Coddington’s column
September 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm by David FarrarDeborah’s column has a few things in it I can’tr resist responding to:
More puzzling than Helen Clark’s refusal to sack Peters is Key’s rush to judgment, ruling out working with NZ First before the committee’s report was tabled.
Key’s no crystal-ball gazer; he can’t know for sure NZ First won’t be back in November.
No. As he has said he would rather remain in Opposition than rely on Peters, as he can’t be trusted. It is called a principled decision. To be fair, it is also probably a recognition that such a Government would only last weeks or months anyway.
Contrast this with the National Party campaigning for convicted paedophile Peter Ellis’ innocence when he’d been found guilty by every court in the land.
How this is even relevant, I don’t know. But it is not National campaigning – it was Katherine Rich and Don Brash. But asking for a Royal Commission into the Ellis case (something I support) is not about campaigning for a paedophile – it is about campaigning for a better justice system.
Several years ago a National insider who quit the leader’s office told me if the party ever dies, trace the DNA back to McCully.
“He’s a trench fighter, and all his decisions are made according to what’s good for him. He was behind Jenny [Shipley] rolling Jim [Bolger], then he pushed Jenny over.”
This is why I responded, because I know this is false. McCully was not supporting Shipley. Far from it – he was a member of the Bolger team trying to defeat her coup. This is a matter of fact – many witnesses would testify to this.
A current National staffer says he overheard MPs discussing what they’d do about Peters if he held the balance of power after the election, and McCully expostulated; “The f***** wants my portfolio.”
This seems unlikely to me. Up until the donations scandal this year, National were actually quite keen to do a deal with NZ First. I know this, because it worried me. It was very well understood that Peters would keep Foreign Affairs and McCully was very relaxed about this state of affairs. This was common knowledge.
Peters has no-one to blame but himself. National were all set to do a deal with him if he made it back. But during the course of the last seven months, he has shown himself to be a man who can not be relied upon.
Related posts:
- Peter Ellis
- Clark attacks Key – again
- A guide for MPs to avoid questions
- Call for Power to launch inquiry into Peter Ellis case
September 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I don’t know why you waste time on Deborah Coddington. She’s a nut case really. Discredited as an MP, she now relies on the wild hyperboly and speculation to try and be noticed. Don’t give the silly girl any more oxygen. Kiwiblog might as well report on the results of the latest seance as on Deborah’s views on anything. Just cut her off David and be done with it.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
yeah I took issue with it also on MWT. When you analyse the sum total of her judgments (mine suggested that to equate Key’s Transrail cock-up with Peter’s and Labour’s cover-up and corruption is just inaccurate) it ranks as just another of her famous ‘Codd-pieces’. watch out three weeks after the election for another column stating how much she ‘regrets’ this one….
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“This is why I responded, because I know this is false.”
Yeah. Shame really. During the days I subscribed to The Free Radical, I found her inspirational.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
To follow on from Redbaiter has Coddington lost it completely? Her articles ramble and on occasions have a connection to reality that is only rivalled by Peters – whomever she is attacking.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
What an eccentric performance by Coddington.
Save yourself brain cells in future David and smash your head into a brick wall instead.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You’re right Redbaiter, she was pretty good in the Free Radical.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Look, she’s just another “One Term Wonder”…Another halfwit that gets far too much coverage, ends up an MP. Does an ineffectual job, can’t hack the pace and leaves after one term. She was a crap MP, and now writes bitter crappy articles to make ends meet.
Let’s think of other one term MP’s?….Pam Corkery, Hamish McIntyre, Willie Jackson, Dave Robinson…
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hamish Hancock – Horowhenua 1990-93. Lost it to Judy “There’s Something About My Teeth” Keall, FFS!
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I used to have a bit of time for Deb Cod – until she started opening her mouth. Most times I hear her I think even less of her.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
What is this toxic obsession she has? Anyone who can’t see merit in a thorough review of the Ellis case is either indelibly stupid (and I accept that there’s mounting evidence for this in Coddington’s case) or has figured out that paedophiles are the last group in society about whom it’s still considered acceptable to advocate castrating, beating, murdering or indeed pretty much anything. Ahhh for the good old days, when such venom could be directed to a much wider range of targets… witches or blacks or Jews or homosexuals.
Which is not to draw a comparison between those groups and paedophiles. But the comparison to someone who singles out a group about whom they know they can whip up a bit of prejudice, and then uses that to advance their own ends, is competely intended. It’s an ugly trait, found only in a certain sort of person – the sort who’d light the torches and hand out the pitchforks no matter who was the target, just as long as they could use the ugliness thus created to further their agenda.
And as if that isn’t bad enough, as others point out above, is that her agenda is nothing more substantial than her own advancement as some sort of “celebrity commentator”. What is it about the Sunday papers that the only people they consider worthy of op-ed space are narcissitic failures like Coddington and Laws, who have to resort to parroting extremist bile to be noticed?
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
spot on Rex – (and not just to reciprocate for your kindness about my ‘bloated fly’ comment) but I will see your ‘extremist bile’ and raise it with a dose of ‘moral superiority and slight whiff of intellectual snobbery’ as often seen in the VDS. This apparently justifies the same kind of ‘pitchfork and torches mentality’. Of course, when they do it, it’s in a good cause, and it is not so much pitchforks as ‘fondue forks and aromatic candles’, but you get my drift…
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
On the Peter Ellis case, does Coddington share the hinted allegations at the time that Freemasons, judges, even the police, were involved a conspiracy to abuse tiny children? What of the talk of secret tunnels that have never been found?
Leaving Ellis out of it, does she think other workers at the creche who were hounded, in one case apparently to death, deserved such mob justice?
The Ellis case shared features with similar hysterical outbreaks in the United States, with the accusations growing progressively wilder and more unbelievable.
Coddington seems to have regressed to her mad Libertarian past. Regardless, she is on the side of the witch burners.
An inquiry is justified to see first whether Ellis got justice, and second whether the accusers were malicious.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
She strikes me as being the epitome of a guilt-ridden hand-wringing liberal.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Looks like DCs writing has taken a nosedive since.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 6:26 am
What Rex said. She must be the only person left in New Zealand who believes Peter Ellis is guilty. Any shred of respect I did have left for her after her stupid asian crime article is gone.
Vote: