Questions need to be raised about the capacity of our Prime Minister, after yet another inexplicable memory lapse from our nation's leader.
John Key has been under pressure for weeks over what he knew about Kim Dotcom and the illegal GCSB monitoring of Mr Dotcom.
But Mr Key has struggled to recall anything about Mr Dotcom. Despite a number of people at high levels within government knowing in 2011 about Dotcom's situation and the FBI's interest in the man, Mr Key claims he first heard of Dotcom the day before the raid on his Coatesville mansion.
Mr Key claimed he first learned of the GCSB's investigations into Dotcom on 17 September this year, but it turned out that he'd forgotten he had been told by the spy agency of their interest in Dotcom back in February.
Now the Labour Party leader, David Shearer, has claimed that a tape exists of a speech by Key to GCSB staff in which he made a quip about Dotcom. Rather than deny the allegation outright, Key has responded that he has no recollection of the alleged incident.
There are questions about whether the allegation from Shearer can be backed up. Regardless of whether the allegation is true, the fact that Mr Key is unable to categorically deny the allegation indicates a grave deterioration in the memory capacity of the Prime Minister.
Loss of memory is often associated with the onset of old age. But younger people have been known to suffer from memory loss, and the causes can vary.
There is in fact evidence that Mr Key's memory failings go back a number of years. He has claimed in the past not to be able to remember where he stood on the issue of the 1981 Springbok Tour, despite his being an avid sports fan.
And in recent years Key has taken positions on issues completely at variance with positions taken in the past.
One interpretation of such behaviour is that Mr Key is simply moving from one position to the next as it suits him politically, and that he is governed by political expediency rather than any yearning to tell the truth.
The alternative, that Key's mental faculties are slipping, will be of concern to his fellow MPs. It is difficult to imagine National winning a third term in office while their leader struggles to remember important information.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
18 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scott, you, as a presumably much younger person, will remember everything you heard and said in February.
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't requite memory to raise an eyebrow or two at the Labour leader revealing things that have happened (allegedly) within GCSB. Could he be trusted being the one person responsible for the GCSB?
No one can ever prove whether Key did remember or not.
Hasn't Shearer proven that he will put political point scoring first - and supports leaking from the GCSB?
My post isn't about the truth or otherwise of Labour's allegations, but nice effort to deflect, as usual. It's irrelevant to the point of the post.
ReplyDeleteBut if Key had no knowledge of the GCSB's involvement with Dotcom, other than briefly seeing a slide with him mentioned during the February briefing, then surely he can just call bullshit on Shearer's allegations and deny the entire thing. Instead we get "I have no recollection". Why? Surely any possibility that Key quipped about Dotcom in front of GCSB staff damns him, so why not deny doing so?
Maybe "I have no recollection" is an honest reply (quite feasible, none of us remembers every detail of every casual conversation from month s ago). Meaning denying it would be dishonest.
DeleteAnd if he did quip about Dotcom why would it damn Key? Others have already said Dotcom featured in a small way in a meeting that Key and others don't remember but accept it may have happened. This is no different.
What I find curious is how frazzled Key's political instincts and radar has become. Back when he became National leader, all the way to shortly before the 2011 election, he seemed to be running a smooth machine, but it's just gone from one blunder to the next, roughly from around the time the teapot tapes issue cropped up. I wonder if there's been a change in personnel behind the scenes, much like how the Paganis were turfed out of Labour - only with a whole lot less coverage.
ReplyDelete"But it doesn't requite memory to raise an eyebrow or two at the Labour leader revealing things that have happened (allegedly) within GCSB. Could he be trusted being the one person responsible for the GCSB?"
ReplyDeleteUsing that rational Pete could you could say that in 1963 Harold Wilson should have turned his back on the Mi5 leaks and accepted that nice Mr. Profumo's word that he had only shook young Miss Keeler's hand once at a garden party? Or maybe in 1973 Sam Ervin should have ignored Butterfield's revelation that Nixon recorded his conversations and taken the President at his word?
I mean there is obviously no place in the Westminster Tradition of loyal opposition for the leader of the opposition to use leaked information to uphold the integrity of the state. I guess we should just all block our ears, except Mr. Key on his vacillating word, and have a nice cup of tea?
@cas: we too found pm key's facial expressions forced when bring grilled by patrick gower - key got more and more uncomfortable & was blessedly relieved when gower stopped ... interesting .. and he showed high levels of stress and forced grimaces - and a BIG alarm was donging in his brain - stop digging - stop digging ..
ReplyDeletedear john: oh how we hate to write - dear john: you are no longer right; dear john: we see now you are wrong; dear john: your 'no idea', no don't think so, goodness no, no staff with me, no video recording - don't remember - don't recall it - no ...look i don't know .. .don't recall it .. DON'T quite give me confidence you are are being the 'honest john' we all got used to.
diana and friends
Of course if there was to be a full enquiry by an independent body, there would be no need for leaking or dodgy memories. But with no proper enquiry it becomes, as Millhouse demonstrates @9:51, the task of the Opposition to hold Goverment to account.
ReplyDeleteThere's holding to account, and there's making accusations that aren't substantiated, and there's political parties having sources within the GCSB.
Delete"Holding to account" is not (or should not be) a euphemism for using information from people in a secret organisation to undermine Government.
If Shearer became Prime Minister he would have more substantial sources in GCSB - could we trust him to use any information given to him responsibly? Or has he opened up the perception that he could 'hold to account' opposition parties?
Pete declares: "There's holding to account, and there's making accusations that aren't substantiated...."
DeleteYou mean that Mr Key using the teacup accusations against Ambrose was not a case of "...there's making accusations that aren't substantiated..."
To Live by the sword is to die....
So again Pete, no one should do anything and we should just accept Mr. Key on whatever is word is.
DeleteIt was wrong for Ellsberg to have leaked anything, Profumo didn't know Kealer, and the President wasn't a crook.
Nice 'slippery slope' misdirect there at the end by the way!
Let me sooth your concerns quickly. If Shearer was Prime Minister, and he was doing his job as the minister responsible, and the GCSB were doing the job that they are legislated to do - nobody would be spying on New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. FACT.
In case you've missed the news over the last few weeks it is illegal for the GCSB to spy on, or monitor, citizens and permanent residents. That is precisely why the opposition needs to hold to account those who are meant to be holding the GCSB to account.
I'm aware that it is illegal for the GCSB to spy on, or monitor, citizens and permanent residents. I agree they should be held to account for that. That's a separate issue.
DeleteUsing information from 'sources in the GSCB' to add to a long attempted political campaign to undermine Key and the Government also merits scrutiny, don't you think?
Shearer has said that it's ok as long as it isn't related to national security. Should he be able to decide that for himself? Would you be concerned if any Prime Minister used GCSB sourced information to attack political opponents as long as they decided for themselves it didn't affect national security?
Opposition party leaders should also be held to account shouldn't they?
I watched the video of his interview with TV3 and he was clearly being deceptive - his voice was stressed and immediately changed tone at the end of the interview. He had a number of micro-expressions - he kept his eyes firmly fixed (a good tell for a lie) - and his body was quite rigid indicating stress until the interview stopped and he moved suddenly.
ReplyDeleteJust an observation - I have no idea what he was being deceptive about however... :-)
Shearer has the potential to look stupid here. Claiming leaks in the GCSB is no small matter. He needs to present this so-called recording, or he runs the risk of taking heat off Key, especially when Key himself has called for its release.
ReplyDeleteSo because Key has called for the tapes release Shearer needs to tell the GCSB to release the tape? Who is the Prime Minister in charge of the GCSB again?
DeleteShearer is the "prosecution", therefore onus is on Shearer to prove his allegation. The GCSB have said there is nothing, thus its up to Shearer to use his secret source and front up with the goods.
DeleteIt is not just the tape. There was a whole bunch of people gathered in the cafeteria and they all heard Mr Key's witty speech and his reference to GSCB and Kim Dotcom. As Andrew Geddis explains on Pundit this would hardly be a cause for prosecution if it was publicised.
DeleteI think Mr Key sees these speeches as a means to garner votes and he hopes that they all go home and talk about what he says and how witty he is. Unless he decides to do an Ambrose Tea Cup Police Complaint against GCSB staffers?
Its still hearsay though. There is no concrete evidence short of these people coming forward and declaring what happened (if anything happened at all). At the moment, its just "he said, she said"
DeleteAnd that would never happen McGrath because then they would be breaking the law.
DeleteGovernment Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 s11(1)