So it turns out John knows the family of one of the Roast Busters…
To complicate matters, broadcaster John Tamihere and Parker’s stepfather have known each other for years. But the source claims Tamihere had not known the stepfather was related to Parker when he conducted his now infamous radio interview with 18-year-old “Amy”, a friend of one of the Roast Buster victims.
Can both of those two claims be true?
Someone with the level of connections John has within West Auckland makes not knowing anyone involved in this a difficult proposition. If John knew about the relationship when he interviewed ‘Amy’ and the line of questioning was influenced by that relationship, it isn’t going to help him survive all of this fallout.
I don’t honestly believe there is any chance for John to become a Labour MP again. It was always a doubtful proposition based on the bewildering sexism of his Investigate interview that has haunted his political career, but add this victim blaming interview (with the added subtext he knew the step father) and I think Cameron Slater has more chance of becoming a Labour Party MP than John Tamihere.
As one door closes however, another opens. That other door opening for John is to accept Winston’s offer and join the socially conservative NZ First to become the new deputy and heir apparent. NZ First have no succession plans, the rest of the NZ First MPs are second rate political circus freaks and Winston wants to hand the reigns of power over to someone who will not disgrace his legacy.
NZ First’s history of jaw dropping xenophobia sits politely with jaw dropping sexism and Winston needs a new piece of raw meat policy for a dusty constituency who need their dentures in first before they can chew his bait. It’s not easy generating dog whistles when your voter base all have hearing aids and nothing gets old heads nodding in agreement faster than the shameful promiscuity of the young folk these days.
Tamihere could run for NZ First in Waitakere and that would give NZ First an electoral foothold to guarantee a sub 5% threshold representation which could be critical for NZ First’s future.
As many as there were horrified by the victim blaming tone of Tamihere, there is a large constituency who agree with him and find John’s public flogging very angering. To this electorate, misogyny is confused as commonsense safety tips, and to be told that their concerns for women are part of the problem will ferment an ugly backlash.
The question is will Tamihere saddle that backlash and ride it under NZ First colors?
Why does NZFirst need a successor to Winston? Isn’t the party merely a support system for Winston Peters? It’s not like NZF have some particular political philosophy to peddle. They peddle whatever political dog whistles it takes to get Winston’s core voter vase to vote him into his cushy baubles. They/he have no vision for New Zealand to implement upon gaining office; Winston’s gaining office IS the aim of the party.
Without Winston there is no party, nor any need for one, surely?
Dear Bomber.
It appears you’re labouring under some misapprehensions about the nature of NZ First and her supporters.
First up, you’ve said in no uncertain terms, that you believe Tamihere ought to become the “new Deputy” of NZF. This will, assumedly, come as quite a surprising and unwelcome suggestion to NZF, who’ve just two weeks ago elected our own, rather less misogynist, Deputy Leader. Who also happens to be our party’s Women’s Affairs Spokesperson.
Incidentally, the self-same “second-rate political circus freak” (as you call her), has been driving progressive elements of NZF policy-formation such as our recent motion at Convention to institute legislative protections for girls in situations of proposed marriage under the age of 18.
Do you really think that if we’re going to take a hard line on consent issues as applies marriage, that we’re somehow not going to be taking exactly the same stringent line on sexual consent? Specifically the way in which girls under the age of 16 *are actually and assumedly unable* to render legal, informed consent?
You talk about “jaw-dropping sexism” emanating from our Party. Have you got some persuasive, compelling and pervasive evidence for this…? I admit that it took us some two decades to produce a female Party President, Deputy Leader, and better gender-balance within our Caucus than the modern Labour Party all happening simultaneously … but none of that’s really relevant to the charges you raise, which basically appear to come down to “active enthusiasm and support for rape-apologism”.
Suffice to say, NZ First understands the difference between “promiscuity” and “alcohol-induced statutory rape of a minor”. We also understand the difference between “freedom of speech” and “saying objectionable, offensive things as a media mouthpiece” (whether on talkback radio or a prominent blog)
And let me put it to you this way. All of them “old heads” in our “dusty constituency” that you defame by alleging they’re actively enthusiastic about supporting rape apologism … I’m not going to ask you how you’d feel if we said that about YOUR grandmother; but I am going to ask you to take a moment to stop, think, and consider just how many of those little old ladies who are stalwarts for NZF might have granddaughters who’re about 13 right now. Or who were 13 once, or who had daughters who were 13.
Done that? Thought about our constituency as people with families, daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers?
Realized that perhaps, just perhaps, these people have something other than vague and non-specified concern about “youth promiscuity” going through their heads and instead a desire to help build a safer NZ to pass on to those very same grandkids by dealing with lowlife sexual abuser scum?
And that some of our little older ladies may in fact have been in the exact same position as some of these victims themselves in their younger days, having to negotiate what sounds like exactly the same police culture two, three, four or six decades ago?
Tell you what, Bomber.
“Nothing gets old heads nodding in agreement faster than the shameful …” insolence of upstart youthful journalists who insist on telling them what they think they should be doing. Particularly when that “what they think they should be doing” is “supporting rape apologism”.
Regards;
Curwen.
While Winston First has had some unfortunate representatives, it really has nothing on Labour, National, or ACT as far as that goes. We would do well to remember that Back Pussy was a Labour Minister, and it was Labour that gave birth to the hell spawn that is ACT, which has harboured fraudsters and grave robbers. I think you owe Winston First an apology.
Comments are closed.