I will be incommunicado for most of today because I’m a member of National’s list ranking committee and we’re meeting to determine who goes where on the party list.
I’ve done a couple of time-dealyed posts which will appear later in the day.
Our deliberations are of course confidential so I won’t be sharing them with you but it is no secret that we are spoiled for choice with a very high standard of candidates so it won’t be an easy task.
As Tracy Watkins points out:
The poll comes as a buoyant National prepares to unveil its party list rankings tomorrow and, in a sign of the times, it is preparing to put up a record 73 candidates.
The results will be made public at a press conference tomorrow morning.
Tracy Watkins concludes her comments on Condoleezza Rice’s visit with these observations:
Peters might have hoped he would not be asked about it today in front of Rice – well, that was never going to happen after the farce played out yesterday at a press conference at which Mr Peters was supposed to clear up the issues around a donation by millionaire Sir Bob Jones.
Peters blustered and obfuscated for 40 minutes, giving journalists no alternative but to put the issue to him today. To do otherwise would have looked like we accepted Peters’ position yesterday.
Silly man, the more he blusters the deeper the hole he’s digging for himself.
It will be interesting to see now whether the PM fronts up to reporters after her press conference with Rice, as has tended to be her practice.
Given the constraints on our ability to ask questions of her and Rice at their formal press conference – media are allowed just four questions in total, two to foreign journalists and two to New Zealand media – you would expect her to come down after and give us a separate briefing. It’s something she has often done in the past after all.
If she refuses then we will be entitled to draw our own conclusions; that she is still weighing up the fall out from the Peters presser yesterday and isn’t ready to rush out yet in fulsome support.
The only rush should be for a full, independent inquiry.
In a discussion ont he irony of Jim Bolger chairing Kiwi Rail, Tracy Watkins notes
If we ever doubted, meanwhile, that Bolger truly is a formidable politician, his response to questions about whether National was right to sell rail back in 1993 pretty much summed it up.
It was right to sell it at the time, Bolger suggested – but times had changed and it was now right to buy it back.
Well he’s right about the sale but wrong about the buy-back. So is he half left -what Cactus Kate calls a pink tory – or just plain wrong?