Chris Hipkins is immersed in a growing mess around social media and an angry ex-wife.
Hand on heart, if it hadn't been sent to me I would not have asked, because I genuinely don’t care.
I still subscribe to the broad idea that personal lives are off limits, unless you decide they're fair game.
Social media has changed all the rules. Did the post of me at the pub or the charity run give you clearance to troll through every detail?
Does a political figure asking for your vote entitle you to know everything about them and, if so, where is the line? And is the line not different for each and every one of us?
Equally, it has a chilling effect. For everything that may be/could be said about you that isn't true (or is said with malice with a bit of added spice that isn't strictly true but designed to damage) it must put people off public office, there but for the grace of God.
Who needs that grief? No one is squeaky clean.
If the Parliament is supposed to be representative, I suppose you could argue Hipkins and his ex represent a large slice of the New Zealand countryside; married, divorced, things got messy – that's life experience.
You could argue she's toxic. You could argue he's a prick. You could argue a lot of stuff, which is why it is probably best left, given it doesn’t cross the threshold of requiring the authorities.
In others’ words it's domestic, it's not illegal, it's not involving police, or authorities, or courts, or charges, or investigations. It's she said, he said.
I would love to know (and AI will tell us one day) how many have reacted to the allegations strongly because they hate Hipkins and want him taken down, versus how many reacted strongly because of the accusations in isolation, versus how many haven't reacted at all, versus how many have reacted against her for seeking revenge, versus how many have gone out of their way to track down the comments because they are nosey.
What a mix – public life, social media, gossip, innuendo, anger, broken hearts, revenge, toxicity, and sticky beak-ery.
Who would be an MP?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Social media has changed all the rules. Did the post of me at the pub or the charity run give you clearance to troll through every detail?
Does a political figure asking for your vote entitle you to know everything about them and, if so, where is the line? And is the line not different for each and every one of us?
Equally, it has a chilling effect. For everything that may be/could be said about you that isn't true (or is said with malice with a bit of added spice that isn't strictly true but designed to damage) it must put people off public office, there but for the grace of God.
Who needs that grief? No one is squeaky clean.
If the Parliament is supposed to be representative, I suppose you could argue Hipkins and his ex represent a large slice of the New Zealand countryside; married, divorced, things got messy – that's life experience.
You could argue she's toxic. You could argue he's a prick. You could argue a lot of stuff, which is why it is probably best left, given it doesn’t cross the threshold of requiring the authorities.
In others’ words it's domestic, it's not illegal, it's not involving police, or authorities, or courts, or charges, or investigations. It's she said, he said.
I would love to know (and AI will tell us one day) how many have reacted to the allegations strongly because they hate Hipkins and want him taken down, versus how many reacted strongly because of the accusations in isolation, versus how many haven't reacted at all, versus how many have reacted against her for seeking revenge, versus how many have gone out of their way to track down the comments because they are nosey.
What a mix – public life, social media, gossip, innuendo, anger, broken hearts, revenge, toxicity, and sticky beak-ery.
Who would be an MP?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
I'm one of the people (whose probably in the majority) who couldn't care, but find two things interesting.
First, as Karl du Fresne pointed out in a post yesterday, the media have been bending over backwards to support Chippy, which includes not disclosing what the allegations are, but their efforts are making things worse for him. It's making people take notice and speculate.
Second, I think politicians private lives are relevant when they try to get votes by virtue signaling, but their own behaviour contradicts what they are falsely making themselves out to be and what they're telling everyone else to do. Like a "law and order" politician who breaks the law themselves or Prince Harry scolding the world for using fossil fuels when he flies around in a private jet.
Mike you missed the real point - if this was David Seymour, Chris Luxon, Winnie, or any member of the respective parties the MSM would have been rabid in their pursuit a story and would have sided with the person claiming to be aggrieved. Instead msm have gone so softly on chippy that you’d believe he was the victim in this saga!
Defund nzs msm now!
No more taxpayer funding for these utter frauds.
The problem in this case is that he put his family across the media as a selling point when he married in 2020. In 2023 election night he talked of his rock Toni so had a new lady in his life. Just recently he was again in the magazines talking of his happiness and blended family. If he is pitching himself as a family man PM he can't have it both ways.
I don't care about the allegations, but I am still bloody well enjoying the schadenfreude.
Let's imagine that Donald Trump's ex-wife had been left alone after a miscarriage and made to drive herself home from the hospital or had told her to F off when she asked for groceries for the kids. All hell would break loose. Trump would be the new anti christ in the media. I think character is important in a leader. He comes across like a narcissist too and not genuine. And he lies. He is not a fit person to run the country.
Yeah agree 100%, just imagine if Trump was ever caught lying! It would be the end of his presidency.
What is it with divorced men bringing their own baggage into this! Their issues (Mike & Kate) are not the same.
Hipkins is living on the taxpayer’s dime. In fact, he has never earned his own money. He brought this on himself. The fact that he does not know how his kids are doing just because they’re with their Mum, speaks volumes about what kind of man he is. He has the family support & the resources to ensure he always has contact with his kids if he wants it.
Bottom line is he has pitched himself to voters as a loving, family man via FB posts of his kids on his public MP page, and the numerous magazine & online articles, including his wedding to his ex, and new engagement. So his ex wife saying he isn’t & wasn’t, matters. She’s saying he’s a liar, which stacks up with his lies & dog-whistling of political opponents & innocent people, such as Thelma & Louise, Charlotte Bellis, the unvaccinated, the KFC worker, the wanaka lovers etc etc
His ex-wife’s comments confirm what we all knew to be true - his inherent lack of good character.
The question is, what else has he lied about? And has he even fulfilled his obligations as a father under the law - has he paid his child support?
This stuff matters to NZ voters - cheating is irrelevant, but careless disregard for your spouse in a time of serious need, & your children’s welfare on the weeks you don’t have custody, is not. Any good man & father who clearly has the $ would step in & pay for the kids if the lower income spouse is struggling. Two things can be true at the same time - you can suck as a faithful spouse, but still be a decent human at your core & be an amazing Dad.
If a man can’t do the right & decent thing by an ex-wife & his children, his family (as she’ll always be his family), then how can we expect him to do right by us? This confirms we know he can’t.
The question is not if he will resign, as he will - his position is untenable, but who will replace him. By all accounts it sounds like slim pickings - from the incredibly stupid, to corrupt, to just plain horrible if the accounts of how others have treated their ex-wives are anything to go by.
This, coupled with Labour’s deep-seated economic illiteracy, makes me wonder how on earth anyone could ever vote for them. They are not the Clark/Cullen party…if fact, Helen Clark isn’t Helen Clark anymore!
Stop criticizing Chris Hipkins, they might replace him.
If this was just a case of adultery it should not be news. I have heard politicains of various parties talk of deadbeat dads who do not pay child support. It some cases it is justifided. For example where the wife leave the country with the children. In some case the wife is living very well with a rich partner and she commited adultery.
If Hipkins ex wife is telling the truth about how Hipkins on his income would not help with food for his children that shows what sort of person he is.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.