Posts by Pete George
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think Paul is probably right, there's more to this than we know about - it's odd that Campbell Live are looking hard at one side of the equation but seem to be virtually ignoring possibilities on the other side. John Key doesn't look faultless for sure, it's quite possible Dotcom isn't faultless either. It seems to be an unbalanced investigation.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Laurie Fleming,
Whenever possible. They often don't answer. It's a bit hard finding out what the PM says to the GCSB, any suggestions on how to find this out let me or John Campbell know.
-
@TrevorMallard
@JohnJCampbell your suggestion that current @GovGeneralNZ only got job to make room for @johnkeypm mate as top spook too much of a stretch
@CampbellLiveNZ
@TrevorMallard No. He became @GovGeneralNZ deservedly & in good faith. But, after his departure, the job description & the GCSB changed.
-
Charles Finny has added to the discussion on Fletcher's appointment.
I am surprised that this multi-year research project did not throw up some other useful facts.
How about the fact that Ian Fletcher had signalled his willingness to return to NZ somewhat before the GCSB role came up. I think that you will find that he was interested in replacing Simon Murdoch as MFAT CEO and that he did rather well in that selection process. In the end John Allen came through, but the facts that Ian Fletcher was interested in a return, and that he was an obviously very strong candidate for a senior leadership role in the NZ public service were very much front of mind for people like Murdoch, Wevers, the State Services Commissioner, and externally focused Ministers. That he was thought of when GCSB came up is no surprise. It seemed totally logical. No conspiracy here whatsoever.
I am sure the fact that he had held a Top Secret security clearance in NZ and the UK for many years would have been helpful. That he had done a series of high profile jobs well in the UK, EU and Australia would likewise have been a factor.
The impression I had at the time was that a number of senior public servants were delighted that someone as good as Ian could be attracted back. The view seemed to be – let’s try him at GCSB and see where his career might lead.
I see nothing sinister in the GCSB Director being from a non-military background. GCSB began life as part of the military establishment, but the role has changed substantially. A non-military Director is all part of the growing up process. Ian’s background is perfect for the first non-military Director. He began professional life working with Foreign Affairs, serving one offshore posting. He then moved to DTI in the UK where he did a number of roles, most of which were external in focus. He was seconded into the EU’s DG Trade and again there did a core trade policy job. His background is perfect. There is no conspiracy.
Yes, Ian’s brother (who I also worked with for a few years in Wellington at DTI) was at school with John Key, and yes, John may have met Ian a few times as a result – both as a school kid, and adult. But so what?
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Idiot Savant,
And that’s the fundamental problem with secret agencies: the secrecy necessary for them to do their jobs effectively also protects their mistakes and abuses of power.
A dilemma with no easy solution if their jobs are regarded as necessary, and presumable some of what they do is important.
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Laurie Fleming,
Funny. A bit beyond resources and expertise.
-
I expect there is more to this and less to this than meets the eyes, especially the one-eyes.
There's a possibility that there are reasons that have been deemed must remain secret relating to Key prior knowledge of Dotcom.
-
Hard News: Jones: The contender leaves, in reply to BenWilson,
I don't know if Mallard's 'punch' comment was deliberate regarding his Henare stoush, but note that he said "had to punch above our weight for that team" - past tense.
How long ago? What does he do now?
-
Greg/micky doesn't want to know about misfires and is convinced Labour is doing a great PR job that is just being misrepresented by the media and the right wing.
He was asked in his post:
In relation to your last paragraph however, I think it is also fair to add the Labour party having a more competent PR strategy to your list of “if onlys”.
Blaming the media and the pundits simply doesn’t wash with ‘the facts’ either. Labour have made genuine blunders for a long time now – there were some real misfires during Helen’s last campaign – some very confused strategy under Goff – Shearer was an extremely poor communicator – and now we have Cunliffe.
His response:
I am actually impressed with the calibre of the people handling the media strategy. What I think the problem is that the party has set itself a herculean task in providing so much detail in policy areas and that it could actually simplify things down and perform better.
An example from the beginning of this year. National comes up with a policy for more pay for some teachers with a $360 mil price tag. There was very little detail, just a promise of more pay for some “expert” teachers and headmasters. The policy is heralded in the press.
Labour comes up with its fresh start package with figures and analysis and backing papers and all sorts of detail. It gets attacked heavily because of slightly sloppy wording in one sentence when the briefing papers makes the situation clear.
I can recall in 2008 Labour released 71 separate pieces of policy the day before the election. 71 …
This is entirely my own opinion but by simplifying the presentation of policy Labour could actually be clearer and more effective and not have to work so hard at producing media.
Just my own 2c tho …
If only the voters will look past all the balls-ups and read the policy Labour should romp in.
-
Yesterday, John Armstrong actually described Jones as “someone who talks political sense in a no-frills way”. I mean, seriously? Jones’ mode of speech is “no frills’? In what parallel reality?
That's typical of many comments and responses. I'm also puzzled by the no frills ordinary bloke claims, I didn't often see that in him.
Jones' oratory rarely impressed me, he looked more suited to a stage contest rather than a soapbox.