Winnie and Glenn

75 comments on “Winnie and Glenn ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dave 1

   12 July 2008 at 3:13 pm

   If Peters has lied to the public as New Zealand First’s leader, then it is for his party and the voters to punish him.As Helen Clark has lied to the public as PM and Labour’s leader,then it is for her party and the voters to punish her.
   And the party won’t, because lies are part and parcel of running Labour. So its left to the voters on November 8, even thought Clark will be on the top of the list..
2. jafapete 2

   12 July 2008 at 3:19 pm

   “It appears, as everyone suspected, that Owen Glenn did give a donation to New Zealand First.”

   Whilst not disagreeing with the tenor of your post, and even less wanting to appear to be defending Peters, I would point out that Glenn may have loaned the money to NZ First, as he did $100,000 to the Labour Party. Glenn would see this as a donation; he didn’t get to make his billions by not understanding the meaning of “interest foregone”. Others may not, since he would have got his money back if it were a loan.
3. dave 3

   12 July 2008 at 3:23 pm

   Pete, stupid comment, actually. Owen Glen gave a donation, not a loan. If he gave NZF a loan he would have said that, instead of explicitly stating that he gave NZF a donation. Winston Peter appears to have ruled out a loan
4. Anita 4

   12 July 2008 at 3:23 pm

   I don’t understand, if it’s true why hasn’t NZ First broken the law?

   If it happened last year and was more than $10k it could have been disguised by a trust, but it still would have had to go in their 2007 return to the Electoral Commission – which it didn’t.

   If any of it happened this year and the total for 12 months (including 2007 months) was over $20k it had to be declared (and couldn’t be disguised by a trust – yay EFA!!), but it hasn’t

   So if Glenn gave NZF more than $10k last year or more than $20k over the last 18 month then NZF must have broken either the current or the old law.
5. Steve Pierson 5

   12 July 2008 at 3:26 pm

   anita, yeah that would be correct but i didn’t see anything about the date(s) of any donation of its size.

   i think these donations are meant to be from before the 2005 election. at least that’s when labour got its donations from glenn
6. T-rex 6

   12 July 2008 at 3:31 pm

   Hey y’all, I need 4 things parliament has done in the last 6 years with relatively bipartisan appeal
7. T-rex 7

   12 July 2008 at 3:31 pm

   Kiwibank

   Kiwisaver
8. higherstandard 8

   12 July 2008 at 3:32 pm

   Hmmmm

   Back to reality.

   While I’d love to see the back of Winston as usual he’ll either feign ignorance or attack the media.

   Meanwhile he’ll put on a lovely suit, smile beatifically and chuckle while chatting to the old dears at meetings around NZ a potter back into parliament where if necessary either National or Labour will do a deal with a man the probably both despise – if it all leaves a sour taste in one’s mouth that is the nature of politics.

   T-REX … award themselves a pay rise and treat the general public with contempt ?
9. Anita 9

   12 July 2008 at 3:35 pm

   SP,

   I thought the Glenn donation was supposed to be last year to help NZF repay the Parliamentary Services mess from the last election? Wasn’t Peters’ “No” in response to Dail Jones talking about something that happened in December 2007?

   It occurs to me that the old electoral finance act had a loophole which might’ve allowed Glenn and NZF to avoid illegality if Glenn’s money had been split into small chunks and washed through a number of different anonymising trusts, so each trust was below the $10k threshold.

   Stupid old legislation and anonymising trusts and loopholes! The more I know about the old rules the more I like the EFA 🙂
10. T-rex 10

    12 July 2008 at 3:38 pm

    lol!

    I was after positive things, but thanks for the effort 😉

    And in a departure from thread jacking for a moment – That guy lies like a rug. Sometimes I think he’s good to have around, but I’m not sure the it’s worth the precedent.

    I can’t wait to see him on TV over this.

    “No, that’s wrong. What I said is (blah waffle blah)”

    (interviewer plays back tape of what he really did say)

    “That’s not what I said”.
11. higherstandard 11

    12 July 2008 at 3:39 pm

    …and SP,

    Soft my friend very soft indeed.

    I suspect if Winnie was not a toady to the current government you’d be calling for him to be displayed in stocks outside parliament.

    I’d encourage the PM to crucify him and perhaps Key could do so concurrently as well, who knows then he might finally be consigned to political oblivion that he so richly deserves.

    Sadly the man has more lives than a sack full of cats.

    T-Rex fair enough – couldn’t resist though.

    PS Not only does he lie like a rug he wears one on his head !
12. David Farrar 12

    12 July 2008 at 3:41 pm

    You are overlooking several aspects to this.

    First of all if NZ First received a donation over $10,000 they *must* declare it in their annual return – whether or not they know or declare the source is a separate issue.

    So if the donation was over $10K, then they have filed a false return which is a corrupt practice.

    The moral fine line you draw between lying as an MP and as a Minister is one which Winston would be proud of.

    However you overlook the fact that Owen Glenn was trying to persuade Winston to appoint him Consul to Monaco. He even had Mike Williams lobbying Helen for this appointment. This decision is made by Winston as Foreign Affairs Minister. If the Foreign Affairs Minister has received a large donation from someone he was considering appointing Consul, that is very relevant.

    Also relevant is that Glenn appears to be revealed as the person who offered the Maori Party $250,000 to support Labour.
13. Steve Pierson 13

    12 July 2008 at 3:43 pm

    T-Rex , the anti-smacking bill was passed with bipartisan support 🙂
    but seriously..

    the examples you have were opposed by National at the time but are ones they would no longer undo… and they have wide public support

    on those grounds:

    Working for Families
    Interest-free student loans
    20Free childcare
    Four weeks annual leave
14. higherstandard 14

    12 July 2008 at 3:45 pm

    DF

    Are you sure about that last bit not that I give a tinkers – sounds to be as serious attack on the fabric of our democracy as that by the Bretheren which people here continue to wail about every five minutes.
15. Anita 15

    12 July 2008 at 3:46 pm

    T-rex,

    To be complicit in your threadjacking… 🙂

    If I was you I’d flick through legislation.govt.nz and see what’s been passed in the last few years that suits your audience

    Just look at “C” I can see

    Care of children – focus on the children as people rather than property, courts can take account of what children what, plus many other good things.

    Charities – lots of good things – proper registration, transparency, no threshold on tax deductability

    Civil defence and emergency management – oh so very much better, responsibilities in better places, structures and actually having a plan!

    Criminal Records (clean slate) – old minor conviction no longer hamper someone’s ability to live their life, as long as they stay clear
16. T-rex 16

    12 July 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Excellent, cheers guys
17. Steve Pierson 17

    12 July 2008 at 3:51 pm

    David, I’m overlooking those details because it’s boring. There’s no evidence that any donation had any impact on the consideration of whehter or not Glenn should be appointed honorary counsul… except that the beat up around the issue ruled out any chance it would happen.

    Fact is, Glenn would have been a perfectly suitable candidate for this nothing role and I really don’t give a hoot, as long as there’s no evidence of corruption, and there isn’t.

    People wear different hats, they are not always responsbile in one role for their actions in another.

    What really interests me is how much the Insurance Council has paid National over the years for the ACC privatisaton policy, well over a million it’s said, but National won’t say and opposed the law that will make future developments public.
18. Anita 18

    12 July 2008 at 3:52 pm

    DPF,

    Re legality

    I think we might already have covered that, including the fact that the old legislation had holes the size of a convoy of trucks through which this could have been driven – as you well know.

    For anyone linked to the National Party organisation to run with your argument is … disingenuous.
19. Steve Pierson 19

    12 July 2008 at 3:56 pm

    If the Maori Party had accepted quarter of a million to support Labour, that would be a big deal, scandalous. But they didn’t take the money and they don’t support Labour, so meh.
20. David Farrar 20

    12 July 2008 at 4:02 pm

    You think a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act is boring???

    You don’t think the entire electoral law falls down if parties don’t file truthful returns?

    Why do I suspect it would be so very different if NZ First were not in Government with Labour.

    I supported an end to anonymous donations. I did a submission to Parliament saying so. Did you? The EFA still allows them to $240,000.

    And don’t you think there is a small degree of hypocrisy that you claim there is no evidence that Glenn’s donations had an influence on him being appointed Consul (when in fact it is beyond doubt it did as Mike Williams was lobbying Clark on his behalf) while you do claim that National was influenced in its ACC policy by donations of which there are no proof a donation was even made let alone this influenced National (whose policy has been the same since 1998)? That is a level of blindness Nelson would be proud of.

    To higherstandard – look at http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/837200. Note Glenn denied being the person who made the offer but the leaked email casts serious dobt on this.

    [there’s no actual evidence of a corrupt practice. Like some other things you’ve been going on about recently, what you’ve got going on in your head is not justified by the facts. SP]
21. David Farrar 21

    12 July 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Steve – so a bribe is okay if it is not accepted? Is that your argument? And you have no problems with Labour taking $500,000 from someone if they did offer a bribe?

    Anita – yes there are loopholes in the old EA. I had called for them to be closed for some time. It is such a pity the EFA left so many of them in place. But regardless no loophole allows you to file a false return.

    [It’s not OK for Owen Glenn to offer a bribe, but he would be the one in trouble, not the Maori party who rejected it (if it happened). And the Labour party can hardly be blamed for accepting donations (which were done openly, unlike National’s $2 million in secret donations) from Glenn before any offer to the Maori Party was made or when it didn’t know of the nature of the offer. SP]
22. higherstandard 22

    12 July 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Ta

    Didn’t recall that at all – good on the maori party – might not agree with them all the time but they’re a pretty straight up and honourable bunch and parliament would certainly be a poorer place without them.

    One would suggest if big business in NZ had made a similar offer to the maori party to support the Nats it wouldn’t be fobbed off so easily.
23. dad4justice 23

    12 July 2008 at 4:07 pm

    “Care of children – focus on the children as people rather than property, courts can take account of what children what, plus many other good things.”

    What a load of rot Anita, Courts are gender destructive regimes and the Care of Children Act is another total let down for children. Not to mention appalling child abuse statistics. What is Labour doing? Nothing as usual.
24. Anita 24

    12 July 2008 at 4:15 pm

    DPF,

    I just went back and reread the old EA, and I think I’m right that if Glenn’s donation was split into sub $10k chunks and each passed through a different trust which then passed them on to NZF then NZF’s return for 2007 would not be false, and that the donations wouldn’t count as “anonymous” so there would be no problem that NZF knew it was Glenn behind them. Is that your memory of the old rules too?

    I think that scenario would also mean that Peters (who is a lawyer after all) could justify to himself that didn’t lie when he said that the donation wasn’t from Glenn.

    Yes, the EFA maintains too many of the flaws of the EA (as both of our submissions said), I think where we differ is that I think the EFA is better than the EA.

    Do you think we could’ve got something better? I thought so for a while but once the hysteria started…
25. David Farrar 25

    12 July 2008 at 4:30 pm

    If it was split into nine different trusts, and each trust made a donation under $10K then he may be okay legally. I doubt though he could survive the claims at a press conference that they have not received any such money. Clintonian definitions go down badly – and considering Winston voted for the EFA on the basis of transparency such hypocrisy would be massive.

    Even if he did it through nine separate Trusts he may not be okay, as it might depend on who controlled the Trusts. If Glenn controlled them, then they may be seen as one.

    This is why the Police need to investigate. On the face of it the law appears to have been broken, but the facts need to be determined.

    As for a better donations regime – I’ve been spending quite a bit of time thinking about a good post EFA regime – would not allow any anonymous donations at all (unlike EFA which allows $240K) except say petty cash in raffles and the like. Also a continuous disclosure level of $10k (not $20K).

    The other thing which I am considering if whether political parties should have to file summarised total accounts showing total income and expenditure, assets and liabilities. Possibly also audited membership numbers also. All good issues to be considered post election.
26. randal 26

    12 July 2008 at 4:37 pm

    blah blah blah. who cares what little subsections the commentators want to divide everything up into and spend their useless lives splitting hairs about. I like Winnie on a visceral level because he takes no crap from the little mealy mouths the national party tries to use against him….Go winnie!
27. vto 27

    12 July 2008 at 4:41 pm

    randal are you the type winnie was talking about when he recently described those he didn’t want voting for him?
28. Steve Withers 28

    12 July 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Serious question: If the money was later paid back to Glenn, then it would be a loan. No?
29. santi 29

    12 July 2008 at 4:45 pm

    To start, let’s make a clear distinction between Peters as leader of NZF and his Foreign Affairs Minister role in the Labour-led government.

    Peters is a known liar who knows his days are numbered. He’s been caught red-handed, but this time he must pay the political price for being economical with the truth.

    I fervently hope he disappears from the political scene after the elections. NZF should disband soon after it.
30. dave 30

    12 July 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Winston didn’t say he didn’t receive some money that should be declared. He said he received no money. That makes him a liar if Glenn is to be believed.

    If Glenn comes out and says that he gave 10k or more at a time to NZF, that proves that Winston is a lawbreaker as well as a liar as he never declared it.

    But to Steve, a Labour supporter, breaking the law is so passe to the extent that, to him, a corrupt practice is boring, and bribes are OK as long as they are not accepted. OTOH, to Steve, gossip and innuendo are SO Exciting and are worth blogging about immediately…
31. Anita 31

    12 July 2008 at 4:45 pm

    DPF,

    *nod*nod*

    All sensible steps, however they only address transparency and not power and influence. I think we should be capping non-anonymous donations as well as anonymous donations, at a higher level, maybe $5k/year, which means we’d need to allow public funding.

    I know there’s a discomfort with public funding, but it seems to me that it outweighs the risk of parties listening harden to richer individuals and segments of the community.

    I like the idea of some kind of public accounts for political parties, although I think that needs to be balanced against the regime for third parties.

    The continuous disclosure stuff is slightly weird, in some ways I’d like monthly disclosure by all parties which would cover all donations.

    Also, while I’m all enthused, there has to be some transparency for all the poxy interest free (or reduced interest) loans that parties use. It’s really important that we can tell who a party owes money.

    It would be wonderful to think we could get cross party agreement on a new regime before the election – but that’s just crazy talk 🙂
32. Anita 32

    12 July 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Steve W,

    Yes, if it was a loan then it was a loan not a donation.

    If, however, it was a loan at mates rates then the interest not paid counts as a donation.
33. Anita 33

    12 July 2008 at 4:54 pm

    [continues – weird editing problems]

    That’s explicit in the EFA: a(iii) of the definition of “party donation” in 21(2).

    The old EA is less clear, but my memory is that it was the practice under 214F(b). Can anyone confirm?
34. Bryan Spondre 34

    12 July 2008 at 5:24 pm

    “David, I’m overlooking those details because it’s boring.”

    It is amazing what Labour will do to hang onto power. From passing legislation designed to silence their opponents ( but actually hamstrings themselves) through quietly sitting by while their own Foreign Minister criticises a hard free trade deal with the worlds most dynamic economy. I have no doubt that this latest embarressment will be “overlooked”.
35. Lew 35

    12 July 2008 at 5:33 pm

    Leaving aside the usual boring partisan hackery from Bryan and dave and others, this is damaging for Labour and the Clark government inasmuch as Winston’s often suspected but rarely documented moral and ethical failings speak poorly of the government who appointed him to such a lofty position as Foreign Minister. If this is as bad as it looks, or even if it continues to look as bad as it looks, Labour’s poor judgement in working with Peters will cost them if they fail to cut him loose.

    Yes, it’s for NZ First’s constituency to punish him for this; but it’s also for Labour’s constituency to punish them if they’re seen to tolerate it.

    L
36. Inventory2 36

    12 July 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Point well made Lew – this goes above partisanship. Whilst it is not a matter directly related to Peters’s portfolio, can Clark afford to keep a proven liar as a Minister – especially the Minister who is the “shop-window” for the New Zeakland government? But then again, can she afford to ostracise Peters this close to the election?
37. jafapete 37

    12 July 2008 at 5:52 pm

    “Winston’s often suspected but rarely documented moral and ethical failings speak poorly of the government who appointed him to such a lofty position as Foreign Minister.”

    What about the people who appointed him Treasurer, Lew?

    And Spondre, Perhaps SP should have said, “David, I’m overlooking those spurious allegations because it’s boring.’
38. dave 38

    12 July 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Leaving aside the lies in Labour that have not been proven, Lew,
    if you feel so strongly about this, if Winston’s behaviour is bad, why didn’t you say the same thing about Mike Williams when he was outed as a proven liar – or do you agree with SP that Mike Williams just so boring that boring liars can be tolerated…
39. Lew 39

    12 July 2008 at 5:56 pm

    jafapete: “What about the people who appointed him Treasurer, Lew?”

    Yep, it reflects on them, too. But that was then; this is now.

    Edit:

    dave: “why didn’t you say the same thing about Mike Williams when he was outed as a proven liar?”

    Who’s to say I didn’t? Just because I didn’t in some forum or other which you frequent.

    I think it’s preposterous to assume Labour’s constituency won’t judge them negatively over the Moore situation, and I’d never argue otherwise. But nice try at painting me as one-eyed just because I called you a partisan hack.

    L
40. Lew 40

    12 July 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Inventory2: “can she afford to ostracise Peters this close to the election?”

    I think Labour’s hopes lie in a closer alliance with the Greens (agreement over the new orthodoxy of climate change), whereas NZ First under anyone other than Peters (FWIW I’d consider Ron Mark a stronger leadership candidate than Peter Brown) is a more natural ally of National than of Labour. So yes; I think if this situation tarnishes Peters’ shine enough that the electorate sees him as fundamentally dishonest, Labour and NZ First are a thing of the past.

    Is this for the better? I think so.

    L
41. Adolf Fiinkensein 41

    12 July 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Did you fellers enjoy watching “Gone Fishing’ this afternoon?
42. J 42

    12 July 2008 at 6:30 pm

    [there’s no actual evidence of a corrupt practice. Like some other things you’ve been going on about recently, what you’ve got going on in your head is not justified by the facts. SP]

    You have an interesting definition of what constitutes a ‘fact’ Steve. If ANZ release a report unfavourable to the govnt or if truck driver protest against user charges then it is a fact (without offering any proof) that it’s a national party setup whereas if a wealthy doner to the labour party gives money to a political party whose leader happens to be foreign minister and that doner has made it known he would like a diplomatic role then no inference of wrong doing is justified.
43. Felix 43

    12 July 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Can’t we find Winnie a job with a high profile (so we can enjoy his antics) but no real responsibility?

    I’d suggest Governor General but I don’t think we’d see enough of him.

    I don’t really like him but I’d hate to see him go, knowaddamean?
44. J 44

    12 July 2008 at 6:46 pm

    “Can’t we find Winnie a job with a high profile (so we can enjoy his antics) but no real responsibility?”

    Weirdly enough I was having that exact conversation with a friend today. My idea was to make NZ a republic and install Winston as president (for life), a role where he could fully utilise his skills to greet visiting chinese school children or hobnobbing with dictators (Wait, I think Helen wants that job)
45. Lew 45

    12 July 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Heh. The most public sinecure we can find. Awesome idea.

    L
46. dave 46

    12 July 2008 at 7:00 pm

    I wouldn’t talk about facts Steve, your analysis of what is fact and what is opinion ( interpreted and written as facts by you) is pretty shonky.
47. randal 47

    12 July 2008 at 7:30 pm

    nothing you have said so far indicates that you have any grasp of the truth at all dave. in fact your utterances have all the veracity of a cesspit whinger just saying anything to either get your name in print or to cover up the lack of substance in a bankrupt right wing political party by continually repeating lies.
48. dave 48

    12 July 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Ah piss off Randal if you can’t say something constructive or name one lie I have told. You’ve tried that before too, I may add, and failed. Because I only write the truth and have a pretty good grasp of it, too.
49. J 49

    12 July 2008 at 8:06 pm

    “to cover up the lack of substance in a bankrupt right wing political party by continually repeating lies.”

    Would that be morally bankrupt (like labour passing the foreshore and seabed act to get the redneck vote) or financially bankrupt (like labour was after being forced to payback taxpayers money to parliamentry services).
50. Rex Widerstrom 50

    12 July 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Interesting debate on the (il)legalities. Thanks DPF, Anita et al.

    Okay, so let’s take the extremely charitable view. The funds were sliced and diced into small amounts, put through trusts, spread out over time, blah blah. Winston told lies about this while wearing his “Leader of NZ First” hat but when he puts on his “Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Labour-led government” hat he transforms into a paragon of virtue, etc etc.

    In other words, let’s say for argument’s sake the donation(s) from Glenn are just this side of legal (i.e. within the letter but not the spirit of the law).

    What we’re left with, then, is that someone with whom the government and the PM chooses to associate themselves acted immorally by lying to the public – and on a matter upon which he’d sought to lecture others and impose laws to supposedly “clean up” their allegedly immoral dealings. Which adds hypocrisy to the mix.

    Thus from SP’s careful delineation of Peters’ bad acts as NZF leader from any acts he’s undertaken as Foreign Minister, and from the PM’s sudden vow of silence on the issue, we can take it that Labour countenance hypocritical immorality.

    Because no one reading this post, Steve, can imagine for one nanosecond that if Peters was propping up a Key-led government you wouldn’t be:

    a) attributing this strategy to Crosby/Textor; and
    b) (justifiably) calling on Key to present Winston’s head on a platter and positing that failure to do so amounts to evidence that National condone hypocrisy and lying.
51. Lew 51

    12 July 2008 at 8:58 pm

    Rex: “Thus from SP’s careful delineation of Peters’ bad acts as NZF leader from any acts he’s undertaken as Foreign Minister, and from the PM’s sudden vow of silence on the issue, we can take it that Labour countenance hypocritical immorality.”

    While I broadly agree, I have two main objections:

    1. Steve is a declared not-Labour voter.

    2. Clark will (as Key’s supporters say) reveal her party’s position in the fullness of time. Serious allegations like this require full consideration. Clark doesn’t have a record of going off half-cocked; nor should she in this case.

    L
52. Anita 52

    12 July 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Lieing politician guilty of hypocrisy! Film at eleven!

    I think this is what bothers me most about the whole thing. We all think Peters lied, we all think he’s been hypocritical, none of us are surprised or genuinely outraged, none of us think anything will come of it, none of us will do anything to actually address it.

    Peters lied and has been hypocritical
    So has Key
    So has Clark

    Why are our politicians like that? Why do we expect it of them? Why do we let them get away with it?

    What would we, each one of us, have to do to make this different?
53. Lew 53

    12 July 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Anita: This is really the fundamental question. Why don’t wee all vote ACT, Green, or Maori and shun these parties on the grounds of dishonesty?

    The answer is: for all that people claim otherwise, policy matters more than integrity, when push comes to shove.

    L
54. Anita 54

    12 July 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Lew,

    Then why isn’t UF madly popular? Their policies are pretty much the overlap of Labour and National so if people were voting for policies they’d be perfect, and Peter Dunne doesn’t get enough exposure so us to catch him lieing or being hypocritical.

    Wow – I really have had the cynicism injection haven’t I?
55. Luke H 55

    12 July 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Ok so someone tell me – what’s the difference between the SECRET ballot that is a cherished part of our democracy and the SECRET donations that are so evil (when they are given to National, that is)?
56. Anita 56

    12 July 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Luke,

    Easy…

    I get one secret vote, so do you, so does Alan Gibbs. Our influence is identical.

    Secret donations however… Alan Gibbs gets to buy a whole lot more influence than me (and probably you). Our ability to influence is vastly different. If we’re going to allow that kind of imbalance in power and influence the best way to mitigate the worst of its effects is to make it visible.
57. Lew 57

    12 July 2008 at 9:37 pm

    Anita: “Then why isn’t UF madly popular?”

    Another good question, and one which Peter Dunne surely asks himself every day. I wonder if it’s the kitten effect: http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20070815.png

    L
58. Murray 58

    12 July 2008 at 9:38 pm

    [lprent: you have been banned for previous behavior ]
59. Anita 59

    12 July 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Murray,

    Yes 🙁 Any ideas how we fix this?
60. Murray 60

    12 July 2008 at 10:26 pm

    [lprent: you have been banned. Buggerit – moving to permanent]
61. gobsmacked 61

    12 July 2008 at 10:49 pm

    C’mon people, let’s not play games. We all know it’s politics. We all know Peters tells porkies, and we all know Clark won’t dump Peters because she needs his votes. And every left-leaning voter I know wishes she didn’t.

    So Clark is hanging on. OK, what’s John Key’s excuse? If you’re willing to keep Winston on as Foreign Minister even when you’re over 50% in the polls, when *do* you actually take a stand?

    I’m not demanding that Key should take an UNPOPULAR principled stand. Heaven forbid. I’m only saying he should take an easy one.

    And yet – he can’t even do that.

    You know, all the Helen-haters could earn some respect by doing a very simple thing. Demand that John Key rules out Winston Peters. No wriggling, just – “No Winston, no way”. After all, aren’t National meant to be dead certs to win?

    But you won’t, and he won’t.

    Until you do, and he does, spare us the phoney baloney. It has a very nasty smell.

    Cheers.
62. max 62

    12 July 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Gobsmacked. What are ya ranting about mate?!

    Winnie the pooh has zero chance of being in the nats line up – zero.

    The maori party are in front of that old hack.

    Youre not making any sense mate.
63. J 63

    12 July 2008 at 11:25 pm

    “You know, all the Helen-haters could earn some respect by doing a very simple thing”

    The question is do we want your respect? Look at how posters like robinsod act. Why the fuck would I want the respect of someone like that.
64. Steve Pierson 64

    12 July 2008 at 11:26 pm

    gobsmacked is referring to key’s statement that peters coud be foreign minister in a nat govt
65. Anita 65

    12 July 2008 at 11:42 pm

    J,

    Whatever you feel about Robinsod I would like to think that some of us have respect that is worth wanting.

    It’s also your own respect. If you vote for National and they appoint Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs (or whatever) you’re going to feel pretty bad. Why not ask National to rule it out so that you know you’re voting with a clean conscience?

    (Unless, of course, you actually want WP to continue on as Minister, in which case you should probably vote for NZF as they don’t look very secure right now).
66. AndrewE 66

    13 July 2008 at 6:03 am

    I, for one, call on John Key to rule out any possibility of a coalitition with NZF.
67. gobsmacked 67

    13 July 2008 at 11:27 am

    AndrewE gets the chocolate fish!

    For Max, J and anybody else who hasn’t been paying attention:

    “Peters could be Foreign Minister in National government – Key”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10502946&pnum=0
68. J 68

    13 July 2008 at 11:45 am

    So what are you are saying is that national should rule him out as a candidate but labour should keep him in. On what basis do you support this distinction?

    If labour supporters here were truly consistent then they would call on Clark to have him removed as foreign minister instead of trying to distract us with claims of what may or may not occur under a national administration.
69. Anita 69

    13 July 2008 at 11:58 am

    J,

    I’m not a Labour supporter, so it’s a bit hypothetical, but…

    If I was a Labour supporter I would call on them to avoid NZF like the plague.

    If I had voted Labour last election I would be ashamed that my vote had been used to give power and status to Winston and NZF.

    But, as I said, it’s a bit academic and I obviously can’t speak for actual Labour supporters.
70. gobsmacked 70

    13 July 2008 at 12:27 pm

    J

    Read my earlier post (10.49). I made my views on Peters perfectly clear. In: bad. Opposition: worse. The same view as Helen Clark, and John Key. Not the same view as Andrew.

    Now your turn.
71. Rex Widerstrom 71

    13 July 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Lew: “Clark will (as Key’s supporters say) reveal her party’s position in the fullness of time. Serious allegations like this require full consideration. Clark doesn’t have a record of going off half-cocked; nor should she in this case”.

    Fair enough. And I agree. I should perhaps have suggested that it would be appropriate for Clark to make a statement along the lines of “If Mr Peters is found to have misled the public in denying the receipt of monies from Mr Glenn then – particularly in light of our dedication to campaign finance reform as reflected in our support of the EFA – I shall be asking for his resignation”.

    Similarly, I agree with AndrewE above, though Key should phrase it in exactly the same way.

    We know what the sentence is if you or I are found guilty of fraud, Lew. Surely our political leaders can make plain the sentence for committing a fraud upon the public, even if they withhold judgement as to guilt?
72. Rob 72

    14 July 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Why wont Helen force the issue with Winston. Glen gave to the Labour Party we know that Glen gave to Peters so he says, Then a big overseas money person offered Maori Party 250k before last election if they sided with Labour. Smells real fishy here clean politics Yea right!!

    They refused at least they were honest. It all makes the exclusive brethren saga look a bit weak really doesn’t it when we have big money trying to force other parties to vote with Labour.

    I think the public deserve to know and Helen Clark has to bring him to account he acting as a Minister in her Government.
73. Swampy 73

    15 July 2008 at 11:19 pm

    Now that the EFA is in place, Labour won’t get a donation of $500,000 from Owen Glenn like they did last time, will they?

    The biggest donation in NZ’s political history.
74. Steve Pierson 74

    15 July 2008 at 11:27 pm

    Swampy.
    a) the $500,000 was a total figure of a number of donations of several years. The largest single donation in that was $150,000

    b) the largest donation in NZ political history is the $1.8 million the Waitemata Trust gave to National.

    c) of course, that donation from the Waitemata Trust is a pooled donation from people who gave their donations to National via the Trust to hide their identities. We don’t know who gave the money or the size of the donations, although it’s said the Insurance Council gave a million.

Links to post

1. End in sight for Winnie? « Jafapete’s Weblog: posted on 12 July 2008 at 3:24 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS