Expense scandal: A leadership coup in disguise?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Expense scandal: A leadership coup in disguise?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078323 24-Aug-2018 10:03

Varkk:

Police have apparently identified who sent the text message, but are not naming them or taking further action, instead referring it to health services. I wonder if the inquiry will be called off now or take the same approach.

Mallard was tasked with exposing the person, that needs to happen

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2078430 24-Aug-2018 12:02

I have stayed out of the Jacinda thread for some time and have no intention of returning, but considering how some people there were seizing on every government stumble to discredit Labour in particular, I find this episode and others rather ironic. I guess the government parties do not have a monopoly on making mistakes and miscalculations after all. The credibility of National as an alternative seems a little shaky to me. Maybe those who were looking for every possible excuse to criticise the government can now employ their critical faculties to give similar expert analysis of the opposition.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078499 24-Aug-2018 13:23

Rikkitic:

I have stayed out of the Jacinda thread for some time and have no intention of returning, but considering how some people there were seizing on every government stumble to discredit Labour in particular, I find this episode and others rather ironic. I guess the government parties do not have a monopoly on making mistakes and miscalculations after all. The credibility of National as an alternative seems a little shaky to me. Maybe those who were looking for every possible excuse to criticise the government can now employ their critical faculties to give similar expert analysis of the opposition.

What!?

Mallard in his role of the Speaker of the house initiated the investigation as was proper to do.

A mentally ill person has accepted responsibility.

Last time I checked, we don't profit (Politically or otherwise) off the actions of mentally ill in this community.

This is nothing to do with Nationals Leadership ability. As far as I can see, it's not a mistake on Nationals part.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2078505 24-Aug-2018 13:32

Why doesn't that response surprise me?

In any case, this has not been the only "lost in space" example that has occurred recently. I'm not saying one side or the other gets everything right (or wrong), just that it might be refreshing to see some hypercritical voices give National the same kind of scrutiny they have been devoting to the government.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078507 24-Aug-2018 13:36

Rikkitic:

Why doesn't that response surprise me?

In any case, this has not been the only "lost in space" example that has occurred recently. I'm not saying one side or the other gets everything right (or wrong), just that it might be refreshing to see some hypercritical voices give National the same kind of scrutiny they have been devoting to the government.

What would you have had them do differently?

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078515 24-Aug-2018 13:42

It was a National Party caucus member. All I will say that if this was in reverse, i.e. Labour party issue, the thread will have grown 20 pages by now, with the usual commentary, that's the difference.

My personal opinion is the perpetrator should be removed from the party if they cannot work with the leader. Across the ditch they make an event of it, NZ doesn't need that. If all parties are united, that's the best way forward for NZ than games like this. As SB said last week, , next week the numbers come out, its not important or a secret. If disruption occurs within a party that needs to stop

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078517 24-Aug-2018 13:48

tdgeek:

It was a National Party caucus member. All I will say that if this was in reverse, i.e. Labour party issue, the thread will have grown 20 pages by now, with the usual commentary, that's the difference.

If it was an *identical* issue and circumstances, I seriously doubt that.

My personal opinion is the perpetrator should be removed from the party if they cannot work with the leader. Across the ditch they make an event of it, NZ doesn't need that. If all parties are united, that's the best way forward for NZ than games like this. As SB said last week, , next week the numbers come out, its not important or a secret. If disruption occurs within a party that needs to stop

How do they remove this person without identifying them, which given there is mental illness involved, needs to be handled very carefully?

I in theory agree. Removing that person from being part of the equation would be important and should be done quickly. With the other complications, things may proceed differently.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2078523 24-Aug-2018 13:55

If they are ill then extended sick leave and the right support is appropriate, a witch hunt and removal is not the way. Given the statements today the matter should be taken out of the press and managed with compassion and confidentiality and let the voyeurs get their jolly's elsewhere.

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078530 24-Aug-2018 14:00

networkn:

If it was an *identical* issue and circumstances, I seriously doubt that.

How do they remove this person without identifying them, which given there is mental illness involved, needs to be handled very carefully?

I in theory agree. Removing that person from being part of the equation would be important and should be done quickly. With the other complications, things may proceed differently.

1. I 110% disagree, Ive been here long enough. I can imagine the comments easily

2. Yes it is difficult. Part of me sees a link between poor Greg and this admission. Its extremely topical at the moment, I'd be disgusted if it was used as a crutch by the leaker, hope I am wrong. If I was leading a party I want everybody on board. Ive read the base of the texts, the leaker is not happy at all to put it mildly, and he has damaged the party. The expenses were and are a non issue. The leak and why is the issue, now he has a caucus member who is against him, and he doesn't know who he/she is. That's untenable. What I feel needs to happen is SB and the leaker communicate and he/she will be leaving later for some reason, but even then, its a whodunnit with all the secrecy. If SB is secure as leader, those looking in will see him as on the way out. Can't go on like that

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078534 24-Aug-2018 14:05

MikeB4:

If they are ill then extended sick leave and the right support is appropriate, a witch hunt and removal is not the way. Given the statements today the matter should be taken out of the press and managed with compassion and confidentiality and let the voyeurs get their jolly's elsewhere.

But, the drama of this leak, then a caucus member goes on sick leave, 1 + 1 = whatever the media want to print. I can't see a way out where the party looks solid and the leaker is unaffected. As this festers it becomes a potential leadership crisis, even if that is not the case.

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078536 24-Aug-2018 14:08

2. Yes it is difficult. Part of me sees a link between poor Greg and this admission. Its extremely topical at the moment, I'd be disgusted if it was used as a crutch by the leaker, hope I am wrong. If I was leading a party I want everybody on board. Ive read the base of the texts, the leaker is not happy at all to put it mildly, and he has damaged the party. The expenses were and are a non issue. The leak and why is the issue, now he has a caucus member who is against him, and he doesn't know who he/she is. That's untenable. What I feel needs to happen is SB and the leaker communicate and he/she will be leaving later for some reason, but even then, its a whodunnit with all the secrecy. If SB is secure as leader, those looking in will see him as on the way out. Can't go on like that

I struggled to follow these sentences to be honest. I personally don't care who it is. I wouldn't care who it was if it was a Labour leak (by someone who was mentally ill). The person is mentally ill. If you take that into acccount, then everything else becomes more or less irrelevant. There is no conspiracy or secret squirrel. It's not neccessarily an indication of a wider issue.

It's naive to think that in any organization, the leader has 100% support from every person.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2078544 24-Aug-2018 14:18

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/364834/speaker-calls-off-bridges-expenses-inquiry

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078546 24-Aug-2018 14:20

networkn:

2. Yes it is difficult. Part of me sees a link between poor Greg and this admission. Its extremely topical at the moment, I'd be disgusted if it was used as a crutch by the leaker, hope I am wrong. If I was leading a party I want everybody on board. Ive read the base of the texts, the leaker is not happy at all to put it mildly, and he has damaged the party. The expenses were and are a non issue. The leak and why is the issue, now he has a caucus member who is against him, and he doesn't know who he/she is. That's untenable. What I feel needs to happen is SB and the leaker communicate and he/she will be leaving later for some reason, but even then, its a whodunnit with all the secrecy. If SB is secure as leader, those looking in will see him as on the way out. Can't go on like that

I struggled to follow these sentences to be honest. I personally don't care who it is. I wouldn't care who it was if it was a Labour leak (by someone who was mentally ill). The person is mentally ill. If you take that into acccount, then everything else becomes more or less irrelevant. There is no conspiracy or secret squirrel. It's not neccessarily an indication of a wider issue.

It's naive to think that in any organization, the leader has 100% support from every person.

What I wrote was quite readable and understandable. You need to get past that. And I'm not naive that every leader has 100% gospel support, so put that to bed as well. I'm not going to bother adding more, just the same old one way traffic

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2078551 24-Aug-2018 14:25

Rikkitic:

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/364834/speaker-calls-off-bridges-expenses-inquiry

Of note Mr Mallard said Mr Bridges wanted the inquiry to continue.

I think that's the best way forward. The leaker can still remain name suppressed, and they can work out a means to manage a non supportive and disruptive member and move forward, and this member can get the support he/she needs

allio

887 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2079798 27-Aug-2018 15:59

networkn:

I struggled to follow these sentences to be honest. I personally don't care who it is. I wouldn't care who it was if it was a Labour leak (by someone who was mentally ill). The person is mentally ill. If you take that into acccount, then everything else becomes more or less irrelevant. There is no conspiracy or secret squirrel. It's not neccessarily an indication of a wider issue.

It's naive to think that in any organization, the leader has 100% support from every person.

It's hard to disagree with this as a general concept, but is it fair to say that the leak itself was due to the leaker's mental health issues? There is no evidence of that, and it wasn't what their text message said. The message said that the attention that followed the leak might was distressing and, because of their mental health issues, might cause them to harm themselves. That is a very different thing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4