Rewriting history
March 29th, 2011 at 8:02 am by David FarrarClaire Trevett in the Herald reports:
Labour leader Phil Goff told Darren Hughes he would be stripped of his portfolios regardless of the outcome of a police investigation as soon as he became aware of the complaint against Mr Hughes. …
Mr Goff denied there was any attempt to protect Mr Hughes by keeping it secret, saying as soon as he was told of the nature of the complaint “I made it clear to Darren that I thought given the circumstances there had been a lapse of judgment and that would result in his losing his positions.”
I’m sorry, but I simply do not believe this – and it is very rare for me to actually claim an MP is deliberately not being truthful. Here’s why:
- On Wed 22 Hughes put out a PR saying “I have done nothing wrong”. His PR would have been approved by the Leader’s Office. So Goff is saying he had already told Darren he would lose his portfolios over his lapse injudgement, let allows him to put out a statement claiming “I have done nothing wrong” rather than “I have broken no laws”
- The previous week, Darren took part in a celebrity debate affirming “That politics is a grubby business”. Would he have been allowed to do this, if Goff really had formed an opinion that he should have been stripped of his portfolios?
- Goff’s initial statement on Wed 22 says he holds Hughes in high regard – not any suggestion that he thought there had been a lapse of judgement
- Goff also said that day “he accepts the MP’s word that he did nothing wrong” – yet now claims he had already told Hughes he would sakc him from his portfolios
- Goff also said that day “he had felt the complaint was ‘not relevant’ to his ability to do his job” as a specific reason why he did not strip Hughes of his portfolios
- Goff on Wed 22 of course did not announce he was being stripped of his portfolios, despite the matter now being public. In fact he said that only if the Police investigation lasted a couple more weeks, would he consider appointing acting spokespersons
- Then on Thu 23 Goff announces Hughes will temporarily stand down from his portfolios, and appoints Acting Spokepersons. So again we are meant to believe that Goff had already decided to permamently sack Hughes from his portfolios, yet rather than announce this, he announces a stand down only
- In fact it was reported that “Any decision on whether Mr Hughes would get his positions back would made after the police inquiry was finished”, yet Goff claims he had already decided and told Hughes three weeks earlier.
- On Fri 25 Hughes resigns from Parliament and again states “I have done nothing wrong”
So I simply do not believe that Goff told Hughes he would lose his portfolios. It is inconsistent with every previous statement and action made by Hughes and Goff.
Tags: Darren Hughes, Phil Goff
March 29th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Keep digging Phil, keep digging……..
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:07 am
I have a great deal of trouble understanding what Phil thinks he playing at here. He can’t possibly believe he’s fooling anyone.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:09 am
This is exactly what I thought myself.
Surely he should suck it in, lesson learnt, and simply move on.
Goff has so many political attacks he can make against national but he has been snowed in by his own ineptness.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Stalin used to remove the faces of his enemies from photographs to show they never existed. Poor Goff is trying to do the same with “Paree” Hughes.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Now I get it. This scandal broke at about the time the list rankings for Labour were being done. That is why Goff kept it quiet from the President of the Party. That way Goff could protect Hughes’ career by keeping the scandal under wraps. How Goff thought this could work we will never know.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Goff showed his ability to deliver the bare faced lie during the Richard Worth affair – claiming to have evidence that didn’t exist. That he is still trying to get away with lying to the NZ public, by covering for his mate, is no surprise.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Wellington City Council are going to have to revise this document:
http://www.wellington.govt.nz/services/commsafety/pdfs/safety-tips.pdf
I suggest adding another bullet point under “Stick with your mates” to mention the dangers of wandering off with Labour MPs. After all, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s home is likely to be much more dangerous than a dark alley or a vacant lot.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Coran Dann nailed Goff to the wall thi morng on Breakfast. Goff kept insisting that the Hughes issue was a “caucus matter”, and seemd completely flummoxed when Dann asked him that if that was the case, why he hadn’t actually told caucus, especially when Andrew Little as party president traditionally attends caucus meetings.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:36 am
IV2 – I saw that. Good job they let Dann interview him rather than Petra…
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 8:40 am
He tried a similar rewrite of history on breakfast this morning.
Vote:Goff really is revealing his inner douchebag over this.
Shameless liar.
March 29th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Already covered in my 8.32am BB
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:05 am
I2 – Holmes could and should have done that in Q+A, but he was too busy with his blustering bully-bullshit.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:08 am
I think when Goff refers to the nature of the complaint, he is referring to details he found out _after_ the story became public knowledge (ie naked complainant etc). Before then he only had Darren’s word on what happened.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Doesn’t Phil know about stopping digging once you are in a hole?
We still don’t know about Annette King’s role in all of this. Did she know about Hughes’ nocturnal activities? Did she condone this kind of behaviour under her own roof? Did she sleep through what must have beena bit of a commotion? Why has no-one asked her?
Why are the women of Labour all lamenting the departure of their best friend Darren instead of showing some compassion for the victim of an alleged sexual assault? Very interesting to see them defending the supposed abuser rather than the abused. Or is it OK when it’s a boy?
I guess, in the end, this is what happens to a party that has lost its way and its principles and is really just a vehicle to provide comfortable careers for middle class unionists, public servants and teachers.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:11 am
No way did Coran Dann ‘nail’ Goff this morning.
Vote:– Dann made none of the points above
and allowed Goff to look profoundly empathetic towards the complainant and totally submissive to police procedure.
March 29th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Is anyone else amazed that Labour appears to lack anyone willing to replace Goff? Surely, the man was done for last week. Why is he still here? Replacing him now would of course make Labour a lame duck for the upcoming election, but it strikes me that Labour will now be a lame duck whether or not Goff is replaced.
Does the Hughes drama spell the end of Helen Clark’s grip on Labour? Will those not associated with Clark benefit from such a change? The name David Shearer comes to mind.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:14 am
BeaB, I agree. Those are very sensible questions for King. Perhaps we will see real change within Labour now.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:15 am
he’s from the Helen Clarke school of “youre all idiots”
im surprised he hasnt trotted out *in deep baritone* “ha ha i think the people of new zealand are sick of hearing about this. move on”
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Goff implied in the press conference yesterday that he wasn’t aware what the debate topic was about. I think this might be an instance where his attempt to keep the allegations under wraps meant that the people who knew what the debate was about (Labour’s media team) didn’t know that Hughes was under investigation, and couldn’t advise Goff to cancel Hughes’ appearance in the Gallery debate.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:20 am
“Or is it OK when it’s a boy?”
Of course. Can you imagine the police would not have laid charges if the victim was an 18 year old girl?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Replacing him now would of course make Labour a lame duck for the upcoming election, but it strikes me that Labour will now be a lame duck whether or not Goff is replaced.
mjwilknz, ironic that the lame Mallard is about the only one convincing about his wish not to be leader, the others just don’t want it at the moment.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Did Annette King not talk to Goff? Did Annette King not know that the police had executed a search warrant on her home? Did Darren Hughes not talk to Annette King?
Credibility is being stretched to and beyond its limits of elasticity IMHO
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Chuck do you think the media would be reporting a “woman” if an 18 year old female student running naked down the road from the home of a national party MP was the story?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Agreed I2, I find it hard to believe that King didn’t know immediately (my suspicion is that the police immediately took the complainant back to King’s house to retrieve his clothes) and that she didn’t tell Goff straight away. King and Hughes would have known that the matter was going to be followed up by police, and they would have decided very quickly that Goff had to know sooner rather than later.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Perhaps the reason nobody is questioning King is because the Police have been interviewing her and they don’t want to compromise the police investigation?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Pete, thanks for the thoughts. I can understand all those associated with Clark not wanting the leadership right now. If amazingly Goff continues on his present route, surely Labour will have no choice, but to replace him. Does that mean replacing him with someone not from the Clark stables?
A quick Google search turned up this Youtube video from ’09 that Whaleoil put up. Looks like definite leadership potential to me.
Be great if Labour can pull it together. I’d love to see these National jokers given a better run for their money.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Murray, it almost certain that victim would have been reported as an 18 year old girl.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:41 am
The more I read/see of this the more I worry it is a set-up, one to ensure Goff does not survive no matter what happens later this year.
[DPF: Too much speculation]
There can be no doubt Goff is rewriting history, my question is is another, currently out of sight, group manipulating history to force Goff to do so?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Labour leader Phil Goff
Tue, 29 Mar 2011 9:22a.m.
By 3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner
Labour’s decision to hang on to Leader Phil Goff after his woeful management of the Darren Hughes affair shows the caucus is clueless, gutless and talentless. And most of all, they have no collective balls.
If there was ever a time to roll Goff, it is now.
Labour are taking it from everyone wonder how the caucus feels.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Doing it wrong Phil
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Labour are starting to seem like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Vote:They’ll be fighting this election with no limbs: “Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off! “
March 29th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Actually their recent history rather indicates they’ll cheat and commit election fraud rightnow.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Murray, silly me. I forgot you don’t even have to be alive to vote Labour.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Does Goofy us the same PR consultants as Tepco. No the reactors are fine. Sorry the reactors are building pressure. We may have to release a bit of steam. We are having slight difficulties with the cooling system. Oh dear it might pay to run away for a bit. Damn the bloody thing blew up, how did that happen?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:53 am
I can’t particularly see what Phil Goff did wrong? Maybe he could have handled it better, but it was a difficult situation for a leader.
Why are we banging on about him anyway? Shouldn’t we be talking about the person who has been doing wrong — notably Mr. Hughes who appears to be [deleted by DPF]
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Is that the sound of wheels spinning in mud, just making the hole deeper? Tends to happen when you use a Corolla for a job that requires a Hilux…
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:13 am
“Murray, it almost certain that victim would have been reported as an 18 year old girl.”
Or would the media only decide she was a girl if the Police shot her.?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Scott, you’re joking, right? What did Goff do wrong? Didn’t you read DPF’s post that you’re commenting on?
[deleted by DPF]
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:25 am
backster what would be happening right now if a middle aged National Party MP had had a sexual assault complaint laid agaisnt him by a teenage school girl?
Yeah the MP would be in protective custody for a start and all and sundry would be baying for blood.
Its different when its a gay socialist.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hon-Darren-Hughes/13010008646
That is the message Goff gives Hughes on Saturday after he definitely knows about the naked youth running from King’s house.
Has he considered that the complaint may be telling the truth?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
It seems to me that GOFF only decided or was instructed to re-write history after he had spoken to LITTLE for the first time on Sunday..
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
On the 22nd Goff said he had only known for 2 weeks.So King and Hughes kept it secret from their leader for a week.I dont think so.The misinformation to the public started from the 22nd.And for Goff to try and take the moral high ground now is so transpearnt. He says its all good with the front bench.Well its not them he should be worried about,its the disgruntled back benchers he should be wary of.Id love to see someone in the main stream media put together all his statements to show all the inconsistancys.
Vote: