God this ‘third world’ talk is getting boring.

If high-level corruption is a sign of third-world status, then the USA and UK have had that status bestowed upon themselves years ago. At least our corruption is at the laughable level of some dodgy immigration scam, as opposed to something like payments-for-peerages or multi-million dollar lobbyist back-handers.

And what is Helen’s popularity rating – 39%? – hardly ‘adoration’.

Non minion, when your indoor plumbing stops working and there’s no-one to fix it, your rubbish stops being collected, the electricity goes out (permanently), and the illiteracy rate rises to 50% or greater, then we can start talking about NZ being a third world nation.

I’m one with an acute embarrassment gene as well. Labour’s multiple corrupt abuses of power, its PC obsessions, its fostering of welfarism and its complete lack of understanding of the role of small business in generating wealth are some of the reasons why I am now living in the US.

And then we hear that Field is to have ethical ‘counselling” from the Liabour Party of all organisations.
The Herald did well yesterday, with further pieces from Fran O’Sullianan and John Armstrong.
I was waiting for fresh developments to be reported by TV1 but obviously for the state-owned channel the field fiasco never happened.
Of course, they were quite keen on seeking out any disquiet over Don Brash.
Their reporter Fran Mold made a very telling confession.
That if National does not produce strong policies and there was a void of news to fill, the media would do so by producing speculation on the leadership.
Did anyone else see this bit?
And is this how trhe media should behave?
Look for poerceived falunts in the opposition while ignoring rampant government corruption?

Also if Labour had any interest in the truth coming out, they would have voted for the report to go to the Privileges Cmte.

HC often talks of only being responsible for the conduct of ministers, or not being responsible for the conduct of MPs, and this had always seemed a clumsy method of passing the buck/avoiding tough questions, but a few days ago she said it in a way that made me understand what such a distinction is all about. Something along the lines of “I don’t have the power to order investigations into MPs” – it strikes me that this is incredibly sensible (and that, for people like me at least, this is how HC should explain it).

I don’t want a PM having such power, which has so awesome a potential.

Field pay his own legal bills or is he entitled to legal aid? When this is finally sorted out he will only probably get home detention anyway.

No doubt he or she would also condone vote rigging as long as it is in a good cause.

Those poor bloody Aussies, we’d better send them some aid rather than the most succesful portion of our population.

Labour is utterly without morals, does not answer to the law and you’re proud of it. You’re only answer is to claim socialist ideology is naturally superior.

Nice one comrade. What are you 12?

Perhaps it’s another case of “Let’s see what’s in this before we release it to the public..(with neccessary changes, of course!)”

A proud Labour supporter