there is a wealth of books on the subject), socialism keeps control through the threat of violence and through fear.
What other countries can be named that runs around spying on and arresting school boys and overweight wannabes, just because they want to keep the troops in check? Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Maybe NK?
Zim?
No it is NZ and Mallards behavior and the lefties subsequent defence of that, shows the mindset that initiated Monday last week.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Ive been watching Espiner a bit over the last few eeks. Hes on the Agenda programme on sunday and my suspiscions I think are proving correct
- he has a big left lean. On agenda he really gets into anyone that is national type or has a personal responsibility message. But hes pretty soft on helens troops. I think hes after a job in the labour party.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:30 am
So, Mallard gets demoted? Pardon me if I pull out the world’s smallest violin here, because you can bet your arse if a stressed-out staffer had taken a poke at Mallard he’d be out the door and on the way to the Police Station so fast the sonic boom would blow out every window in Molesworth Street.
And I’m finding the macho bullshit on display from folks like Psycho Milt a little tiresome. Here’s the problem, Milt: Mallard and Henare are supposed to be adult legislators, not Jake The Muss wannabes trying to fuck each other up in the parking lot of the pub. Boys may be boys, but most boys just have to GROW UP sooner or later.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:31 am
It might all be fun to watch, but what an utter waste of money and what pathetic childishness, all this sort of carry on is better suited to the play ground. No wonder people have such low opinions of politicians.
Can anyone name another work place, where suits are worn, where grubby personal attacks are acceptable?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:33 am
DPF – shows how disconnected you are if you think there are real fctions within Labour.
this left-right faction thing is just a national line, and picked up by lazy journos who want to dissolve complex relationships to two opposing schools.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Ive been watching Espiner a bit over the last few eeks. Hes on the Agenda programme on sunday and my suspiscions I think are proving correct
- he has a big left lean. On agenda he really gets into anyone that is national type or has a personal responsibility message. But hes pretty soft on helens troops. I think hes after a job in the labour party.
You’ll doubtless be gratified to hear that most of the Labour party hate him because they think he’s a right-wing pro-National, anti-Labour shill.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Sam – so you are confirming that the Unions have free reign over policy then? Bought and paid for by donations and contributions in kind? No wonder they get favourable treatment in the Electoral Finance Bill.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:41 am
I thought the Government’s messages on anti violence is supposed to stop all this. Somehow I do not think Mallard sends the right messages that the Government wants to send. But let them. I notice John Key is saying nothing – which is wise for now. Why show your hand on Mallard until she has shown hers.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:41 am
“Espiner is pro-Labour”
“No factions in Labour”
I’ve had my laughs for the day.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:48 am
How about a bit of restorative justice – our Parliamentarians could get together and do a public service announcement on behalf of the Campaign Against Political Violence.
“It’s not OK to say, ‘He was asking for it’.
“Or to scream abuse at someone across the Chamber, because you’re too stupid to get attention any other way.
“It’s not OK to control people through harassment and intimidation.
“Or think you can demand someone’s respect and attention just because you put the letters MP after your name.
“It’s not OK to tell lies about people who can’t respond in kind, while hiding under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
“It’s not OK to teach your kids that all of the above is the way to get what you want.
“It’s not OK to bring your personal bullshit to work.
“Or think you can work out your frustrations with your fists.
“It’s not OK to preach one standard of conduct and accountability to civil servants…
“…and Police officers…
“… and teachers…
“…and parents…
“…and sportsmen and women…
“…and health professionals…
“…and not walk the talk.
“It’s not OK to say it’s just part of being a politician.
“Or use your gender as an excuse for what you know is wrong.
“And it’s not OK for Helen Clark and John Key to say it’s not their problem when their attack dogs go feral. Or send out spin doctors to enable or blur the message that such conduct is absolutely, unconditionally unacceptable.
“But it is OK to just grow up and own your own shit.”
October 26th, 2007 at 8:54 am
While some treat Trevor as just another bloke, he isn’t quite in that position, so who can now look at a multi-million dollar campaign that says IT’S NOT OKAY without thinking YEAH, RIGHT – just as someone made a mockery of all the endless speeding campaigns. So is there any compensation or penalty for wasting that much money?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Sam – so are you a Labour party member then? I already assume Tane is, because of the union connection, but how about you?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Old honest Don doens’t know when he’s beaten huh:
In a likely reference to Mr Mallard’s role in outing former National leader Don Brash’s alleged affair, Dr Brash is understood to have texted Mr Henare yesterday saying: “Good on you Tau. The truth will come out about that bastard. Cheers Don.”
O foucrse, Don was having multiple affairs while putting on a public persona of ‘honest Don’, that persona was a legitimate target for political attack… Mallard is just dating some woman, no affair, no secrets, no hypocrisy.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I am absolutely a supporter of the National Party. So my support of this fella is quite removed from my usual thoughts on him and those that holds his views…but WTF!!?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472202
October 26th, 2007 at 9:17 am
How do you know that the Don was having multiple affairs, Sam? Were you part of his harem? Or were you passed overr in favour of Diane?
The reason I ask is that you seem fairly vehement about the Don.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
And Sam, how do you know that Mallard wasn’t seeing Ms Lawson before he publicly broke with his wife?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Danyl and Barry
Wrong Espiner guys. Guyon is the one on agenda. His older brother Colin is the Chch Press reporter and blogger (and ginga).
I’ve always read Colin;s blogs as being highly sceptical of Labour but that may be my bias
October 26th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Bok, i’m a little alarmed by this too.
Extract:
The search warrant, which was granted by a district court judge on Tuesday, said police had reasonable grounds to believe that a number of items, including clothing, a chrome pistol and ammunition, hunting knife, pliers and a baseball bat, were at the house.
Can’t be long before having a sharpened stick of celery is seen as evidence of intent to commit a crime.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:23 am
“O foucrse, Don was having multiple affairs while putting on a public persona of ‘honest Don’, ”
If that had been the actual position of Labour at the time then that might have some merit but what Labour did was to use this to viciously bait Don Brash in the debating chamber with no lofty moral intent. And Brash didn’t take to violence in retaliation.
Personally I have sympathy for Mallard – if you attack people’s family for political purposes then you’ve steeped well outside the bounds of civil discourse. That Mallard did this is not justification for others to do the same.
But still some Labour supporters will rationalise that when they attack peoples’ families is OK.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
So Sam just makes something up….
So here is what I heard, Sam Dixon is understood to have texted Mallard afterwards to say “Trev, great sucker punch, I would have tripped him and then laid the boot in, regards Sam Dixon”
October 26th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Sam: if it was such a righteous thing to do, why didn’t they do it outside the chamber? Why didn’t Helen Clark say on TV One news “Don Brash is a hypocrite because ….”
Well?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I am going for the storm in a tea cup routine with the following provisos –
Mallard is a hypocrite and it has been rightly pointed out (and should continue to be pointed out) that he can give it (Don Brash/Foreman, Yanks under the bed etc) but he can’t take it.
If this was a National MP Clark would still be preaching from upon high.
I, for one, am over it.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:30 am
KK
Using the dixon rule (make up shit as you go along) I would now have to go and give myself up because I have 3 sets of pliers and a baseball. I also have a plantation of celery growing behind the house (Lucky so far, my 6 foot fence and cameras have warned me when some-one has been snooping). I am going to escalate my activities and see if I can buy a shirt and a jacket on the net today. I have set up a secret account with the username sdixon to import some socks as well.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am
NeilM – look there are a number of MPs with private lives that a ‘complicated’ – just like many members of our society. That doesn’t mean each of those stories is a matter of public interest.. Personal lives should not be the subject of pulic debate. The Don Brash case was an exception to that rule because his political persona was specifically based on his personal honesty, when in fact he was dishonest.
Brownie – its well known that Brash had had multiple affairs, get someone to tell you how the emails really got out of his office (hmmm, who would have had access to Don Brash’s emails plus faxes and letters? and how would she have felt when she saw he was having an affair with Diane Foreman as well?)
“And Sam, how do you know that Mallard wasn’t seeing Ms Lawson before he publicly broke with his wife?” – I don’t, but one can’t prove a negative, for postive assertiosn one needs evidence, basic logic of aruument Brownie… and still he wouldn’t be the only MP on either side of the House having an affiar, so its not a matter of public interest.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:34 am
If Brenda is acquainted with Trevor, before or after his marriage break-up, who the hell is Sharon, to whom Tau actually referred?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“The Don Brash case was an exception to that rule because his political persona was specifically based on his personal honesty, when in fact he was dishonest.”
what pathetic self justification. Mallard baited Brash, Labour did not engage in some lofty reasoned debate over personal life vs public persona. It was gutter politics of the worst kind. No different from what Henare was up to.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Wodger – I’m on record in a number of places saying I’m not a Labour supporter. As for Tane, a few weeks ago he and the others on The Standard are involved in the labour movement not the Labour Party
… and please I don’t want to have to go through explaining the difference to any poltiical lightweights again.. look it up on google if you’re ignorant of the difference.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:39 am
KK
if you had read the story fully you would know that it relates to a person already under arrest.
They sound like many of the tools one might use in an aggravated robbery – a gun, a bat, a knife, clothing (gang jacket? balaclava? gloves?) – which police validly have been searching houses for for years.
How they can be compared to celery I’m not sure.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Just to clarify, many of the contributors to The Standard are Labour Party members. I’m not one of them. It’s a blog supportive of the broader labour movement, not the Labour Party per se. But that’s a distinction I know a lot of people on this blog have trouble with.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:44 am
I don’t, but one can’t prove a negative, for postive assertiosn one needs evidence, basic logic of aruument Brownie
Then how can you positively say on this blog that he was only dating if you don’t know the full facts?
Fair one on the first point.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hey Sam, I thought Trev would conform to the Labour ideal of “calm discussion and informed debate”
Apparently The Don’s mistake was to conclude that Labour was corrupt, an allegation that seems consistent with Mike Smith’s letters regarding the pledge card funding, and is proven in most peoples minds over Phillip Field.
Labour’s response was a personal attack of the worst sort, lead by Mallard. it is way too late to be running the ‘private lives’ line on Mallard. I think if you took a poll at your local pub you would find little support for Mallard deserving a free pass in Parliament.
Remember these quotes?
“The most forgiveable form of corruption”
“I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”
“Labour regards Dr Brash as a corrosive and cancerous person within the New Zealand political system. From the time he became National Party leader he started his polarising, extreme attacks and behaviour.”
October 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Sam (and FP if your out there),
Check out:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4250593a11.html
re: yesterdays arguement.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Sam Dixon: Still defending smearing Brash without answering my question, eh? If is was such a righteous thing to do, why wasn’t it done publicly?
Oh, and I see you are repeating that rumour about the emails. I remember how that started – as a joke on JTC. The fact that you spreada it as a rumour is an even bigger joke. I recall at the time the Prime Minister smeared the National Party, saying they were spreading nasty rumours about her around the Press Gallery. We then had the unprecedented case of several senior Press Gallery jouranlists going on the record to publicly deny it.
And what do you think of Mallard’s outbursts in the house about H-Fee and SFO and the like? Or his hitting Bob Clarkson? Or telling the IRB chairman to shove a Heineken bottle up his arse?
You are defending the indefensible. This hedgehog strategy from Labour supporters simply outrages the public, motivates the opposition, and politicises right-sympathetic voters.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Brownie – no-one’s saying the temporary closure of the child cancer unit in wellington is optimal – i’m saying a) kids will still get care b) unfortunately, statistical clustering and the fact that wages are lower in nz have led to this c) the DHBs are collabrating to fix this problm resulting from having 2 smallish units (n ChCh and Wellington) d) there’s no reason to think Natioanl would have magically had a better result, and in fact their policy is privitisation and lower spending for public care menaing its more likley ordinary kids would not care the care they need as soon as possible..
October 26th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Sam Dixon: The Don Brash case was an exception to that rule because his political persona was specifically based on his personal honesty, when in fact he was dishonest.
Much like the Labour Party wanted principles back in politics then. Or what was their honesty and integrity catch phrase of a year or two ago?
*laughs*
And you are worried about the honesty involved in divulging an affair when the Labour Party itself and it’s leader are the most dishonest, political expedient liars to have graced our government.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Just as a matter of interest, Grant, what’s the current position of the Law Society if you bitch-slap opposing counsel or an officer of the court because they’re really annoying and you’re having the mother of all bad hair days?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:02 am
And, Sam, thanks but no thanks for accusing others of partisan hackery with a good dose of ‘but it’s different when I do it’ hypocrisy. To quote Mr. Shakespeare, a plague on both you houses – and the sooner you all drop dead, the better.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:03 am
And remember that the Maori party said that they were offered a bribe to support Labour?
The more you defend this behaviour Sam, the more people become outraged and politicised. Labour’s resistance over the pledge card rort is a classic example, as it has caused many people who were previously indifferent to become politicised against Labour.
And yet, Labour continues on, and this government will no doubt be remembered as a semi-competent moral shambles.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Threadjack alert – sorry guys but theres no “General Debate” option.
“Reserve Bank warning doesn’t mean no tax cuts – Cullen”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4251362a10.html
“Dr Cullen said that extra money could be used for tax cuts without adding to expected inflationary pressure, as in current forecasts the money was expected to remain in the economy rather than flow into the Government’s coffers. ”
Its only inflationary if National offers tax cuts – lol!
October 26th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Tane, it would be easier to understand the difference if you had a consistent line on it. For membership, the answer is that the labour party and the labour movement are separate. When it comes to donations and campaigning, apparently it makes no sense to complain about the labour movement supporting the labour party, since the labour party is just the political arm of the movement.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Thanks for that gem Insider. Ahhhh – Espiner1 and Espiner2. Good name that for a potential spin doctor……
You know there should be a law aginst two people with the same name doing this sort of thing – thats the usual reaction that labour takes and I expect them to sort out this situation urgently…………..
Maybe Im too stupid to handle this………
October 26th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Phil Goff deserves to be promoted on the Labour front bench, but you should never rule out Trevor Mallard, I think (although from the left) he is a effective Minister and is a good debater, he is good for the nastey National MP’s like Nick Smith and other no hopers
October 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Sam
“unfortunately, statistical clustering and the fact that wages are lower in nz have led to this”
Ergo this is the fault of the ministry – they are responsible for this.
And nowhere do I say that National would have it better
October 26th, 2007 at 10:18 am
“Mallard affair” – the girl or the biffo?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Here’s one blogger who supports Mallard’s actions : P
http://jesuscrux.blogspot.com/2007/10/trevor-is-mallard.html
October 26th, 2007 at 10:25 am
There is a big difference. Labour’s attack on Brash was an attempt to make National stop calling Labour’s pledge card funding corrupt. I see this as blackmail or extortion.
If know a police officer or a journalist is having an affair and I make this public I am not committing a crime. However, if I say give $10,000 and I will keep quiet that sounds like blackmail to me. If instead of asking for money I asked the police officer or a journalist not to do their job properly surely that also would be a crime.
Labour’s attack on Brash and possible threats to other National MPs was an attempt to stop the opposition from doing their job properly like the above scenario. Henare’s motive appeared to be that he just did not like Mallard.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:27 am
But look at Tau Henare’s history…. he is a thug! How could the Nats take him in!!
October 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Trevor should resign!
Every fresh report of this incident seems to shed more light on the extent of the violence involved.
We have a situation where a Minister of the Crown and Front Bench Government MP punches another Member and wrestles him to the ground and has to be physically seperated by an official all in the immediate precincts of the Debating Chamber.
Trevor is a member of a Party that “whipped” its Members to support legislation banning the smacking of children and is supporting a campaign to make violence of any kind socially unacceptable.
If Helen Clark wants to preserve her anti-violence credentials and protect herself from charges of Hypocrisy she has no option but to sack Trevor.
Not to do so is a slap in the face of every victim of violence in NZ.
PS. Do Maori language interpreters get paid danger money?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Mallard is hurtin’ a bit like Don was
His career is but finished
A bit like Don’s was
He was accused of being sleazy,
A bit like Don was
Now he should resign
A bit like Don did.
He claims he’s the victim
of loss grief and stress
hard-earned reflection
bit him hard on the ass
If only he’d shown
some compassion back then
He would not now be left
to twist in the wind
Funny how bullies drunk on the high
suddenly tame, when its their time to cry.
Funny how hard-men ride the crest of the wave,
But cry to the media,
When they’re not feeling brave.
So compassionate politics are a thing of the past?
Mallard helped bury them,
When he gave Don full blast,
So it’s a little bit rich now
For people to ask
for compassion and understanding
for a snake in the grass.
Mallard is hurtin’ a bit like Don was
His career is but finished
A bit like Don’s was
He was accused of being sleazy,
A bit like Don was
Now he should resign
A bit like Don did.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Reg: Why should he resign. If we take into account what all MP’s do and say we would have no one! Trevor Mallard has had a personal death in his family and a break down of his marriage, I think I would do the same thing if Henare said that to me. If it was any other MP I would put full blame on Trevor, but honestly!! Tau Henare, what do you expect
October 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
perhaps enact a new bill that allows the assault of fellow mp’s. should fit in nicely with the electioneering extravaganza
wade: go ask your manager or fellow colleague and ask him/her if it would be alright to hit them in retaliation should they personally abuse your family and also if you would keep your job…
October 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
There is little sympathy for a Rogernome-revivalist wing within the Labour Party, if such exists.
The caucus is dominated by MPs who have been selected under “traditional Labour values” President and Councils – and any leftovers would simply not have the numbers.
I have no doubt that if a Rogernome cabinet was again to take over, however unlikely, the caucus and party would have little qualms about ousting such a cabinet. There is no way the party would want to stomach such a repeat in its name.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
wade. Does the young man in Wainuiomata with “personal problems”(maybe a lot worse than Trevor’s), get shown any leniency by the Police when he gets dragged off a fellow patron outside the “local”?
Remember Trevor is supporting a campaign that says “it’s not OK.
Some of Trevor’s constituents will have lost there jobs because of violence in the work-place. I repeat Helen IMHO has no option but to remove him from the cabinet table.
I don’t have any doubt that Don Brash would of resigned on the spot if he had lost it and “biffed” Trevor in similar circumstances.
Helen do you care for victims of violence or not?
NZ waits your answer- Not in words but in deeds!
October 26th, 2007 at 10:45 am
So, it’s ok because Henare is annoying?
What next,
So, it’s ok because I was in a bad mood?
So, it’s ok because he was looking at me funny?
So, it’s ok because I blah blah…
And also I have to mention what a shameful f**n memorial to his recently deceased father this sorry fiaso is. Then to bring it up as an excuse….
Low.
On what level everybody , IS Mallard expected to take responsibility for his actions?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
shadylady – I see the man who would be finance minister can’t even do sums properly – http://www.parliament.nz/en-http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=567
and look at how inconsistent he is on fisal policy
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/5/d/f/48HansQ_20071025_00000098-1-Fiscal-Policy-Reserve-Bank-Assessment.htm
October 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Policy Parrot: Trust me I think there are a lot more “roger nomes” in the party then you expect. Deal making with in the party would insure the likes of Phil Goff has the numbers.
Reg: But Reg he said sorry!!! Give the man credit, at least he is showing remorse. The Nats would be keen to let him sink into the bank benches b/c they are scaredof him!
October 26th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Just wondering where the threshold is for instant dismissal from Labour – what if Trev had pulled a knife that he just carries for personal protection from Brashites for example ? Would personal grief still be a mitigating factor Aunty Helen ? Labour have dug the hole and one by one they are tumbling in – just loving the spectacle. Will Helen do as badly as English did or worse at the next election ? Lots to ponder these days.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Lee
You seem to be confused as to why Brash resigned
Clue: It wasn’t because of his alleged affairs
October 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Labour are a semi-competent moral shambles.
They desperately need some time in opposition to renew and rebuild themselves.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Lee, Trevor hasn’t made any statement to the press to say his recently deceased father was a contributing factor to his attack…
October 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
What makes you think Phil Goff is a rogernome? Yes, he was a bit too close to the likes of Moore and Douglas in the past, but as I understand it he’s a pretty solid social democrat these days.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Wade henare said “Shut up adulterer” Wow. I dont understand why the police did not put Henare against a wall and shoot him straight away…The humanity!!! The shame!!!
At least Mallard only involved the parties outside the house as well. How could Henare only mention the politician?
October 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Tane, read and know your history. Phil is on the right of the party
October 26th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Bok for statement makes very little sense
October 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
wade – there is obviosuly a specturm of beliefs within as well as etween parties – but being to the right within labout still puts you in the centre-left.. i ‘ve ehard goof speak on a range of issues, he’s of the left nothing can be surer.
brownie – you might find this interesting
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/8/0/8/48HansQ_20071025_00000242-3-Capital-and-Coast-District-Health-Board.htm
So, we’re talking 20 kids a year using the wellington unit – 12 who are travelling to get to wellington anyway. They will still all get he care they need jsut have to travel Auckland or Chch until the unit it running again. National looked at closing the wellington or Chch unit but Labour hasn’t.
also, the ministry doesn’t pay wages, DHBs do, and you blame someone for statistical clustering, its inevitable, its the nature of randomly distributed events that they sometimes happen close together.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Wade, yes, he’s a relatively centrist Labour politician with social democratic principles. That’s my point. He’s not leading any ‘right faction’ within the party. The ‘right faction’ doesn’t exist.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:04 am
mallard ‘bit’..
mallard hit..
mallard is hit..
mallard is ‘it’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 26th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“What makes you think Phil Goff is a rogernome? Yes, he was a bit too close to the likes of Moore and Douglas in the past, ”
well if being a “rogernome” means anything it must mean “a bit too close to the likes of Moore and Douglas”.
“but as I understand it he’s a pretty solid social democrat these days.’
I don’t see why one can’t be both a “rogernome” and a social democrat. It’s not up to the left wing to decide who is and who isn’t a social democart.
“he’s a relatively centrist Labour politician” well that’s exactly what people have been saying here. He’s to the right of other Labour MPs and when it comes to leadersip battles Labour like any other party will divide into factions. It’s normal politics so why deny it?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am
She might try and make some token geisture like taking the sport Ministry off him. Saying this is something he loves so he accepts that as punishment. I would love to see how that will fly. John Key is being very very wise to keep his powder dry until she has made her move on Mallard and much else. Meanwhile Bill English needs to do better against Cullen, much better. He is sending out very confused messages on tax cuts. The issue there is a big bang is not possible but a prudent programme over several years is sustainable. And National can be trusted to deliver on that.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:07 am
natural party I know, but it didn’t work in the poem…
October 26th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Sam Dixon … last week you went feral when I called your a liar. Well, ‘play it again Sam’ because your allegation that Don Brash had “multiple affairs” means that not only are you a lair but that you reside in the sewer as well.
Socialist s..t
October 26th, 2007 at 11:12 am
wade replied:
Reg: But Reg he said sorry!!! Give the man credit, at least he is showing remorse.
Yes wade, but sorry didn’t get me off my last traffic fine, sorry won’t get the “Urewera 17 out of the “clink”.
Courts take account of remorse, it may at times engender a more lenient sentence, but violence is violence and NZer expect more than mere words as a proof of contrition.
Remember it never OK. Especially in those that are supposed to be role models to the nation.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Reg, if the police were to consider laying charges then they would take into account the fact that Mallard was provoked. It’s not necessarily a defense but it terms of looking at the utility of pressing charges it’s a consideration.
Maybe they will charge him. Personally I don’t see that he deserves that.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Mallard would probably feel more comfortable in Taiwan’s parliament.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Nice reply. I think that the argument as to why there is a disruption to service needs to be addressed if in fact, as it looks like, that capital & coast health have previously been warned.
Also: :Hon PETE HODGSON: There are, from memory, about six paediatric oncologists in New Zealand. Given that there are about 20 patients going to Wellington each year, one would be hard pressed to say that we would need more paediatric oncologists. What we need, however, are paediatric oncologists who are able to work with one another to keep one another clinically safe. I think that is the underlying issue.
Given that we presently have no peadiatric oncologists in Wellington, the point Pete is making is moot.
Going back to my original line, while I appreciate the logic behind clustering, I do not accept that in an apparent “first world” country with a world class health system that we should not expect Capital Health to provide fluent, uninterrupted health care to child cancer patients.
Well reasoned argument, SD.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Its a really great feeling to know that quite a lot of the RWNJ that post here, seem to be of the belief that the Labour Party is doomed to lose the next Election and the outcome is now a foregone conclusion.
The reality is in fact quite different and the way the poll numbers are holding up is really very encouraging.
I have absolutely no doubt that there will be a Government led by Helen Clark from 2008 to 2011.
This conclusion is drawn from careful study of the voting and poll patterns for the last 10 years. I encourage others to do the same. (You won’t of course)
What worries me is what will you do with all your anger and frustration ?
Move to Australia ? (looks like a Lab Gov there though!)
Maybe you should look at reforming the National Party and blooding a few new faces
Key is a novice then there is English that great vote winner, Brownlee, Smith and Ryall . All of whom lets face it are liabilities.
It would be great to see an opposition party with opposite policies .
Policies that they could be proud of, not scared of divulging.
I look forward to being able to quote this post next September.
When Helen (bless her cotton little socks) continues being the good hardworking effective clever PM that she is now.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I agree with NeilM
October 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Sam “I’m on record in a number of places saying I’m not a Labour supporter.”
So how would you know about the left/right factions within the party then? I guess you are just another uninformed comment-leaver like the rest of us.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
NeilM
He won’t be charged, because Tau’s decided to accept his apology and Police only act on a complaint.
I think Tau did the honourable thing and kept it out of the courts as no doubt happens in many altercations (especially domestic ones) throughout the country.
But what we are talking about on this thread is the moral responsibility of Helen Clark to put her money where her mouth is, and “sack” a Minister of the Crown who assaulted another member in the lobbies of the house.
Is the Labour Party really against violence or are they hypocrites?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:30 am
wodger – the one doesn’t follow the other.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Lee C: I hit Tim Barclay up about this yesterday and got a pathetic “since the media has made it an issue, Mallard should release a statement saying that he’s not using the death of his father as an excuse.” I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked him, to back up your call.
“And also I have to mention what a shameful f**n memorial to his recently deceased father this sorry fiaso is. Then to bring it up as an excuse….
Low.”
Where did Mallard use this as an excuse? The media has, everywhere, but he hasn’t even tried to insinuate it. You, pretending he’s using it as an excuse, is low mate.
I am not defending his actions, but I think that it is a crock to bring this up when he hasn’t.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Now Ill have you all know that I am in charge of what will happen to trevour and the rest of you can go jump.
As soon as Ive finished signing this picture Ill get onto it……
October 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Did Mallard vote for the anti-smacking Bill?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am
GLA – I think he voted for a bill to repeal a law that condoned the use of violence against children, was that the one you’re referring to?
Henare is quite the child at times, as is patently obvious, so there’s a bit of a problem there eh? I’m sure we can all agree that Henare deserved some ‘correction’ but everyone seems to be agreeing that violence isn’t the way to go. Funny how theese things work, wasn’t the case a few months back…
October 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I don’t get it…. If I wacked a work mate, I’m fired immediately. Then more than likely the police would be called in as well. So can anyone tell me what the difference is here? Mugabe should fire him NOW!! Keep it simple and follow the rules. However if Mallard had any scrupples at all, he would do the right thing and resign. I can sniff a Tui ad there…
October 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
GLA: Yes all of the Labour caucus did.
Thats the Hypocrisy of the whole issue.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“In a likely reference to Mr Mallard’s role in outing former National leader Don Brash’s alleged affair, Dr Brash is understood to have texted Mr Henare yesterday saying: “Good on you Tau. The truth will come out about that bastard. Cheers Don.”
Every further utterance from the vile “Monty Burns” Brash shows us how lucky we were not to get his vindictive, Pinochet lite administration last election.
It is clear that the racism, dog whistling politics of division and appeal to base human instincts that characterised National’s nasty 2005 election campaign were a true reflection of the leaders mindset.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Thanks Reg and Fighterpilott for answering my question.
Another quick question, is Parliament in breach of it’s resource consent by operating as a boxing venue? If so then shouldn’t the Local Government Minister close parliament?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I reckon he should be fired, if anyone of the people here smacked a colleague or business partner we’d be fired on the spot. It’s a disgrace if he’s not sacked. What sort of standard does that set? I guess it is okay to resort to violence if you’re stressed.
This must mean I can bash the wife when she doesn’t fix my eggs! Heh, I can just say I was under great stress and it’s okay ‘cos Mallard uses his fists to sort things out and he’s a MP.
Surely a greater standard of behaviour is to be expected, it may not always happen but this is a joke.
Helen won’t but it’ll come back to haunt her, didn’t someone say she was supposed to be good at shooting the wounded?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
FigherPilott back to your Skyhawks old boy.
A Minister of the Crown had to be dragged off the top of another member in the Lobbies of Parliament.
That Minister supported a bill that forbade the smacking of children because -apparently- he wanted to send a message to parents that violence is never OK.
That Minister has a constituency in Hutt South that includes many Maori and Pacific Island families that the government claims to have a particular interest in,in stopping a culture of violence.
What moral authority has the Labour Government now got.
How many young men are going to say to the judge ‘But Trevor did it”
If Mallard was honest in his expressed remorse he would resign from cabinet and if Helen wants to regain the anti-violence credentials she has no option but to “sack” him forthwith!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I’m pleased he didn’t but I wish Tau smacked him fair and square on his beak .
October 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
You’re onto it Reg. Mallard and the govt have no option whatsoever. He has to go.
I can’t believe mr sam dixon defends it
October 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Tom S – I think you better take your pills
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
You’re onto it Reg – i’m going to go out tonight and hit someone, just ‘coz “Mallard did it.”
Did ya miss the bit where I said that a) violence wasn’t the way to go and b) I wasn’t defending his actions, just pointing out that it’s the media and not Mallard citing all this stress as the cause of his attack… Back to your learnin’, boy.
Oh the latest is Henare had yanked his tie – keep ignoring that, it’s not like that could constitute physical provocation…not that that excuses a wee uppercut y’know… I love it – the Government had no moral authority because mallard lost his rag – BOOM – one issue blown up to order!
I have seen assaults in many situations, workplace and otherwise, and if both parties accept the issue as resolved then dismissal and charges aren’t usually pursued – I know that will be darn impossible for any of you lot to consider though. Just thought I’d put it out there though
October 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Roger Nome himself is conspiciously absent from the blogging scene. Am I incorrect in that we’re seeing yet another incarnation of him posting in this thread? There’s one poster here with a style that is *remarkably* similar to dear old gnome, even down to the spelling mistakes he makes.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Good try FighterPilott every one needs a “mate” to stick up for him-even Trevor, So i respect you for that.
But the credit for not pursuing it belongs to Tau not Trev.
If Tau wanted to play by the book he could have insisted on making a complaint to the Police and had Trevor questioned.
Tau chose not to-and good on him.
But that doesn’t relieve Helen Clark of the responsibility of preserving the integrity(?) of her administration’s stand against violence.
Trevor must go!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Indeed, though to a cynic, the only reason Henare wouldn’t go ahead with that is that there are a few details of the incident he wouldn’t want to be too closely inspected.
Just out of interest, if David Parker bought a wide-screen plasma TV should he be fired?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Chuck Bird Says: “If instead of asking for money I asked the police officer or a journalist not to do their job properly surely that also would be a crime.”
You would be correct and you would have Helen Clark agreeing with you as she told the House
1. “This Government does not tolerate corruption. Any allegations are investigated”.
2. “I repeat that this Government does not tolerate corruption not (nor) has any New Zealand Government tolerated corruption. All allegations will be investigated”.
3. “It is the responsibility of every citizen to report wrong doing to the appropriate authorities and it will be investigated”.
You will have noticed Tariana Turia in today’s little winge about the police taking action against Mallard and their response – “However, a police national headquarters spokesman today told NZPA that police would be extremely unlikely to investigate the incident without a complaint and to his knowledge Wellington police, who would be responsible, had not received one.
Nothing to stop Tariana Turia making a complaint and this is borne out by Helen Clark: “The Ingram report raised issues of judgment which are now being worked through with Mr Field. It is not, however, the prime minister’s role to launch inquiries into the private matters of any MP in Parliament. If any individual has evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr Field, they should take that to an appropriate authority. (I take it from this that Helen Clark does not consider herself as a citizen NOTE 3 above
Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister ever asked Taito Phillip Field whether he was advocating to Ministers on behalf of illegal immigrants in return for favours; if not, why did she not ask him; if so, what was his response?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I, obviously, as leader of the Labour Party, have had contact with Mr Field on this matter over quite a long period of time, and I am satisfied that he did not make such requests.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
FighterPilott asked:
Just out of interest, if David Parker bought a wide-screen plasma TV should he be fired?
No, but if it smashed over someones head he should be!
October 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Sorry;
Should read:
No, but if he smashed it over someones head, he should be!
October 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Yup – this is getting a wee bit emotive isn’t it – people with a distinct anti-Labout bias are saying he should go, you wouldn’t get the same reaction from everyone.
So Parker’s allowed to set a bad example and go against Govt policy (well more a vague concept at this stage), you wouldn’t be after his head, but Mallard’s got to go, even though the parties involved have agreed it’s a closed matter?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Good on him! If someone made such comments to me they too would deservedly get it.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“Roger Nome himself is conspiciously absent from the blogging scene. Am I incorrect in that we’re seeing yet another incarnation of him posting in this thread?”
How touching to see you’re missing me pascal
oh, and to satisfy your paranoia – no I don’t post under more than one handle.
Oh – and if you’re going to start playing the grammatical/spelling pedant game, you had better learn how to spell “conspicuous”
October 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Deserved or not, is, with respect, not the point. The point is this sort of behaviour would almost certainly result in dismissal in any public or private business. why is Mallard exempt?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
FighterPilott:
If I have a bias here, it’s against common thugs regardless of their politics. Apparently you don’t, but that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. You just sound distinctly like folks who will always say ‘domestic violence is wrong… but, the uppity bitch must have done something to deserve it, and if he’s been doing this for years why didn’t she complain the first time; anyway, he’s been under so much stress and he’s not like this when he doesn’t drink’. Blah blah blah.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I wouldn’t demand Mallard be sacked, but I am astounded by the contortions that pro-labour bloggers have engaged in to pretend that this situation is less serious than it is.
Mallard is, I am sure, not only contrite, but also devastated by this, but my view is that Mallard was amongst the first to dish it out when it suited him. He would do well to reflect on that, especially how he maltreated DOn Brash.
I’d also say that for someone to be on the planet for 53 years before he achieves such a level of reflective ability suggests he’s had a very sheltered existence.
Hopefully he will come out of this a better person. But I suggest that he will forget this as soon as he feels he’s back on top…
October 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
FP, you obfusticating some what.
It’s not illegal-Yet anyway- to purchase a wide screen plasma TV. If Parker bought one we’d just think what a wally of the Al Gore school of Climate Change hypocrites.
But you don’t seem to understand that a Minister of the Crown was on top of another member in the lobbies of parliament after hitting that member in the face.
There is a world of difference between violence and owning a Big Screen.
I mean it’s you lefties that keep telling us that its alright if there are no victims.
And just in case you think I’m affected by blind anti-socialist prejudice, i can assure you i would be calling for the resignation of Katherine Rich if she had to be hauled off Ruth Dyson after assaulting her in the lobbies!
October 26th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Oh please, a good proportion of the cretins around here would be drooling over that as well! Instead of ‘boys will be boys – get over it’ it would be ‘girl on girl – get off on it’. ;(
October 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
did someone say ‘girl-on-girl’?
I have already stated my dream cat-fight Dalziel v Bennett,
but nothing came of it…
Well nearly nothing…
October 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Sorry Craig.
For the sake of the cretins I’ll rephrase that.
I can assure you I would be calling for the resignation of Lindsay Tisch if he had to be hauled of Parekura Horomia after assaulting him in the lobbies!
October 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I’ve sketched some costumes if anyone is interested…?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Reg I object to ‘cretin’ ‘Deviant’ perhaps….,
October 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Roger: f you’re going to start playing the grammatical/spelling pedant game
Uhm … reading comprehension FTW? I know you’re elbow deep in academic material daily, but re-read the statement and see if a light of recognition blooms. I couldn’t give two figs how well or how poorly you spell. What I did note is that another poster makes the same mistakes that you typically make. A distinctive similarity in styles, so to speak. Not that it matters, it’s just funny.
I’m fortunate though, I can always truthfully claim that English is not my first language
As to Mallard. Why do people feel the need to make excuses for violent, thuggish behavior?
Don Brash was provoked, severely, by the Labour party’s attempts at smearing them – coming mostly from Mallard himself. Did he ever resort to violence? No, he remained a gentleman. A number of people have been provoked by the lies of the Labour party, and yet none of them have turned around and reacted violently.
This type of behavior is not acceptable in our society. To condone this is to condone any form of violence between one human being and another, one of the primary reasons for the whole S59 debate, wasn’t it? To ensure that children were treated the same as everyone else in the eyes of the law.
Did Mallard not hit somebody? Is that not violence? Do the same to any other person on the street and see what reaction you get.
Whilst they seem to have kissed and made up, it certainly does no credit to him or his position as potentially a future leader of the country. Come on, people are complaining that Don Brash “lied” about his affair (When everyone tells us their personal lives are non of our business) but do you want a person who lashes out with his fists at any provocation leading the country?
And yet there are a group of people here who will condone, accept and try to word their way around what is violent, thuggish behavior. Not cool.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
News guys: Finally, a poll taken National policy releases that isn’t Colmar Brunton..http://www.stuff.co.nz/4251544a10.html , http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4232/ interesting reading.
DPF, any insight as to why Colmar Brunton’s polls are consistently out of whack with the other polls and election results?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“What I did note is that another poster makes the same mistakes that you typically make.”
And I duely noted that you were being paranoid. And as usual you were well wide of eh mark.
As to the “Mallard affair” – well – I find it kind of boring really. One of those issues that the usual wing-nuts will get all excited and melodramatic about – only to find that within one week it’s gone from the news forever.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
what’s sauce for the goose and all that….what a hypocrite – regardless of the fact that he dished out the dirt and can’t take it himself, any public office figure from any party has to be disciplined. My God if an employee punches someone in work time on work premises they would have the bbok thrown at them and an assault charge. It’s pathetic behaviour from a politician – fighting in the playground from a party that pushes anti smacking. And re the excuse he lost his Dad recently – join the club Mallard, I just lost my father but I’m not bashing people that get on my tits. Grow up and get on with running the country ( into the ground)
October 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Pascal said:
Come on, people are complaining that Don Brash “lied” about his affair (When everyone tells us their personal lives are non of our business)
My understanding is that Mallard was being somewhat economical with the truth in his comments about his affair that were published today. But no hard facts, and i don’t want to let our friends or the left lead this thread off on a tangent.
And sorry Lee I didn’t mean to make a trap for you to fall into!
October 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
virginblogger: And re the excuse he lost his Dad recently – join the club Mallard, I just lost my father but I’m not bashing people that get on my tits. Grow up and get on with running the country ( into the ground)
again, Mallard is yet to release a statement admitting that pressure surrounding his separation from his wife and death of his father had any influence on his attack towards Henare.
We may presume that yes it has, and most likely Henare caught him in a time of hardship and so he retaliated with “unreasonable force”, however he has commented that “It is one of the most stupid things I’ve done in my life and I really regret it … I am a minister, I am 53 years old, I shouldn’t be acting like a schoolkid.”. Pays not to believe or misconstrue everything you read from the media…
October 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Pascal Says:
October 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Don Brash was provoked, severely, by the Labour party’s attempts at smearing them – coming mostly from Mallard himself. Did he ever resort to violence? No, he remained a gentleman.
No way is Don Brash a gentleman.
Other actions have most definitely excluded him from that description.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
virginblogger Says:
October 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“And re the excuse he lost his Dad recently – join the club Mallard, I just lost my father but I’m not bashing people that get on my tits. Grow up and get on with running the country ( into the ground)”
Actually I haven’t seen this said by Mallard anywhere…. just said by other people/media – speculation?
I don’t agree with what Mallard has done.
Should be kicked out of Cabinet
October 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Dixon and Nome in full cry as usual. What an excuse for a fucken blog. I don’t come here to read unremitting posts full of socialist lies and propaganda, but it looks like that’s about all there is on offer.
As for the issue- yawn, this little bout of fisticuffs is probably a lot more honest than most of the stuff that goes down in that stinking totalitarian socialist controlled echo chamber- once a place where the true representatives of the people debated issues under the auspices of the Westminster parliamentary system. That the media get their nickers in a twist over this non event and let most of the stench and foulness pass them by is a pretty good indication of why most people with a brain are only seeing NZ from the air as they depart for more civilized climes.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Craig,
You generally seem onto it, so try not to stoop to this low level. I think this is the 3rd time, perhaps, but here goes: I’m not advocating for, condoning or in any way supporting violence. Hence not supporting what Mallard did. Try that on for size!
There’s a difference between saying that if both parties involved have agreed to let it go, then perhaps there is merit in letting it go, and implying that that’s the same as saying it’s ok to hit someone because they deserved it. I really like the way you also put the alcoholic-domestic-violence spin in there to make it sound even worse. ‘Coz there’s no way anything I said sounded anything remotely like that, so try not to shovel that kind of bullshit around, it doesn’t stick but still smells nasty.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
good point Redbaiter
I agree that the msm does a poor job. Most of what they broadcast is fluff.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Interesting stuff Sam:
According to the latest ray-morgan poll the Lab-green-maori block have 48.5% of the vote – and then if there’s an over-hang (very likely) we’re looking at closer to 49-50%. Going to be an interesting election. I’m looking foward being the first to be on kiwiblog the day after the election with the line …. “Three more years!”
October 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“Craig,
You generally seem onto it, so try not to stoop to this low level.”
Absolutely – this is more grist for CraigR’s gossip mill – he loves this shit.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
virginblogger – where did he use the death of his father as an excuse? If you’re too stupid to take in what the media presents you and process it youself perhaps you should have stayed a virgin. Nowhere has he done so – have a scout around and you’ll see the media has offered that excuse, not him.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
P.s what do you come here for, redbaiter?
October 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
roger nome – i ran the poll numbers on the elections site, assuming current electorates are held by the minor parties you have:
Lab 49, Greens 9, Prog 1 = 59
vs
Nats 57, UF 2, ACT 1 = 60
Maori 4 (if they get more it doesn’t change other parties’ numbers)
its a 123 Parliament, Maori kingmakers.
I wouldn’t be so quick to refer to a left bloc involving the Maori Party.. their position is unpredictable, they still could abstain to allow a Nat-led govt.
If you assume winnie wins a seat on the above numbers, he takes 2 each off Lab and Nat – he could be kingmaker too very easily but in all likelihood its the Maori Party.
Would be difficult for any govt to pass legislation in a parliament balanced as in this poll.
If the Nats lose 1% more to the left from this poll, they’re pretty much out of the running.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
This is not the first time Mallard has reacted violently to remarks and in the House of Parliament. Helen Clark needs to be very very careful in her dealing with Mallard as to what message she is sending to the public about using violence to win arguments. This behavior begs the question on why did Mallard’s marriage fail. He was quick to say it was not because of his new relationship.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
fighterpilot
I’m not up to the play with this as have just gone back in the country after a very tedious long haul flight so pardon me if I have my facts screwy but as to the name calling, I’d prefer it if you didn’t resort to calling me stupid. I do however agree with you that people should look at the facts in everything not just politics and not the spin from media
October 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Sry VB bit too far, just that’s the third time that’s happened and it’s pretty awful. Still, a punch is a punch, and as everyone’s saying, will be interesting to see what happens and how Clark deals with it. Let’s be honest, it will be a demotion and that’s about it…
October 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
thanks FP here’s a quote from stuff which is where i got it
Miss Clark said she was not offering excuses for Mr Mallard, but he had had “a lot of grief in his life in recent times”.
His father died two weeks ago and his marriage broke up this year.
“He does need to take time out to come to terms with it. He can’t work out why he did this.”
from the horse’s ass so to speak. I reckon you’re right as Clark needs him – but watch this space as she usually gets them in the end once they go too far.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“I wouldn’t be so quick to refer to a left bloc involving the Maori Party.. their position is unpredictable, they still could abstain to allow a Nat-led govt. ”
Sam – The Maori party are in a similar position to the green party – their party membership is very much involved in decisions regarding post-election arrangements. Their, internal decision making structures are far more democratic than the other parties in his respect. That’s why I think it’s very unlikely that they would support National over labour – despite Tariana’s antipathy toward Helen Clark.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Well, this is an interesting thread.
Redbaiter in an unholy alliance with the socialists defending the right of disaffected ministers to assault and wrestle to the ground opposing politicians in the lobbies.
And then they inject the latest polls onto the debate, and imply that the left has the numbers-almost.
I wonder if Sue Bradford and Keith Locke will be willing to enter into governance arrangements with a Party that harbours violent offenders.
The game is getting more interesting by the minute
Tau bowls underarm and Labour’s out for a “duck”.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Roger Nome:
Oh dear… when it comes to wallowing in shit, I’ll defer to your superior experience but please leave me out of your little Freudian projection trip.
FighterPilott:
You can bluster all you like, but I’m not really interested in listening to anymore crapola about what terrible stress Mallard was under wah-wah-wah, and Henare was asking for it blah-blah-blah. Sorry if the truth hurts, but I’ve heard the same garbage from wife-beaters and their enablers over and over. Heard it from bullies of all kinds.
Oddly enough, Steve Maharey managed to keep a grip in some pretty demanding portfolios while his wife went through one bout of cancer, and then had it come out of remission and ultimately kill her. I respect him for that; I have nil for Mallard.
And perhaps you need to tune up your own reading comprehension skills – I’m not impressed with Henare either, but it’s pretty bloody obvious that Mallard was the initiator of the acutual assault, so I’m not buying any nonsense that he’s at fault or even equally bad as Trevor.
Got it? Or do I need to draw you some pictures?
Finally:
Funny how Sam Dixon and Mr. Nome didn’t have any confidence in Roy Morgan when National had a twelve point lead, isn’t it? Personally, I read polls for their entertainment value – but anyone who takes them seriously obviously learned nothing from the last go-around. Which is entirely typical for partisan hack around here whose volume is in direct inverse proportion to their worth.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Benson-Pope has made statements in support of Mallard – that has to be the kiss of death, unless Trevor plants David in self-defence.
[No general Post today and I wanted to know -
Did any one actually figure out what the photograph was of, on page A2 of yesterday's DOMINION POST [home edition], captioned “Winston Peters: ‘Current policies are unsound.’ ” – and is the DOMINION POST going to do a series of ‘I Shot Myself’?]
October 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“Personally, I read polls for their entertainment value – but anyone who takes them seriously obviously learned nothing from the last go-around.”
What? Are you talking about how TV One’s colmar-brunton poll favoured National by 5% the day before the election? If so, yes I agree with you. Some polls should indeed be taken with a grain of salt – TV3’s TNS and Roy Morgan do seem to have had a more accurate history though.
CraigR:
“Oh dear… when it comes to wallowing in shit, I’ll defer to your superior experience but please leave me out of your little Freudian projection trip.”
I was simply referring to the fact that you only seem to turn up on threads that involve some sort of personal “drama” in a political figure’s life (aka gossip) that’s all. Even so, I do think that you often have intelligent things to say in your chosen field, even if you do have a tendency to launch into “bitch slap” mode at the drop of a hat
October 26th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
roger: And I duely noted that you were being paranoid. And as usual you were well wide of eh mark.
For an academic you sure don’t know your words, do you? Paranoia suggests a psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or, alternatively, a extreme and irrational distrust of others. I don’t know how you stretch finding similarities humorous to a psychotic disorder or delusions of persecution or even irrational distrust. Good on ya for trying though!
Max: Fair call on ungentlemanly behavior. To clarify the statement, it was made in reference to his behavior while accused of the affair by not resorting to violence and not in reference to the actual affair.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
It doesn’t sound like the Maori Party is too happy with Mallards behavior!
The following extract is from “stuff”
Mrs Turia said Mr Mallard’s behaviour was unacceptable and should be punished.
“We in Parliament shouldn’t be above the law. We are the lawmakers and as such the one thing the public should be able to expect from us is that we uphold the law,” she said on Radio New Zealand.
“It is totally unacceptable particularly when right now we’re spending $14 million on an anti-violence campaign which says we must say no to these things.”
There should be no tolerance of violence, she said.
“The Maori Party has been very consistent with that message, that it does not matter where or how or why it occurs, we should have no tolerance to it.”
She said Mr Mallard had a record of aggression in Parliament.
“His whole behaviour is extremely aggressive. People put up with that in the House. We kind of say it’s all kind of robust debate being incredibly rude to other people and being aggressive, but it doesn’t need to be that way.”
