Such an ego
April 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am by David FarrarOh it is hilarious reading the NZPA report on the challenge to National’s veto of Roger Payne as a candidate. Payne is quoted as saying:
“The people in the electorate of Selwyn deserve someone who is of immediate Cabinet material, I am able to offer that opportunity,” Mr Payne told the court.
Oh yes, Roger Payne is certainly going to go straight into Cabinet – around the time that Iran joins the European Union.
The decision (I expect it next week) will be interesting. If the Court finds that party boards do not have the right to veto unsuitable candidates, then it will affect most of the political parties in Parliament, as that is a very common power.
Related posts:
- National wins Selwyn court case
- Selwyn Electoral Petition outcome at 2 pm
- Payne ordered to pay costs to National
- Humour from the Selwyn Electoral Petition
April 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I don’t see what possible claim he has. He went against a declaration to stick by the National candidate in 2002 by running against him as the Christian Heritage candidate. With that party having now gone under, I wonder if, after failing this court case, he will be looking for a new home? The Kiwi Party perhaps? NZ First? Winston has been taking a keen interest in the bungled Selwyn nomination process.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
We can all be guilty of allowing our egos blind us to our shortcomings. Unless, like I, one is perfect. Let him hang himself on his own rope David, it gives a far nicer warm-all-over feeling. Trust me on this.
Then stick the boot in……..
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
He has no right to the selection. But in vetoing candidates some natural justice principles may well apply. Like an opportunity be heard. I would not be surprised if the Court holds that the National Party Board should give candidates an opportunity to be heard if they intend to veto a candidate. A secret veto does really offend the principles of natural justice.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Yes one had to be present to appreciate the dynamics of the case. The tactics employed by the counsel team for National, namely Peter Kiely and Daniel Erickson were disgusting and some malicious submissions were struck from the record.Natural Justice is at odds with rule number 94 !!
Edit ; negative karmas on this comment will indicate that cowards don’t like the truth . After all it’s the kiwi way !!
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
A lot of candidates will make such a claim.
Interesting that if the result comes out against the National partys current selection process they will have been branded as undemocratic.
How dare they not follow the law some usually strident people (who are all over labours law breaches) will bellow .
After all the law is clear ( did the National party not even look at all election law when they made their rules.)
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Excuse me GWW Labour have the same rules as National, because they very much maintain the right of veto in candidate fixing oops I mean selection !!
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
This prick is an ego driven idiot. He wants to to be in parliament solely for the sake of power itself. That being the case he would be much better standing for Labour. What a tosser. I would not employ such a prick to clean out a festering pigsty.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Labour has party HQ appointed members of the panel.
national used to claim it was up to local memebers only but of course this has revealed they have politburo style approved lists for the locals to chose from.
Surely if the guy has stood against an official candidate before that would mean his application form would say any of above criteria would mean you cant “apply”
Vote:Then again that would rule out all the carpet baggers who are currently selected candidates. ie Franks and others
April 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Monty – He tried to warn National about the charlatan Brain Connell. He was proved right !~!
I find that fucking “hilarious” David F !!
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sounds like the perfect candidate for parliament. His prescence would be a parody of all MP’s who necessarily suffer from hubris. It’s an occupational necessity. Find me an MP who doesn’t have meglomanic tendencies and i’ll show you your subjective judgement.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Sounds like its much better to have him inside the tent pissing out, rather outside the tent pissing in… which he is doing and more now.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Edit ; negative karmas on this comment will indicate that cowards don’t like the truth . After all it’s the kiwi way !!”
Let me know when you’re going to hold your breath until we change our minds.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Why petal is the cold hurting the fragile flower? If I hold my breath and drop dead at least my comments remain in blogosphere.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Dad
Why are you so keen on this guy Payne?
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
BB – His knowledge of the Justice system would be an incredible asset to the National team. The media have crucified this guy.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
big bruv his knowledge of the justice system would make him a valuable asset to the National team.
