Could Mr Goff please explain to us what difference sacking or standing down Hughes earlier would have made to that investigation? And could he please dispel for me the suspicion that what really lies behind this delay is both Goff and Hughes hoping the investigation would be dropped and that the whole thing would disappear?
On the subject of Labour Party mugs, could someone please tell Clayton Cosgrove that railing against bureaucrats, government officials and red tape is what the blue parties do, not the red ones? The blue parties use these tactics to soften people up for deregulation and cutting the public sector. Admittedly Cosgrove is one of the bluer reds, but perhaps he might consider keeping his mouth shut for the time being*.
* Actually, forever would be fine with me.
So - the Hughes-free zone didn't last that long, then?
ReplyDeleteOn the question of "prejudicing an investigation", could it be to prevent potential witnesses' recollections being affected by the knowledge that the police are investigating a particular person? Initial reports of the police's actions indicate they were asking bar staff/others in the group questions without naming Mr Hughes as their target (and those interviewed didn't work it out). If they had known (via the media) that it was Mr Hughes' actions that were being scrutinised, their memory of what happened may well change (what previously was remembered as a friendly touch becomes a drunken grope, 'cause ... well, he's a bit suspect now, isn't he?)
Anyway - that's the best I can do by way of explanation. And, just maybe, this story indicates that there was perhaps some sense in Phil Goff's approach: http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/yours-sincerely-a-friend/
I was very confused about what Clayton was bashing on about myself this morning. agree with your footnote.
ReplyDeleteSo if you don't vote Labour, who do you vote for?
ReplyDeleteThe Greens? Or not vote? Or (heaven forbid) National? Or (worse still) NZF?
Not voting is as good as voting National....
(ieuan)
Cosgrove was spot on, the sorting out down here is woeful. The powers that be work in the cordoned off zone in their own little bubble. If a bloke can hire his own crane to fetch his car keys and some frocks for his wife from his penthouse why not get some of our underused soldiers up on cranes and start emptying buildings, be far quicker and less paperwork than letting in dozens of unfit lawyers puffing and wheezing with boxes of records of billable hours to catch up on.
ReplyDeleteNot voting is as good as voting National....
ReplyDeleteNonsense. There is another pretty obvious party on the left to vote for, one that will work with Labour. If everyone fed up with Labour voted for that party how would that be helping the Nats?
I like the thought of a whole lot of unfit lawyers puffing the wheezing their way up and down stairs and carrying heavy stuff.
ReplyDeleteScott, do you feel that the Green party leadership have met the same standard that you're applying to Goff? Obviously they haven't had anything like the current scandal to deal with, but I know your problems with Goff didn't start with the Hughes thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd putting all that aside, are you really so indifferent to the policy differences between the Greens and Labour that you'll chose who you vote for purely on the basis of leadership style?
Hugh, Labour has leadership problems, but that's only one of the problems they have. They lack focus and consistency, and are too often off message. I'm not sure what they stand for. That may become clearer later this year when they start rolling policy out, but at the moment they're not doing it for me.
ReplyDeleteI generally know exactly what the Greens stand for. To be fair, I don't like some of it. But I know what I'm getting with the Greens, and I'd still be potentially supporting a centre-left coalition.
I'm not saying I'll vote Green. But it's certainly an option.
I just say this because it seems from what you're implying that if Labour disappoint you sufficiently you'll go to the Greens regardless of how bad they are. You say you know what the Greens stand for - do you think they've done a better job of presenting their policies to the public than Labour have?
ReplyDeleteQ. What are the policy differences between the Greens and Labour?
ReplyDeleteA. The Greens have policies, Labour do not.
RJEWP, that's not true! Labour have plenty of policies, honestly. They oppose what National support.
ReplyDeleteIf National aren't going to release their policies, how can Labour be expected to know what to oppose?
Hmmmm.....let me think of an example policy...ok, off the top of my head the NZ emissions trading scheme.
ReplyDeleteThe Greens policy is 'they prefer a carbon tax'.
Labour's policy on the NZ ETS is...well, I have no idea!
They just seem to say 'Nationals ETS is SO MUCH worse than our ETS', when both versions share the same flaws; both leave out agriculture for years, both are uncapped, both have no auctions of emission units and 100% free allocation of units to emitters, and both have overly slow phase out of free allocations.
What is Labour's plan for the NZETS if Labour can form a government after the election?