I have to say, Key has been a very smooth operator generally. So much so that what’s-his-name has even complemented him recently.
But Key seems to have one weakness – managing his own money. There was a story some time ago where Key had failed to put his assets into a blind trust. Now, it seems that blind trust might have been setup to be not-so-blind by including a company in the mix.
Even if true, Key’s still not got any control of what’s going on. The Labour argument was that it was blind to all but Key. But Key’s denied he knew the existence of the company. Were that true, then Labour’s claim is false.
The other thing that bothers me about Labour’s claim is the “why”. Why, when John has so much money, would he need to use his position as PM to advantage himself? To use an overblown analogy, it’s like a farmer with 1,000 acres killing his neighbor in order to purchase his quarter acre section from the estate. Too much risk for very little reward.
Yet Labour’s story does seem to have some legs. There are just too many coincidences, similar names, common trustees and dates.
Yes, it’s a relatively minor point. But it seriously undermines the idea that he’s an above-the-board straight shooter.
Which of course is the whole point. But we’ll ignore the irony of Labour being the one making it.
P.S. Ok, now I remember – Phil Goff is the Labour leader. Funny how you forget these things.