Mrs Turia said Mr Mallard had been incredibly personal in his attacks over the years.
She said his treatment of former New Zealand First cabinet minister Tuku Morgan in the late 1990s was “tantamount to harassment”.
Perhaps Labour better rule them out of their coalition plans, unless off course Trevor does the honourable thing OR Helen sees the wisdom of indulging in a bit of political euthanasia.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“Paranoia suggests a psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or, alternatively, a extreme and irrational distrust of others.”
I can also mean an irrational distrust of others – something your wild accusations of my posting under multiple handels would indicate.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Somewhat dim to be fair Craig – especially if it is in Court although I can only recall that happening once in recent times. Indeed an assault on an officer of the Court acting within that capacity is a contempt of court.
I hear what you’re saying and it is very average behaviour (and I do thoroughly enjoy the come-uppance side of Mallard’s fall from grace). Perhaps I am just getting to liberal in my old age but I am struggling to raise to much more than a metaphorically raised eyebrow and a shake of the head.
I noted that the stuff survey had something like 50% ticking the “become a cage fighter” box over the other three “punishment” options so perhaps I am not alone.
I feel as if I should wind up about it – after all Clark would be calling for John Key to apologise and resign from Parliament if it was a National MP – but I can’t be bothered.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Slight thread detour (no General Debate today) and we have discussed the issue of MPs voting for the anti-smacking law. It seems the UK has rejected similar legislation. But of course the academics, union officials and school teachers who run NZ know better than the rest of the world.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Craig – I don’t recall doubting the quality Roy Morgan polls. There is a delay with them which means that this is the first poll taken since National’s policy fiascoes – maybe you are referring to how I said at the time of the last poll, taken before the Nat’s policy fiascoes, that the Nat’s lead in it didn’t take their policy fiascoes into account.
In fact, Roy Morgan’s polls were the most accurate for the last election for the major parties. Colmar Brunton was a disgrace. … http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3898/
Colmar Brunton way over estimates National every time.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“But of course the academics, union officials and school teachers who run NZ know better than the rest of the world.’
Yes, and now I will reel off a list of all the innocent parents who have been sent to jail as a result of the “feminazi’s” smacking bill…….
Hmmmmm – Mr Zero from Nowheresville is the only one I seem to be able to find.
Funny, didn’t National say that this bill would lead to hundreds of people being imprisoned for tapping their kids on the hand? Must say I am rather confused.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Rogered Nome says, “Must say I am rather confused.”
Many of us were well aware of that for a long time.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Roger,
you’re being mischevious again. The National amendment to the bill that got it passed was designed to prevent innocent parents being criminalised, hence your short list.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Sorry left an important detail out of the “Stuff” article.
Turia wants the Police to investigate the incident!
This I think would need approval of the Speaker so it could be an interesting new twist?
Does any one know the how the law stands regarding crimes committed within the precincts of Parliament?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Did someone say ‘bitch’?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Mallard has played rough house and he deserves all he is getting. He is a violent thug who uses violence during the course of argument I think he needs to lay his cards on the table. Why did his marriage end if it was NOT because of another relationship.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/what_the_bloggers_say.html#comment-35
7919
And then
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4232/
In the words of Eric Idle “say no more”
[DPF: I am going to cry]
October 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“There’s a difference between saying that if both parties involved have agreed to let it go, then perhaps there is merit in letting it go, and implying that that’s the same as saying it’s ok to hit someone because they deserved it. I really like the way you also put the alcoholic-domestic-violence spin in there to make it sound even worse. ‘Coz there’s no way anything I said sounded anything remotely like that, so try not to shovel that kind of bullshit around, it doesn’t stick but still smells nasty.”
So FP acording to you, if you go home, smack the missus because she gave you a hard time, but then when the police came around, she sends them away because you apologized and she thinks that should be the end of the matter, the police and every body else should just let it go… WTF?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“The National amendment to the bill that got it passed”
What? Labour had the numbers without National. What are you talking about? National’s proposition, which labour picked up, was cosmetic – it didn’t alter the substance of the bill. National’s shrill and hysterical clamouring that issue only undermined its credibility with the public – a party can only cry wolf so many times …..
October 26th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’ll have two of whatever gnome’s on please.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
DPF “I am going to cry”
I know DPF, I know – three more years
October 26th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Reg – for the police to investigate a common assault the alleged victim needs to lay a complaint. So its up to Tau.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Normally Tim, marriage difficulties are a no-go-area but Mallard has voluntarily surrendered his right to privacy by discussing the problems of others in the most public forum in the country.
Am I right in thinking your question is this:
Was violence involved in his marital problems?
October 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Lol! and who says that spirited political debate is dead in this country.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Yeah debate Labour Party style Brownie!
That is; having lost the “battle of ideas” you invite your opponent outside, hit him three times, push him over and sit on him with your hand on his throat!
700 years of Westminster democracy hasn’t totally eradicated the animal instincts of the intellectually bankrupt!
October 26th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
All these fools explaining away Mallards violent attack or ignoring it completely.
The same folks that insisted that a good parent smacking a child was indistinguishable from one violently belting them, are now trying to tell us that one adult punching another in the face is simply boys being boys, there are differing levels of violence.
Nothing to see here. These aren’t the droids you are looking for. Move along, move along.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Rogernome: Hmmmmm – Mr Zero from Nowheresville is the only one I seem to be able to find.
Ah good, we went to all that trouble to pass a law to change nothing. That was worthwhile, then.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“What? Labour had the numbers without National.”
Ah, so once a party take government, they no longer have to abide by the wishes of the people. Typical leftist authoritarian crap. No surprise it is fountaining from the orrifice himself, rogernome.
“We won, you lost, now we dont have to listen to any of you!”
October 26th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I think given Mallard’s propensity to violence during heated arguments he needs to publicly deny there was violence in his former marriage.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Kimble:
“Ah, so once a party take government, they no longer have to abide by the wishes of the people. Typical leftist authoritarian crap. No surprise it is fountaining from the orrifice himself, rogernome.”
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of New Zealand’s public was also against the Employment Contracts Act 1991 Kimble – this is why the left (labour and alliance) got 51% of the vote in the 1993 election and National only got 36% (because it was an FPP election National still got back in).
Also – Labour is often accused by the right of being too populist – too driven by pleasing the public, and not enough by their principles. So which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“Ah good, we went to all that trouble to pass a law to change nothing. That was worthwhile, then.”
Well it will mean that the eggregious child abusers will have no legal defence for their actions. An if that means that just 5 children are liberated from an environment of physical abuse in the next 10 years, then yes, it will have been worth it.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
It was just one punch right?
Well, one punch was all it took to inflict 4 facial fractures to me!
Is Mr Mallard has any integrity, he should step down from Cabinet and sort his life out. If it happened on the street it would be chargable.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Interesting that Helen Clark claimed she was ‘astounded’ by Rodney Hide’s call for the sacking of Mallard because ‘Rodney Hide was one of the handful who refused to vote on a law to stop our children being thrashed.”
So, reading between the lines, Helen is ‘astounded’ that people use or advocate or refuse to stand up against the use of violence, unless of course, that person is Trevor Mallard?
In which case those who refused to act according to the Governments’s own drive to stamp out violence, are hypocrites.
Unless it is Helen, of course,
October 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
And a few more questions Tim.
Was Mr Mallard involved in an extra-marital relationship at the time he made the inferences about Don Brash?
If so, he is taking hypocrisy to dizzying new heights.
Did his new “companion” ever work in his office?
If yes he was being a little economical with the truth today.
But even if both above answers are in the negative, he’s a “goner” at least from cabinet.
Otherwise it looks like Labour will be stuck with two fetid weights around its neck. An albatross from Dunedin and a Mallard from the Hutt!
October 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“Well it will mean that the eggregious child abusers will have no legal defence for their actions.”
You toad. They never did.
“An if that means that just 5 children are liberated from an environment of physical abuse in the next 10 years, then yes, it will have been worth it.”
Idiotic mushy statements like this make me want to puke.
If it saves the life of one child would you be okay with National being the government of NZ for 25 straight years?
Answer the question, dont avoid it like you usually do by coming back and saying, “But a National government would kill more children by stealing money off the poor / send them into foreign wars / any other of your idiotic panic-mongering claims”.
If all other children are not affected at all, but a 25-year National government would save the life of one extra child…
October 26th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Remember when the leftie-losers were justifying the anti-smacking bill by saying, “You cant walk up to another adult and hit them when they do something wrong!”
Well, it appears you can, if you are a Labour minister.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“You toad. They never did.”
Cue him coming back to say, “They had section “.
So let me preemptively – but how many people were ever able to use that section to get away with bashing their kids?
October 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
If Trevor is beating up Tau, what is Jeanette Fitzsimmons doing to the environment everytime she flys to Wellington – surely that’s more of a slap in the face to the Green Movement and must be hurting mother earth.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Good point Lee.
HC thinks its astounding that a person that didn’t vote for the total banning of right of parents to be able to physically discipline their children wants her to sack a minister who assaulted another MP
and yet,
Can’t see the hypocrisy of a minister -that voted for legislation forbidding light physical discipline of kids- assaulting another member in the lobbies of Parliament.
Wakey wakey Helen.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Can we all stick to the facts.
1/A Senior Cabinet Minister assaulted physically another member of Parliament.
2/This is a minister in a Government that has taken a clear strong stand against violence ,bullying, assault and physical striking of anyone.
3/ In any other organisation physical assault results in serious misconduct charges with or without police involvement and normally results in dismissal.
4/There can be no quarter given in this case irrespective of who the person is because the holding of a ministerial warrant carries with it the responsibility to uphold to the country a standard that is far above that of an ordinary citizen.
5/ Helen Clark must be seen to take a strong public stand against this behaviour otherwise it is saying to New Zealand this behaviour is acceptable in a society that is already far too violent.
6/ Mallard has to be publically sacked otherwise Helen will have no credibility left at all.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Did she have any?
October 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
What a crap topic , nothing changes only the fat soft handed faces , really does anyone think ,anything will change, drink red wine thats REAL , and you can enjoy it, the duck and the boover boy , what boring crap , DF , both parties are comfy, and moraly corrupt. real New Zealanders think they are cheap crap, my thoughts J
October 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
So according to the latest Poll
Th Lefts Vote has gone up since the last election
Funny old world
October 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
With regards to the latest poll.
National have had a couple of gaffs with regard to policy launch which have been manipulated by labour. The reaction in the polls is understandable.
Labour have announced a massive budget surplus and have again defended the no tax cut policy, and we have the Mallard incident. I await the next poll result to see the effects of this.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Labours vote at the last election has to be measured against th eTAX CUT TAX CUT TAX CUT meme of the Nats at the last election. together with their really effective campaign Billboards.
The left vote held up well if you remember
I think therefore that the Left Vote 46% is the core vote for the left.
and if Cullen ilacks the integrity that you say he does……… ,
He will not have to splosh too much money around to get another couple of percent
As Roger says “It looking like three more years”
October 26th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
slightyrighty, those weren’t gaffes, they were national’s policies.
they just sound like a mistake.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
FighterPilott:
I shouldn’t have to run the “freedom of expression” speech by you, FighterPilott, but I think Redbaiter actually does contribute a different perspective to the usual lefitst drones. It’s actually called cut-and-thrust debate. Phillip John/Roger Nome tend to take a mutis mutandi approach to debate (fitting the facts to suit a Labour-friendly view).
On the substantive issue, to the extent that I consider the issue of public interest at all, what I’d like to know is why the media are reporting it as Mallard throwing a punch (by accounts it seems that the pair had an undignified scuffle).
October 26th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Oh, lest I be seen to be singling out Phillip John, I actually intended to say “the likes of” (including Sam Dixon, Sonic, Tane and Toms).
October 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Craig R said:
Campaign Against Political Violence.
“It’s not OK to say, ‘He was asking for it’.
“Or to scream abuse at someone across the Chamber, because you’re too stupid to get attention any other way.
“It’s not OK to control people through harassment and intimidation.
“Or think you can demand someone’s respect and attention just because you put the letters MP after your name.
“It’s not OK to tell lies about people who can’t respond in kind, while hiding under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
“It’s not OK to teach your kids that all of the above is the way to get what you want.
“It’s not OK to bring your personal bullshit to work.
“Or think you can work out your frustrations with your fists.
“It’s not OK to preach one standard of conduct and accountability to civil servants…
“…and Police officers…
“… and teachers…
“…and parents…
“…and sportsmen and women…
“…and health professionals…
“…and not walk the talk.
“It’s not OK to say it’s just part of being a politician.
“Or use your gender as an excuse for what you know is wrong.
“And it’s not OK for Helen Clark and John Key to say it’s not their problem when their attack dogs go feral. Or send out spin doctors to enable or blur the message that such conduct is absolutely, unconditionally unacceptable.
“But it is OK to just grow up and own your own shit.”
Superb Craig – This should have a wider audience. I’ve forwarded it on to a few friends anyway
October 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The Natural Party of opposition
Are you adding DPF comments to your own posts?
[DPF: I don't cry about polls!]
October 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I do not know the state of Mallard’s marriage at the time he started to publically out Don Brash over a historic matter. He was quite clear he began his new relationship AFTER his marriage collapsed. But it now leaves open questions about his marriage and his propensity to violence during a heated argument. The question I ask is “does he deny he has anger management problems and was that the reason his marriage of many years finally collapsed.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I think you’ll find the Three/TNS poll consistently over-estimates Labour’s support, or ‘is biased towards the left’ if you must – though I don’t really like the connotations of that. But I guess if a poll fits your partisan leanings – whatever they are – then they’re written on tablets fresh of the top of Mount Sinai. Which is about where I came in. Until we finally lose our minds and outsource our elections to pollsters and PR flacks, I’m more interested in the poll known as the 2008 General Election. Our electoral agencies certainly have a better accuracy rate than your average pollster.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
<i>The Natural Party of opposition
Are you adding DPF comments to your own posts? </i>
Well he started it
[DPF: I made it very clear that I had edited your post. I let you away with editing a future post pretending to be me, as I have a sense of humour and it "evened" the score. However your continued impersonations are a gross violation of ethics and any repeat action will result in an indefinite ban]
October 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“Well he started it”
Aah, The Standard, the school boy standard.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
You will have noticed Tariana Turia in today’s little whinge about the police taking action against Mallard and their response – “However, a police national headquarters spokesman today told NZPA that police would be extremely unlikely to investigate the incident without a complaint and to his knowledge Wellington police, who would be responsible, had not received one.
Tonight’s TV illustrated the Police’s Double Standards. Re the assault – Police made it clear that the complaint lodged by one of Mallard’s constituents would not receive any attention as the complaint had to be lodged by Tau Henare.
So where does Helen Clark stand in view of her statement: ““It is the responsibility of every citizen to report wrong doing to the appropriate authorities and it will be investigated”?
So Police don’t consider punch ups as wrong doing, if complained of by uninvolved people. Helen’s police force condones violence, unless the victim lodges the complaint him/her self. Ditto, unless a child lodges a complaint of assault, the police will do nothing to uphold the anti smacking bill? I think Broad owes us an explanation?
October 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
The only person who really cares whether Mallard comes or goes is SPARC. Trev gone, they’ll have no-one to hide behind anymore and about bloody time.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Neil
Have you got a sense of Humour ?
October 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I bet this has Trotter spewing, just last week he was telling all and sundry that the left has never NEVER resorted to violence, butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths. Shit, thats another myth fucked, the poor man must be having kittens.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Was it the 9th floor that said “get the Duck off the front page, charge the rotten cop” or did the Commander B [yawn]ored just happen to time it for a Friday. They must really be pissed off we didn`t win the Cup. What`s next, bring Xmas forward to the 8th of November? The cynical regard they have for Kiwis never fails to amaze me.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“Helen’s police force.”
nuff said
October 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Poor Trevor was just emulating those icons and role models for which he promotes as Minister of Sport – So many thugs on the field would be “sacked” if the advocated standards were applied universally.
We have enough confict in the world without contriving more on the sportsfield, and having a Minister for the purpose to boot!
This is an appropriate time to abandon Rugby and League.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Rogernome:
Perhaps because Mr Zero hasn’t offended the totalitarians in some way. I never held that the Bill was ever intended to be a means by which all and sundry could be hauled before the courts for reasonably discilining their child.
Instead it is simply another weapon in an increasing armoury carried by the police which they can use at whim (or at the whim of the government of the day) to single out those displease them in some other, legal, way.
There wan’t much reaction to my mention in yesterday’s General Debate of the Bill introduced by a Labor government in NSW which allows Police to spy on people without obtaining a warrant and in particular the astounding comment by the NSW Attorney General that this could include spraying “persons of interest” with radioactive isotopes so they could be “tracked”.
We had laws dealing with smacking before the anti-smacking bill. We had laws dealing with the activities of terrorists before the anti-terror measures.
Yet bit by bit our civil rights are eroded in the name of “protecting” this sector of society or that, or society as a whole, while the media, bloggers and the citizenry fixate on who’s doing what to whom in bed or in the lobby.
Don Brash, Trevor Mallard et al can screw who they like provided they refrain from screwing the rest of us.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Ben Franklin said it all very prophetically way back in the 18th c
Never should a nation give up its freedoms for securities,, or something to that effect.
This was said long before modern totalitarism and the cold war
Human nature is simply inherently corrupt
October 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“Remember when the leftie-losers” …. incoherant rant etc ……
For a bunch of “losers” we sure do seem to be good at winning elections
And after we win the next election it’s going to be four in a row.
“If it saves the life of one child would you be okay with National being the government of NZ for 25 straight years?”
Not sure how you would prove or calculate that Kimble. A completely nonsensical argument.
The point that you seemed to have missed is that no innocent parents have been convicted because the police are able to apply their common sense/discretion to each complaint (i.e. they won’t arrest you for tapping your 5 year old on the hand). There were cases in which child abusers (people who hit their children with riding crops and pieces of wood) were able to successfully use the “reasonable force” defence to get off child abuse charges. Admittedly they were few (i think it was between 5-10 cases in the last 10 years), but in the future they won’t be getting off. This is a good thing.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
It’s (mis)quoted in various ways in different sources hinamanu but I think you’re referring to “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither”.
Oh, and roger? Ben also reputedly said “A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one”. So I’d tone down the references to academia if I were you
October 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
“Perhaps because Mr Zero hasn’t offended the totalitarians in some way.”
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to think that the police are going to be using this law change to persecute people. There are far more effective ways in which the police can harass and intimidate people. I do agree with the general sentiment of your comment though – i.e. we must be vigilant about protecting our civil liberties from the state – lest we descending into totalitarianism.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither”.
I would put this quote as the most historically ever of all time importance.
Whether we are becoming the victims of a sincere global onslaught
or a vast financial/political conspiracy, or a mixture of both, which is not unreasonable to suggest, liberties and securities are definitely the leverage our leaders are using against us.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
CraigR:
“think you’ll find the Three/TNS poll consistently over-estimates Labour’s support”
Not really sure how you came to that conclusion. They were pretty much bang on for all the parties in the 2005 election. Colmar brunton however, well they were ridiculously wide of the mark.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3898/
October 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
The feathers fly but Mallard’s goose is cooked, I believe.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
The polls were only going to get closer. What is consistent though is that the Nats, despite fucking up some major policy and presentation consistently poll above 45%. I find it hard to believe that labour will poll above 37%, given it took electoral bribes/theft and the EB to get them to 41% in 05.
So the issue will be IMHO, were the rest of that vote goes. Will it push The nats up to 48%, or will it go to the 3rd parties.
It maybe that this mallard issue and the BP issue could be the defining factors.
At the end of the day its going to be a lolly scramble election and the prospect of the those that may vote for dunne, winston or now even maori being lumbered with a 4th term, minority, lame duck govt, with such political luminaries as Mallard, DBP, cullen, tizard et al may be enough to switch their vote and push it Nationals way.
Thanks Trev and Dave
October 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
roger nome:
I must have been confused with the Herald-DigiPoll which was published the day before the election that showed Labour with a 7.2 point lead. Which fits my definition of “ridiculously wide of the mark”. So, again, we’re right back where we started – I have perfectly sound reasons not to take any poll particularly seriously, and anyone who is ordering the victory champers on the basis of polls have learned absolutely nothing. Knock yourself out, Nome, but I don’t see why you little fit of partisan hackery should be any more interesting than any other.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Stan ,although I doubt whether some of your more colourful turns of phrase add intellectual weight to the debate I think you make a valid point.
Dyson has the ability to argue until she is blue in the face that black is white and white is black.
She is the cold face of left-wing feminism.
To her puny pidgeon-holed socialist mind, Rodney must be a hypocrite because he is an ACT member.
Trevor must be defended because he’s a card carrying left winger.
So you call Rodney a hypocrite for calling Trevor a hypocrite.
Don’t waste your time looking for a logical base to their argument Stan because there ain’t one.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Reg says:
“Does any one know the how the law stands regarding crimes committed within the precincts of Parliament?”
What about within the precincts of the Rugby field?
If – as Rodney so affably asserted this evening that “it only takes one person to lay a complaint” – does this apply to the so frequent incidents of thuggery on the Rugby field?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
“I have perfectly sound reasons not to take any poll particularly seriously, and anyone who is ordering the victory champers on the basis of polls have learned absolutely nothing.”
DPF tonight agreed with me that TNS and Roy Morgan were usually pretty accurate. So these are the ones to watch. As for predicting electoral victory based on a poll a whole year from election day – well of course that’s impossible, though I do think that National’s going to be hard pressed to get over that 47% it needs to govern. That’s why I think the left-block is still odds on to win next year.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Just got this from “The standard” Lab first Green 2nd with combined
All pollsl just prior to last election
Election Result ………………………………….. 41.1 GR 5.3 = 46.4
Morgan poll ………………………………… 38.5 GR 7.5 = 46.0
Herald Digipoll …………………………………… 44.6 GR 4.6 = 49.2
1 News/Colmar ……………………………………38.0 GR 5.0 = 43.0
3 News/TNS ………………………………………..40.5 GR 6.9 = 47.4
Fairfax/Neilson……………………………………. 37.0 GR 6.0 = 43.0
Latest Morgan Oct 2007…………………………39.0 GR 7.5 = 46.5
Seems to me that Morgan and TNS have it susssed
Labour and Green Share between 46 and 47% of the vote
Thanks Robert
October 27th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Fucking great formatter I am
October 27th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
So when you’ve been beating the Labour victory drum these past few days, it’s just been bluster from you then?
I don’t particularly care much for National these days as they seem to have forgotten their basic principles. It’s just too easy for left-leaning parties to play the lolly scramble game – leaving taxpayer muggins to foot the bill post-election. Voters have short memories – and they’ll get the government they deserve.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Krazy Kiwi wrote
“Just checked with the CEO of a professional services firm where I’m consulting; If an employee biffed another onsite and during work hours then he/she would be instantly dismissed if (a) it was a serious injury-inducing offence or (b) a second less serious offence. Why is Mallard still employed?”
What serious injury? What first offence?
It’s all Foreman, Ali talk and slap and tickle on the ground. This was no rumble in the jungle, no thrilla in Manilla. Case closed newspapers folded. Walk away and row out onto the lake and have a nice day on full pay. I expect Tau will get a note saying, thanks Tau I feel much better now.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:48 am
As for assaults not resulting in charges – it’s not that uncommon (consider sports games – it’s understand that such matters come under the jursidiction of the referee and disciplinary bodies). Where it occurs in the workplace of employer and employee similarly much of the time, it’s dealt with internally unless the victim wants to lay charges. Here the matter is not necessarily an employee behaviour issue though, politicians do not come into this category.
The media is reporting it as if the PM is an employer (by choice) of a Cabinet Minister. But this confuses executive government with MP’s in their role in parliament. Ultimately this could be a matter for the PC of the House IF anyone wants to refer it. Though politically pressure is on the PM to expect standards of the Cabinet Ministers (in the rest of the life including as MP’s in parliement) given government anti-violence policy etc.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Frank
People are encouraged to report wrong doing, the problem in this case is that none of those doing so was a witness to what happened. They can offer no evidence of an assault. The police, from the same media heresay, only know that the alleged victim of an assault had been engaged in some verbals and then willingly stepped outside with him (though apparently not with any intent to have a physical fight over it) – and was not laying a complaint.
One can guess, but maybe Mr Henare will not be stepping out with Mr Mallard to deal with any further issues of this sort.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:04 am
SPC:
An interesting analysis. But, for myself, I’d stop at the political accountability stage (Helen Clark being mindful of the public perception if she does nothing). You, like many others, seem to go further and characterise MPs as role models. Personally, I don’t see them that way, though they could certainly lift their game. People say they want a representative democracy. So, for better or worse, they get it. Along with the biffo boys. And the skeletons in the closet too.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:36 am
You know, National party supporters are kind of like All Black fans who vehemently insist they have the best team even though they can’t win the competition that counts…
October 27th, 2007 at 10:47 am
SPC: Helen’s Paintergate Complaint was the result of a citizens complaint.
He had read about about it in a report in the Dominion.
In his simple 2 line complaint, he stated this. Police acted on it to the extent of 260 pages of A4 and found a prima facie case of forgery against her. Police Commissioner Rob Robinson said he wouln’t prosecute her “As it was not in the public interest.”
I complained of Helen Clark’s misappropriation of her Leader’s funds to the Police Commissioner under the Sections of the Crime’s Act applicable to Members of Parliament.
That would have been throwing the cat among the pigeons? No wonder the Police Commissioner buried it?
Talk about a corrupt Commissioner’s Office and a corrupt prime Minister?
October 27th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Woger/Phillip John:
Amusing that you raise the 1993 election result as an example of parties acting against public wishes. You claim that National attracted 36% of the vote, as opposed to the combined 50% of Labour/Alliance vote under FPP.
Except the Labour/Alliance vote wasn’t a voting bloc, Woger. Jim Anderton agreed not to bring down Jim Bolger’s government.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
SPC: You excuse punching on the sport’s field as a matter to be dealt with dealt with by the referee etc. (Violence – part of the game?).
Pinching by employees you regard as a matter to be dealt with by the employer.(Employment perk?).
Officials in the Government Service have their transgressions dealt with by “In House Inquiries”. (Keep up the “squeaky clean” record?)
Police have their transgressions mainly dealt with by a “Disciplinary Tribunal” (Note the 3 year Rickard proceedings). (Keep up the reputation of policxe being corruption free?)
MPs have “Privileges Committees”. If more serious matters are alleged, they are subject to a Commission of Inquiry with limited terms of reference. If it developes into a police matter there seem to be endleass and time consuming barriers raised. (Field case)
However complain to Police about a Member of Parliament breaching the Crimes Act 1961 by advantaging him/herself to the disadvantage of others and they don’t want to know about it.
Why? Because it would open a whole can of worms with those in the Service of the Crown (Including Local Authorities) being charged under these sections of the Act.
Even the EFB in my view comes into the category of a group of Members Of Parliament endeavouring to pass into Law an Act that advantages themselves to the disadvantage of others. Show me where I am wromg in this assumption?
Joe Blogg offends and is hauled up in front ot the “Beak” by police. Discrimination? Yes.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
TomsSocialist whines:
You know, Tom, that’s kind of funny coming from you. It’s a great analogy. The All Blacks abide by the “rules of the code”. Labour, on the other hand, has shown it plays by its own rules and passes retrospective legislation when necessary to ensure the pesky referee won’t get in the way. Remember Labour’s shameless attacks on the Auditor-General? Now when that happens in cricket, the player loses his match fee.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“I complained of Helen Clark’s misappropriation of her Leader’s funds to the Police Commissioner under the Sections of the Crime’s Act applicable to Members of Parliament.
That would have been throwing the cat among the pigeons? No wonder the Police Commissioner buried it?
Talk about a corrupt Commissioner’s Office and a corrupt prime Minister.”
You should have complained to the press as weel and then accused them of corruption when they didn’t run with your story.
Then the pigeons would’ve flown.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“You’ll doubtless be gratified to hear that most of the Labour party hate him.”
oh, oh, oh,,
how I would love to be hated by the Labour Party
every comment I said would be magnified a thousand times.
Everytime I talked about Fabian Socialism and GST is obsolete I’d get a bite.
I’m coming Tim!!!
October 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
And considering your track record around here, you’re like one of those psychos who run off and vandalise the ref’s Wiki entry when the calls aren’t to their liking.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
“Except the Labour/Alliance vote wasn’t a voting bloc, Woger. Jim Anderton agreed not to bring down Jim Bolger’s government.”
So you’re saying that in an mmp environment the Alliance would have gone with National over Labour? Tell me IP – what color is the sky on your planet?
October 27th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“Except the Labour/Alliance vote wasn’t a voting bloc, Woger. Jim Anderton agreed not to bring down Jim Bolger’s government.”
anyone know the reasons Jim was so reluctant to cut a huge swathe into his supposed nemisis.
Perhaps the same reasons he backed down from the oil companies after a few cutting remarks of them??
October 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Frank
The Leaders Fund matter was dealt with by the AG. The police in not moving on the matter – allowed this process to occur.
Violence on the sports field and at work is dealt with by the procedures operating in those areas. It only goes any further, if a complaint to police is made by the victim of any assault. This is just stating the facts of it – not making an excuse for it as you stated.
There is an order of process.
Police prefer complaints from victims or witnesses to events. These would have priority.
In the case of “fraud by painting” to advantage a charity – there was no public interest …
October 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
last post!