Winston hates the Herald

December 16th, 2007 at 9:43 am by David Farrar

Winston unleashes a torrent against the Herald:

Peters said the rejection came after “fuss” by “minions of foreign-owned interests”, referring to the country’s main newspaper owners, APN – publishers of the NZ Herald and the Herald on Sunday – and Fairfax.

“It’s all very well for a bunch of chardonnay-drinking, pinky-finger-lifting elitists to come up with their view. It’s the ultimate in elitist arrogance. There is no politics in this.”

It is typical Peters. Well if there is no politics in this, why not give the money back to the taxpayer to whom it is morally owed?

Matt McCarten is unimpressed also:

But of all of his antics, dropping off a cheque for $158,000 to Starship children’s hospital last week must be the most blatant example of cynical populism I can recall.

Mind you, the NZ First’s leader’s latest hypocrisy is consistent with his past behaviour. Peters has always had an uncanny knack of being able to take a strong principled position one moment and, with a straight face, do the exact opposite without claiming he has done anything wrong.

During the last election he defiantly claimed NZ First wouldn’t sell out for the baubles of office. Within weeks he was our Foreign Minister, claiming he wasn’t a member of the Government because he didn’t go to Cabinet meetings, and his other MPs remained on the backbenches.

The Auditor-General’s original charge was that our politicians had unethically used public money to buy votes. Peters has pulled off a breath-taking feat. Not only did he misuse money two years ago, but he is using the same money to fund publicity he hopes will get him elected again next year. It remains to be seen if enough New Zealanders vote for a party with this sort of morality compass.

One of the better summing ups I have seen.

Tags: ,

36 Responses to “Winston hates the Herald”

  1. george (388 comments) says:

    What a silly old tosser he is. These comments are just a parody of his own rhetoric circa-1990. He no longer even takes himself seriously!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    For those wondering how to express themselves once the EFB is law, observe Winston for pointers. While Helen criticised Duncan Garner last week for supposedly suggesting “all politicians are liars” [and one Dominion Post reader wondered if she was speaking as a painter or motorist] these liars vary in quality from Benson Pope up, but Winston has to be First. To pull what parties call a massive political stunt [if they can be believed], and attack the media and ‘elitists’ and then say “There is no politics in this”, Winston needs careful study as a guide as how bullshit and bluster can dress the most political of actions as to have “no politics in this”. Winston may hold the key to writing the non-political placard.

    Hey, perhaps that is it – just print a standard line on the top of your placard or newspaper ad that says “There is no politics in this” . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    We all remember the suicide of a woman after the Herald and its thuggish deputy editor said we will publicise a private video

    But back to non payment of money.

    What ever happened to the NP partys money they stole from the TV broadcast fund, instead of paying GST.
    They bleated that it was illegal to pay it back and wanted to make a payment to charity instead.

    What was the name of THAT charity or did they not really make the payment to charity after all.
    DPF knows all about this but is keeping quiet

    [DPF: Well done Ghost - multiple lies in one comment. It was the Herald on Sunday, not the NZ Herald implicated with that suicide. Yove've defamed the Deputy Editor of the NZ Herald. And I explained just this week in comment what my understanding of resolution of the debt owed to broadcasters was. You really need to keep up]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    Heres the link.. in the NZ headless Chock.

    …National has since refused to pay the bill, which would breach the law by pushing it over its election spending cap, and has failed to win support for a private member’s bill that would allow it to pay the debt without being prosecuted.

    Yesterday National president Judy Kirk said it did not want to “profit from the honest mistake”, so National was offering to pay the amount owed to buy television and radio time for charities.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10412075

    Pay the amount owed… for charities!!!

    Reaally

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Bok (740 comments) says:

    GWW
    When my niece was about 3 we once told her (at 6 pm in winter) that it was dark and bedtime. She laid down on the floor and kick her legs in the air crying “no it’s not night time it’s not!!” God you remind me of her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    Even I can understand Winston’s dilemma – he doesn’t want to pay the money back to State Services because the complaisant buggers will allow it to be politically shoplifted and because Parliament has decriminalised political shoplifting so it is more likely to happen now than it was before : to be stolen by people like NZ First.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. GNZ (228 comments) says:

    You do blow with the wind a bit david.
    your first post on the topic was a careful “I can’t say I have huge issues with that”. Now it would seem to be a (well deserved) kick to the guts of Winston.

    [DPF: Oh I'm just joining in the fun now. Yes my first reaction was indeed nonplussed, but hell if everyone else is kicking Winston over it, I'm not going to miss out :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    That would be a cunning ploy by Winston, to use nationals trick and pay for a charity to BUY ADVERTISING in the NZ herald.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    The National Part was blameless ; they stole nothing. The problem was one of the electoral law and timing. The law was stupid and has been repeated. Lawful debts for electoral expenditure cannot be legally paid after a certain point The matter started as an accounting matter concerning the charging of GST and after that was sorted out it was illegal to pay it!

    Note the National Party did not rort the system by using taxpayer money improperly as did the others. The Nats knew what was right and did it. Speaker Wilson should be called to account for her lack of care as Head of Parliamentary Services who paid the bills presented without question. The Auditor General was very mild in this matter; as Controller he could have surcharged those responsible. The matter is being addressed voluntarily except by Dunny and Witless whose integrity has departed. (Dunny has always been a political prostitue so had none to start with.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    Excellent, Mike Moore has joined the government kick a thon.

    Clearly he is a multinational, foreign interest, exclusive bretheren, elitist corporation, out to rort the election for the Nats!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10482666

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. john (478 comments) says:

    GWW , AKA, peter davis the pms conubine is desperate to keep the bag in power, peter stay out of debates ,and pluck facial hair of the barren witches face , remember the upcoming REALLY airbrushed pics ,election 98 (can computers handle the image generating,)????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    DPF says ..explained just this week in comment what my understanding of resolution of the debt owed to broadcasters was…

    Which was ? You said made arrangements?
    What ever that means.
    Either they paid to a charity beating Winnie to it or they didnt!
    Which was it.
    You could email Ms Kirk to get the definitive word but some how I wouldnt bet on it.
    maybe a reporter could do a storey on how National used a charity for political advantage but maybe not from the NZ Herald/Weeekend herald /Herald on Sunday

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Joely Doe (31 comments) says:

    GWW – Are you really as stupid as you appear? I think an imbecile has hacked your account. You may need to check that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Did you donate to starship yet, GWW?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. john (478 comments) says:

    GWW isnt stupid, this nutball tossier is paid megabucks by the shithead labour party to post on KIWIBLOGG, this tossier is a reformed idiot , or maybe not . he works for the barren witch, and is in labours head office still begging for the big whip around, or for facial hair pluckers for OLD helen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Raffles (69 comments) says:

    GWW

    Whilst a few a giving you a right kick up your rear end and you deserve it can you reflect on this question.

    Where did Winne get the money from and perhaps he should give it back to him/her (the one directed to doante by H2) and then fund raise via his own members, excluding the Tauranga Branch who gave him the message and then he can think about giving it back to us the ones he stole it from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. baxter (893 comments) says:

    Winston has been an obsequious and submissive Minister in the Liabour Coalition and has displayed due reverence to Dear Leader.In return for his supplication he has reaped the reward of baubles in splendid isolation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Like or not, the money is now legally NZ First, just like every cent of the far greater sums of taxpayers cash that National spent on advertising in the period before June 2005 is now legally National’s.

    Both NZ First and National spent their money on the same thing – to try and obtain support from the voters (remember the great iwi-kiwi billboards?).

    To their credit NZ First wants to pay some to sick children, National wants to keep all theirs.

    If its a cynical move, then let the voters make that judgement. Don’t withhold money from sick children as a political game or rejoice in a political victory when it is snatched away from them.

    I see sick children every day. It makes me gasp at the cynical self-absorded glee that has met the spiteful rejection of this donation by a man who was himself found to have accepted illegal money as a golden handshake.

    The Greens took the right line: to paraphase: “Its great that children are getting the money but remember the generosity is the taxpayers not NZ First”

    What an intelligent and mature response and so makes the response here and from National to rejoice that the children WILL NOT get that money look that much more mean and spiteful.

    The onus is on National to persuade one of those large donors to their wealthy secret trusts to stump up with 150 000 for the Starship.

    I just wish that some of these right wing folks could see just some of the kids that I see every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    Like or not, the money is now legally NZ First, just like every cent of the far greater sums of taxpayers cash that National spent on advertising in the period before June 2005 is now legally National’s.

    No no no no and no – this is completely incorrect. Try looking up, in any reputable legal textbook, the following phrases: constructive trust and equitable tracing. And think about the anology with the Proceeds of Crime Act: does crime really pay?

    Those who want to donate to Starship are quite entitled to do so – with their own money. NZ First, like it or not, controls tainted property as determined by the Auditor-General. If NZ First disagrees, it should repay the money under protest and seek redress through the courts. It’s that simple. Politics doesn’t even enter into the equation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “No no no no and no – this is completely incorrect. Try looking up, in any reputable legal textbook, the following phrases: constructive trust and equitable tracing. And think about the anology with the Proceeds of Crime Act: does crime really pay?”

    Yes, yes, yes. try looking up the legislative sovereignty of Parliament. You are about the most legally ignorant person I have ever come across. Did you flunk first year?

    “It’s that simple. Politics doesn’t even enter into the equation.

    Nor do the interests of sick children apparantly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    Yes, yes, yes. try looking up the legislative sovereignty of Parliament. You are about the most legally ignorant person I have ever come across. Did you flunk first year?

    Nice smear. Now show me the legislative instrument that supports your argument.

    If you’ve got nothing but piss-wind, then the solution is – again – for NZ First to challenge the Auditor-General’s ruling in the courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    ” Now show me the legislative instrument that supports your argument.”

    Precedent or Section 14 abd 15 of Part III of the Constituition Act of 1986. But its well known by every first year law student that Parliament is sovereign.

    Now show me the legislative instrument that supports yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    Sorry NPOG – but that just doesn’t cut it.

    Seen the movie The Castle? It’s Mabo. It’s the vibe, man.

    Yes, Parliament is generally accepted to exercise sovereign power (although there’s been a long-running legal debate about whether that’s the case). However, that’s not the point. I challenged you to substantiate your argument, and references to “precedent” or the Constitution Act 1986 don’t substantiate your argument or establish that NZ First can flout the law.

    I don’t need a legislative instrument to support my argument. The Auditor-General has made a ruling. NZ First is obliged to abide by it, unless it wishes to (1) flout the law; or (2) challenge the ruling in the courts. What part of that can’t you understand?

    Here’s an idea: why don’t you stick to your pediatric medical research and leave lawyers to debate legal issues?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “However, that’s not the point. I challenged you to substantiate your argument, and references to “precedent” or the Constitution Act 1986 don’t substantiate your argument or establish that NZ First can flout the law.

    I don’t need a legislative instrument to support my argument. The Auditor-General has made a ruling. NZ First is obliged to abide by it, unless it wishes to (1) flout the law; or (2) challenge the ruling in the courts. What part of that can’t you understand?”

    What part of this do you not understand?

    It is a fact not relevant to the issue here that the Auditor General did not make a ruling (he has no judicial authority) but issued a report. In other words he gave an opinion that all parties and Parliamentary Services broke the law in the lead up to the 2005 election and by extension a number of elections prior. This is not a judicial finding.

    The AG made a ruling that the money had been illegally appropriated, Parliament passed legislation that legalised all decisions of Parliamentary Services for all parties in this regard.

    So please point to the legislative instrument that overides Appropriation(Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006 and in particular Section 5.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    The AG made a ruling that the money had been illegally appropriated, Parliament passed legislation that legalised all decisions of Parliamentary Services for all parties in this regard.

    Ah, voila, now I understand your argument. I thought we were discussing NZ First’s position vis-a-vis the Auditor-General – you hadn’t previously introduced the retrospective legislation into the discussion.

    First, a couple of observations:

    The Auditor-General is, legally, a corporation sole with perpetual succession and a seal of office – and exercises functions and powers in that capacity. And:

    The Public Finance Act 1989 sets out the authority that the Government must have in order to spend money. This authority – referred to as supply – has the following key elements:

    * the purpose of the expenditure must be lawful;
    * there must be an appropriation voted by Parliament; and
    * there must be a warrant from the Governor-General.

    The Act also says that, before any money can be issued from the Crown Bank Account, the Auditor-General must be satisfied that the money will be applied for purposes which are lawful [in this context, arguably, the ultimate purpose being that of Parliamentary Services] and are within the appropriations voted by Parliament.

    In checking whether the Government has supply, the “controller” function preserves the important constitutional principle that the Government cannot spend, borrow, or impose a tax without the authority of Parliament.

    http://www.oag.govt.nz/about-us/answers#how

    Now, against that background, some other comments:

    This is not a judicial finding.

    Now I follow your thought process. I didn’t mean “ruling” in the judical sense – and clearly you didn’t either when you said “The AG made a ruling that the money had been illegally appropriated“. In judicial review proceedings, for example, a ministerial decision (or, in fact, any decision by an entity exercising statutory powers) can be challenged in the courts. It doesn’t matter that the Minister or the entity don’t themselves exercise judicial functions.

    However, as correctly you point out, those statutory powers are subject to the conferring legislation. And it’s true that the retrospective legislation overrides any administrative decision-making powers.

    Does that let NZ First off the hook? Well, not really. Your argument is that, now the legality of NZ First’s spending has been retrospectively cured, NZ First has a legal entitlement to spend as it pleases. Perhaps. But the public may not see that as a moral entitlement. Particularly when other political parties have been quick – well, some quicker than others – to repay the funds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    So Peak Oil Conspiracy you now admit when you wrote this

    “Like or not, the money is now legally NZ First, just like every cent of the far greater sums of taxpayers cash that National spent on advertising in the period before June 2005 is now legally National’s.

    No no no no and no – this is completely incorrect. Try looking up, in any reputable legal textbook, the following phrases: constructive trust and equitable tracing. And think about the anology with the Proceeds of Crime Act: does crime really pay?”

    That what you wrote was completely incorrect.

    Legally NZ First, National and all the other parties are now the legally indistubable owners of their allocations from Parliamentary Services.

    End of Story.

    The politics then comes in when right wingers glorify that the sick children of New Zealand have 150 000 dollars snatched away from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    You’d best slow down – you’re getting a bit spin-dizzy.

    As I tried to point out, you’ve changed the terms of the argument, and I was responding on the basis of what I thought you were saying. Your last sentence doesn’t deal with my point about moral entitlement. How about addressing my substantive points for a change? Like Sonic, you pick and choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “As I tried to point out, you’ve changed the terms of the argument,”

    No, I didnt change the terms of the argument.

    You were simply wrong.

    When you said this:
    “No no no no and no – this is completely incorrect. Try looking up, in any reputable legal textbook, the following phrases: constructive trust and equitable tracing.”

    You were completely and totally incorrect.

    Why is it so hard to admit it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    Oh FFS.

    I’m happy to accept I was wrong when you said the money is now legally NZ First money. As I said, I was thinking of NZ First’s position vis-a-vis the Auditor-General and issues of administrative law. I didn’t have the retrospective legislation in mind, which you apparently did.

    Happy?

    Now how about addressing my substantive points? I went to some effort in my 2:28 post – and you’re just an asshole if you can’t address my points respectfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    My point is simply its a sad day when right wingers gloat because sick children are starved of funds.

    Winston’s move was cynical, like all politicians. The electorate can judge.

    But cynical or not, no one can doubt that the intended recipients deserve all they can get.

    If only the Right had the brains and the grace to stick with this
    “The Greens took the right line: to paraphase: “Its great that children are getting the money but remember the generosity is the taxpayers not NZ First”

    Rather than this awful Schadenfreude rejoicing in depriving children and their carers of the support they deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    That’s a much more sensible contribution from you. The Green position is defensible. But, in another way, so is Starship’s – if they calculated that the public backlash from accepting NZ First’s “donation” was worse than returning it. Mogridge certainly couched his public explanation along those lines when he said: “It’s most unfortunate that the money wasn’t given in the spirit of genuine philanthropy, but rather it appears to gain political capital and media leverage“. There’s surely no point accepting one donation if one honestly believes other donations will dry up as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Lets leave aside this is probably Mogridge’s payback for being accused of accepting an illegally appropriated golden handshake himself in 1998 of 200 000 dollars (and pretty disgraceful to bring spiteful personal considerations into his role).

    Exactly what group of people would be so SICK as to run a campaign urging to withhold donations from the Starship because they apolitically accepted a large donation they know they could do good work with?

    Who but the right wing blogosphere?

    What a commentary on their miserable zero sum politicising. And they want to run the country!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    *Sigh*
    Must you always side-step my point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    I hate to throw your words back at you, but you were completely and totally incorrect.

    Why is it so hard to admit it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “I hate to throw your words back at you, but you were completely and totally incorrect.

    Why is it so hard to admit it?”

    About what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,344 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    About what?

    Here’s a clue: click on this hyperlink and substantiate this allegation:

    For example if Bill English, who misappropriate 500 000 dollars in 2002 to pay for a pledge card, donates to the Starship, should they also return that?

    Remember, it was your allegation. The fact that, so far, you’ve been unable to substantiate it indicates that you made it up. Otherwise you could give us the proof right now. No wonder you’re desperately trying to deflect the focus on to National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote