Search This Blog

Tuesday 16 October 2018

This is why National cant have nice things: Simon Bridges, Jamie- Lee Ross and knowing when to keep your mouth closed

You had just one job Simon! One job!

It’s clear from recent media panic (see here, here, here and here) that there are a lot of questions are still to be answered in the strange and twisted saga that I am dubbing the Simon Bridges travel expenses leaker scandal investigation dumpster fire train wreck thingy.

Some of these important questions include asking if Jamie-Lee Ross really is the leaker (because the report, written by Bridges legal counsel, is far from conclusive and takes great pains to say so), if he did leak why did he do it, also does he really have a secret recording of Simon Bridges talking about fiddling the books on donations to National, but if it was not Lee-Ross then who, and just how far will this thing actually go?

But the first question of questions that really needs to be asked at this point is: holly f**k what the hell is that thing standing next to Simon Bridges, and where's Paula Bennett?

What in Kraffs divine name is that heavily spray tanned creature, with the super-gelled hair, glowering beside Simon as if trying to kill the assembled media with its withering death stare?

Is a it a web toed priestess of Dagon the fish god or has Simon gotten some sort of hyper intense Jersey Shore type body guard? I mean the way whatever it is is dressed it’s clear that inside that tightly controlled hair, ear ring and tasteless patterned shirt combination is something, seething in rage juices, trying to get out and run amok in the room, tearing out reporters throats, knocking over microphones and bathe in the blood of its hated enemies.

However the reality at this point is that it wont matter one bit who, or what, is escorting Simon to his press conferences these days because I think such a dangerously unscripted occasion like a press conference is not the place for Bridges to opening his mouth or exercising his thought glands in any way shape or form.

Lets take it from the top. 

First there is the minor matter of Bridges travel expenses being leaked to the media. Not the worst thing to happen and less the occasion to say anything in particular than just trying to spin it up as Bridges doing his job by getting out among the people. Sure it cost $81,000 but thats what ministerial limos are for and had Bridges said he would hire a mini-van for him and his team next time no one would have said anything further and that would have been that.

But noooo; Simon has to call a press conference then go in and shoot his mouth off, demand an investigation, drag the speaker in and set in motion this whole sad carnival of mayhem and mishaps.

Then when someone (possibly the actual leaker) texts the Police and pleads temporary insanity or being off their meds, the speaker backs away, calls off the parliamentary hounds and gives Bridges the perfect opportunity to deal with this quietly in house, away from scrutiny and with no further fuss or mess.

But noooooooooo; Bridges has to call another press conference and unbelievably double down on the need to find the leaker and commissions a private investigation into the matter, using his lawyer of all people, to dig deeper into the woodpile and see what they would uncover.

And at this point any sane person in the leaders seat would start to realize how close to the edge this is getting, there were warning signs in the media and elsewhere that texts to the Police citing mental health concerns from the so called leaker is a perfect time to just dial it down a bit and get the focus back on the coalition government, things like rising gas prices or whats happening on the Batchelor.

But nooooooooooooooooooooo; Simon then calls another press conference to announce that Jamie-Lee Ross is going on medical leave and instead of stopping at about the 15 second mark when he has said what was needed to be said he inexplicably and unbelievably lurched onwards by saying that this had nothing to do with the search for the leaker and this whole things was just a coincidence.

I watched the video of that press conference and I had my head in my hands by the end of it because Bridges first statement need not have been followed by the second and the moment he said it I knew this was not going to end well. Why would you tag on that supposedly unrelated second comment in a press conference discussing the first? I mean what was Simon thinking?

Yet even at this point there was still time to pull back, to steer the whole flaming fandango away from the abyss and did Simon Bridges, leader of the National party, do such a thing?

Pause for a moment, take a nice deep breath and say it with me now people.

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And let’s be crystal clear about things here. It’s not about Jamie-Lee Ross being the leaker, or not (because the evidence remains inconclusive); it’s not about National getting to the bottom of this or even Bridges being seen to do the right thing as leader.

This whole mess, which has now exploded into the public in a torrent of political diarrhea, came about from forcing Ross into a corner by publicly announcing the results of the leaker inquiry, thus bringing the hammer down in the most painful of ways and leaving him with no option to do what he did and air even more of the party's dirty laundry in public.

So where to now?

Well depending on the various takes in the media we can expect Simon Bridges to be rolled this week, except we can’t because some people are clearly out of their minds if they think that this will precipitate a leadership coup that fast.

As of yesterday Judith Collins had already swung in behind Bridges, even if only to distance herself from the fall out of her previous supporter, Lee-Ross, melting down in public, and done so in the most passive aggressive fashion by stating that she supports Simon but had Lee-Ross been under her control she would have reigned him in long ago.

Slightly more saner minds have realised that if National tries to roll Bridges it will open itself up to all of the same drama and chaos that Labour had for its nine miserable years in opposition, as it chopped and changed leaders to suit the dynamics of its own internal rivalries rather than its own unity as a party, and that’s a path I think even National is not willing to tread, yet.

What is clear is that Ross has gone all in on this but even then it might not be enough to make the nut as you can bet your bottom dollar that the National leadership will have assembled a political hit team as of last night to neutralize Jamie-Lee by bringing as much pressure to bear on him as possible so he will just shut up and take what’s coming, secret recording or otherwise, rather than run about in public like a chicken with its head cut off and further damaging the one thing that National has going for it at this time: its rock solid party polling.

Fact is that while Bridges has now crippled his chances to lead National into the next election the Party will not be willing to take action in the short term because it would do far more damage than good for National Inc. 

National usually deals with its messes in-house rather than in public so I think we can kiss goodbye to the rather brief period of political glasnost that National had been going through and expect that door to start closing, as those old hair trigger reflexes, from when National was a scandal plagued government, kick back in and mouths start shutting like open minds at an Exclusive Brethren Sunday school class.

What is guaranteed is that Bridges will have to act and, somewhat ironically, do so publicly. Ross has drawn a line in the school yard sand, and before all the students dared Bridges to cross it. 

And Bridges will have to cross that Rubicon or face both public and internal flack as National is exposed as a house divided (again) if he does not deal with it which, interestingly, explains his comments a few weeks back about National repealing the Waka jumping bill but not ruling out using it because this is just such a situation where it could be used to shut Jamie-Lee Ross down as quickly as possible without having to wait two years until the next election.

Still that’s cold comfort for Bridges and National in general as this now gives the Coalition government a free pass for however many months it takes to fix this mess and puts all the pressure on Simon Bridges as he must now be starting to feel like Bill English once did as sharks like Judith Collins circle ominously while more silent predators, like Amy Adams, lurk in the shadows and the whole debate about “who will rule National” starts again in earnest.

However one thing is for certain and that’s Simon Bridges needs to stop holding press conferences to speak whatever is on his mind and then inadvertently air Nationals dirty laundry in public because this is the very dynamic which gave John Key such an easy ride in his time as PM as then it was Labour, Andrew Little and all the others, too busy bickering among themselves, to spend much time holding Key’s government to account, while now Jacinda & Co can sail through their own troubles knowing that National is too disorganized to be an effective opposition.

So in summation Bridges could not keep his mouth closed, now Jamie Ross can not keep his mouth closed and so National gets all the negative publicity it can handle while Winston and Jacinda watch and laugh. 

This is why National cant have nice things.

Update - Ross has quit and left a trail of destruction and various accusations (see link) in his wake and with such a fast moving story its better to wait a day or so before seeing what comes out in the wash before reporting further but suffice it to say this is not over yet.



NOTE - long term readers with good memories may remember that I wrote a post with a similar title in 2017 about a similar situation in Labour with Andrew Little, Willie Jackson and Poto Williams.

19 comments:

  1. Your fixation on Paula Bennett's appearance is a great illustration of the sort of challenges female politicians of all political persuasions face; male commentators are more interested in talking about their appearance than their politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. It's 2018. Stick to the politics.

      Delete
    2. Hi Patrida: If you are not familiar with this blog you may not be aware that mockery, hyperbole and general skewing of character in dress, character and behavior is part and parcel of this blog and that includes taking shots a both male and female alike. Yeah its not that PC but then I do not bill myself as such.

      I have pulled apart more than one MP in terms crueler than Paula in blog posts but this is the only one that has ever gotten any attention. I do genuinely ask why?

      But since you like seem to prefer the politics I will avoid playing fashion police until 2019.

      Delete
  2. Sorry Anon, normally I dont care about the looks of who or what in politics but come on this is Paula Bennett we are talking about! She does not do anything as a MP, or as deputy leader and just turns up to press conferences like some sort of emotional support person, so I really dont have anything else to comment on when referencing her, if she did I would.

    However, for karmic balancing, I have commented more than once on the dress sense of male MPs on this blog, including calling out Bill English for his terrible outfits so this is not me fixating on Paula as a woman, its me noting a bad suit/tie combo or what is clearly some sort of mid life fashion crisis. You choose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Imagine a world where everybody believed that it was wrong to make fun of politicians for their appearance (except when it's a politician you dislike it).

    That's the world we're living in now.

    If you have a principle, you have to apply it even to people you don't like. Otherwise it's not a principle, it's just rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Imagine a world where everybody believed that it was wrong for politicians to be corrupt, incompetent and useless (except when its a politician you like).

    That's the world we're living in now.

    I do take your point about principles but that cuts both ways and public figures, specially politicians in democracies, do not get elected, and paid to do nothing or serve their own interests. They get elected to serve the public and if they cant or wont do such a thing the social contract that binds things together is broken and its open season.

    However if you read this blog you may have noted that I mock politicians all over here and I have more than once declared my blogging persona (because yes I do have one) not to be the same as me as a person.

    Thus the principle for this blog is that politicians have to earn respect and those that don't slide down the totem pole to the level where the only thing left to critique about them are things like their bizarre dress and appearance.

    You may note that while I have knocked Jacinda (and others) in recent posts for her political abilities her looks and her being a woman has never come into it. Why? because while I dont always agree with what she is doing or has done it remains clear that she still seeks to try and uphold that contract. Hence why she is spared being ridiculed for any aspect of her personal character.

    Bennett is not in the same boat. She deserves all the scorn, mockery and ridicule that she gets and then some for her utter lack of integrity or honesty because among my many principles I believe in what you give is what you get and a politician that sucks form the public weal yet is unwilling to serve has voided any respect coming.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "She deserves all the scorn, mockery and ridicule that she gets"

    Why not throw in some anti-Maori racism then? She's Tainui Whakapapa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, scorn mockery and ridicule; not racism. Besides why should I, none of her behavior appears attributable or directly related to being Maori. Stupidity is a human behavior and not race specific.

      And yes expecting that to be quoted back at me but have at it. LOL.

      Delete
    2. "Besides why should I, none of her behavior appears attributable or directly related to being Maori."

      None of her behaviour is related to her appearance either, but you make fun of that.

      Delete
    3. Actually I would suggest otherwise.

      Bennett has had a notable style/fashion shift since becoming deputy for Simon and I think it reflects an attempt on her part to look more serious about her work but also that she is out of her depth and trying to hide it through power dressing (ie projecting power and control via her dress, hair and general fashion behavior).

      Delete
    4. I'm not going to argue the merits of your theory, but if that's what you believe maybe you should have said that in your original post, because it really looked like typical white Kiwi male behaviour in seeing women as purely ornamental, not the rigorous political analysis it (apparently) is.

      Delete
    5. I can be as catty as the next person but as I have noted before I bagged Bill English in the past for terrible dress and no one came to his defense, possibly because pointing out a mans fashion mistakes does not elect a reaction under the perception of sexism yet I do the same for Paula and bam!

      I can only assure you that I have issue with politicians because of their actions/morals, not their gender.

      Delete
    6. "I can only assure you that I have issue with politicians because of their actions/morals, not their gender."

      Yes, well, in my experience people who are sexist (or racist, or classist, or homophobic, or what have you) very rarely admit it. That's why it's best to look at behaviour, not self-identification. And your behaviour here, frankly, sucks.

      I can't say whether or not you truly are a sexist in and of yourself, but you definitely behaved in a sexist way here.

      You can try to do better, or you can try to claim your behaviour was actually fine and not sexist at all, and continue to behave the same way. And either way, your readers will make their own judgements.

      Up to you.

      Delete
    7. Hmmmmm, you have been busy today. Ok, I will answer you question if you answer mine.

      Why, given all the snarky sarcastic comments I make on this blog, have you and others zeroed in on that one. I have made allusions to male MPs fashion, dress, sex and weight and not a peep, I run wild with hyperbolic metaphors about MPS being mind controlled by six foot long rectal worms, not a peep.

      Yet the moment I take issue with Paula Bennett's dress sense its because I am sexist and not because she is horrible politician. Where were you guys when I was going after bill English, Gerry Brownlee or Nick Smith.

      Please explain how fashion/character/political critique is sexism?

      And since when is commenting on a persons fashion sense (be I right or wrong) sexist? Are you going to try and tie it into the "well he's commented on a woman's dress sense so he must be sexist" thread?

      Am I being bitchy, snarky and maybe even be wrong, sure I might be, but you explain how exactly is saying someone is terribly dressed being sexist?

      I dont think you can so instead you have just gone for the label of "sexist" in the hope I will back down under your faux moral attack. Sorry, not going to happen.

      Sexisim as I know it is having issue with someone based on their gender and Bennett's gender does not come into it. She is a crappy MP with a crappy sense of dress, Being a woman is irrelevant in those areas as all my other criticism of MPs on this blog have shown, I skew them all, yet somehow you guys wanna label me sexist on just that one issue.

      And since no one called me out when I critiqued all those other male MPs its sounds like you guys are playing the "lets attack with the sexist label because we dont actually have any real argument" game here.

      So I would counter with Faux Moralists like to use convenient but ultimately incorrect labels to attack when their argument is weak, hoping that their position wont actually be examined and instead the subject of the attack will react in fear, panic and simply fold.

      Its the moral/political equivalent of bluffing in poker when you have nothing.

      And since such obvious monsters "rarely admit it" does that make you what I accuse you of if you don't admit it? Because hypocrites rarely admit that they are dont they?

      Delete
    8. Dude, if you, in 2018, can't understand why a man making fun of another man's appearance and a man making fun of a woman's appearance are different, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can explain it to you.

      If you are really interested in learning what I'm talking about, google feminism 101.

      If not, rock on.

      Delete
    9. Oh but I think you are arrogant enough, you have just tried with a whole batch of logical fallacies and weak arguments.

      First you have made the argument that if a person does not like another person then that means the first person hates all people of the others gender which is about as fallacious as possible. Wheres the logic in that? It makes no senses.

      And you cant even explain your position, just falling back on the mysterious "well its 2018" as your defense. As far as I recall its possible to dislike another person (and their fashion sense) of the opposite sex and not be a misogynist dinosaur or a man hating femnazi.

      Please explain the logic of that argument?

      Then your working on the argument that its ok for a man to criticize a man but a man criticizing a woman is wrong. And you think I need to do feminism 101?

      Your operating form the position of women needing to be protected by men (your the white knight riding in to save them), placing them on a pedestal and giving them some protected status. Thats the kind of thinking that feminists are against as its the whole "women are the weaker sex" argument.

      And if you have actually done a Fem 101 paper, well done, good for you. I assume that makes you a stalwart defender of all women and now safe and sanitized to criticize others.

      Then you virtue signal and that fails.

      Now your falling back on the weakest argument of them all the "People who are X rarely admit it" and the "If you dont know I cant explain it to you" argument.
      Thats just top level fail in action as its your way of beating a retreat by claiming some mysterious knowledge that only you know but cannot impart (even when asked to), and all from a Fem 101 paper! Wow, they really are packing in the wisdom in those 101 papers these days, when will your dissertation be out?

      Well done, so thats a whole bunch of weak, baseless arguments and paper thin emotional defenses but NO actual explanation of your position.

      If your going to make an accusation you need to back it up with something not just blather.

      Delete
  6. Like I say, you make your decisions about who you are and what you write, and we'll all make our decisions about how we interpret it.

    If you're comfortable planting your flag on the "I can say this and it's not sexist" hill, nobody can tell you otherwise. As you rightly point out, it's a free country.

    But the flipside of that is that as you're free to say what you want, we're all free to take away our own impression of what you say - and despite what you say, we are not obliged to defend our impressions, any more than you're obliged to defend your statements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fine, fine, fine, all fine but that is a clear back down from calling me a sexist without any basis or argument to a position of saying its all down to "individual interpretation".

      How would you feel if I called you a racist in such a context? I guess you would be pretty pissed off.

      Delete
  7. Wow, What a Excellent post. I really found this to much informatics. It is what i was searching for.I would like to suggest you that please keep sharing such type of info.Thanks NIW

    ReplyDelete