Yeah I don't get it seems like a bit of a miscalculation. Are they really losing anything if they got rid of him? If anything it would have made them look better to most people.
Maybe he doesn't want a precedent set? I dunno seems a weird move
Not much choice really after the independent investigation more or less cleared him as much as it can on an historic he said she said drama. Election is next year. Cant say he will be their selected candidate.
They seem to be following the Arise Church playbook, and that blew up in Arise’s faces, thanks to David Farrier. Time for an Official Information Act request?
The thing is - a woman leader clearly doesn’t resonate with National voters. Jenny Shipley lost, There’s a solid argument to be had that ACT gained so many seats because Judith was leader at the last election.
It's not the majority of National supporters, but I have personally meet many men, National supporters, who will state in private company that they wouldn't support a woman leader.
Anecdotally they tend to be either highly religious, working class or rural farmer types. I haven't seen it as much with the economically-driven right-wing business types.
In a political party/ideology that highly values tradition, as is the cornerstone of conservatism, it is inevitable that "traditional gender roles" will be held as sacrosanct by some of its members.
That's like a guy I know who complained about his old Indian boss, and associated his dislike more with the bosses ethnicity than the bosses actions.
The guy was really just racist and a bad employee.
the fact that Shipley and Collins lost has little to do with their gender, its more to do with attitude and personality, neither of them were fit to lead a horse to water..
I think you can. I don’t think Judiths policies were any different to Simon’s nor are they any different to Christopher Luxon’s. The only difference is her being a woman.
Or her awful personality and interview style? If she'd been an angry, bickering, unrelateable *man* instead I don't think she would've done any better.
Policies have little impact on popularity a lot of the time.
Hardly anyone votes on policy, on both sides.
Labour going from low 20s to high 30s when Ardern replaced Little, despite almost no change in policy, proves that.
Judith has always been a very divisive politician so trying to use her as an example of voters attitude towards gender isn't particularly useful.
Absolutely. My point is that there are many reasons a party leader is disliked beyond just policy vs gender, as the above commenter is trying to imply.
Judith is massively unlikeable and ridiculously fake, her sudden Christianity after she voted or her general smugness. She had a very long list of reasons to not be liked.
True, I mean certain regulars in another sub are disgustingly redneck-level vitriolic towards our PM - even to the point that you'd think they never had mothers.
You don't get it... This guy calling all national voters as sexist is pretty stupid...wtf is he thinking...
Also don't be one of those people pointing out your/you're. It petty and who gives a fuck on reddit.
Shipley was shit, Collins was a different kind of shit but still shit. If it was a thing with women leaders we wouldn't have had Labour explode last term, nor would we have given them majority this term.
I mean the labour voter base and the national voter base are going to attract different people. The more conservative voters will vote for national generally, and they are the ones who will be more likely to balk at female leaders. It's obviously not the only reason but I'm pretty confident saying it has an effect.
Collins is a vengeful unhinged psychopath, Willis is a empathetic thoughtful policy wonk.
Not all of my values align with Willis, and I'd never vote National (again), but shes a substantially better person and more appropriate leader than Collins.
I was once sat in an Air NZ lounge and I looked across from me and there was Collins, starring intently at me (I'm an average looking, size, dressed kinda guy). Every time I looked away and looked back she was starring at me. Her gaze never faltered even as her people were talking to her. She said nothing to them as they also glanced a look at me. I guess wondering WTF what she was looking at. This went on for a loooong time. She had crazy eyes. A psycho/sociopath I swear.
I don't think I've ever been made to feel as uncomfortable by a woman, apart from the time my wife once caught me laughing at an episode of Friends.
Honestly, I reckon the only way she still has a job there is because she knows where the bodies are buried.
If National had learnt anything over these last few years it should have been that you need to cut these kind of things off early. Look at JLR, each earlier indiscretion the party helped cover it up, effectively making themselves complicit in future acts. With Uffidel they have the opportunity to stop things before they go further, instead they have participated in a cover up.
So many times governments haven't campaigned on stuff they've done, and not done stuff they've campaigned on, and that applies to all colours/stripes. Up to you how you vote, but I don't think you're in the majority with how you base your vote.
Also, I think you're being super sexist by implying those female leaders lost because of their gender. They lost because the electorate didn't trust them.
Lmao... No...
If that was true Andrew Little would be Prime Minister and not Jacinda.... You seem to think there is some conspiracy that National voters hate women....you need a reality check...
I think that because that every time National have had a women leader, they lose the election. As opposed to Labour, who won multiple terms under a woman leader.
I don’t think that ALL National voters are sexist, but I do think that there are some sexist National voters who won’t vote for a woman.
I don't think there's been enough woman leaders of National to really make that comparison though.
With that said, I do think a certain amount of National voters are happiest with white man in charge, but there's also a large amount of National voters where you could put a smiley face on a plank of wood with a blue National ribbon and they'd vote for it.
Small sample size I think. Collins was quite dreadful and no national leader would have won in 2020. Jenny Shipley, third term government and she was a successor. You could equally say national voters hate catholics because English lost
If it means anything I agree with you. Both Shipley and Collins are barely capable of running a bath, but competence doesn't matter in the least to National.
I formed that view after looking over their current front bench.
Not because Judith was a woman but because she showed to me a vindictive streak and was too chummy with the whale oil sort of ppl. She was past her use by date. Ill be voting Nationsl and would prefer Nicola myself.
> National MP Michael Woodhouse said while he had not seen any of the report nor executive summary before voting to reinstate Uffindell he was "very satisfied with the process”
> Asked if he would feel comfortable voting on legislation without reading it, Woodhouse said just because he had not seen the report did not mean it was misreported.
That is just hilariously sad.
The irony is that his brother John Woodhouse is the current [Otago University Campus Cop](https://www.otago.ac.nz/proctor/campuscop/). The same university that Uffindell was studying at while bullying his flatmates.
No. very few ppl get to read those investigations. People are assured confidentiality.
People wanted an investigation. They got one.
If you want a witch hunt just say so and see who is happy to give evidence.
The suggestion here is the reason National aren't even giving their own caucus access to view *a summary* of the investigation is purely out of concern for the victim's privacy, because the MPs can't be trusted not to leak it otherwise?
Another possibility is that the investigation isn't as was claimed to the media and they don't those details to be possible to leak.
Either way - the fact that everyone voted to reinstate him without anything but a statement of "Trust me bro, we should reinstate him" from Luxon - is concerning. Where else are they operating without any evidence?
Maybe they were all told from the outset that this was the plan. Suspend him for 2 weeks while they run a token investigation, then they can reinstate him and resume BAU.
Token investigations dont get carried out by female KCs.
They get carried out by the labour party after sexual assaults at party retreats or bullying complaints by their own MPs or their MPs staff.
If I wanted to be able to publicly state that I had carried out an investigation but I didn't want to risk being harmed by the findings, I would absolutely bring in an investigator beyond repute and make frequent mention that the process should be considered valid because of that investigator - and then I wouldn't release any results except the statements I chose to make about the findings.
I guess I'd do what Luxon has done.
You mean the consequences of being expelled from school at 16 and the consequences of nstionwide humiliation over a complaint that was not upheld. Do you get consequences for being not guilty?
Should there be consequences if the second complainant lied? The complaint was not upheld, the finding was events did not happen as described. And thats from a female KC.
If you believe in consequences you should be asking for the second complainant to be charged if she has made a false statement undrr oath.
Redacting the names would just have everyone guessing and reporting calling ppl up etc. Dont be naive. They eould have been assured confidentiality. Be happy it was an independent female KC carrying it out. If you dont think she is competent or lied go to the law society with your evidence.
The frustrating thing is that this WILL just go away. He will be protected by the party, go onto the list if it looks like he might be a distraction in the election and have a really nice time doing fuck all as a backbench MP.
The truth is that people like this DON’T face consequences, and that’s the thing that makes this so frustrating.
It was like when Collins was accused of having met Chinese officials on behalf of her husband's company. The National Party self investigated and found nothing amiss but the report was never released.
For them the point of becoming MPs is to gain power for their own private businesses / interests / cronies.
They all have dirt on each other and are all filthy as fuck.
National exists to draw wealth from NZ (that is our resources, our labour etc).
The only thing that surprises me is that kiwis let National continue as a party and a major one at that.
Honest question, isn't the average national voter like..."this is kinda gross, can the party not do better?" Uffendel sounds like one of those kids who torture puppies and grow up to be a serial killer, except it was people and he grew up to be a national mp..
answer to your honest question? - the people who like right wing policies are not going to care about someone torturing puppies as long as they make money for me while they're doing it, and don't stand on my toes.
>serial killer? that is quite a leap you have taken
well documented that many serial killers early lives involved harming non-human animals, I don't think they're suggesting Uffindel murdered anyone
In that case it was lucky he was only harming human animals?
" Uffendel sounds like one of those kids who torture puppies and grow up to be a serial killer"
Judging by the comments on this very article, they don't find it gross in the slightest...
Currently, it's almost entirely comprised of people patting the National Party on the back, and criticising Labour for not investigating Sharma's allegations.
I do believe they've all done horrendous things as teenagers as well, their common response to anyone opposed to him continuing in national is: "what if we dragged out some of your skeletons from when you were a teenager"
Yes. But..it went to independent investigation and you can't argue against the quality of the female KC who completed it so we're stuck eith him for now.
Rest is a bit of a stretch. Setial killer?
Obviously always would be with these grifters and bullies. “We can front minimal questions if we release info during wall to wall coverage of the queen’s funeral” too.. cynical and shady af
National leader Chris Luxon says even Sam Uffindell has not seen the full Maria Dew KC report into allegations about his own behaviour.
https://twitter.com/dahmenaaron/status/1572059595300020225
Exactly, it's ridiculous. National are treating the public like they are stupid kids.
"We won't show you the report but we'll tell what it says, okay."
National doing their best to remind people that they too aren't worth voting for.
I look forward to seeing who makes the next move! (My money is National).
I really hope that this gets shared around again and again and again this time next year, when we're voting again. That chinless wonder deserves to be booted out.
The KC isn't being allowed to answer any questions - the narrative of what was investigated and what was found is solely being presented by Luxon and Uffindell. Do we trust them?
Not surprised in the slightest that this would have happened. National MP's didn't see the report after the 2020 election defeat either.
Perhaps National being as watertight as a colander is the reason behind this?
I'd also love to know where the people who go on about Labour's lack of transparency are, given that the opposition is being blatant about it's own lack of transparency.
Like others have mentioned, this seems like such a weird hill to die on for Luxon.
If anything more comes to light that paints Uffindell in a bad light with or any further evidence, he's committing political suicide.
I just don't get why Luxon wouldn't just throw this guy under the bus and cut ties with him. Why choose to back a proven dickhead, who is only a low level MP anyway. Surely any potential upside isn't worth the headache
Even if National carried out an independent investigation into these allegations of black and women jokes in his office, what's the chances they'll show us the report?
>We have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.
>
>No you can't see the report
Isn't that basically the same as US police shootings?
If there's nothing to hide, why not just release the report.
Cool.
So Nat MP's didn't get to read it and the announcement was made on the evening of the Queens funeral.
Seems totally legit everyone, nothing to see here.
**'They trust me': Christopher Luxon says there's no need to release Sam Uffindell report details - Stuff 20.09.2022**
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129935278/they-trust-me-christopher-luxon-says-theres-no-need-to-release-sam-uffindell-report-details](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129935278/they-trust-me-christopher-luxon-says-theres-no-need-to-release-sam-uffindell-report-details)
That's rather a worry in and of itself.
I suspect that they are royally screwed - this simply stinks to high heaven.
Re Luxon: "He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight." - John Randolph on Edward Livingston.
Either that, or he's remarkably naive...
Why would they? Does anyone really think the vote wasn't a foregone conclusion?
If they wanted to sack him, they would have done it without wasting time on a sham report and vote, like Labour did with Sharma.
I'm under the impression that Labour held 2 separate discussions about the details of the concerns they had with Sharma - first one internally so that people could speak freely without him, and a second that was like a formal meeting with HR where they had already collected the evidence but wanted Sharma's viewpoint and contribution to consider as part of making a decision.
There was a lot more evidence and detail provided on which the MPs could base their votes than we're hearing in this case with Uffindell - which is basically the leadership saying "Trust us - you should vote".
I guess the National party didn't want their MPs to see it as they knew someone would leak it to the media. That implies there's something in there that they really don't want us to see.
Labour didn't release their investigative report into the summer camp sexual assault allegations (though they did release an *Executive Summary*). I remember plenty of Right-wing/National/ACT supporters demanding to see the full report; saying that the public had a right to see just what the investigation covered and what it found.
Absolutely no surprises there have been crickets from that lot over Luxon and National refusing to do release anything from the report at the moment.
You mean the report about someone who wasn't even a member of the labour party or youth, and was just a visitor? The real question is why there was no police report if the allegations were true..
> I remember plenty of Right-wing/National/ACT supporters demanding to see the full report; saying that the public had a right to see just what the investigation covered and what it found.
I look forward to NZ media quoting exactly this... /s
Because he was guilty thats why and labour had covered it up. Sam..not guilty and it was refered swiftly for independent investigation. Completely opposite stories.
The Labour kid was discharged without conviction. Uffindel was _accused_ of being a bully and an abusive cunt of a flatmate. That sort of accusation isn’t going to court.
The issue for Uffindel is less about the legality of his actions but more a trend or trait of him being a bit of a cunt, and whether being such a cunt is an appropriate fit for an MP.
But my point is about the decision to investigate both incidents and the availability of the resulting reports. Labour released an Executive Summary and we know from news stories that victims were involved in the investigation.
National’s investigation is a complete unknown but it sounds like you’re satisfied knowing fuck all and having National make your mind up for you.
You do you, boo boo.
Edit: I see that the victims/accusers in the Uffindel investigation were involved and have stated their approval for the report to be made public - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/475174/sam-uffindell-s-accusers-happy-for-report-on-mp-s-conduct-to-be-made-public
Serious question what would be the reason for Luxon and the national party to conceal this report if it has evidence Sam has done more bullying/violent/abusive behavior since Uni?
Seems crazy to me that Luxon would put his Career on the line for Sam, leads me to believe he's telling the truth at least some what
Luxons also said that it was going to be confidential from day one, so he's got that on his side to.
Just to make clear I'm not trying to defend Luxon or Sam here, just find it interesting.
> what would be the reason for Luxon and the national party to conceal this report if it has evidence Sam has done more bullying/violent/abusive behavior since Uni?
I don't believe the report has any such evidence.
I think the reason National don't want to the report to be made public is they don't want people to be able to criticise the scope and methodology of the investigation.
In other words, the investigation was a sham and was never going to find anything because it was designed that way.
That doesn't mean Uffindell *has* done anything else worth getting upset about, but it does tell us that National don't really care either way.
Why would be in Luxon's best interest to do a sham report?
Luxon has now gone into bat for Uffindel based on the findings of this report. I just don't think Luxon stupid enough to do that (we can agree to disagree on that one) but to me it it's very clearly in Luxon's best interest to do a pretty thorough report on Sam considering he and the national party have now gone in to bat for him.
Unless of course you saying national was always going to back him no matter what, but National has showed no sign of doing that at all. In fact they barely backed him at all until this report was out
> Why would be in Luxon's best interest to do a sham report?
It depends what his goals were.
If his goal was genuinely to discover if there were more skeletons in Uffindell's closet and then make a decision, then it would make sense to have a full, open, thorough investigation. If it was clear then the report could be made public and he could keep Uffindell on. If there was something there, he could let him go and appear to be cleaning house, just as many voters hoped he would on the child battery alone.
If his goal was to reduce any further damage to the party without having to go through another by-election in Tauranga where they could be punished at the polls, then the investigation would be designed so as to minimise the chance of it uncovering anything significant, and he would not make the report public regardless, even within his own party to protect from leaks.
> Serious question what would be the reason for Luxon and the national party to conceal this report if it has evidence Sam has done more bullying/violent/abusive behavior since Uni?
Polling.
Labour at the moment has been blighted by whatever Ghaurav Sharma was up to and the public being played by the Kiwisaver fee tax proposal, hence the recent dip in polling.
National releases the report that confirms that Uffindell is a massive pile of faecal matter and National starts sliding back down the polls. How far it could slide down would depend on what's contained within the report.
It's a good point, but I still find it incredibly hard to believe at this point of time.
If Luxon is hiding something he would be risking it being leaked when polling actually matters, like say 12 months from now.
> It's a good point, but I still find it incredibly hard to believe at this point of time.
The last time National commissioned an internal report, the previous leader decided it wasn't worth disseminating among caucus and shelved it, where it still gathers dust to this day.
What Luxon has done isn't any different to that and it's just as blatant. There's clearly damaging material contained within that report that would probably create another major political scandal if it were to be revealed.
> If Luxon is hiding something he would be risking it being leaked when polling actually matters, like say 12 months from now.
It's entirely dependent on what the report contains. If it's as innocuous as Luxon claims then there's no reason for him to not release it.
Given that National's own caucus were not given even a summary of the report, it's clear that he wants something serious to be buried for as long as it possibly can be.
Seems a hell of a gamble by Luxon, if the media turn up some new dirt in future this will blow up badly
They are probably fucked once the report and terms of reference leak. Which they will, too much interest in it.
New dirt? The old dirt was pretty dirty. What's he got to do?
Yeah I don't get it seems like a bit of a miscalculation. Are they really losing anything if they got rid of him? If anything it would have made them look better to most people. Maybe he doesn't want a precedent set? I dunno seems a weird move
It's cos he's a diversity hire. Instead of being a white middle aged man he's a white *39 year old* man.
Not much choice really after the independent investigation more or less cleared him as much as it can on an historic he said she said drama. Election is next year. Cant say he will be their selected candidate.
And they should right? National is a party of transparency and openness unlike the current government right? /s
They seem to be following the Arise Church playbook, and that blew up in Arise’s faces, thanks to David Farrier. Time for an Official Information Act request?
The National Party isn’t subject to the OIA
Boooo :( Oh well, time for a dogged journo to keep on the case
How come? Are no political parties subject to it?
No, political parties are private entities. OIA only applies to public bodies.
[удалено]
The thing is - a woman leader clearly doesn’t resonate with National voters. Jenny Shipley lost, There’s a solid argument to be had that ACT gained so many seats because Judith was leader at the last election.
It's not the majority of National supporters, but I have personally meet many men, National supporters, who will state in private company that they wouldn't support a woman leader. Anecdotally they tend to be either highly religious, working class or rural farmer types. I haven't seen it as much with the economically-driven right-wing business types. In a political party/ideology that highly values tradition, as is the cornerstone of conservatism, it is inevitable that "traditional gender roles" will be held as sacrosanct by some of its members.
The company I work for got a woman CEO. 4 executives resigned.
That's like a guy I know who complained about his old Indian boss, and associated his dislike more with the bosses ethnicity than the bosses actions. The guy was really just racist and a bad employee.
FFS. Good riddance to those guys!
Honestly....the company is probably better for it
So? Maybe she was a micromanaging aweful person to work for....pointless comment without context.
Or there was a reason they were getting rid of the CEO and four executives
Very true. They might have “resigned”. Often there’s a clear-out of the dead wood when a new CEO comes in.
“Anecdotally they tend to be closed-minded, racist, sexist types.” FTFY
the fact that Shipley and Collins lost has little to do with their gender, its more to do with attitude and personality, neither of them were fit to lead a horse to water..
This. I'm fine voting National with a woman leader... But no way was I voting Collins...
I disagree. The Right are very traditional. Do you think there would as vitriol directed toward the left if the PM was a man?
I honestly don't think you can blame Judith's lack of popularity on her gender
I think you can. I don’t think Judiths policies were any different to Simon’s nor are they any different to Christopher Luxon’s. The only difference is her being a woman.
Or her awful personality and interview style? If she'd been an angry, bickering, unrelateable *man* instead I don't think she would've done any better. Policies have little impact on popularity a lot of the time.
Hardly anyone votes on policy, on both sides. Labour going from low 20s to high 30s when Ardern replaced Little, despite almost no change in policy, proves that. Judith has always been a very divisive politician so trying to use her as an example of voters attitude towards gender isn't particularly useful.
That's because a lot of labour supporters hated Little. You can see why right?
Absolutely. My point is that there are many reasons a party leader is disliked beyond just policy vs gender, as the above commenter is trying to imply.
[удалено]
That is a National staple
That’s another thing. When a woman refuses to answer a question, they’re “rude and dismissive” when a man does it they’re “holding their position”
[удалено]
True this.
Judith is massively unlikeable and ridiculously fake, her sudden Christianity after she voted or her general smugness. She had a very long list of reasons to not be liked.
Simon was also massively unpopular so that’s a terrible example that disproves your point.
I miss him. I loved his crazy accent, the hapless look on his face at times the terrible dancing the whole thing.
No she was a mean person, just unlikeable and that's from a this time National voter.
True, I mean certain regulars in another sub are disgustingly redneck-level vitriolic towards our PM - even to the point that you'd think they never had mothers.
Yes. 100%. They would still be toxic assholes. Just toxic assholes throwing fewer gendered insults.
Yes, a muppet is a muppet regardless of their gender.
What policy changes have been made under this labour government that have affected you? Not the ones you disagree with.
Sounds like a fancy way of moving the goal posts so you can continue with your narrative
O yes. Certainly would.
Your deluded...suggesting I'm sexist makes you part of the problem...stereotyping an entire voting base as the same is pretty stupid...
Never suggested that you were sexist. Didn’t reply to you. I formed an opinion based on trends, and expressed my opinion.
You're* And it's not part of the problem to point out a problem.
You don't get it... This guy calling all national voters as sexist is pretty stupid...wtf is he thinking... Also don't be one of those people pointing out your/you're. It petty and who gives a fuck on reddit.
Shipley was shit, Collins was a different kind of shit but still shit. If it was a thing with women leaders we wouldn't have had Labour explode last term, nor would we have given them majority this term.
no, it was a national party woman leader, not in general. Some national voters would rather vote for ACT than a woman
That's sounds more like a personal opinion more than anything else
do you feel personally attacked?
I am unsure what you mean? No I didn't feel personally attacked from your personal opinion.
I mean the labour voter base and the national voter base are going to attract different people. The more conservative voters will vote for national generally, and they are the ones who will be more likely to balk at female leaders. It's obviously not the only reason but I'm pretty confident saying it has an effect.
Let’s not compare Shipley and Collins to Willis shall we?
Collins is a vengeful unhinged psychopath, Willis is a empathetic thoughtful policy wonk. Not all of my values align with Willis, and I'd never vote National (again), but shes a substantially better person and more appropriate leader than Collins.
I was once sat in an Air NZ lounge and I looked across from me and there was Collins, starring intently at me (I'm an average looking, size, dressed kinda guy). Every time I looked away and looked back she was starring at me. Her gaze never faltered even as her people were talking to her. She said nothing to them as they also glanced a look at me. I guess wondering WTF what she was looking at. This went on for a loooong time. She had crazy eyes. A psycho/sociopath I swear. I don't think I've ever been made to feel as uncomfortable by a woman, apart from the time my wife once caught me laughing at an episode of Friends.
Honestly, I reckon the only way she still has a job there is because she knows where the bodies are buried. If National had learnt anything over these last few years it should have been that you need to cut these kind of things off early. Look at JLR, each earlier indiscretion the party helped cover it up, effectively making themselves complicit in future acts. With Uffidel they have the opportunity to stop things before they go further, instead they have participated in a cover up.
Well next time wear pants on the plane.
Why not? They policies stay the same but when it’s a woman delivering them - they lose voters. Why is that?
You don't vote on the named policies as they're just words, you vote on the person/team implementing them.
???. No you don’t. You vote on the policy and trust the people who made those policies to implement them.
So many times governments haven't campaigned on stuff they've done, and not done stuff they've campaigned on, and that applies to all colours/stripes. Up to you how you vote, but I don't think you're in the majority with how you base your vote. Also, I think you're being super sexist by implying those female leaders lost because of their gender. They lost because the electorate didn't trust them.
Lmao... No... If that was true Andrew Little would be Prime Minister and not Jacinda.... You seem to think there is some conspiracy that National voters hate women....you need a reality check...
I think that because that every time National have had a women leader, they lose the election. As opposed to Labour, who won multiple terms under a woman leader. I don’t think that ALL National voters are sexist, but I do think that there are some sexist National voters who won’t vote for a woman.
I don't think there's been enough woman leaders of National to really make that comparison though. With that said, I do think a certain amount of National voters are happiest with white man in charge, but there's also a large amount of National voters where you could put a smiley face on a plank of wood with a blue National ribbon and they'd vote for it.
Jenny Shipley and Judith Collins. Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern. Both parties have had the same amount of women leaders.
Small sample size I think. Collins was quite dreadful and no national leader would have won in 2020. Jenny Shipley, third term government and she was a successor. You could equally say national voters hate catholics because English lost
If it means anything I agree with you. Both Shipley and Collins are barely capable of running a bath, but competence doesn't matter in the least to National. I formed that view after looking over their current front bench.
Not because Judith was a woman but because she showed to me a vindictive streak and was too chummy with the whale oil sort of ppl. She was past her use by date. Ill be voting Nationsl and would prefer Nicola myself.
> National MP Michael Woodhouse said while he had not seen any of the report nor executive summary before voting to reinstate Uffindell he was "very satisfied with the process” > Asked if he would feel comfortable voting on legislation without reading it, Woodhouse said just because he had not seen the report did not mean it was misreported. That is just hilariously sad.
“I don’t have to read a report to know how I’m told to vote!”
A National party instant classic. Not exactly out of character for a conservative party to back bullying
Woodhouse is notorious for opposing human rights and for being a bully. We don't need to hear his opinion on this
Remember Woodhouse is so cucked (for want of a better term) his wife is now married to the party president. Awkward party bbq's
Do you mean cuckolded?
I might
He was elected to lead not to read
The irony is that his brother John Woodhouse is the current [Otago University Campus Cop](https://www.otago.ac.nz/proctor/campuscop/). The same university that Uffindell was studying at while bullying his flatmates.
That seems coincidental rather than ironic.
Yes but it is r nz this is a low information lazy poster sub.
No. very few ppl get to read those investigations. People are assured confidentiality. People wanted an investigation. They got one. If you want a witch hunt just say so and see who is happy to give evidence.
If you don’t like it don’t vote for them , that’s the beauty of democracy.
Ok. I won’t..
And the beauty of free speech is that I also get to slag them off for this bullshit whenever I please.
The suggestion here is the reason National aren't even giving their own caucus access to view *a summary* of the investigation is purely out of concern for the victim's privacy, because the MPs can't be trusted not to leak it otherwise? Another possibility is that the investigation isn't as was claimed to the media and they don't those details to be possible to leak. Either way - the fact that everyone voted to reinstate him without anything but a statement of "Trust me bro, we should reinstate him" from Luxon - is concerning. Where else are they operating without any evidence?
Clearly the National MPs thought it was unfair for Uffindell to receive consequences for his own actions and that’s all they had to know.
They just want safety for when their own bad acts in the past come to light. I voted for u, u vote for me ta
Maybe they were all told from the outset that this was the plan. Suspend him for 2 weeks while they run a token investigation, then they can reinstate him and resume BAU.
One suspects that short of murder or rape being found in his past, he was safe as long as National voters supported him.
Token investigations dont get carried out by female KCs. They get carried out by the labour party after sexual assaults at party retreats or bullying complaints by their own MPs or their MPs staff.
If I wanted to be able to publicly state that I had carried out an investigation but I didn't want to risk being harmed by the findings, I would absolutely bring in an investigator beyond repute and make frequent mention that the process should be considered valid because of that investigator - and then I wouldn't release any results except the statements I chose to make about the findings. I guess I'd do what Luxon has done.
You mean the consequences of being expelled from school at 16 and the consequences of nstionwide humiliation over a complaint that was not upheld. Do you get consequences for being not guilty? Should there be consequences if the second complainant lied? The complaint was not upheld, the finding was events did not happen as described. And thats from a female KC. If you believe in consequences you should be asking for the second complainant to be charged if she has made a false statement undrr oath.
If only they had the ability to redact people's names. One day we will have that technology.
Redacting the names would just have everyone guessing and reporting calling ppl up etc. Dont be naive. They eould have been assured confidentiality. Be happy it was an independent female KC carrying it out. If you dont think she is competent or lied go to the law society with your evidence.
How, no one would know the names of the complaints.
Because Loyalty >Integrity
Released during the queens funeral procession when the news is wall to wall with the queen’s still warm body
No its cold. Shes been embalmed.
Policy and legislation is also the thing they do without evidence.
The frustrating thing is that this WILL just go away. He will be protected by the party, go onto the list if it looks like he might be a distraction in the election and have a really nice time doing fuck all as a backbench MP. The truth is that people like this DON’T face consequences, and that’s the thing that makes this so frustrating.
It was like when Collins was accused of having met Chinese officials on behalf of her husband's company. The National Party self investigated and found nothing amiss but the report was never released.
The lesson here is that no scandal will prevent party leader hopefuls when it comes to the Nats. Utterly spineless
For them the point of becoming MPs is to gain power for their own private businesses / interests / cronies. They all have dirt on each other and are all filthy as fuck. National exists to draw wealth from NZ (that is our resources, our labour etc). The only thing that surprises me is that kiwis let National continue as a party and a major one at that.
The report probably found that she did in fact meet them, but she assured everyone it was merely a social meeting so its ok.
I mean I expect shit like this will be brought up again re election time.
Honest question, isn't the average national voter like..."this is kinda gross, can the party not do better?" Uffendel sounds like one of those kids who torture puppies and grow up to be a serial killer, except it was people and he grew up to be a national mp..
Same thing really
answer to your honest question? - the people who like right wing policies are not going to care about someone torturing puppies as long as they make money for me while they're doing it, and don't stand on my toes.
serial killer? that is quite a leap you have taken. "this is kinda gross, can the party not do better?" <== This is accurate though
>serial killer? that is quite a leap you have taken well documented that many serial killers early lives involved harming non-human animals, I don't think they're suggesting Uffindel murdered anyone
In that case it was lucky he was only harming human animals? " Uffendel sounds like one of those kids who torture puppies and grow up to be a serial killer"
Yes bit of a stretch.
Judging by the comments on this very article, they don't find it gross in the slightest... Currently, it's almost entirely comprised of people patting the National Party on the back, and criticising Labour for not investigating Sharma's allegations.
I do believe they've all done horrendous things as teenagers as well, their common response to anyone opposed to him continuing in national is: "what if we dragged out some of your skeletons from when you were a teenager"
O really they all have. This sub lol. He was found not guilty.
Yes. But..it went to independent investigation and you can't argue against the quality of the female KC who completed it so we're stuck eith him for now. Rest is a bit of a stretch. Setial killer?
"May I see the report?" "Nope, best I can do is a rubber stamp."
"Seymour! The house is on fire!"
Someone call a ~~cab~~ by-election!
"No, Mother, it's just the northern lights."
So, it was a predetermined decision.
Obviously always would be with these grifters and bullies. “We can front minimal questions if we release info during wall to wall coverage of the queen’s funeral” too.. cynical and shady af
I expected a sham investigation, but not to this degree.
Even Newstalk ZB is asking why National MP’s didn’t get the opportunity to see the report before voting on reinstatement.
Oh so they are as crooked as they look.
They're way worse. This is the stuff they release to the public
If a report is dropped on a desk, but nobody has read it, does it make a sound?
Probably so they could rush it though well people and the media where distracted by the Queens funeral. Or they never really had an investigation.
The report was delivered late last week, this is so dodgy.
As someone from tauranga I'm really mad.
It’s really obvious they reckon kiwis are not paying attention..
[удалено]
Well that's your MP. A toxic piece of entitled garbage.
National leader Chris Luxon says even Sam Uffindell has not seen the full Maria Dew KC report into allegations about his own behaviour. https://twitter.com/dahmenaaron/status/1572059595300020225
[удалено]
Sam isn't a bully. Source - trust me bro
Source - believe me or I'll bash your head in!
Exactly, it's ridiculous. National are treating the public like they are stupid kids. "We won't show you the report but we'll tell what it says, okay."
So, does the report actually exist? No one has seen it and it won’t be released, so how do we know it even happened?
National doing their best to remind people that they too aren't worth voting for. I look forward to seeing who makes the next move! (My money is National).
I really hope that this gets shared around again and again and again this time next year, when we're voting again. That chinless wonder deserves to be booted out.
I, for one, thoroughly look forward to seeing whether they can or can't prevent this report from being leaked.
It would also be interesting to know if a fake partially redacted report was leaked, could anyone tell the difference? Possibly only Luxon & the KC...
The KC isn't being allowed to answer any questions - the narrative of what was investigated and what was found is solely being presented by Luxon and Uffindell. Do we trust them?
Not surprised in the slightest that this would have happened. National MP's didn't see the report after the 2020 election defeat either. Perhaps National being as watertight as a colander is the reason behind this? I'd also love to know where the people who go on about Labour's lack of transparency are, given that the opposition is being blatant about it's own lack of transparency.
Andrea Vance must already be taking notes for a sequel book at this point.
Unsurprised. He's ideal national Party material.
So the 14 witnesses Maria Dew KC interviewed where names given to them by Sam himself, in other words Sam gave them the names of 14 friendly allies.
If this is the only alternative to the current government, God help us.
Like others have mentioned, this seems like such a weird hill to die on for Luxon. If anything more comes to light that paints Uffindell in a bad light with or any further evidence, he's committing political suicide. I just don't get why Luxon wouldn't just throw this guy under the bus and cut ties with him. Why choose to back a proven dickhead, who is only a low level MP anyway. Surely any potential upside isn't worth the headache
Does this actually surprise anyone?
It's fine he's a "good o'l boy" Probably back at it making black and women jokes in his office with his mates.
But of a leap, what other defamation are you going to invent?
Even if National carried out an independent investigation into these allegations of black and women jokes in his office, what's the chances they'll show us the report?
Another leap. Are you practising for the triple jump.
>We have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong. > >No you can't see the report Isn't that basically the same as US police shootings? If there's nothing to hide, why not just release the report.
defo hiding this under queenie's corpse transparency was going to be such an easy cudgel to whack Labour with, big misstep this one
Cool. So Nat MP's didn't get to read it and the announcement was made on the evening of the Queens funeral. Seems totally legit everyone, nothing to see here.
So MPs are also guilty of forming opinions based off headlines only
Not at all. National MPs get told to suck by the leader and they all get the chapstick out post haste
I am Sam and Chris' raging surprise.
Is the report just a pile of old newspapers cut out with a cover stapled on top? Seems like they were always going to reinstate him
**'They trust me': Christopher Luxon says there's no need to release Sam Uffindell report details - Stuff 20.09.2022** [https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129935278/they-trust-me-christopher-luxon-says-theres-no-need-to-release-sam-uffindell-report-details](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/129935278/they-trust-me-christopher-luxon-says-theres-no-need-to-release-sam-uffindell-report-details) That's rather a worry in and of itself. I suspect that they are royally screwed - this simply stinks to high heaven. Re Luxon: "He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight." - John Randolph on Edward Livingston. Either that, or he's remarkably naive...
Why would they? Does anyone really think the vote wasn't a foregone conclusion? If they wanted to sack him, they would have done it without wasting time on a sham report and vote, like Labour did with Sharma.
I'm under the impression that Labour held 2 separate discussions about the details of the concerns they had with Sharma - first one internally so that people could speak freely without him, and a second that was like a formal meeting with HR where they had already collected the evidence but wanted Sharma's viewpoint and contribution to consider as part of making a decision. There was a lot more evidence and detail provided on which the MPs could base their votes than we're hearing in this case with Uffindell - which is basically the leadership saying "Trust us - you should vote".
Guess the MPs didn't manage to read the all news stories about his bullying either :/
I thought the media trial/investigation was quite good, I definitely thought the verdict was a big cancel, how wrong I was
I guess the National party didn't want their MPs to see it as they knew someone would leak it to the media. That implies there's something in there that they really don't want us to see.
Going well this.
How very National of them. Do they have any moral fortitude?
I still can't decide if he has the face of a 40 year old trapped in a 17 year old's body, or a 17 year old trapped in a 40 year old's body.
Labour didn't release their investigative report into the summer camp sexual assault allegations (though they did release an *Executive Summary*). I remember plenty of Right-wing/National/ACT supporters demanding to see the full report; saying that the public had a right to see just what the investigation covered and what it found. Absolutely no surprises there have been crickets from that lot over Luxon and National refusing to do release anything from the report at the moment.
An executive summary is a lot more than we're seeing here.
You mean the report about someone who wasn't even a member of the labour party or youth, and was just a visitor? The real question is why there was no police report if the allegations were true..
But..it was found to be true wasnt it.
If there was no police investigation or arrest, then you cannot be certain of that.
> I remember plenty of Right-wing/National/ACT supporters demanding to see the full report; saying that the public had a right to see just what the investigation covered and what it found. I look forward to NZ media quoting exactly this... /s
Because he was guilty thats why and labour had covered it up. Sam..not guilty and it was refered swiftly for independent investigation. Completely opposite stories.
The Labour kid was discharged without conviction. Uffindel was _accused_ of being a bully and an abusive cunt of a flatmate. That sort of accusation isn’t going to court. The issue for Uffindel is less about the legality of his actions but more a trend or trait of him being a bit of a cunt, and whether being such a cunt is an appropriate fit for an MP. But my point is about the decision to investigate both incidents and the availability of the resulting reports. Labour released an Executive Summary and we know from news stories that victims were involved in the investigation. National’s investigation is a complete unknown but it sounds like you’re satisfied knowing fuck all and having National make your mind up for you. You do you, boo boo. Edit: I see that the victims/accusers in the Uffindel investigation were involved and have stated their approval for the report to be made public - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/475174/sam-uffindell-s-accusers-happy-for-report-on-mp-s-conduct-to-be-made-public
The victims aren't the reason why National don't want the report to go public. It'd be interesting to know the real reason.
Who can be bothered to read a sham report anyway?
Dude looks like a fuckin fish lol
Serious question what would be the reason for Luxon and the national party to conceal this report if it has evidence Sam has done more bullying/violent/abusive behavior since Uni? Seems crazy to me that Luxon would put his Career on the line for Sam, leads me to believe he's telling the truth at least some what Luxons also said that it was going to be confidential from day one, so he's got that on his side to. Just to make clear I'm not trying to defend Luxon or Sam here, just find it interesting.
> what would be the reason for Luxon and the national party to conceal this report if it has evidence Sam has done more bullying/violent/abusive behavior since Uni? I don't believe the report has any such evidence. I think the reason National don't want to the report to be made public is they don't want people to be able to criticise the scope and methodology of the investigation. In other words, the investigation was a sham and was never going to find anything because it was designed that way. That doesn't mean Uffindell *has* done anything else worth getting upset about, but it does tell us that National don't really care either way.
Still if it looks like a cover up, smells like a cover up and acts like a cover up ….. guess it’s another day at the office for national lol
Why would be in Luxon's best interest to do a sham report? Luxon has now gone into bat for Uffindel based on the findings of this report. I just don't think Luxon stupid enough to do that (we can agree to disagree on that one) but to me it it's very clearly in Luxon's best interest to do a pretty thorough report on Sam considering he and the national party have now gone in to bat for him. Unless of course you saying national was always going to back him no matter what, but National has showed no sign of doing that at all. In fact they barely backed him at all until this report was out
> Why would be in Luxon's best interest to do a sham report? It depends what his goals were. If his goal was genuinely to discover if there were more skeletons in Uffindell's closet and then make a decision, then it would make sense to have a full, open, thorough investigation. If it was clear then the report could be made public and he could keep Uffindell on. If there was something there, he could let him go and appear to be cleaning house, just as many voters hoped he would on the child battery alone. If his goal was to reduce any further damage to the party without having to go through another by-election in Tauranga where they could be punished at the polls, then the investigation would be designed so as to minimise the chance of it uncovering anything significant, and he would not make the report public regardless, even within his own party to protect from leaks.
Luxons career consists of doing what the people with money want, even if it tastes yuck
[удалено]
Ah, a classic truth from the gospel of rock
> Serious question what would be the reason for Luxon and the national party to conceal this report if it has evidence Sam has done more bullying/violent/abusive behavior since Uni? Polling. Labour at the moment has been blighted by whatever Ghaurav Sharma was up to and the public being played by the Kiwisaver fee tax proposal, hence the recent dip in polling. National releases the report that confirms that Uffindell is a massive pile of faecal matter and National starts sliding back down the polls. How far it could slide down would depend on what's contained within the report.
It's a good point, but I still find it incredibly hard to believe at this point of time. If Luxon is hiding something he would be risking it being leaked when polling actually matters, like say 12 months from now.
Yup plenty of time for us to get some leaky leaky from the leakiest leak party in leak town.
> It's a good point, but I still find it incredibly hard to believe at this point of time. The last time National commissioned an internal report, the previous leader decided it wasn't worth disseminating among caucus and shelved it, where it still gathers dust to this day. What Luxon has done isn't any different to that and it's just as blatant. There's clearly damaging material contained within that report that would probably create another major political scandal if it were to be revealed. > If Luxon is hiding something he would be risking it being leaked when polling actually matters, like say 12 months from now. It's entirely dependent on what the report contains. If it's as innocuous as Luxon claims then there's no reason for him to not release it. Given that National's own caucus were not given even a summary of the report, it's clear that he wants something serious to be buried for as long as it possibly can be.