The only important #teacupgate point

If we aren't careful, the next couple of days will be a distraction from the real choice facing the country.

The reason the Herald on Sunday should print a transcript between the two Johns is because the public needs to know whether any policy business was transacted.

ACT wants to sell all of New Zealand's SOEs.

With National dipping below elective dictatorship levels of support, they will need a support partner.

They didn't tell the truth about the GST rise which has always been part of the ACT agenda (to move tax off the wealthy and onto the poorest).

There is no reason to believe assurances to the contrary this time on state asset sales.

With National's panicked release of an empty list of 120 sound bites today, the absence of an economic plan by the incumbent government is now proved.

ACT would be ever so happy to fill the vacuum.

So — the issue is what was said. Let's focus on that.

National's obvious desire to pump bellows at the smoke in order to hide the fire shows there might be something embarrassing there.

I doubt it's more than that. I await being proved right or wrong.

In the meantime, let's stay focused on the defining issue of the campaign: whether National/ACT, Key/Brash sell out New Zealand's future, or whether with Labour and the Greens we all own it for ourselves.

Comments

[DylanReeve]

I actually think at this point what was discussed is almost the least relevant thing. It's a huge stretch to imagine that Key and Banks agreed that they'd seek 100% asset sales. It's likely that embarrassing things were said.

The bigger issues are the how legitimate the recording is. While clearly it was fooling to have a "private" discussion in that place, I'm pretty sure we'd all feel violated and angry if somehow it was our conversation at the center of this.

Just as I don't think the police should be able surveil people just because they say it's necessary, or search people on a whim, I don't think we should be entirely willing to overlook all legal and ethical considerations in this case on some sort of "greater good" reasoning.

[GNZ]

Far from it,
I think greater good reasoning is critical and courts use it all the time, for an extreme example, take the case of admissibility of evidence against terrorists.

I feel it is not at all important that politicians are protected by exactly the same privacy rights that we are, and in fact there is probably a corelation between exposure of politicians to this sort of intrusion and the protection of individuals privacy not the erosion of it.

That being said I dont know that Key has proven anything untoward has happened, and it is his obligation to do that.