Haven't seen him for 30 years, haven't spoken to him, nah.
What's that?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. I did phone him the other day.
Eh?
Oh, I know his number. That's how good my memory is.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Old school friend
Haven't seen him for 30 years, haven't spoken to him, nah.
What's that?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. I did phone him the other day.
Eh?
Oh, I know his number. That's how good my memory is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
One day something will stick. After all the things that should have stuck, but didn't, I don't know why this will be any different, though it appalls me that a PM, any PM, would become so overtly involved in the appointment of the head of the GCSB.
It is serendipitous that it has coincided with the whole Tiwai Point thing as National have used the opportunity to focus on the less risky snafu.
I look at those I talk with who see no deception in Key's behaviour and wonder how that can be.
Carry on the beat up without recognising the right of ministers to select their heads of department:
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/more-on-fletcher-gcsb-appointment/
Of course the left would never influence any selection....
It interests me that Mr Franks onlying mentions identity as a criteria (...who reports to him...) and the idea that public servants should be experienced, competent and capable. The way it's written it seems like he's saying jobs for your mates are ok. And I don't care whether someone else did it too, at some stage, that's no way to justify National doing it now.
I think you've missed the point AC.
There are three positions that are the prime ministers choice. This is one of them. Ian Rennie has been very clear on this. But in spite of this due process was followed. There was a shoulder tap and then an independent evaluation of the individual passed him.
But hey - don't let the facts get in the way of good politics...
I think the point is reasonably nuanced, paranormal.
There is no question in my mind that politicians should have some say and influence over their direct reports.
My understanding of what Labour and the Greens are asking is "is the degree of influence that John Key has had over the appointment of the director of the GCSB appropriate?", with the underlying implication that Mr Key has had too much influence. I believe that he has over-stepped the mark.
Mr Franks presents a counter-argument in very binary (and that's me trying to be kind, another word would be simplistic) fashion.
He leaps from "some measure of influence is OK" to "therefore any and all form of influence is OK", and while I agree with the former, the latter is not OK.
The suggestion that it's about "...who reports too him..." is either poorly written or overly simplistic, because unless there are other criteria, this is outright support for nepotism from Mr Franks.
Mr Key, in what appears to have been a fit of petulance, has said he won't be answering questions without a proper briefing and background. I hope he is forthcoming with full details, so we can be sure that due process has been followed. The alternative of taking their word for it is quite unpalatable and runs counter to the principle of open and accountable government.
I take your point about this being good politics. Unfortunately we are doomed to having politics for as long as we have politicians, and I suspect politicians are born, not made. The bigger point is about democracy and good governance, and your comment about this being merely politicking misses the mark and detracts from the potential seriousness of the matter. Though I think that is what you wanted to do.
The second paragraph should read:
"...over the appointment of their direct reports."
Post a Comment