Vote:The media has crucified this guy unfairly.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
D4J,
He went against his word and actively campaigned against National as an opposing candidate in 2002. Why on earth would National trust him?
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I would expect the lawyers acting for the National Party to have challenged Payne’s credentials in the strongest possible manner. Payne’s record as someone who can’t be trusted deserves to be highlighted again and again.
Lets take the argument to a ridiculous conclusion … lets say Benson-Pope paid a subscription and applied to stand in Selwyn. Does anyone think that the National Party Board would not be justified in declining to approve his nomination?
Well, for Benson-Pope read Payne, although I do think that perhaps Tim Barclay has a point that the Board should, in the interests of natural justice, provide for a candidate they are considering vetoing to plead his/her case before them.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
James W – yes I understand that point. Do you understand why? No. The National Party’s best interests have always been Rogers only concern as the 2002 National Rakaia candidate was only meant to be a temporary arrangement. Ouch, now watch the mud go everywhere.
Must go the leaves need raking up and burning.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
How was standing for Christian Heritage serving “The National Party’s best interests”?
If he had stayed in the tent, perhaps he would have picked up the nomination this time around. But jumping ship to serve himself isn’t exactly going to endear him to the local membership/executive.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The guy’s a cabbage, and there appears to be no point in going through the whole process. He would never win the seat, would never have won selection, will never be accepted into the fold of any political party again. Should just accept defeat, suck it and smile
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Look it’s pointless me trying to defend Roger against anonymous internet critics. If only you people knew the full story then you would probably be more sympathetic towards my good friend.
I prefer to outline facts and produce evidence to my opponents face to face , however the kiwi way is dirty laundry media – kick you in the head when you’re down. You make me sick Martin van Beynen and I have cancelled my subscription of the Press toilet paper bog roll.
Good on ya mate no wonder kiwi society lacks a real identity !!Keep the negative karmas rocking girls as it just proves my point.Look I just gave myself a minus,dam it I can’t do it. Can somebody drop the thumb for me, so it makes it easier for the internet cowards.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Geez, imagine that. A good friend of D4J in Cabinet. Enough to almost make one vote Labour!
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
.”A good friend of D4J in Cabinet”
Get a grip gooner, I’ve already got one of those you twister.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Chris Carter?
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am
D4J … “Look it’s pointless me trying to defend Roger against anonymous internet critics” Well D4J, you’re anonymous but I’m a critic and I’m not.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
GWW as usual doesn’t know what he is talking about. The Board veto is used very very rarely as far as I know. In fact this could be the first time it has been used for some years.
I am on the record as having been critical of the Board for not using it more often. They have a duty to protect the Party from obviously unsuitable candidates.
Someone who has previously signed a sworn statement that they will not stand against the National candidate, and then breaks their sworn written word, is exactly who should not get to go past go. In fact he should never have been allowed to rejoin the party.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I think my lowest karma was -15, so you are riding on a sea of approval in comparison
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I am far from anonymous Ross, as my personal details are far from secretive in blogosphere matey.
James W -my friend has basic reading and writing skills unlike the semi -illiterate Chris Carter.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am
The learned Judge has RESERVED his decision which means there is some merit in the arguments. I would not be surprised if some natural justice principles apply to vetoes.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
gww3: I think my lowest karma was -15, so you are riding on a sea of approval in comparison
The lowest I’ve seen your drivel rated was -45.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Pascal, I do wonder if a Ghost can still walk in -45 conditions ?
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
D4J, you go on ad nauseam about facts around this nutjob’s case, but you don’t want to post them, so STFU.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
So we are back to the age old question d4j – what is the full story? Why would Payne, a man who has broken his word and actively campaigned against National (politically and in the media) be such an asset to National? Answer – he wouldn’t. And his extensive knowledge of the justice system seems to be derived from repeatedly appearing before the courts – how many times has he been a litigant now?
As for your allegations of “struck from the records” that term is an Americanism and does not apply in NZ. My understanding is that the Judge was very specific about what he wanted to hear about – ie: the relationship between Electoral Act and the party rules and it was Payne who was unable to remain on topic meaning a large amount of the hearing was irrelevant.
Is this an example of Roger Payne’s extensive abilities in justice? http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/supreme/PDF-05/SC82005PaynevPayne-18March2005.pdf
“Having now received and considered submissions from Mr Payne in support of his application, we are satisfied that it so plainly fails to met the statutory leave criteria that it can be dismissed without oral hearing…”
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dad4Justice:
So true:
And also this:
So I’m confused: are you now retracting your retraction? I’m expecting abuse from you, but it’d be nice if you could address the substance of my comment instead. Over to you, D4J.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Stay confused POC, you know I didn’t want to prejudice his chances of a fair hearing, as you don’t know what weird creeps read this blog, and I couldn’t give a hoot about what you think is substance.Get a life mate and stop playing lawyer dude.
GPT1 for your sake, the National lawyers were instructed not to continue with Roger’s alleged bankruptcy proceedings as it was formally annulled and the judge asked that the media take that into consideration.You should heed that advice as the matter is still subject to further investigation.
Anyone would think you know all cowardly creeps were at the hearing. What tossers. Full of crap.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Dad4Justice:
I’m not the only one here inviting you to substantiate your comments. You have previously owned up to making a mistake and wanting to move on. And here we are – again – reading your suggestion that something is afoot. Either it is or it isn’t.
That comment was addressed to GPT1, not me, but I’d like to know why National lawyers would “continue” with his alleged bankruptcy proceedings. I suspect it’s one of a number of issues that were raised in court.
Vote:April 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“In fact he should never have been allowed to rejoin the party.”
FYI David F, the former National Party President Michelle Boag asked Roger to rejoin the National Party after the concerns about Brain Connell were fobbed off. Before you cowards start, provable fact .
[DPF: You back up that assertion, which sounds fourth hand. I meanwhile can provide first hand testimony that when Payne tried to join the Wellington Central electorate, his application was declined. I was at the meeting which declined it]
Vote:April 20th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Cowards? Why don’t you post proof? Your glass house must be chilly tonight.
Vote:April 20th, 2008 at 2:58 am
It would take about 2 seconds to find out that Payne was bankrupted on a creditor’s petition in May 2005 and that the bankruptcy was annulled in June 2005. It is not “alleged” it is fact although possibly not of any great relevance.
Anyway now that Payne has had his fair hearing why don’t you tell POC and other readers why you retracted your comments in support of Payne and now appear to be back on his band wagon?
Oh and back up your comment that Michelle Boag invited Payne to rejoin National.
Vote:April 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I am sure you in the National Party “private club” can ask Michelle Bog if my allegation is true and if not tell her to sue me. Yeah right. What silly fools.
I guess Roger Payne feels a bit like Don Brash did. That is, sad because he has been rejected into the “out of sympathy” club.
Vote:April 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
What does Roger Payne bring to the National Party. No much I suspect. There are plenty of more deserving people who should be given a chance rather than someone who breaks his word and stands against a National Party candidate. But I do think there will be some natural justice principles to Board vetoes to candidates who are otherwise qualified to be selected.
Vote:April 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Dad4Justice:
I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you contact Michelle Boag (she’s not Michelle Bog, just like your mate isn’t Roger Pain) – ask her to submit a comment here. Otherwise your position is, as DPF says, fourth-hand and unsubstantiated.
Vote:April 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
You have to be joking – did you just compare the Good Doctor [Brash] with Roger Payne? One man is a former RB banker who took National to within an illegal spending spree of winning the election and the other is a walking ego who seems to have nothing better to do than sue people to make them be his friend.
Come what may do you really think that the National Party will want Payne after this, his latest, round of hysteronics?
Vote: