Because, call me old fashioned, my thinking is that once someone has retired from politics, they should keep the skeletons to themselves.
But am I glad he’s done what he’s done, because it shows that Chris Hipkins is exactly what people on the left accuse Christopher Luxon of being, which is a manager, not a leader.
If someone wants to do something, managers tell them to go and talk to the relevant person in charge. And they rely on the advice of that particular person in charge.
And, in this case, Hipkins relied on what Kiri Allan said, didn’t dispute it, and put Stuart Nash in his place.
The even bigger revelation, though, is that it proves what people have been saying for a while now - that Labour went soft when it came to dealing with gangs.
So, a bit of background.
In March last year, the Labour government passed legislation which says if people involved with organised criminal groups can’t prove to a court that they’ve bought assets using legitimate money, anything valued at $30,000 or more can be seized by the police.
But Stuart Nash, as police minister, didn’t want the $30,000 limit. He thought there should be a zero limit. Because, as he says, you can buy a Harley Davidson for under $30,000 which means —as it stands— the gang guys get to hold onto them.
He also reckons that’s what the cops wanted too. And still do.
So, he went to Hipkins and said he wanted a zero limit. Hipkins told Nash he needed to go and talk to Kiri Allan, because she was Justice Minister at the time.
But, according to Nash, she wasn't up for it. One of the reasons being, that targeting gangs was anti-Māori.
Which is nonsense.
But, as Nash said on Newstalk ZB this morning, Chris Hipkins misjudged the public’s appetite for cracking down on gangs. And Labour paid the ultimate price.
He also said that, if Labour doesn’t realise how much it’s cocked-up on this one, it can forget about getting back into government anytime soon.
What do you think?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
If someone wants to do something, managers tell them to go and talk to the relevant person in charge. And they rely on the advice of that particular person in charge.
And, in this case, Hipkins relied on what Kiri Allan said, didn’t dispute it, and put Stuart Nash in his place.
The even bigger revelation, though, is that it proves what people have been saying for a while now - that Labour went soft when it came to dealing with gangs.
So, a bit of background.
In March last year, the Labour government passed legislation which says if people involved with organised criminal groups can’t prove to a court that they’ve bought assets using legitimate money, anything valued at $30,000 or more can be seized by the police.
But Stuart Nash, as police minister, didn’t want the $30,000 limit. He thought there should be a zero limit. Because, as he says, you can buy a Harley Davidson for under $30,000 which means —as it stands— the gang guys get to hold onto them.
He also reckons that’s what the cops wanted too. And still do.
So, he went to Hipkins and said he wanted a zero limit. Hipkins told Nash he needed to go and talk to Kiri Allan, because she was Justice Minister at the time.
But, according to Nash, she wasn't up for it. One of the reasons being, that targeting gangs was anti-Māori.
Which is nonsense.
But, as Nash said on Newstalk ZB this morning, Chris Hipkins misjudged the public’s appetite for cracking down on gangs. And Labour paid the ultimate price.
He also said that, if Labour doesn’t realise how much it’s cocked-up on this one, it can forget about getting back into government anytime soon.
What do you think?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
John MacDonald, you are a left wing apologist. Being soft on gangs was not the only reason your preferred team got kicked out of office, it was a their total incompetence across the board. I voted for our current team but always liked Nash and thought him too sincere and credible to waste his talents with the dreadful left.
Labour soft on gangs? Gosh John, really?
And Labour financially incompetent and irresponsible, maybe?
What about Labour blatantly racist and anti-democratic?
And then there's Labour anti-free speech, perhaps?
Maybe Labour were just plain bloody awful in everything, John?
What do you think?
_ anytime EVER!!!!
John MacDonald, you are the reason I now turn ZB off at 9am after listening to Hosking during the week. You are so far left and biased plus your intellect and knowledge are probably at a level only Labour supporters can comprehend. At 73 my IQ has slipped down to 148 but with only half a brain I still couldn't handle your woke drivel. Kiwialan.
Post a Comment