Irredeemably Morally Tainted


No Right Turn explains what most mere mortals cannot understand – why does John Key’s involvement in a company that helped sell Trans Rail in 1993 have anything to do what him leading the opposition today?

Neither did it help Clark that Key had not been involved in the 1993 sale. Yet, even if he had been, what would that have proved?

Simple: it would have shown that Key was irredeemably morally tainted, an active participant in events that many New Zealanders to this day regard as corrupt and criminal. Don Brash was widely loathed because of his actions as Reserve Bank Governor during that time, but at least he had the “excuse” that he was faithfully enacting government policy. The people who profited from it have no such excuse. They are simply thieves.

Well that clears it up – but let’s take that one step at a time.

it would have shown that Key was irredeemably morally tainted,

We are talking about politicians here, it’s not like he stole $800,000 to fund his election campaign after all.

an active participant in events that many New Zealanders to this day regard as corrupt and criminal

Using the word “many” in it’s loosest possible sense. Technically, 3 people could be called “many”.

Don Brash was widely loathed because of his actions as Reserve Bank Governor during that time,

Nice to pull in Don Brash, what has he got to do with anything?

but at least he had the “excuse” that he was faithfully enacting government policy.

Not to mention that that policy would have been the same regardless of the government in power.

The people who profited from it have no such excuse. They are simply thieves.

And there we have it. If you profit from legitimate but disagreeable acts of a government, you are a thief.

But, if it’s say, a Labour party leader actually stealing money from the public purse (having warned parties beforehand of the rules), that’s clearly a secret plot to undermine our democracy by the National party.

Repayment will be a massive task for both parties, similar in scale to pre-election fundraising. And as Peter Dunne pointed out last month, it is likely to have a serious effect on our democracy, hobbling their ability to contest the vote at the next election. Which seems to have been National’s aim all along – being unable to win at the ballot box, they have sought to win at the bank instead. Which makes it all the more important that we institute public funding. Fortunately, the Auditor-General has just ensured that there will be a clear majority for it in Parliament.

1 comment

  1. It’s unfair at being caught with ones hand in the cookie jar. Now the thieves are bemoaning this horrible thing called “consequences”.

    And they blame the law breaking and report from the Auditor General and the words of the Electoral Commission all on National.

    And then he makes the ultimate joke: Which seems to have been National’s aim all along – being unable to win at the ballot box

    Odds are at the moment that National will win at the ballot box, and it may well be a landslide victory.

    The only thing to fight about is whether it was Labour’s bad governance and numerous scandals that may lose them the election, or National’s policies. Currently, it would most likely be the former, and that is even less for Labour to moan about, because it was their own doing.

    Just Desserts. Karma. Voter’s revenge.

    Whatever. Just stop the shameless spinning, Idiot. It just adds to the feeling that Labour and her supporters are beyond arrogant.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: