Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2085681 7-Sep-2018 14:31

tdgeek:

She was fired, plain and simple.

Here's the problem. The PM just directly told the public that she wasn't considering firing her. She spent 5 minutes on air defending and minimising Curran's failings, and stated that she shouldn't lose her job for it.

Whether or not Curran was pushed - Ardern has strapped herself to the mast of HMS Curran. And even as it sunk disgracefully under the water, the PM continued to insist that the ship was still seaworthy.

That can mean one of two things:

Ardern's judgement is just as bad as Curran's
Curran has dirt on Ardern/Labour that must never be released

Either way, Ardern's credibility (which has already been taking a battering over that past few weeks) is shot to he1l.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2085694 7-Sep-2018 14:53

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

She was fired, plain and simple.

Here's the problem. The PM just directly told the public that she wasn't considering firing her. She spent 5 minutes on air defending and minimising Curran's failings, and stated that she shouldn't lose her job for it.

Whether or not Curran was pushed - Ardern has strapped herself to the mast of HMS Curran. And even as it sunk disgracefully under the water, the PM continued to insist that the ship was still seaworthy.

That can mean one of two things:

Ardern's judgement is just as bad as Curran's
Curran has dirt on Ardern/Labour that must never be released

Either way, Ardern's credibility (which has already been taking a battering over that past few weeks) is shot to he1l.

Ok :-)

Here is how I see it. First she didnt say she should not lose her job for it, she said she did

1. Should have been fired, everyone happy. She was, job done

2. Two options, publically fire her, or let her resign. Took the latter honourable approach, who really wants to shame her any more? Letting her resign means JA had to skirt around the time between the "conversation" yesterday and Newstalk, without lying, but without dragging CC through more mud as she was already gone. Problematical for sure. While CC should have been gone long ago, I have no issue with the skirting around in order to let her resign first. No need to see her shot down by daggers, as the job was already taken care of.

Aderns judgement here I am fine with. Prefer that than a public sacking

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2085698 7-Sep-2018 15:02

tdgeek:

Here is how I see it. First she didnt say she should not lose her job for it, she said she did

1. Should have been fired, everyone happy. She was, job done

2. Two options, publically fire her, or let her resign. Took the latter honourable approach, who really wants to shame her any more? Letting her resign means JA had to skirt around the time between the "conversation" yesterday and Newstalk, without lying, but without dragging CC through more mud as she was already gone. Problematical for sure. While CC should have been gone long ago, I have no issue with the skirting around in order to let her resign first. No need to see her shot down by daggers, as the job was already taken care of.

Aderns judgement here I am fine with. Prefer that than a public sacking

I would agree with that, everybody knew she would not stay where she was and skirting around it I am ok with as I am sure she has been taking s*it since her demotion out of cabinet. She has gone move on to more important stuff (although she should have been gone awhile ago I do admit)

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2085699 7-Sep-2018 15:02

tdgeek:

Here is how I see it. First she didnt say she should not lose her job for it, she said she did

1. Should have been fired, everyone happy. She was, job done

2. Two options, publically fire her, or let her resign. Took the latter honourable approach, who really wants to shame her any more? Letting her resign means JA had to skirt around the time between the "conversation" yesterday and Newstalk, without lying, but without dragging CC through more mud as she was already gone. Problematical for sure. While CC should have been gone long ago, I have no issue with the skirting around in order to let her resign first. No need to see her shot down by daggers, as the job was already taken care of.

Aderns judgement here I am fine with. Prefer that than a public sacking

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2085702 7-Sep-2018 15:04

These kind of 'scandals' hit every government, interesting to note that this government, despite all the promises about doing this differently (transparency etc, etc,...), is just the same as them all.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2085708 7-Sep-2018 15:11

rjt123: These kind of 'scandals' hit every government, interesting to note that this government, despite all the promises about doing this differently (transparency etc, etc,...), is just the same as them all.

I agree. Ponytail gate, Banksy tea Party, if you are in the public eye, you have 24/7 exposure. Humans are frail

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2085712 7-Sep-2018 15:15

tdgeek:
rjt123: These kind of 'scandals' hit every government, interesting to note that this government, despite all the promises about doing this differently (transparency etc, etc,...), is just the same as them all.

I agree. Ponytail gate, Banksy tea Party, if you are in the public eye, you have 24/7 exposure. Humans are frail

Yeah all those things. What Jacinda doesn't understand is that human frailty costs jobs in parliament. Full stop. Is that a ridiculously high standard? Yup... But that's the fickle nature of politics, and if she thinks she can fight the tide of public murmuring over a scandal like this then she is deluded.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2085713 7-Sep-2018 15:18

rjt123:
tdgeek:

rjt123: These kind of 'scandals' hit every government, interesting to note that this government, despite all the promises about doing this differently (transparency etc, etc,...), is just the same as them all.

I agree. Ponytail gate, Banksy tea Party, if you are in the public eye, you have 24/7 exposure. Humans are frail

Yeah all those things. What Jacinda doesn't understand is that human frailty costs jobs in parliament. Full stop. Is that a ridiculously high standard? Yup... But that's the fickle nature of politics, and if she thinks she can fight the tide of public murmuring over a scandal like this then she is deluded.

I'd hardly rate it as a scandal. If she kept CC on and on and on after every fail, that's a scandal. The Nauru trip, was that also a scandal?

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2085714 7-Sep-2018 15:23

On another note though... Jacinda makes this comment in that interview:

JA: Yeah, the thing that I want to make really clear, as I've done from the outset when I've been asked questions about that is that our Official Information Act applied to all our communication. Gmail, TXT messages, WhatsApp, ah, it's not, it doesn't discriminate on those. So anyone can ask any question around policy, papers, ministerial discussions, and it can apply across the board. So the minister was asked questions about her Gmail account, and underneath all of that, the point that needs to be made is that it doesn't matter where business is undertaken by us, it's all covered. And that's really important. The minister when she stood up, she paused. She took some time to answer questions. She had a bad day. Um..

Is that really the issue? I thought it was more about security and professionalism and for all communications to be 'transparent'. For sure, none of them are excluded from the OIA, but if they are conducted in a hidden way it raises questions about integrity.

I don't want to draw a parallel between this and the Clinton emails, but conducting the business of the state should not be done lightly or flippantly, and I don't think Curranhad any grasp of that, and by Jacinda's comments, I don't know if she does either.

People complained about Nats being arrogant and having an attitude of entitlement, but this government is at the opposite extreme which is no better, being lax, flippant and oblivious to norms like the appropriate use of taxpayers money (flights, helicopter rides, and Shane Jones splashing millions on tourist centres in kawakawa against official advice... Etc).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2085715 7-Sep-2018 15:24

tdgeek:
rjt123:
tdgeek:

rjt123: These kind of 'scandals' hit every government, interesting to note that this government, despite all the promises about doing this differently (transparency etc, etc,...), is just the same as them all.

I agree. Ponytail gate, Banksy tea Party, if you are in the public eye, you have 24/7 exposure. Humans are frail

Yeah all those things. What Jacinda doesn't understand is that human frailty costs jobs in parliament. Full stop. Is that a ridiculously high standard? Yup... But that's the fickle nature of politics, and if she thinks she can fight the tide of public murmuring over a scandal like this then she is deluded.

I'd hardly rate it as a scandal. If she kept CC on and on and on after every fail, that's a scandal. The Nauru trip, was that also a scandal?

I use the term lightly, "controversy" would perhaps be more apt.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2085721 7-Sep-2018 15:34

tdgeek:

First she didnt say she should not lose her job for it, she said she did

Sorry - just circling back to this quickly. Your statement above is untrue.

Ardern said (and I quote verbatim) "she lost her position in cabinet over it". That's quite different to losing her job over it.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2085736 7-Sep-2018 15:48

Why would they be allowed to use gmail in the first place for government business I would have thought it would all have to be done through there own servers full stop.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2085737 7-Sep-2018 15:49

Mspec:
Why would they be allowed to use gmail in the first place for government business I would have thought it would all have to be done through there own servers full stop.

Exactly. Yet Jacinda appears to condone it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2085743 7-Sep-2018 15:54

6FIEND:
tdgeek:

First she didnt say she should not lose her job for it, she said she did

Sorry - just circling back to this quickly. Your statement above is untrue.

Ardern said (and I quote verbatim) "she lost her position in cabinet over it". That's quite different to losing her job over it.

Fair point, I used the generic job re her cabinet position and that’s not clear or technically accurate as you say. She still has her job as an MP

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2085771 7-Sep-2018 16:49

I'm sorry for banging on about it (especially seeing as you're acknowledging the inaccuracy) but it's quite an important distinction.

Curran did not lose her job as a Minister as a result of the controversies about secret meetings. She retained her position as a Minister, her Ministerial salary and all the perks associated with it. All that she lost was two of her portfolios, and her position in the inner-cabinet.

It was a classic, "on-paper", notional disciplinary action. Curran was left with significantly more than just her job as an MP.

1 | ... | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268