Written By: - Date published: 1:43 pm, August 28th, 2008 - 190 comments
Categories: election 2008, election funding, nz first -
Tags:
Winston Peters’ stories around the Owen Glenn donation to his legal fund are dangerously convoluted and have stretched everyone’s credulity but without real evidence either way it has been impossible to fairly condemn him. Glenn’s letter yesterday provided strong evidence and left Peters ’hanging by a thread’, as every hack in the country wrote. Now, Helen Clark has effectively chosen to cut that thread.
Clark has chosen to drop Peters in it by telling reporters that Glenn informed her of his donation to the legal fund in February and she asked Peters about it (he denied it) days before Peters held the up the famous ‘no’ sign. Logically, it doesn’t change anything – if Glenn’s account is true, Peters knew without talking to Clark that Glenn had made a donation; if Peters’ account is true, then he wouldn’t have known Glenn made the donation to the trust fund because his lawyer refused to give him any information on it. But it does mean that Peters was at least on notice that a donation may have been made and, given that, he shouldn’t have flatly denied a donation had been made. However, it also shifts the weight of evidence to a conclusion that Peters has been misleading us.
Why has Clark waited until now to release this info? The same reason National waited until now to (kind of maybe) rule out working with Peters (unless he is cleared of wrongdoing). Both major parties have been unwilling to finally cut any chance of working with Peters after the election for fear he would return to Parliament as Kingmaker and go with the other side. After the Glenn letter, both parties judge that the tipping point has been reached where odds are Peters won’t be returning to Parliament because the public’s trust in him is blown and, so, they can get political gain from distancing themselves from him and undermining him. Of course, that’s a little tougher for Labour to do than National – because Labour wants to pass the ETS and has been relying on NZF coming on board. Sacking Peters will probably mean no NZF support for the ETS (it still could conceivably pass if NZF and the Maori Party abstain).
We must remember that this is still all very confused and Peters does have the right to due process. That process is the Privileges Committee hearing but Clark may choose to stand him down from his ministerial portfolios before that if it won’t stop the passage of the ETS.
No matter whether the Privileges Committee finds enough evidence to condemn Peters or not, it’s likely NZF will go into this election with both major parties stating an aversion to governing with them. On top of the stench around the donations, the inability to play Kingmaker should see NZF’s support bleed away. It looks like Peters and NZF have reached the end of the road. But the question will linger, why did Peters behave the way he has? There was nothing illegal or wrong in the Glenn donation, so why did he deny it so firmly when he should have at least suspected there had been a donation?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
hs,
Yeah, I was surprised give just how clear I thought his signals were. Have you had a chance to listen to the interview?
hs: For better or worse that is how it operates. That is why they are called “Honourable Members”. Amongst other things it means that you have to take their word until you can see a actual lie.
I’m aware that you think you can see one. But I think that I work to a higher standard of evidence than you require. It will be interesting to find out what the PC and SFO eventually turns up.
I called it a lynch mob yesterday after watching some of the comments here about corruption etc. I still do – reminded me of some of the s59 debate. Very few substantiated facts and a whole lot of hot-air and speculation.
Helen will make a considered decision, because that is what I pay her to do.
Mate!
r0b,
So did I.
It made me wish that he’d announced his retirement and that this would be his last term. I think everyone would have let him go with dignity; this feels too much like jackals circling a dying lion.
Anita: When I heard it this morning it sounded to me like he wouldn’t step down because he wouldn’t need to – he’d have a quick chat with Helen Clark, who’d say `Oh, of course, Winnie, you’ve been right all along’, then he’d have a quick chat with the SFO where he’d only need five minutes to prove that all’s above board, and all the allegations would be gone by lunchtime.
I’m not sure that’s how it’ll slice, though.
Incidentally, Winston Peters almost never does early morning interviews. This one, against an in-form Plunket, was confused and rambling – he sounded like an old geezer just woken up from a hard night at the pub – not only because he wasn’t prepared, but because he’s typically bloody useless first thing in the morning. That he’d even engage under these circumstances shows how desperate his situation has become.
Edit: r0b/Anita – snap!
L
Edit: r0b/Anita – snap!
Aye! Interesting point re Peters and morning interviews – I hadn’t twigged to that. I’m not much of a morning person myself!
if you lot cannot tell that keys and his crew are nothing more than a buchh of overgrown spoiled brats and schoolyard bullies and if you have such poor judgment of character to think that winnie is on the ropes then you are hereby sentenced to spending the restof your lives writing non sequiturs for inconsequential political blogs.
Welcome, Helen, to ‘Banana Republics (Advanced module 3). You have passed the first two modules ‘Slowly Degrading the Existing System’ (module 1) and ‘Passing laws to Render Corruption Legal’ (module 2).
Course Aims: replace previous democratic practices with a more efficient system. Course Objective: implement a fully-fledged ‘banana republic’.
Forming a ‘Banana Republic’ needs a catalyst, a series of events, and/or a gameplan to execute.
First, actively undermine the democratic process. Methods include producing misinformation before an election. Disregard your spending caps to your advantage while persuading people to ‘vote’ for you. Any body entrusted with overseeing fair elections may be deceived. When re-elected, put compliant operatives into it and change your mind. They won’t do anything.
In response to critics, delay, prevaricate and promise ‘an inquiry’. Make sure you get a wealthy backer to ‘loan’ you the pay-off.
Change the laws governing inefficient election-processes. If financially compromised, create a fictional ‘enemy of democracy’ then draft a law to exterminate its pernicious influence on ‘ordinary people’. This will facilitate:
Changing the way elections are organised;
Limiting opposition access to spending and time to campaign, say for a third of the electoral cycle, and
gain access to billions of cash dollars to promote ‘feel-good’ media bursts to ‘inform the public’ about your policies.
Hammer home the advantage to control the timing of your next election, so that the opposition is further disadvantaged, and wrong-footed by a ‘snap-election’.
Keep a discrete distance from your wealthy backer. Always prevaricate and delay any action about the alleged corruption for as long as possible. If necessary, as a last resort, be prepared to announce ‘an inquiry’.
If the public are dissatisfied use a higher body. You can have this committee disbanded by calling an election. Have unsympathetic elements thrown out as enemies of the state. While they are still useful to you, have the people who are accused of corruption disband the the very bodies that would be used to investigate them.
At this stage, you need to check your progress against the ‘Banana Republic Checklist’ (see index)
Government propped up by foreign cash – pass
Ministers gagged by party ‘loyalty’ – case study
Corrupt practices endemic in political system – pass
Electoral law manipulated to favour incumbents – pass
Government dominated by shady, un-elected clique – pass
Unlimited access to state funds for propaganda purposes – pass
Opposition suppressed by limited campaigning ability and ongoing state-sponsored smears – ongoing project
Financially and ethically bankrupt ruling elite – pass
Police and anti-corruption agency disbanded – Not yet achieved
Official investigation into corrupt practices reduced to fiasco for public consumption – not yet achieved.
Congratulations Helen, – you are ready to take module 4 – ‘Establishing a ‘Benign Dictatorship’. We strongly recommend you finish the last two parts of module 3 for a Distinction.
Lee – monkeywithtypewriter
[lprent: PLEASE - you know better than this. Link and even put some juicy quotes in. But don't drop the whole lot here. People do click through the links.
BTW: Don't do the stan thing - put in a relevant post/comment thread]
Lee, whoring without links is still whoring. You’ve got your own blog, why waste bytes duplicating things here?
L
r0b: I’m not a morning person either, but for the past couple of years my job has involved exactly this – being at work from 0600 to catch the morning news as it happens. You can spot the early risers a long way off. Clark, English, Goff and Key all are.
L
Monkey-boy has a blog? I guess he’s here to try and get some readers for it then. Ho hum.
[lprent: On the blogroll - under right. It is pretty obvious from memory.]
being at work from 0600 to catch the morning news
My sympathies!
Lew – I think we have established in thise pages that no one reads my blog! But I’ve copied it in the public interest. I am genuinely interested to see how this may be responded to. I think this whole fiasco goes back to the pledge-card overspend and is chickens coming home…
It’s probably a bit strong t accuse Helen Clark of seeking to establish a dicatorship, but it is interesting to me how a trickle-down effect of some of teh actions she has deemed necessary, is pewerhaps damaging to our system..
monkeyswithtypewriters, Rob – it’s a frikkin powderkeg… or something.
(captcha Laura bursting
I’ve copied it in the public interest.
Ahh – public interest? What “interest” would there be in such a (pardon me) juvenile wankfest? Try KiwiBlog, I’m sure they’ll love you there.
Actually – on reflection – I was rude to do this (post a copy) so, I’ll pre-empt the reasonable thing to do, and ask whoever is moderating if they would please delete my long link-whore-post.
heheh you said ‘wank’
Actually – on reflection – I was rude to do this
You are full of surprises! I withdraw and apologise.
All this would never happen with a right wing government!
They’re far better at hiding their secret donations and illegal payoffs!
I think you will find me quite a reasonable chap – for a monkeyDom it is not about right or left, it is about the presence of checks and balances on the abuse of power.
Anita
Sorry have been busy
Hospitals more operations lees middle management sucking the blood out of the Health System = Less Heart Patients having to travel overseas for operations.
Boys Education
The Department is run by females for females
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0805/S00644.htm
Why do I think New Zealand has become a Nanny State
Anita there are so many examples of this from no pies in tuck shops to so on and so on. I believe its the Social Engineering that primarily Heather Simpson wanted to inflict on New Zealand. Its a control thing the State must be in Control even in you own homes. I believe that New Zealanders resent this with a passion
My question to you Anita do you think Michael Cullen was wise to question Owen Glenn memory especially seeing he is Labours biggest donnor.
Monkey Boy
Very good post the really sad thing as you say is how many of these things have already been achieved to make us a Banana Republic.
I guees the thing that I cant get a grasp on this whole situation and to be absolutely frank. I dont believe is this.
Helen Clark knew about this in February because Owen told her he gave $100000 to Winston. Helen rang Winston and Winston said no he didnt. Helen says ok and forgets all about it. Yeaa right!! Helen is in control of everything and would not stop at that conversation she would have known what was going on and at the very least done alot more checking.
No Right Turn has a good post on the constitutional position.
What happens if Winston pulls the plug?
Rob,
So, if there was evidence there are more operations now than under the previous government you’d be happy?
That’s not what that press release says. What do you think it is that means girls are doing better than boys by many measures?
Any examples (other than section 59 repeal – a Greens Bill) of Labour increasing their control of what happens in your home?
Do you happen to have a reference to Cullen’s statement? I’d like to see the full quote (ideally in context) before forming an opinion.
Anita
You can watch the video front page of the herald today online.www.herald.co.nz called owen glenn confused cullen
This is why I believe Heln took so much time
Surely the email ties it all back in? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10521163
Owen Glenn was asking his PR man on 21st Feb how to react to the news of the allegations:
Steve Fisher: Our plan worked well. There is nothing new about you in here Owen. Note that Winston says you have never made a donation to NZ First, so at all costs you must stick to that line. It was definitely the right thing to do to deny the Maori party offer as well.
So on Feb 21st (note the date) everyone knew that Winston was denying there was a donation (Helen Clark now says she knew as well), so there appears to be an orchestrated litany of deception. Steve Fisher has basically told Owen Glenn to keep schtum and it would all go away – the question that now has to be asked is was there any connection between Steve Fisher and Winston Peters or Helen Clark? This whole affair is smelling more and more rotten as time goes on. If the offer to Maori Party can be proven it smells of someone or sopme party trying to hijack democracy in New Zealand
Helen should have remembered what happened when NZ’s first elected female PM didn’t kick Winnie out of the nest. Why do good girls think they can get into bed with bad men without getting screwed?
Kevyn: Helen is NZ’s first elected Prime Minister. Shipley rolled Bolger for the job – she was never elected to it.
Rob,
Ok, here’s the actual link.
Having now actually seen it in context… I am comfortable with Cullen saying Glenn was confused, given that what he was saying that at one point Glenn said he gave money to WP and at the other to NZF. I don’t think it was particularly unwise to say that.
Having viewed the exchange, do you?
Rob, are you NiellR, or are you plagarising him?
decide for yourself, standardistas…
NiellR on Stuff.
Coz if you’re copying and pasting everything you see that other people have espoused and you agree with, you’re being pretty dishonest presenting them as your views. It would also help explain why you can’t link properly, nor back up “your” more wild assertions.
Vanilla Eis, I was just being mischevious – minister’s aren’t elected, they are appointed. The people of Epsom elected Helen in the same way that the people of Rakaia (or was it Selwyn?) elected Jenny. The handful of other mp’s in the party then took it upon themselves to elect a leader. The GG then recognised the party leader as either “leader of the opposition” or “leader of the government”.
The honour of being NZ’s first elected female PM is something that will have to await a law change, and even then it’s likely to be “President” than gets voted on rather leader of the House.
[lprent: Ark! Helen is from Mt Albert not Epsom. I've even managed to vote for her a couple of times when the electorate boundary moves - but just now I'm back in Auckland Central
]
Kevyn miller (being mischevious myself) – did you realise that by saying that, you’re sort of supporting having List MPs. (I have no idea if you do or don’t though!)
Werrrllll… you’re treading a fine line there I guess, Kevyn. Since MMP there have been no elected Prime Ministers – and Nigel Roberts gets a little incensed whenever people try and talk of the Fifth Labour Government (“There hasn’t been one!”), but generally speaking you have a pretty good idea that you want the leader of the party you’re voting for to be Prime Minister. There isn’t a seperate box to tick for preferred PM.
People voted for National in ’96 knowing that Bolger would be PM if they formed a govt, and they voted for Labour in ’99 knowing that Helen would be PM if they were successful. Still, I can see the semantics in your original post are correct. Shipley was both elected, and a Prime Minister. I’d be worried if we ever had a PM that wasn’t elected. =/
And Helen stands for Mt Albert – Rodders is in Epsom.
MP: Uncanny. You managed to stand the cesspit that is Stuffs comments section long enough to find that?!
I think that even with First Past the Post one could make the argument that PMs weren’t directly elected.
Matt
No I am not NeilR I am not plagiarizing him as I never said the article was mine nor was there any financial gain . Don’t get into areas that are to technical for you. Thought it was good article copy and pasted from another website. I can understand you are grumpy today going from blog to blog and trying to block the holes in the sinking ship. You just have to face it that sooner or later the deluge will beat you and its pretty pro the Nats at the moment.
Keep your chin up and have a good weekend the Sun will be out tomorrow and the birds will be singing
Rob:
“Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism)
Hint: It’s the `from’ and the URL which makes it not plagiarism.
L
Actually, Rob, were you to try that pretty much anywhere else (University, any form of printed or online publication) and you’d get your proverbial hauled over coals for plagiarism.
Posting someone elses words without quote marks or acknowledging the source at all is plagiarism. Stop trying to pretend that you were being clever.