Whom to believe? (2)

63 comments on “Whom to believe? (2) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. higherstandard 1

   27 August 2008 at 12:36 pm

   Who to believe ?

   Owen Glenn, Robert Jones Rodney Hide……… just for a start
2. lukas 2

   27 August 2008 at 12:40 pm

   but but HC (who we all know would never lie!) is on winnies side HS
3. slightlyrighty 3

   27 August 2008 at 12:42 pm

   If Glenn’s statement is a lie, then what does he have to gain from it? If you have 2 contradicting stories, ask who has the most to gain from lying?
4. Inventory2 4

   27 August 2008 at 12:53 pm

   “It’s important to remember that there’s nothing illegal or even unusual about what Glenn claims Peters did.”

   Perhaps not Steve, but Peters not disclosing the donation is a clear breach of the rules regarding pecuniary interests. And can the PM now afford to hold onto Peters, who certainly seems to have misled the public, the Privileges Committee and Parliament, just to get the ETS legislation through? Wouldn’t that be a bit cynical?
5. burt 5

   27 August 2008 at 12:57 pm

   Who to beieve… So if Owen Glenn is telling porkies then Winston will want to sling his ass into court faster than he could scoff a plate of scampi.

   Helen is in a tight spot here. If she believes Winston over Owen Glenn then it could precipitate Owen Glenn supplying more details of the transactions and conversations. Just imagine if it came out in the wash that certain people in the Labour party knew all about what went on but sat quietly saying nothing while Winston was doing his “NO” sideshow….

   Interesting times indeed.
6. RedLogix 6

   27 August 2008 at 1:00 pm

   Or before we indulge in the usual round of conclusion jumping here, how about getting the details and timing of Owen’s donation straight?

   We’ve already had one accusation (re the $40,000 Court costs matter) against Peters effectively dissmissed, so how about holding our collective noses for a few days until we have some clarity here?
7. burt 7

   27 August 2008 at 1:04 pm

   RedLogix

   The speaker can only shut down legitimate questions for so long. Winston has already had weeks and weeks to provide clarity. Time is running out.
8. Lew 8

   27 August 2008 at 1:08 pm

   Good work Steve, using `whom’ correctly, and doing so twice!

   I agree with IV2 on this one – the big deal with this issue isn’t what Peters allegedly did, but the variance between his testimony to the Privileges Committee and what Glenn says. Eventually there’ll come a time when it’s no longer feasible for Clark to stay the course on this one – she’ll have to either eplicitly endorse Peters, or she’ll have to cut him loose. Between this and ScampiGate it’s looking like this might be the end of the line.

   Whither the government, and whither the ETS? I don’t think it’s beyond Peters to try to force a vote of confidence and therefore a snap election out of spite – but I think the other members of NZF wouldn’t want this since they’ll all be out of a job. Trying to sack Peters and simultaneously keep the government together long enough to see the term out and pass the ETS will be Helen Clark’s biggest task to date.

   L
9. Steve Pierson 9

   27 August 2008 at 1:14 pm

   ‘ScampiGate’ – not you too, Lew, not ‘-gate’.
10. barnsleybill 10

    27 August 2008 at 1:30 pm

    The real question is who from labour put Peter’s onto Owen Glenn in the first place? Nobody seriously doubt’s Owen Glenn, he has funded labour, tried to fund the Maori party to support labour and now has admitted funding Peter’s to go in to coalition with labour.
    If I was to hazard a guess it would be mike williams, and to suggest that Helen Clark knew nothing about it is to ignore the iron gloved grip she has on the party.
11. Inventory2 11

    27 August 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Well said Lew. An interesting aside is the announcement that Ron Mark is going to stand in the Rimutaka electorate. Paul Swain is not seeking re-election for Labour. Does anyone know who the Labour candidate is, or will this be the “soft” seat that Labour gives NZ First to try and get one or two MP’s in?
12. Anita 12

    27 August 2008 at 1:41 pm

    I2,

    Chris Hipkins, so no 🙂
13. lprent 13

    27 August 2008 at 1:45 pm

    IV2: soft seat!!!

    Now that is just pure bullshit speculation. There is a NZLP candidate in that electorate and labour fights for every electorate to the limit of their resources.

    I can’t think of an electorate and party that has done a gimme for an electorate apart from that rather daft statement by Stuart Nash in Epsom last election that Helen got annoyed about.

