THE MOMENT THE WORDS were out of her mouth the political wreckage began to pile up. On Radio Live, Sean Plunket positively whooped with delight. It took only a nanosecond for the right-wing shock-jock to register the implications of Helen Clark’s public endorsement of John Key’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Now that the “Darling of the Left” had come out in its favour, Plunket reassured his talk-back audience, the TPP Debate is surely over. Someone, he said, should tell the “tin-foil hat wearers”.
Those who cherish Clark’s memory as Labour’s most successful leader since Peter Fraser, have offered numerous excuses for her actions. She was misquoted, they insist. She didn’t understand how her words would be distorted, others say. Living in New York, she must have been unaware of the way the TPP debate had evolved in New Zealand. Helen Clark would never have knowingly delivered such a brutal blow to her own party.
Bullshit.
Seven years after her defeat by John Key’s National Party, Clark’s interest in Labour remains undiminished. Kept informed of its every move by a coterie of loyal supporters, she cannot credibly claim to have been ignorant of the impact her little encomium on the importance of international trade would have.
“What always haunts a Prime Minister”, said Clark, “is: ‘Will there be a series of trade blocs develop that you are not part of?’ Because that is unthinkable for New Zealand as an export-oriented, small trading nation. So of course New Zealand has to be in on the action with the TPP and go for the very best deal it can as the agreement expands beyond the original four economies to a wider regional agreement.”
John Key and his Trade Minister, Tim Groser, have yet to set out the argument for signing the TPP as succinctly as Clark did in New York – or with more force. There is absolutely no way that such a well-considered statement could’ve just slipped out – by mistake.
Ever since taking up her position as the Head of the United Nations Development Programme, the No. 3 position in the United Nations, Clark has been scrupulously careful to avoid making any kind of statement that could, in the slightest degree, impinge on the domestic politics of her homeland – or those of any other UN member, for that matter. And yet, there she was, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with her erstwhile political nemesis, offering eloquent support to one of his government’s most controversial policies.
No, last Thursday’s (1/10/15) statement from Helen Clark was no mistake. It was an act of deliberate political sabotage.
But what could be so important to Labour’s former leader that she was willing to drive a dagger into the back of Andrew Little, its present incumbent? Was it spite? Had Clark taken umbrage at Labour’s decision to move away from the rock-solid bi-partisanship on free-trade that she and Phil Goff had made a cornerstone of their government’s foreign policy? Was she hoping to spook Little into some sort of last minute revision of Labour’s highly conditional support for the TPP? After all, the spectacle of the two people who have governed New Zealand since 1999, speaking with one voice on the TPP, was bound to pack a hefty punch. Or, maybe, it was simply a case of: ‘I’ll agree to scratch your back on TPP, if you’ll agree to scratch mine when the time comes to elect the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.’
No matter how reluctantly arrived at, the only conclusion to be drawn from this episode is that Clark’s transition, from principled social-democrat, to morally desiccated member of the international administrative elite, is now complete. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that, throughout her career, Clark was never comfortable about stepping too far away from the well-trodden path. She may never have liked neoliberalism, but if it was the only game in town, then she would learn to play.
Sean Plunket is quite right about the undermining effect Clark’s words are bound to have on the Anti-TPP Movement – especially among its middle-aged and middle-class supporters. He is, however, quite wrong in his assessment of Clark’s status among genuinely progressive New Zealanders.
“Darling of the Left” she may have been on Thursday morning, but by Thursday evening Helen Clark was anything but.
How would it play for her ambitions in the UN if she spoke out against the TPPA ?
That’s your answer .
She didn’t have to say anything on the topic. Maintaining a respectful silence on domestic policy is the normal practice for former PMs, keeping to established practice would not have impinged upon her ambitions.
But there is something in your observation, the question might better be: who put her up to it? pressure from the neocon faction within NZ Labour caucus or from within the US or UN?
Or self interest to get that Secretary-General of the United Nations position secured?
Did Jane Kelsey help sabotage it too by not putting the people of NZ on as the “effected party” not demanding disclosure in the SUPREME court 5 years earlier?
(And Not giving NOTICE of NO CONTRACT).
You’re laying blame at Prof. Kelsey’s feet ?
What exactly have YOU done ?
FFS.
(It’s ‘affected ‘ by the way – normally I’m not a Spelling-Nazi but when people say stupid things like this….)
The Young Nats couldn’t wait to put this on their facebook page, which I follow to keep an eye on the enemy.
I never liked Clarke because I was an ACC sensitive claimant & Labour treated people like me like human sewage.
Incensed by what I had seen on facebook I phoned Andrew Little’s office to voice my displeasure. The person on the phone in his Parliamentary office became so angry he called me a fkn cnt. Kept telling me she hadn’t been in Labour for years and I was wrong to associate Clarke and Labour.
Also been giving her hard time on twitter since she started that UN job – making sure the people she worked for knew what she did to the poorest and most vulnerable abuse victims in New Zealand. Pretty sure same number of kids were being abused in CYFS care when she was in charge – but nothing was EVER done to help them – and still isn’t for those still suffering from stress disorders as result of abuse.
Very dramatic, Chris, but your analysis is bollocks.
Clark’s statement was not inconsistent with Labour’s position. Labour leaders from Goff to Little have always said we need to see the terms of the agreement and have an opportunity to debate its merits before signing.
Labour has never suggested we should not be ‘in on the action’. In supporting going for ‘the very best deal it can’ the party set out the criteria. There has been no sabotage nor any dagger.
Mike, Chris did say that these trade deals were part of the policy under Helen, so the analysis is not exactly bollocks.
The best I can say is that Labour and National policy under Key and Clark was pretty much identical, Tweedle Dee versus Tweedle Dumb, what Tariq Ali describes as the Extreme Centre, (a form of concensual dictatorship of the neo Lib ideology that resuts in no democratic choice).
The left wing and the right wing belong to the same bird!!!!
Well, I hate to break it to my “darling”, but… we’ve broken up.
If she wants to do the TPPA barn-dance with that fancy-feller from out east, she’s welcome to him. Ah never could tell if the odour coming from her was a slight lingering whiff of neo-liberalism (from her days of rubbing shoulders with the likes of them chip-eatin’, horse-rustlin’, asset-sellin’ Douglas Gang), or something the bull dropped in the paddock. (Same thing when you think about it.)
Good riddance.
Yep. In every transformation there has to be a moment of sacfriice where you destroy your former self.
Any perception of Clark as a progressive is absolutely shredded. there’s no excuse for a politician as savvy as her to say that, now (timing is EVERYTHING) and then try and pass i off as inncoent comment.
Clark years are now cast in their proper light. Great piece, Chris.
I don’t think her comments had anything to do with Andrew Little. She launched and finalised the original TPP and then got the U.S. to begin negotiations to join. A successful outcome to the TPP is part of the legacy of her prime ministership.
A successful outcome to the TPP is part of the legacy of her prime ministership.
There’s the rub.
Unfortunatetly rightwing commentators and TPPA fanboys and fangirls confuse the term successful with that of a concluded outcome: i.e. as long as it’s concluded it’s successful.
How the hell any intelligent person can laud an agreement without knowing what is in it escapes me.
Yes Hoots. Shows how right wing politics in NZ is if Clark is left-wing.
Clark would’ve had more to bargin with if she’d been in these past 7 years, but she still would’ve been keen to sign.
How do you know? Clark did say only if the deal was good for NZ.
She would’ve ensured we’d have a more diverse economy. Key’s economic policies over the past 7 years have focused on chasing white gold. That has left us with a narrow focus on the TPPA.
Still no guarantees that she would have signed. Why should “trade” come as a cost to our sovereignty? It never has before.
Yes, yes we know that Mathew. Why does she think it’s important to us what her legacy is? Why is it necessary for her to declare it?
She’s an opportunist is Helen Clarke, and has, as far as I know, never shown any interest in serving the people who supported her.
I’m pleased to say I never did.
Matthew, I get what you’re saying…
However, in pursuing her “legacy”*, she must have understood the implications and propaganda value of her words.
So really, she knew full well what she saying, and the profound effect it would have in our country.
* WTF is it with PMs and their legacies?! “Trade” deals, flags… what next?
Frank says – “WTF is it with PMs and their legacies?! “Trade” deals, flags… what next?”
Pandas Frank. Don’t forget the pandas, which are going to be the next big thing FJK will be imposing on NZ! Add pandas to present dear leader’s “legacy” of uselessness!
-“Trade” deals, flags… what next?-
Oh I don’t know Frank…
Howza bout a thousand year reich?
The neo-libs’d love that! 🙂
I’d back their dream of that. The last 1000-year Reich lasted 12.
Bring it fast.
But it won’t be Clark’s legacy though. The TPPA that she negotiated all those years ago was entirely different to the beast being currently sold out to by the Key National government.
At some point will those of the right stop blaming Labour for National’s stuff ups and sell outs?
Nobody’s blaming Labour for anything. Helen Clark came out and stated she thought it would be better if we were in the TPPA rather than not in. This was after all the negotiations that have taken place since she was in office (which she should be well aware of).
Hooton is already laying the narrative of blame by saying it’s part Clark’s legacy, when it is not.
Why would Helen Clark be aware of all the negotiations when she hasn’t been in NZ politics for last 7 years? Helen Clark also said ONLY if the deal was good for NZ. Funny how that part was omitted by msm.
Rubbish Matthew, Helen hasn’t seen the final agreement so she wouldn’t have signed onto this colluded 12 member TPPA, as it was not constructed by her this time but now we know it was reconstructed entirely by the Corporations, big business and financial empirics!
She has said “we should push for the best possible deal for us”
How can she know this was done when we and her have never seen the terms and conditions?
You don’t make sense Matthew.
The TPPA is not a trade deal between countries, it is a business deal between corporations, with the negotiators set to personally profit from it.
“darling of the left” could only be tongue in cheek!
Depends who’s tongue is in my cheek, Dave…
trotter seems to be labouring under the impression there are real differences between neo-lib labour and neo-lib national..
newsflash..!..there aren’t..
..and i am surprised at trotters’ surprise at clarks’ comment…
..helen clark is a total neoliberal..and her and goff first invited america into the tpp-negotiations..
..does trotter not know this..?
..they are the bloody same..!..neoliberal national and neoliberal labour..
..and reality check..!..little is just murmering his demurrals..’cos he also is clear that he is neoliberal to the core..and he also supports tpp..
..did/do you not know all this..?
..and if you do..(as i assume you do..)..why the outrage/surprise/howls of ‘betrayal’..?
“Clark’s transition, from principled social-democrat” When was she ever “principled”? Did I blink and miss it?
305 k Kiwi Kids go hungry, a flogged out rail infrastructure, a decimated Union movement, the forty hour week just a memory, a mangled tertiary education system that was once the envy of the world, haunted and abused beneficiaries, now privatised and unbelievably greedy power co’s sucking USA corporate penis then billing us for the privilege, a growing middle, underclass of mean minded cheats and liars, a fat cat worshiping advertising culture, a brown nosing media more concerned for their hair styles and six figure + salaries, scurrying , harassed city people bashing along to all hours then fret their entire working lives paying Banks vast amounts of money for shit little houses squashed together like rat cages or debt tombs and in there, if they’re not too exhausted and too terrified they might squeeze out one kid before the sperms die of exhaustion and eggs shrivel into oblivion, farmers, buried in debt and forced to use chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects in humans struggle with almost laughable debt burdens and sky rocketing costs to desperately try to keep ahead of their logical fallacy spouting masters in the same Banks that have you and me counting out our few dollars while praying we die before we start to cost too much.
jonky and clark. Playing little power games with you and me while we work to earn to pay them. Dick stretching and pompous preening . Great job you lying pair of fuckers. Great job.
When Are you going to start your own blog?
wot countryboy said…
Still look at the look of contempt Key has towards Clark.You can see his hatred of her in his eyes. He is probably highly jealous of Clark in her tax-free job in the UN. He harks for such a position for himself.And perhaps if he pulls Obamas strings acceptably(for Obama’s liking)enough Key might end up in a similar tax-free role in the UN.
And yet how many bottles of NZ wine had both been through before the news report?
And yet at the end of the meeting it was two multi-millionaires shaking hands . One has made her millions in her tax-free job in the UN and the other is hoping to become the richest corpse in the cemetery as a result of the signing of the TPPA.
Now it does appear Clark has forgotten about her past and especially things her late dad would hold dear.But when it comes to money for oneself whatever ones parents did(and Key is an excellent example of forgetting the fact his late mum was accepted as a refugee into NZ shortly after the War)are quickly forgotten.
For the greedy and for such has-beens as former PM Clark and potentially former PM Key money is their be all and end all.More money for themselves and to Hades with what ordinary people have to deal with in every-day life.
If we truly want true humanity and caring for others especially here in NZ then we know we can never ever depend upon those who have been involved in politics. The brush of corruption tars them easily and without too much effort.
But still they must live with their actions and when they must meet their Maker(as we all have to do)they will have to account for their actions. For them to live a life without conscience shows they are not living a true and acceptable life.
The lowest, coldest ring of hell is reserved for politicians.
I suggest you listen to The Dollar Vigilante at 1:24:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeYBthdczNo
Why would New Zealand trade with a bankrupt US
and why would Clark support such fraud?
Good link Helena. 1000%
Helen’s remarks have not made the TPP more attractive to the people who oppose it, they have just made Helen look very much less attractive. We oppose the TPP for the sake of all New Zealanders – to protect our environment and our freedom to make our own decisions. It may be ideological but it’s also unselfish and idealistic. If Helen supports the TPP for ideological reasons, she is showing her moral bankruptcy, but if she is doing it to further her own career, that could hardly be worse.
Yes …the plain facts are she stabbed this country in the back.
But… ( and although I never liked her and her social engineering govt – and have never voted Labour since they betrayed this country in 1984 ) …it is important that we admit and recognize one pertinent fact and one fact only.
She , …and most of these others and especially Key are neo liberals.
It is as natural for the neo liberal to trash their own countrymen and women as it is for a duck to like water.
And the reason that is ,…is because they are globalists.
Plain and frank.
The globalist , … believes in a borderless set of nations, …indeed… a situation whereby there is no real effective governance save for the most minimum import of national governance and even that…simply a tinkering with local affairs…
Their concept of ‘governance’ …is more a kind of global integration built upon trading blocks …where bodies such as the UN and the European Union draw up a common charter in effect…
Hence why so many of these neo liberals preach a ‘minimum’ govt…this is also why we have such impotent and ineffectual govt’s today. And have done since 1984 in this country . Key is a classic example.
Another example is Bill English’s statement about ‘ there being no need for a govt anymore and that the nation state will cease to exist’.. .or words to that effect.
This also is why I view the neo liberal as a treasonous individual by very fact of holding those views. It cannot be anything else.
So for Clark to say such a thing – and then to deny she meant the TTPA as it stands currently – either shows she is in alignment with this or she is a blundering , inept and inarticulate fool , – given to cryptic and coded double meaning.
She hardly is the latter, therefore it is the former.
And Clark is a neo liberal. She was hardly a reformer . She hardly espoused the social democratic ideals of Labour before the traitor Douglas.
My apologies to Clark supporters but I never liked her or Labour …and the hard pill you will all have to swallow is the fact she has aided and abetted Key . And ..as a neo liberal herself… aided and abetted the deconstruction of this country’s democracy. Willingly.
