Thursday, September 15, 2005

Labour's Vindictiveness: Part 1093892

Michael Cullen demonstrates again the pure vindictiveness of Labour Ministers with a subtle warning that:

"While Labour had complied with the Ombudsman's request, Cullen said he held serious concerns about the precedent created, and would take the matter up with his office after the election. "
Clearly, so angry are Labour that the Chief Ombudsman has complied with his statutory duty to ensure that important public information is not suppressed for purely political purposes, they will attempt to push John Belgrave out of his job if Labour wins on Saturday.

Should that come as a shock? Probably not. But it shows just how low Labour will go.


Craig Ranapia said...

You weren't expecting Cullen to say "fair cop" and leave it at that, were you.

Anyway, Stephen Price (who I presume is the Victoria law professor and frequent legal commentator on RNZ) made an interesting comment over on No Right Turn that's worth considering:


The government sought to withhold on two grounds, the one you've outlined, and another that protects conventions surrounding the confidentiality of advice tendered by officials. Both are routinely employed (often together) to prevent policy advice emerging. Both are quite technical and actually much narrower than many officials seem to believe. The Chief Ombudsman ruled that the government neither exception applied. He went on to find that even if he was wrong, the public interest in the information outweighed the strength of the interests being protected. So the government didn't just get the balancing process wrong, it relied on exceptions that the Chief Ombudsmen said didn't apply. This makes it even more useful as a precedent, as you suggest. But it also makes the government's behaviour less excusable.

I think the incoming deputy leader of the Opposition ;P should just keep quiet. After all, as his boss likes to say, when you're in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.

darren said...

Well spotted IP.
I recall Helen Clark issuing threats to journalists when duuring the Doonegate business , Fairfax was forced to identify her as she had told them porkies.
She said-
"What all journalists might like to reflect on is what the chilling effect of this will be on their interaction with senior politicians, including me."

Insolent Prick said...

You can't expect those fuckers to keep quiet, Craig. They're too vitriolic.

In the spirit of David Farrar, I am using my comments box to foreshadow an intention to blog soon about the contenders for Labour's leadership in opposition.

And if I see any of you fuckers blogging about it before I've posted, then I will be both very cranky that you've stolen my thought process, and quite annoyed at myself for having acted like David Farrar.

Craig Ranapia said...

Don't worry, IP. Speculating on who will become the next leader of the Labour Party is about as appealing as trying to figure out whether you'd prefer to be killed slowly and painfully by the Ebola virus or the Black Death.

moth said...

Cullen seems to have aged the last couple of days - he looked like an ashen little grey-haired old man on TV today. Hopefully just a slow-mo heart attack - so we can all enjoy it.

Anonymous said...

IP I wont steal your thunder Ive got some ideas thou And a little out of left(pun intended) field I see a blood letting like none before. I sense there is a pent up frustration that will vent itself on a number of them Not us the usual suspects Let us enjoy the next feww days And the blood letting I see following form the Left

Anonymous said...

i think the smarmy one will take it
as he is a devious bastard, and hasmanaged to do his screwing overs out of the limelight.
Cullender has no public credibility. Wilson would get assasinated. Dullard is not the brightest when it comes to keeping his mouth shut.
Goff, blew any chance he had when he sucked the terrorists face.
Hawkins...ha ha need I say more

Tamihere might be the dark horse of the pack, and you can never rule out winston..he's a cunning bastard, and he might try a take over merger.

Rob's Blockhead Blog said...

My pick - Shane Jones to do a Brash - come in and take over as leader very quickly.

or Goff if they want to win badly enough. Goff has shored up his support with the Left - he's not seen as the Rogernome he was. Maharey is too intellectual; Cullen doens't want it, is going to retire next time anyway, and will be tarred with the loss if they lose Saturday. Mallard similarly tarred.

Insolent Prick said...

Fuck you, Hosking! That's just what I fucking wrote! Bastard!

Except for the Shane Jones call. Can't see it happening.

Anonymous said...

rob just pissed you off because Shane Jones is actually the logical choice to reunite Labour with maoridom. It would be a coup for labour heirachy, and would kill the MP. Then again there will probably be a referendum before the next election, and the Maori seats will be assimilated into the general electoral roll. His problem though, is that he is a product of the gravy train, and has become quite wealthy from it all.

spector said...

You guys make it sound like the Labour party has a strong strategic future direction. You're giving them too much credit. I reakon after they loose they will knee-jerk back to becoming a conservative union driven party with someone like Phil Goff at the helm... I imagine the PC brigade will be given a kicking.