The 2017 Election Thread

**jasonu** · 12th September 2019, 02:20

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

I think that clearly she does understand the difference - it is you who does not ..

The complainants were employed by the party - not by the caucus ... essentially it's an internal employment matter. There is no obvious reason why caucus and the PM should have been involved .. they are not the employers ..

It has got to caucus level because it's politically a very very bad look for the party - and that reflects badly on the whole party .. it only got to that level because of the party stuff ups ... and the complainants making it public ..

Now, I agree, the party has stuffed up - and heads needed to roll ... within the party structure. If the party had handled it properly - as they should have - this would never have reached the caucus ..

Yes I know the difference and you have totally made my point. It is another example of mismanagement that has landed them in this unnecessary mess.

A little while back someone asked if you would let this lot run your business. Hell no!!!!!

**Ocean1** · 12th September 2019, 07:58

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Do you understand the difference between the party and the caucus?

Your responses suggest you don't ..

Who was it that asked for and accepted Nigel's resignation?

The unions own both.

**Banditbandit** · 12th September 2019, 08:50

Originally Posted by jasonu

Yes I know the difference and you have totally made my point. It is another example of mismanagement that has landed them in this unnecessary mess.

A little while back someone asked if you would let this lot run your business. Hell no!!!!!

OK - Yes, I see your point ..

Would I let this lot run my business ??? No - I would not let any of the party hierarchy run my business - they are a useless bunch of wannabes and do-gooders .. who's major recreation is being involved in the Labour party - they need to get a life ...

Would I let the Caucus run my business? That depends on which ones .. Claire Curran? Not at all - she's using up oxygen for no good purpose .. Others? Possibly ..

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Who was it that asked for and accepted Nigel's resignation?

The unions own both.

It's easy to make the argument that Nigel's actions have damaged the party - and for the good of the party he needs to resign. Nigel at least had the grace to accept he stuffed up and resigned ..

That is not the same thing as asking for his resignation ..

If Nigel had refused, she could not dump him - that would have to go to the party for a vote of 'No Confidence' ... i.e. only the party can roll him .. which is highly likely, almost certain, to go against him - especially if the motion was proposed by the PM ..

Nigel seems to have accepted the reality of his position .. .

**Ocean1** · 12th September 2019, 12:14

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

It's easy to make the argument that Nigel's actions have damaged the party - and for the good of the party he needs to resign. Nigel at least had the grace to accept he stuffed up and resigned .

Well it's a fucking sight easier than trying to argue that the parliamentary wing and the party aren't the same organisation.

**Banditbandit** · 12th September 2019, 12:35

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Well it's a fucking sight easier than trying to argue that the parliamentary wing and the party aren't the same organisation.

Yes - obviously ..

The distinction between the party and the caucus is a nuanced one - that seems to be beyond many people here (excluding you, of course .. who does get it)

**Ocean1** · 12th September 2019, 17:57

"The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one". - BC

http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/the-mom...acted-swiftly/

**oldrider** · 12th September 2019, 18:40

The moment I found out that you found out, I acted swiftly - "AGAIN"? -

**pritch** · 12th September 2019, 18:58

Originally Posted by sidecar bob

I know & understand exactly where I live, so don't even go there.

Sorry but if you post ignorant redneck crap people will judge you accordingly.

**sidecar bob** · 12th September 2019, 19:54

Originally Posted by pritch

Sorry but if you post ignorant redneck crap people will judge you accordingly.

So if I'm not blowing Labours cock I'm a redneck? Interesting take on it.
I suggested that perhaps a Kiwi living abroad had every reason to take an interest in NZ politics, if that's redneck crap then your credibility just took a hit.

**Swoop** · 12th September 2019, 20:25

Originally Posted by Ocean1

You mean...... credibility?

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/...t-allegations/

She does not have any.

IF it is revealed that she knew about the sexual allegations, then she deliberately lied to the public.
A resignation would be appropriate as she cannot be trusted in other matters (naturally). The other people who are now being thrown under the bus to take the heat off of the tooth monster, will be forgotten rapidly.

She steadfastly refuses to take an interest in New Zealand's problems (this current scandal, Ihumatao, housing, homeless, child poverty, etc) and conveniently disappears out of the country to avoid the issues. Trying to get positive air-time for the job at the UN, obviously.

**husaberg** · 12th September 2019, 20:56

Originally Posted by Swoop

She does not have any.

IF it is revealed that she knew about the sexual allegations, then she deliberately lied to the public.
A resignation would be appropriate as she cannot be trusted in other matters (naturally). The other people who are now being thrown under the bus to take the heat off of the tooth monster, will be forgotten rapidly.
.

How would this be proven, you are talking a lot of if's
Would for instance 450 texts between them and a secret payout directly out of the PM's leaders fund ie tax payer money be enough to prove they were aware of the allegations?
Or could they say they were was not a party to the dispute, and they did not know what the dispute was or how it was settled, Despite the 450 texts directly between the PM and the alleged victim?

**jasonu** · 13th September 2019, 02:21

Originally Posted by pritch

Sorry but if you post ignorant redneck crap .

According to who? You? Are you the judge around here?
and I thought you had begun to open your other eye.
As you were then.

**jasonu** · 13th September 2019, 02:25

Originally Posted by husaberg

How would this be proven, Would for instance 450 texts between them and a secret payout directly out of the PM's leaders fund ie tax payer money be enough to prove they were aware of the allegations?
Or could they say they were was not a party to the dispute, and they did not know what the dispute was or how it was settled, Despite the 450 texts directly between the PM and the alleged victim?

What are you talking about?

**Katman** · 13th September 2019, 06:28

Originally Posted by jasonu

What are you talking about?

But, but, but National......

**sidecar bob** · 13th September 2019, 08:19

Originally Posted by husaberg

How would this be proven, Would for instance 450 texts between them and a secret payout directly out of the PM's leaders fund ie tax payer money be enough to prove they were aware of the allegations?
Or could they say they were was not a party to the dispute, and they did not know what the dispute was or how it was settled, Despite the 450 texts directly between the PM and the alleged victim?

Fuck really, 450 texts? can't anyone pick up a fuckin phone & call someone anymore?