    It has only been the vote split between Nats and Labour that has allowed these single MP for a party in an electorate to survive. Look at the electorate results for Epsom, Ohuria-Belmont, Wigram, and previously Tauranga (slightly different case).

    Careful, you’re showing your political ignorance.
14. Tim Ellis 14

    27 August 2008 at 2:00 pm

    This is an interesting debate SP and I’m pleased you haven’t been so partisan as to stop it happening here.

    I disagree that leaders soliciting donations directly isn’t unusual. It certainly isn’t illegal, but I doubt you would see either a Labour or National leader directly asking for money from wealthy individuals. I suspect Helen Clark and John Key would both attend fundraising functions, and talk in general terms about why their parties needed money, but they would both leave it to others to hit them up individually, afterwards, to ask for it. I suspect there would also be clear chinese walls between the Labour and National leaders, and the payments system. Not so with Winston, apparently.

    Next, whom to believe. Indeed. Like you, I agree that Glenn seems to be a bit vague about the details, but on the substance he’s quite clear: Brian Henry didn’t solicit the money: Winston did. Winston didn’t thank him a short time ago: he thanked him a long time ago. Those are crucial and damning elements. It is hard to see what motive Glenn would have to fabricate these elements. He would know it would make things difficult for the Labour Party. He would know it would make things difficult for Winston Peters.

    So the only possible motive he might have to lie, is revenge. That seems far-fetched, at least. Here was the Labour Party’s biggest donor, who was so supportive of Labour that he went and gave a further loan to Labour, was awarded the ONZM by Labour, was celebrated by the Labour Prime Minister at the opening of the Owen Glenn Business School, opened in his name–and now he’s going to extraordinary lengths to lie about the donation to Winston? That doesn’t seem to stack up.

    Winston, on the other hand, does have major credibility problems, from his bluster, unwillingness to tell the whole truth, highly unorthodox arrangements, and dare I say it, downright lies throughout the whole saga. Winston is further compromised in that Owen Glenn’s testimony is consistent both with Bob Jones’ testimony, and at-present other secret testimony mentioned in Parliament yesterday, to the effect that Winston Peters was personally soliciting donations.

    The PM has demoted people for their dishonesty before: for lying to her, to the media, to Parliament, or to the public. The evidence says that Winston has done all four. I think the time for protecting him is up.
15. lprent 15

    27 August 2008 at 2:16 pm

    TE: We had the usual impatient buggers wanting to threadjack (what do they think this is? A bloody news site?).

    At this point all I’d say is that this is looking suspicious. I wouldn’t say that it is looking definitive by any stretch of the imagination. For instance it appears (as SP said) that Owen is saying that Winston was soliciting for help with legal problem before he had one (ie before the2005 election). I’ll have a closer look at his statement later.

    What you forget about Helen is that she is loyal to people. In every case where she has had people with problems, and they haven’t fallen on their sword – there has been a long delay before she has been convinced that they have actually knowingly been parsimonious with the truth. How long did we have the rabid right braying about Tiato Field?

    I don’t think that anything will happen this side of the election, unless Winston decides to stand down, or the privileges committee finds against him.
16. Draco TB 16

    27 August 2008 at 2:45 pm

    IMO, this whole saga is becoming far too complex for the armchair detectives. There’s a lot of information that we just don’t have access to. Vague dates, denials and recriminations flying through the media don’t help. Hopefully the SFO will investigate but that isn’t going to happen before the election – they have to get permission from a high court judge first.

    As LP said – the only things that can really remove Winston ATM are if he voluntarily stands down or the privileges stands him down. The PM has to take him at his word – she cannot act without evidence.
17. Lew 17

    27 August 2008 at 3:11 pm

    SP: Who am I to break a long tradition of -gating things?

    Although he’s a charter member of the hang ’em and flog ’em brigade, I think Ron Mark is the one NZ First MP who merits inclusion in parliament after the election. It’ll be a shame if Peters’ seemingly probable corruption brought down the ramrod-straight Mark as well; but then, if you lie down with dogs…

    DTB: Notwithstanding Tim Ellis’ pretty good argument, I think you’re right; Clark won’t do anything until the Privileges Committee reports back. I think they’ll censure him on the strength of Glenn’s letter.

    L
18. Daveski 18

    27 August 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Credit for posting this too SP

    However, I commented elsewhere that your approach to this is different to the “secret agenda” debacle where there was no such evidence that one existed.

    By your definition of a scandal, this is one because either Glenn or Peters is saying one thing having done something else. BTW This is your definition of a scandal, not mine.

    Having said that, I agree with the substance of your post although it is very charitable to give Winston the benefit of the doubt. His time must surely be up and while I agree HC is loyal, she knows when someone’s time is up.
19. higherstandard 19

    27 August 2008 at 3:42 pm

    The Prime Minister refuses to take WP to task and awaits the report from the PC as the letter from Glenn was to them not her.

    National refuses to rule Peter’s out of a government they may form.

    WP suggests that Glenn is mistaken and Dale Jones suggests that the Glenn letter is a forgery.

    How much lower can NZ parliament sink ?

    [lprent: Are you asking me? I’d say it will get distinctly lower if we have John Key as PM. ]
20. Inventory2 20

    27 August 2008 at 4:07 pm

    Lew – I used to think that Mark was pretty straight-up as well, but I lost a lot respect for him when he used Parliamentary privilege to accuse Rex Widerstrom of being a paedophile a few weeks ago. It was a cowardly attack, and given that Mark himself has a conviction which he has freely talked about for underage sex, it was grossly hypocritical as well.
21. George Darroch 21

    27 August 2008 at 4:32 pm

    “How much lower can NZ parliament sink?”

    Unfortunately, I don’t think that this parliament is much better or worse than any in the last few decades. The benches are filled with amateur comedians, finger pointers, boisterous egos, schemers and plotters, lawyers, career politicians, people with hidden agendas. The press gallery are a bunch of vultures.

    Everything is normal.
22. lprent 22

    27 August 2008 at 4:33 pm

    George: That is spelt “SNAFU” right. Situation Normal All Fucked Up.
23. RedLogix 23

    27 August 2008 at 4:46 pm

    George,

    Everything is normal.

    Well yes. But some of them do an honest days work too, for all the buffoonery, Parliament actually gets some things done too.

    As an alternative to being relentlessly cynical about it all, have you ever considered that the system itself may have something to do with it?
24. Tim Ellis 24

    27 August 2008 at 5:09 pm

    LP, I agree that Helen has a history of being loyal to her own ministers. I’m not sure that it is just a matter of loyalty: it’s about political leadership generally. Leaders don’t like to cause ructions by taking fast, decisive action and jettisoning their own ministers. Helen Clark set a high standard and expected Ministers to reach it. She generally hasn’t tolerated incompetence for long. She hasn’t tolerated dishonesty from Ministers at all. The latter group is the hardest call to make, because you’re balancing allegations with the Minister’s word.

    I can’t think of anybody who Jim Bolger was moved to sack for dishonesty. He accepted Dennis Marshall’s resignation after Cave Creek, but left it far too long before he did, and Marshall wasn’t directly responsible for Cave Creek. It simply happened on his watch, and the final decision was that Marshall had to take the jump for it.

    Lianne Dalziel, David Benson-Pope, Marian Hobbs, Ruth Dyson, etc, all were made to resign for either dishonesty, or personal indiscretions–not for competence. Dover Samuels was stood down, from memory, not because of overwhelming evidence of bad behaviour, but because the nature of allegations surrounding him were such that they were preventing him from doing his job: he was effectively suspended until the issues were resolved. So too with Taito Phillip Field.

    I do have some pity for Helen Clark: whereas she has the authority as Labour Party leader to call in the likes of Lianne Dalziel and say: “Right, Garner says you said this. You say you said this. There is a conflict between the two. If I find out you’re lying to me, you will never be in Parliament again. So tell the truth to me now.” She doesn’t have the same power over Winston Peters. He doesn’t owe her his seat in Parliament. He isn’t a single MP; he’s got a whole caucus of his own, who will walk with him. He is principally accountable to his supporters for his place in government. He doesn’t have to tell the truth to her. He can bluster it out as long as he likes, as long as his support base remains intact, and as long as Helen Clark depends on his numbers in Government.

    I disagree that Helen Clark will let the matter continue for much longer. There are a few things she needs Parliament to do before they go to an election, but I think it’s just untenable that she will allow such serious allegations surrounding her foreign minister to tarnish the Labour Party’s chances during the election. You can’t have an habitual, dishonest liar, as your foreign minister. And you can’t effectively go around the election hustings defending that habitual, dishonest liar as Foreign Minister.

    No doubt Labour Party supporters must be very frustrated that there’s effectively nothing the PM can do about Winston Peters damaging by association the reputation of everybody around him, as long as Parliament is still alive. But as soon as an election is called, I can’t see her keeping him on.
25. higherstandard 25

    27 August 2008 at 5:28 pm

    About time – they should have ruled the poppinjay out completely though.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0808/S00432.htm

    Nice to have it cleared up that a vote for Winston will effectively be a vote for Labour, oh and what a surprise WP has supported the ETS in return for Labour supporting him.
26. Matthew Pilott 26

    27 August 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Tim Ellis – I thought that was very well put. Ultimately, Clark will need to be rid of Peters, unless he can somehow extricate himself from this mess of his own doing.

    From Clark’s perspective, would cutting Winston out now be cutting her nose to spite her face? Or will it do more damage in the long run, sticking with him until the campaign, than it would to have the possibility of an early election and her government breaking apart under a no-confidence vote? I suggest the latter would be worse.

    higherstandard – there’s always got to be that loophole, because there’s no way in God’s green earth that Key would let something as insignificant (from a National Getting Power perspective) as an NZF donation scandal keep him from the Treasury benches.
27. higherstandard 27

    27 August 2008 at 5:49 pm

    MP

    True I would have preferred Key to have ruled him out from the perspective of no confidence in his behaviour and bringing parliament into disrepute.

    The Prime Minister has found herself in the untenable position of having to support him to get the ETS through (I think we can assume he is holding a gun to her head on this).

    It might just be me but I thought I saw a look of complete contempt from the speaker today towards WP as she must now know that he lied to her face yesterday to block ACTs attack.
28. Matthew Pilott 28

    27 August 2008 at 5:55 pm

    I think it’s more than just the ETS – I think it’s holding the government through until the end of the third term.

    What I am more sure about is that there will be 5% of us who think Peters is the hero – this makes it more, not less likely that he will be back. The worst thing for him is no news, when it comes to his party’s prospects.
29. Draco TB 29

    27 August 2008 at 5:56 pm

    here’s always got to be that loophole,

    Yeah, noticed that as well. It’s basically JK saying We would get rid of him – unless he’s innocent. Sorry HS, JK hasn’t said anything new here.
30. randal 30

    27 August 2008 at 6:59 pm

    john key just now on close up…”lets be honest”. so is it the case thAT he is often not honest?
31. Roby110 31

    27 August 2008 at 7:32 pm

    HS – the PM is in no such position . Unlike the holier than thou Rodney Hide (does anybody else think he comes across as a 14 year old class monitor) she hasn’t leapt into print throwing around accusations ehen she doesn’t actually have all the facts. She has simply waited for the process to take it’s course. She said that from the outset. Hide and key et al can score all the political points hey like but actually waiting for the legal process to take place shows a lot more leadership in my opinion.
32. higherstandard 32

    27 August 2008 at 7:41 pm

    I have to disagree Roby

    David Farrar has precis’d the situation very well as below –

    The facts which are in dispute between Glenn and Peters are not material to the issue of privilege. They are very material to issues of lying and hypocrisy, but not material to the specific issue of privilege.

    The issue before the Committee is whether or not the Register of Interests declaration by Peters is correct or not. Peters has asserted it was correct, as the donation was to Brian Henry, not Peters. Owen Glenn agrees with him on this point – the donation went to Henry to pay for legal fees.

    The area where they disagree is whether or not Peters knew of the donation and whether or not he solicited the donation. Now these are irelevant to the issue of privilege.

    So the Prime Minster’s insistence that it is for the Privileges Committee to resolve the conflicting evidence, is wrong and misleading.

    The conflict of evidence relates to whether or not Peters is a liar and hypocrite, not whether his MPs Return was accurate.

    Winston Peters has stated that he only knew Owen Glenn had given money to Brian Henry when Henry told him in July 2008. Owen Glenn has said Peters solicited the money in 2005, knew of the donation, and thanked him for the donation in 2006 or 2007. There is no way to resolve those statements. It is impossible. The Privileges Committee can not do so, and it is not their job to do so.

    The Prime Minster is trying to pass the buck to a body which is not empowered to discover the truth – because it is not an issue of privilege – it is an issue of lying and hypocrisy.
33. Tara 33

    27 August 2008 at 7:54 pm

    One thing missing from this analysis is the suggestion that Key seems desperately trying to take the high ground in this [shadow] campaign and reverse the increasing momentum against him in the polls. He is staking all on current perceptions. Which way will the runes fall tomorrow ?
34. higherstandard 34

    27 August 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Indeed Tara

    It will be interesting.

    I note that 30% of the population (in a non scientific poll) still think WP shouldn’t be sacked – I suspect if it was revealed he was the Devil Incarnate he would still have loyal supporters.
35. Concerned of Tawa 35

    27 August 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Ooops. It would appear Winston has been caught telling porkies again today. Photos of him not at the Karaka Sales where he didn’t solicit cash-for-honours…. Oh dear http://tinyurl.com/63r8s6
36. Monty 36

    27 August 2008 at 8:31 pm

    winston cannot straight in a coffin. Why does Clark continue to protect a proven lair except to desperately hang on to power? There can be no other explanation. She is compliciate in the lies and corruption that surround Winston. I am so pleased Key has stated that he will not deal with the lying and corrupt parasite. Moot point I suppose – he will not be back after the election.
37. randal 37

    27 August 2008 at 8:43 pm

    monty…winnie will be back because he is th real deal. is he not obnoxious and irrasciuble as fakes like wodney can never hope to be. he is not a phony. he is a statesman and we need people like him. he may not be your favourite flavour but purely on aesthetic grounds without him new zealand would be a desperately dull place hag ridden by faceless greymen with spreadhseets. my music ‘sparrow’ simon and gafunkel. go winnie
38. higherstandard 38

    27 August 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Randal from the dictionary ……..

    Statespersonship conveys a quality of leadership that organically brings people together and of eldership, a spirit of caring for others and for the whole.

    Anyone elected to office is a politician but only a few consistently manage to work as disinterested promoters of the public good with integrity. There is a huge difference between the two.

    Winston Peters fails miserably in living up to this definition.
39. Lew 39

    27 August 2008 at 9:06 pm

    IV2: “he used Parliamentary privilege to accuse Rex Widerstrom of being a paedophile”

    I wasn’t aware he made such an attack; a search of the word `Widerstrom’ over the past three months in Hansard turns up just one hit from 29 July. Curious to read more if you can point me in the right direction.

    MP: “I think it’s more than just the ETS – I think it’s holding the government through until the end of the third term.”

    Spot on.

    “What I am more sure about is that there will be 5% of us who think Peters is the hero”

    The polls don’t reflect this at present, but I’ll be among the last to rule Winston out. That said, I’ve already stated I think this is the end of the line for him – since I already have a bottle of malt whiskey on Rodney Hide winning Epsom, would you care to a wager as to whether Winston Peters will be back in parliament after the coming election?

    As far as I’m concerned the question of whether he misled the house or the privileges committee can’t be answered until the committee reports back. see my post here for my attitude on this.

    L
40. Tara 40

    27 August 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Steve, I hope you have batch in Bora Bora or the Norfolks in case the Key-sian Anschluss becomes a reality.

    A bit safer than dodging ACT drivers in Kelburn.

    Tara.
41. randal 41

    27 August 2008 at 9:46 pm

    nah keys is just making up the numbers. quantum leap from arbitraging to running the whole show. and english is bereft of empathy. bad lcuk. gotta pay your dues but soemtimes that just aint good enough. the public really have no idea that along with transfer of wealth goes the transfer of jobs especially in a small country like nz. double whammy from the gnats…no dice baby. the only thing in the trenches the dirty work still goes on. with the westminster system and the media harping way everynight and the short attention span of the locals things could could get pretty hot before election time. westminster system is code for snap election but it aint never going to hapen…hohohohoho…santa is abck..oh yeah
42. mike 42

    27 August 2008 at 10:11 pm

    “What I am more sure about is that there will be 5% of us who think Peters is the hero – this makes it more, not less likely that he will be back”

    nope – most of WP support is from the centre right and when the “a vote for NZ first is a vote for another Labour govt” sound bite gets ingrained he’s toast.

    And worrying for the left if HC doesn’t show some front is the “vote for Labour to keep Winston in baubles” line.

    Thankyou Owen Glen – you deserve to be consul for this alone.
43. Gooner 43

    27 August 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Roby110 is talking nonsense.

    Clark shafted Peter Doone on evidence she made up.

    Clark shafted Dover Samuels on allegations.

    Clark shafted Benson-Pope on allegations.

    She didn’t wait for the process on the last two and interfered in the process in the first one.
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    27 August 2008 at 10:33 pm

    HS – regarding the comment taken from Kiwiblog – so if the PC isn’t going to be able to answer the question, then what will? If it’s just a glenn said/winston said situation how does one resolve it? I know the montyesque lynch mob has decided but a degree of rationality is surely required…
45. r0b 45

    27 August 2008 at 10:42 pm

    She didn’t wait for the process on the last two and interfered in the process in the first one.

    I hear tell Clark was on the grassy knoll when Kennedy was shot too – they should check the magic bullet for her finger prints!
46. the sprout 46

    27 August 2008 at 10:47 pm

    btw, who’s to say Owen Glenn hasn’t just set up Peters for a fall?
47. burt 47

    27 August 2008 at 11:13 pm

    the sprout

    If Owen Glenn has set Peters up for a fall then Peters has fallen directly into it. So who’s the one to suffer, the clever rich guy who has been honoured by Labour or the one who seems to misled parliament and the NZ public.

    I didn’t see Owen Glenn holding a gun to Winston’s head when Winston was holding up the “NO” sign but hey lets see if we can find another way to try and discredit Owen. IMHO his role has been nothing but honest, principled and generous. Owen Glenn was Labour’s sweetheart till he told the truth about a $100K interest free loan he had given them, which they also initially denied.

    Mental note – don’t tell the truth about Labour if you want to stay on their xmas card list.
48. RedLogix 48

    27 August 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Gooner,

    The Peter Doone business occurred right back in the first few weeks of HC being Prime Minister and still adapting from Opposition mode where it does not matter too much what you say, to a position where it did. Who cares after all these years?

    Dover Samuels had fairly serious criminal accusations that were inconsistent with his position, and as events have proven it was timely for the man to retire from the big league. You forget that the dismissal was neither precipitate, nor ultimately unjustified.

    DPB. Have you forgotten the months and months that HC allowed this matter to play itself out? I was rather impressed at her loyalty to the man, while Brash led Opposition ruthlessly sliced him down.

    And of course Samuels and DPB were members of her own caucas, not the leader of another Party. It is one thing to sack a Minister who is a member of your own Party, but sacking a Minister from another Party, who could then potentially bring down the government creates a ‘Sword of Damocles’ effect over the entire process of government.

    MMP does not make it clear exactly where the line of accountability lies here. It seems undesirable to have to call a snap election everytime a Minister from a minor Party proves unsuitable for the job, after all our electoral cycle is too damn short as it is. On the other hand it’s not alogether flash that we have to tolerate a lessor standard of probity or integrity from a Minister of a minor oalition Party just because sacking them might collapse the govt fo the day.

    In calling for Winston’s sacking in these circumstances, the Nat’s once again demonstrate their failure to understand MMP, and are sharpening a sword that might equally be turned on them in the future.
49. RedLogix 49

    27 August 2008 at 11:36 pm

    Burt,

    Something odd about it all. As Chris Trotter puts it on his blog, it makes no sense that either Glenn or Peters would be lying about this. What the hell do either of them stand to gain?

    Why would an experienced operator like Peters set himself up for such an obvious fall?

    All I can conclude is that none of us on the outside KNOW what is really happening here… we are all just chattering idiots speculating about some dark squarks and squeeks emerging from behind the curtain.
50. burt 50

    27 August 2008 at 11:50 pm

    RedLogix

    Indeed we are chattering idiots. But that’s not changing the fact that the last time Owen Glenn said ‘I gave $100K (as an interest free loan) to Labour’ and Labour denied it, it was Owen Glenn that was telling it like it was. Owen Glenn must be having a ball with the plaything that is NZ politics, bet it’s the most entertainment a half a mill South Pacific Pesetas dollars could buy him anywhere.

    Owen Glenn has become close to a household name spending probably only 20% of what Labour will spent advertising this election alone.
51. CMR 51

    28 August 2008 at 7:17 am

    Campaign Slogan:

    A Vote For Labour Is A Vote For NZ First: A Vote For NZ First Is A Vote For Labour.

    A great ring to it? No won’t work it is too honest for the Clark Filth!
52. robw 52

    28 August 2008 at 9:19 am

    And if Dohn Key wins the election, he will have a “private” intimate meeting with Winston,of which the only statement to come out of it will be from Dohn Key “I am now convinced Winston did nothing wrong, what was discussed in the meeting was done in private, and I am now happy to have Winston as part of my coalition government”
53. burt 53

    28 August 2008 at 11:03 am

    robw

    You have just described Labour’s position – why do you seek to denigrate National using the position that Labour have taken?
54. burt 54

    28 August 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Oh dear…

    Clark knew about Peters’ donation

    Yesterday I said…

    Just imagine if it came out in the wash that certain people in the Labour party knew all about what went on but sat quietly saying nothing while Winston was doing his “NO’ sideshow .

    Where do you stand now Steve P. ?
55. Steve Pierson 55

    28 August 2008 at 12:44 pm

    burt. looks bloody dodgy on peters part but it always has, i’ve just been waiting for evidence. once the privileges committee report is in, it looks more and more likely Peters will have to go, but you can’t expect the PM to preempt the report.

    the really confusing thing is what would have been peters motivation to lie if he was lying?
56. lprent 56

    28 August 2008 at 12:52 pm

    burt: You are just being silly. Looked at the statement and nothing changes.

    She asked Peters if it was true, and he said no. You take the word of ministers.

    Tell me, do you expect PM’s to have a touch of the divine and to be able to see inside peoples heads?
57. Steve Pierson 57

    28 August 2008 at 1:00 pm

    It does make it more dodgy for peters because he knew they Glenn was saying he had made a donation… given that, he should have made absolutely sure there had been no donation before holding up the ‘no’ sign. maybe he did check as much as he could and Henry didn’t tell him about donations to the fund…

    of course, none of that adds up if Peters had asked for the donation to the legal fund in the first place and thanked Gleen for it… he knew, even without Clark calling him after speaking to Glenn, that he had solicited the donation and been thanked for it..
58. Phil 58

    28 August 2008 at 1:03 pm

    It seems to me that this whole affair is not actually that big, relative to some of the other indiscretions and dodgy activity that litter Peters’ political career.

    In the past, he has always managed to weasel his way out – if anyone deserves the ‘slippery’ title, it’s Winston. This time however, everyone he’s ever made an enemy of has uncounciously banded together, with the resolve to finally nail the bastard to the wall.

    Good on them.
59. Tara 59

    28 August 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Phil, such resolve makes me sorry for the guy.

    It’s a sad day to see political lynch mobs in Aotearoa / NZ.
60. insider 60

    28 August 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Don’t you think Lynn she might have asked him to go and check just in case and then come back with a confirmation?
61. lprent 61

    28 August 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Why? If you trust someone enough to be able to drag you into a war. Why would you check on another parties donations.

    Besides it is the electoral commission and parliamentary services that check on such things. Don’t you think that the PM has more important things to do?

    Or do you think that I should use this as a standard to judge Key by if he ever gets to be PM. That the PM is in charge of wiping everyones arses?
62. Phil 62

    29 August 2008 at 9:33 am

    Tara,

    I’m far too Machiavellian to feel sorry for Winston in this case. Like Justin Timberlake says; What goes around comes back around, babe.
63. burt 63

    29 August 2008 at 9:47 pm

    On Wednesday I said.

    “Just imagine if it came out in the wash that certain people in the Labour party knew all about what went on but sat quietly saying nothing while Winston was doing his “NO’ sideshow…”

    On Thursday Helen Clark admitted she knew.

    Today I discover from Mew Zealand Parliament

    Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member. The notion that it is all some kind of huge secret seems to ignore the fact that on Tuesday, 20 February, on the 6 p.m. news, Television New Zealand carried the story that some kind of donation had been made to the New Zealand First party by Mr Owen Glenn. This was then followed up with a front-page story on 21 February in the New Zealand Herald, and that day Mr Glenn, of course, was attending the opening of the new business school at Auckland University, and the Prime Minister in the presence of Mr Trevor Mallard took the opportunity to talk with Mr Glenn

    Trevor Mallard also knew. Who else knew – was it general party knowledge?

    Come on guys, time to remember you are advocates of workers rights and the environment and unprincipled power at any price politicians are not your masters, your cause is your master. Vote Green, Vote Jolly Jim, Vote whatever but for gods sake don’t vote in the complicit low integrity bunch – you know who they are.
    
    [lprent: corrected link]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS