John Carter (National) in the general debate in the house today said; “The Country doesn’t like dirty tricks”. But the country does like the truth. It seems that the National Party doesn’t like that ever becoming a reality.
The whole scandal over the recording from the labour Party conference is very interesting. Everyone can see that the National Party have handled the whole affair very badly.
I don’t understand why the Nats would be running the lines they have been. Political partisanship aside, they are just completely contradictory. Firstly, John Key stated that recording was doctored. But then he stands next to Bill English, while Bill glumly apologises for using ‘loose language’. So its implicit that English recognises that those words were accurate. Or else he would not have apologised for saying them.
Secondly the Nats have started crying woe over a ‘dirty tricks campaign’. Firstly, they have no proof that a Young Labour candidate did enter the National Party conference. The entry fee was $170 alone. That’s beyond most students’ reach. Secondly, the National Party President, Judy Kirk has stated that they thought the recording came from a Young Nat member, who also was a member of ACT. So which story is it? Key’s “paranoid conspiracy theory” (To quote Michael Cullen in the house today) or is it an internal leak – as suggested by the National Party’s own president? Such an assertion would make sense. ACT party members were protesting outside the National Party Conference, as well as were others from various parties.
Furthermore, New Zealanders, as well as liking the truth – also have good political memories. Its frightfully bad media management to play the dirty tricks card, when National made such a big furore over the secret recording of Mike Williams made at the Labour Party conference. Not to mention employing the help of the Exclusive Brethren at the last election.
This has been an incredibly bad week for National – they’d just come out of what was supposed to be a very good weekend. Now they are tying themselves up in knots. Their handling of this issue is short-sighted, contradictory, and in some regards, misleading. Helen Clark couldn’t have asked for anything better.