Friday, March 30, 2018

WHAT HOLD DOES CURRAN HAVE OVER THE PRIME MINISTER?

It's a fair question given St Jacinda's backing of her errant minister and the lies she told over the Carol Hirschfeld affair.    Sorry Jacinda, saying Curran made a mistake and should have been a little more transparent just doesn't cut the mustard.

Why? ... because Curran acted in defiance of the Cabinet Manual and that is a sacking offence.

Specifically, clause 3.81 of the manual states "If an employee wishes to communicate privately with the Minister about a matter concerning the agency by which he or she is employed, the Minister (my emphasis) should ensure the employee has first raised the matter with the agency's chief executive".

The fact that Curran sought the meeting (and the trail of text messages confirms that) compounds the offence.  

So again I ask the question ... what hold does Curran have over the Prime Minister?

Sheesh ... having the Prime Minister beholden to her Minister of Foreign Affairs is bad enough.   If he pulls the rug she's a gone-burger ... but one of her own Labour Party Ministers!!!!!!!!!!!


8 comments:

DavidW99 said...

Curran has the threat of resignation from her electorate seat to hold over the whole Labour-led Government. If she is sacked as a Minister and throws her toys, a by-election could easily destroy the slim majority held by the coalition. So Curran is effectively. Bulletproof as long as Labour's internal poling shows that the electorate as a whole is already sick of the cluster-what's it that is running the country.

The Veteran said...

DavidW99 ... Oh that were true but Curran has a majority of 8,717. Since 1931 the electorate has always returned a Labour MP. Under WRP's Electoral Integrity Bill Labour could of course expel her from Parliament and force a by-election but, even if they put up a jackass as their candidate and, provided they painted it red, it would win the seat.

macdoctor said...

Not entirely sure that is true. Labour's and National's party votes were not dissimilar and Curran's large majority is a result of her good name recognition. There is already a fair amount of discontent with the current ship of fools so a high profile Nat candidate could possibly take Dunedin South like Peters took Northland. That would weaken, but not remove, the current government's majority.

Anonymous said...

Several factors in play I would have thought:

1 Ardern doesn't have the ability of sacking Curran. Too feebleminded or not wanting to be seen as 'judgey.'

2 If she sacks Curran for lying and breech of the Cabinet Manual it sets a standard which every other incompetent Minister will be viewed against.

3 Who to replace her with? She struggled to put people with any ability into Cabinet as it is, who would take her place?

4 Ardern isn't a leader of Politicians. She may be useful in leading 3 year olds at play centre to go have their morning tea but anyone older is o=a bit too much of, 'Oh dear, this is a bit too difficult, let me have a conversation with someone who will tell me what to think.'

Jimmie

pdm said...

DavidW99 - Curran won't leave parliament because she knows that nowhere in the private sector will she get even 20% of her present $160,000 plus - plus perks - salary.

pdm said...

Oops the $160,000 plus is a backbenchers salary which is what I meant in my earlier post.

Noel said...

Anyone know when Mitchell's S409 complaint is going to hit the headlines?

Duncan Brown said...

Jimmie at 1748: I really don't get this argument: "it sets a standard which every other incompetent Minister will be viewed against." That's a good thing, surely. One fair and reasonable sacking might help to pull the other mavericks into line.