Sad and predictable as that is.
With a couple of paragraphs, Helen Clark has redefined our perception of the fifth Labour government and herself for posterity.
I never ever considered her “a darling of the left”, unless you are being sarcastic. Helen Clarke stood mostly for the status quo and although not neo-liberalistic in her policies, was rather more of a liberal leaning conservative than anything else. Ditto Dr Michael Cullen.
She needs to do that to get the top UN job. It’s always been about Helen
Is HC all that left?
Not really.
Have you ever considered that this may actually be her genuine opinion?
Oh I’m sure it is.
And it is just a coincidence that it skewers the Labour Party and enhances her joust for the top post at the same time…
Do you really think the government would ever vote against a New Zealander for the top spot in the UN?
Nah…
It’s come to this.
Takes the passionate French to show you how it’s done.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2015/oct/05/air-france-protests-job-losses-charles-de-gaulle-airport-paris
The French , ….the mighty French , COUNTRYBOY…
They don’t muck around.
Those passionate Gauls…like Tigers.
Curiously the French revolution was many things , bloody , yet reforming ,…constructive and deconstructive – if you were part of the Monarchy system of Europe definitely the latter !!!
But one thing that any govt there has never been able to extricate from the spirit of those people is their natural fiestiness.
We can learn a lot from the French.
Such as standing up for ourselves en masse and not taking any shit from aresholes in either deceptive management or parliament.
We need to become far more like the French.
Far more so.
Sarcasm has always been difficult to demonstrate in writing (as no doubt your first year varsinickity tutors told you, Monsiuer Trottoir) so I shall give you a huge benefit of the doubt doughnut and accept that you are being sarcastic when you call her “the darling of the left”.
As for me, I am not at all surprised at her actions because it fits in with her Helengrad personality. The Master Puppeteer; the Micromanager.
I am, however, totally outraged at her outburst because she has broken the golden rule of political appointees not to comment on political matters at home and has decided to do it in a very calculated and opportunistic way.
If she does achieve her dream of UN Secretary General it will be a matter of shame and dishonour for the rest of us here.
And she would be as useless in that role as she was in the role of leader of this land.
The good news?
We now have first contact with alien life.
Please call in the scientists… 🙂
She is the only one the “officially acceptable Left” have had to hand their hat on for 31 years. That’s why she’s the darling who has now dismayed.
Helen Clarke is trying for a promotion at the UN, so her betrayal of the the NZ left is simply for her own political gain.
Why do Labour leaders feel the need to backstab our country?
What Helen said was simple fact. Like it or lump it (and perhaps mainly lump it) New Zealand is a small trade-reliant country without a sugar-daddy or any kind of plan B floating around on a very, very big ocean awash with sharks.
We can criticize the negotiating skills of our reps in the discussions, we can bemoan the relatively paltry gains, we can decry the self-serving nature of international “diplomacy,” but, bottom line we have to be inside the tent or we will be sitting outside it forever.
The trick is how well we can turn our inevitably weak position to strength.
To say that the TPPA is a big risk for us, is just to admit that everything is a big risk for us. All we can do is to try to negotiate the hurricane as best we are able. So what else is new?
So Helen Clark is a supporter of free trade. As Prime Minister of New Zealand what else would you be? To turn our back on the only game in the West would be to commit long term to remain the price-taking protein larder of China or anyone else who wants to keep the lion’s share of the supply chain to themselves.
A franchise of yoghurt – freeze stores in the States or a chain of Butchers in Canada, selling value-added New Zealand milk or meat sounds better to me that shipping milk powder to Beijing or whole beef carcasses to Shanghai, not you?
Sure, we want to see the details and how many rats are to be served up, but the sooner we get over the sackcloth and ashes and onto conspiring to move forward, the better we will come out of it.
Helen Clark has been both truthful and consistent, so big deal that she thought that advancing her genuine conviction was more important than playing gotcha politics with John Key. I believe that we would have had to sign up to this agreement in the end no matter who was in charge of the country short perhaps of Te Rauparaha. It hurts, certainly, but sometimes a dose of the truth does hurt.
Well said Nick. The alternative if trying to go it alone may be vaguely viable for large countries like the US but New Zealand cannot supply all its own needs – think cars, computers, cell phones, etc, etc. We tried that and it was very inefficient and costly for Kiwi consumers. We paid as much for the components as we would have for the fully assembled product. Yes it did provide jobs but it makes more sense to build better career paths by focusing on what we do best and selling our goods and services to the world. And that is why we need trade agreements that are free and fair. The analysis – when we get access to the text and debate it on its merits – needs to evaluate the reality against the criteria for a ‘good deal’. Labour has been clear and consistent in working through this process.
I dont think anyone would bleat about fair trade, but my observations around free trade is that its rarely if ever fair.
Yes we are a trading nation, so we should be fostering fair trade for those less fortunate than ourselves and seeking the same from those “more fortunate” than ourselves.
Free trade is anything but free.
I think people are getting confused because Helen Clark was Leader of the Labour Party, and thus, must be Left. She has not only the proud (?) distinction of being the first female Labour PM, but the first PM who appeared to be on the Left, when she was actually on the Right, along with Douglas. (and possibly a few others.) And don’t forget, she will still be getting her government pension, which is a bit more than what most of us get.
Now its interesting that one of the biggest motives for this TTPA is USA hegemony in the South Pacific region. We all now know that is a primary benefit for the political motives of the TTPA’s main advocate.
Particularly as it forces China on the back foot and denies it’s unfettered influence… yet one of the things Clark is known for was a first in signing a free trade deal with ….China.
Interesting.
And with Putin ordering bomb strikes in Syria , and the USA killing Doctors without Borders with an indiscriminate bombing strike…
We can see the wargames being played out at all levels.
Once again….a little bit of Black Sabbath to brighten your day…
…………………..
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death’s construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Yeah
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait ’till their judgment day comes
Yeah!
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgment, God is calling
On their knees the war pig’s crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah !
……………………..
And for those who would like to have the gumption to actually see graphically the underlying thinking that motivates the sort of people drawing up these world aspirations of dominance…
Just go to ‘ Black Sabbath – War Pigs ( set to political footage )
Kind of says it all in a nutshell …so much so even Gosman would have to agree …and Mr Hooton.
[…] Source: Deliberate Political Sabotage: The “Darling of the Left” comes out in favour of the TPP « The D… […]
TPP has now been termed the “Toilet Paper Protocol”
now i fully understand why i have never voted labour since those rodger douglas days
Sadly you and many of those commenting above have been sucked in by the MSM – yes Helen Clark was misquoted, by them and by the article above. Quote:
“What always haunts a Prime Minister”, said Clark, “is: ‘Will there be a series of trade blocs develop that you are not part of?’ Because that is unthinkable for New Zealand as an export-oriented, small trading nation. So of course New Zealand has to be in on the action with the TPP and go for the very best deal it can as the agreement expands beyond the original four economies to a wider regional agreement.”
Read again: Go for the very best deal it can” – not blindly accept anything! Clarks statement would present the view of I believe every political party in New Zealand – be in the discussions, go for the best we can get – but what is not said is whether what has been agreed is the best, or even good enough to agree to.
It has long been a convention for politicians overseas – and ex-politicians – to not criticise the current government if at all possible. Helen Clark stated the area in which she can agree with our current government; it happens to be the area I believe all parties can agree. She did not endorse accepting less than the best we can achieve, or require an unsatisfactory deal to be accepted. That is where National spin has been swallowed and regurgitated by Chris Trotter.
It is sad that a commentator purporting to support the left could be so blinded by irrational hatred of part of the left that he endorses the lies of the right.
Comments are closed.