Review of Absolute Power
April 28th, 2008 at 7:05 am by David FarrarIan Llewellyn of NZPA has done a review of the Helen Clark biography “Absolute Power” by Ian Wishart. It’s a fair and balanced review in my opinion. I am not sure which papers will carry the review, but here are some extracts:
The book, released last week, is a collection of articles which attempt to prove Wishart’s thesis that the current Government is corrupt and Prime Minister Helen Clark entered Parliament under false pretences to push a hidden agenda.
The book is similar in many ways to Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men, and they share many of the same strengths as well as flaws.
They also both reveal as much as about the author’s world view as they do about their subjects.
Both gathered exhaustive (and in places exhausting) material and did meticulous research, but the impression is the evidence has been gathered and presented to reach a pre-determined position.
I think that is a very fair call. Ian Wishart didn’t just form a view as he started to put his book together that Helen Clark was no good – he has been of that view for some time.
In Hager’s case it was that National was controlled and driven by dark forces ranging from big business, the religious right and foreign interests.
Wishart aims at the other end of the political spectrum and sees Miss Clark as someone who would do anything to get into power and do anything to hold on to it, all in order to push a hidden feminist, socialist agenda on an unsuspecting New Zealand.
It is unclear whether political blindness or naivety colours both authors’ views as they often see quite ordinary political processes as something far more sinister.
In Hager’s case, the lobbying of big business and internal caucus power struggles were proof of conspiracy. …
The fact that people join or lobby political parties to push a view that they believe is a better way for the world seems to be lost upon both authors.
I can’t agree too strongly here. Hager would have you believe that every business donor and supporter is motivated by self interest and greed, rather than a genuine belief in their views and policies being best for NZ. Likewise Wishart does fall down when he reads too much into fairly predictable stuff such as the PMs Office not being very helpful too him.
This is not to say that Wishart’s compilation of all the scandals under Clark is not valuable. People have become so used to them, they hardly register now, and the one thing they all have in common is that in almost every case Clark or her coterie lied and covered up – from paintergate to corngate to speedgate (yes I know all those gates sound lame but they make for easy reference) to doongate.
Much of the book is spent on Wishart’s arguments over whether it is ethical to get into the personal lives of politicians.
He concludes that it is necessary to expose hypocrisy.
Some of the material is an interesting take on political events, such as the downfall of former police commissioner Peter Doone and similar events.
It also documents the habit of many politicians to say one thing in opposition and another in government.
Wishart believes his book portrays a pattern of behaviour that makes Labour and Miss Clark unfit to hold office.
For his followers and those who dislike the current administration, the book will be a gospel.
Miss Clark’s supporters will dismiss it as the ravings of an obsessed individual.
The vast majority of the population will simply not care either way as they accept things are not black and white; instead there are many shades of grey.
Most people accept that others are prone to make mistakes and get things wrong, as much as they get things right.
In the end Absolute Power is not Absolute Gospel, but neither is it entirely Absolute Nonsense.
NZPA should be congratulated for doing a review of the book, rather than just ignore it. I suspect those on the left will not like the comparisons to Hager’s book (which is treated like the Koran by some Labour Ministers as they refer to it daily), but likewise some on the right will not like the dismissal of much of the book as reading too much into everyday politics.
When you have upset people equally on both sides, then you are often spot on 
Related posts:
- Debate on Absolute Power
- Absolute Power
- Wellington Power lines sold to Chinese
- Call for Power to launch inquiry into Peter Ellis case
April 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
There is one important difference between the two books. Hager relied on material that was obtained by criminal conduct Wishart got his material lawfully.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I thought this line was pretty funny.
anyone who has spent time at any political party conference will tell you that feminists, Marxists and anyone with strong views rarely have a hidden agenda; in fact it is hard to get them to shut up.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:29 am
well I’ve read it, and was frankly disappointed, its sketchy, episodic and quite badly written. I think the underlying thesis is actually quite well made – that Helen Clark, awkward and lonely, found her feet in the protest and political movement and developed a real taste for it. Leading to the utterly ruthless machine we have today.
He is also quite right to point out (as did Tamihere) that the feminist agenda allied itself with socialism in NZ in the 70s and deliberately took a long term view – with enormous success – politically that is. Whether it is actually good for NZ to be living an anti-family, socialist feminist agenda, is of course another matter. One which hopefully will be resolved in November.
Overall though, anybody looking for detailed analysis – you won’t find it. If you want gossip, well you’ve already read it here, on Sir Humphreys, new zeal or No Minister (all of which are hatchecked in the book).
If you never knew that Clark moved from a grotty student flat, to living in Cath Tizard’s spare room for 2 years, or that Peter Davis bought the house they live in with a family trust in 1976 (and thereby demonstrates that he too is a “rich prick”), or that no-one in labour appears to have ever “laboured”, unless you count teaching or lecturing, then you’ve come to the right place.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Various personalities surrounding Clark has been in and out of her life for years and years. Why she even got married on Jim Anderton’s lawn before falling out with Jim and she employs his former wife. She and Jim seem to have a satisfactory professional relationship now. And there are many other relationships stretching over many years. She has built her own personal network of very politically active people. The loyalties stretch for very long periods of time. And every now and then she falls out with someone with very bitter recriminations and hate. Helen Clark can hate but then the people she hates, also hate her.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
no-one in labour appears to have ever “laboured”, unless you count teaching or lecturing
I agree – isn’t it outrageous that while the rest of us are all out working for a living those spoiled left-wing union loving teachers are sitting around with their feet up letting the money roll in.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:55 am
It is correct to assume that this book will not alter entrenched opinions. Clarkophiles and Clarkophobes would not have some sort of literary epiphany as a result of reading Wisharts book.
Will this book have an impact on the swing voters? I think not. Hagar had the fortune of publishing at the time that the story regarding the EB covert campaign was breaking. As such the subject matter of the Hollow Men was directly relevant to current events.
Wishart has no such clarion call to his own book. As such Helen Clark can comfortably ignore this book in a way Brash could not.
However, trends in support are well established. Clark is on the wane in NZ politics in a way she has not experienced and it will be interesting how she responds, and how it dovetails with the portrait of her that Wishart has written here.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Poneke also has a review up:
Vote:http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/wish-2/
April 28th, 2008 at 8:09 am
A reasonable review. Wishart has an unfortunate habit of over promising and under delivering and his breathless style can grate. He does uncover interesting material though.
DPF, your list of “gates” did not include Parkergate. This did not seem entirely kosher at the time and Wishart raises some some interesting points backed up by considerable research. Why no official letterhead, was it ever really posted, a different font, out of sequence and so on. Also, if there was a genuine document, why did it take so long after it came to light for Parker to be publically brought in from the cold?
Was the document exonerating Parker genuine or was it forged? This question should be addressed by MSM
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I found it overly detailed in its style, but brilliantly researched. The Peter Davies chapter was a beat-up, in that it was about the government’s paucity of information rather than about Davies himself, and Wishart had nothing there, so to darkly threaten he would keep digging is just feeble. The most telling thing about this book is the stated aims of the far left/radical feminist agenda in the eighties and how much of those aims have been realised largely by Clark, Simpson and Wilson.
Vote:Overall the book reads like an historical tome, and is very up to date. The political significance is that it was written, written now, but because Clark has been so successful at diluting the old system and values, that the book has had the luke-warm reception it has had.
In more ways than one it is a shameful indictment of New Zealand’s political culture in 2001.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Meh, much like hagers book I’ll give this one a pass – Ive seen enough regarding Clark, Ive already made up my mind – don’t need it made up even more…
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Thank you for proving my point Bevan!
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Like Hager’s book I suspect that I will give this one a miss and I suspect, unluckily for Wishart, that it will be treated with a degree of skepticism by the right – unlike the left who seem predisposed to believe anything bad about the right and lapped up Hollow Men.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I work with adults who have intellectual disabilities; one male that I occasionally work with has been diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic. Wishart’s book struck me as having something of the same obsessive fascination with a subject and delusional insistence that the only explanation for an event is the one that the paranoid holds.
Vote:I agree with radvad that “Wishart has an unfortunate habit of over promising and under delivering and his breathless style can grate. He does uncover interesting material though.”
April 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
That NZPA review sounds very sensible, is it possible to access it on the web?
I totally agree that both “Hollow Men” and “Absolute Power” speak just as much about their author’s individual predilictions as much as their subjects. I’d add Chris Trotter to that camp too. He’s another tired old staggerer whose blatherings about corporate donors pulling John Key’s strings don’t at all accord with what I know of corporates’ views on politics, and seem to me to say more about Trotter’s on worldview that it’s quite appropriate to do nefarious duplicitious backroom deals as long as the “cause” is noble.
To be fair, all of them are passionate enough to go to the bother of putting pen to paper. But I don’t think any of them would win a Pulitzer …
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
The book goes on a bit about the devious nature of these Labour Party politicians.
Vote:My weekend reading revealed another little nasty bit about them; hidden from everybody except forward looking bean counters.
If a person gets a $670 dividend today or any time up to 31 March 2010 they must pay $60 tax on that dividend.
From 1 April 2010 they must pay $84 on a $670 dividend.
Just another cunning stunt from a stunning ….politician.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I am finding the book a most interesting read. Through her career, Clark has been a calculating and nasty individual. She has done and will do anything to retain power. The systematic lies and manipulation are horrifying.NZ deserves better than her and come the October election she will be washed away in a humiliating defeat. I think then some real truths will come out from the inside. In 30 years, they will still talk about this most corrupt Labour Government.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
im just posting to see what my number in brackets will be
that and im wondering if anyone cares enough to make a real youtube doco? like that nutjob loose change thing?
even if whaleoil put all his vids together.. make a nice slick package that just shows helen telling lie after lie.. or being constantly confused.
maybe chuck in some mallard slobering all over the place, benson-pope in a gimp mask etc.
then link to it all over the place.. send out myspace bulletins.. hell, post it on myspace videos as well. get under 25′s to take note ..
are we allowed to do that? or do ya go to jail for that sorta thing now?
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Test, (just checking out my number)
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Personally I have never understood what the “politcal” attaction to Helen Clark is. The way she comes across has always struck me as arrogant and aggressive. This says a lot about her mindless followers, as they seem to think this is leadership.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:21 am
“are we allowed to do that? or do ya go to jail for that sorta thing now?”
Vote:*sigh*
yes Dime, you will get hunted down and locked up for that, maybe worse
Just this weekend alone 152 people have been executed for saying bad things about the NZ government
April 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Test, (just checking out my number)
Pfft, n00b
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left – well putting together a doco might be in breach of the mugabe finance bill.. guess i just get fined and not jailed? thats usually the first step.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
dime: are we allowed to do that? or do ya go to jail for that sorta thing now?
I assume you’re not a Labour Party member, a Green or a member of a Union? If not – yes – you will probably go to jail
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I’m not going to complain about Mr. Llewellyn’s review, although there’s much I disagree with. I guess its hard to write objectively when you already have a pre-determined position, and I guess that considered, he’s made a fair attempt. However I want to take issue with the idea that there is “no black and white” and that “everything is grey” and that “if you’ve annoyed people on both sides” then you’ve probably got it right. This is a Marxist intellectual position. On many issues, there is black, there is white, there is right and there is wrong. There is truth and there are untruths.
Of course its always a problem discovering or discerning each of these for yourself, but it can be done. Make up your mind on an issue. Progress your argument on the basis of your decision. Always listening out for new information or factors you may have overlooked. Just drifting with the current is a mindless abrogation of your responsibilities as a civilized human being. Its what whitebait do. Lemmings too.
As to some of the comments-
“isn’t it outrageous that while the rest of us are all out working for a living those spoiled left-wing union loving teachers are sitting around with their feet up letting the money roll in.”
Typically arrogant and entirely misses the point. “Labour” was the word, and has a meaning that usually involves some kind of physical exertion. ..and funnily enough, the same smug irritating wanker expresses the view that he finds the following line one of the most amusing in the review-
“anyone who has spent time at any political party conference will tell you that feminists, Marxists and anyone with strong views rarely have a hidden agenda; in fact it is hard to get them to shut up.”
Which once again demonstrates total detachment from reality, the kind of ivory tower sneer that is the habitual resort of the staff room cosseted left wing academic. Of course the commies rabbit on at party conferences. Of course you never see them in mainstream media reports. Labour’s cronyist news media people always faithfully reproduce the party propaganda line that Klark’s government is centrist.
The reality is tho that the Labour Party is driven by an extreme left agenda and steered by extreme left zealots with extreme left ideas. The only thing that hampers their advancement of these ideas is the reluctance of the NZ public to accept them. That’s why they have to do it so gradually and so deceitfully. Of course its a great help to their cause when anyone who tries to expose this deceit is the subject of sneers scorn and public denigration. But that’s all part of the plan of course.
Well done Ian. Good luck to you mate, and keep swimming against the tide. (I know you will) You’re a hero.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Wishart is just doing the job that the MSM are too lazy (or biased, or thick) to do. The NZ public deserve to know some of these less palatable traits of Clark and her cronys.
I think its an excellent record, and will be an invaluable reference when exposing the corruption and hypocrisy of Clark’s regime during this election year.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Pascal
I can assure you that Dime would be refused membership of all of those organisations, in fact from what I know of him jail is where he belongs.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
is Redbaiter Ian Wishart?
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Poneke nails it:
It is good that we live in a democracy where someone like Ian Wishart can write such conspiratorial innuendo and smut. If we lived in the kind of country Ian seems to believe we do live in, Ian would be the first in front of the firing squad. But we don’t.
NB: “everything is grey” is a “Marxist intellectual position” in the same sense that “if it feels good, do it” is a “Christian intellectual position” – ie not even remotely.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
haha thanks bruv
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
proved to be an interesting Anzac Day read. It also reinforced my view that those who stand for public office should be subject to the same tests as those who seek employment.
Just like an employer we are entitled to know the inner workings of the minds of those we elect .
Its no longer acceptable for them to demand that we take them at face value.
The book also reinforced that we dont have a PM who can be regarded as of the majority of the citizens .
Perhaps the nicest way to put it is that she is “different” from those she rules over.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Yes indeed redbaiter, you consistently and starkly demonstrate that “its hard to write objectively when you already have a pre-determined position”…
How, exactly, is the issue that there is no black and white, etc, a Marxist position? I admit to being no expert, so would appreciate it if you could briefly outline how this proposition is derived from Marxist theory?
Or do you have your own unique intepretation of Marxism?
Do you actually understand Marxsim?
Sometimes I do actually laugh at how ridiculous some of the trite you write is.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Psycho Milt and Rubbernecker are absolutely right. Marxism is absolutely not a relativist ideology. Could it be that all this time, Redbaiter has no idea what he’s actually talking about? Could it be that he uses the term “Marxist” pejoratively and meaninglessly without any intellectual precision and that he is in fact not the cerebral powerhouse Dad4Justice thinks he is?
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 11:02 am
All those gates, when will it be the departure gate?
http://nzdebate.blogspot.com/2008/04/departure-gate.html
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
The “black and white” of Marxism is that “grey” is absolute.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“Psycho Milt and Rubbernecker are absolutely right.”
Thanks for that opinion. Have to wonder tho, given its stark subjectivity, why you assumed it was worth expressing. I guess because you’re a cerebral powerhouse. Actually, I’ll change that- obviously because you’re a cerebral powerhouse.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I’ve read it and I thought it was very good on the whole. I really don’t see that there is a whole lot to criticize about it; I mean, it’s all backed up by citations. Fact is fact.
I suppose one could criticize that it portrays Clark in a negative light in that it doesn’t talk about anything positive that she might have done, but that’s not the point of the book. There is already a bio of Helen in the traditional sense. It’s more about Clark’s ideology, the way she has manipulated to get her way (including breaking of the law) and the effect of her subjecting the country to that.
If Nicky Hagar can write a book dissing National and Brash before an election then I think it’s only fair that the there is a book in response (although it’s not in direct response).
As I said, you may or may not like the way Wishart says it, but what is in the book is fact. The same thing can’t be said about Hagar’s book.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
As I understand it, Wisharts book has been meticulously researched, and backchecked. Although I am sure there are some aspects of the book that have not made it in to publication, it does draw heavily from material in the public domain.
I have skimmed the publication, and will comment further once I have read the book completely, but comparisons to the Hollow Men are probably going to occur.
Will Wisharts book translate well to the stage?
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Parts of the Crimes Act 1961 dealing with Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice come under Section 99 of the Crimes Act 1961 dealing with Bribery and Corruption, and refers in good part to those in the Service of the Crown. These are followed by Contravention of Statutes and part 6 Misleading justice – Sections 108 t0 117, where 116 deals with the prevention and defeat of justice.
If Wishart’s book is as authentic as he claims, why then doesn’t he have the courage of his convictions and lay a complaint with the Police.
From memory a few convictions have been made under 116 – a Police Officer in the Nicholas case, Assistant Police Commissioner Rickard and cronies were not found guilty under this section. What is Field charged under?
In most other cases concerning “Those in the Service of the Crown”, there are “in house” enquiries held but in the case of police, “Disciplinary Hearings” are held, and in the case of State Service employees a bit of a face saving inquiry by the State Services Commissioner or an Inter Departmental body.
We, Joe Blogs get prosecuted by Police – No kid glove treatment. Straight out discrimination. One law for us and one law for State Servants.
Of importance at the moment is the New Zealand Immigration case where the whistle has been blown on the actions of the Head of NZIS in supporting her family’relatives in an application for residency.
However in this case more serious charges are being made. Perhaps a little corruption may show up?
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Well said Redbaiter and 3-Coil.
I’m not particularly impressed with the review. It’s disappointing that the media have largely ignored it. I suspect because they have grown so accustomed to this government’s corruption. I suspect another reason though is because all the evidence collected by Wishart is in the public domain. If the media make a song and dance then some fairly pointed questions could be asked as to what they have been doing all these years.
I can’t help but wonder if such a book were written about John Key if it would have been so apathetically received. And well said Redbaiter. This BS of “nothing is right or wrong” is yet another slowly eating cancer of our culture.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Believe me, one of the cruelest of smears you could assail us lefties with is an assertion that we all like Nicky Hager!!!!! (The guy is embarrassing…)
I think a lot of kiwibloggers would do well to consider – in depth – two of those quotes in particular from the review, firstly:
“They also both reveal as much as about the author’s world view as they do about their subjects.”
“Wishart aims at the other end of the political spectrum and sees Miss Clark as someone who would do anything to get into power and do anything to hold on to it, all in order to push a hidden feminist, socialist agenda on an unsuspecting New Zealand.”
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Only ready first 4 chapters but if the evidence presented by Wishart of police corruption at the highest level does not result in him being sued or a serious and independent inquiry with unlimited powers then NZ slides further down the slope to Zimbabwe. As the courts saw fit to prosecute Ron Moody despite no complaint then I expect thyem to do their duty if no one else does and at least investigate the allegations of perjury by a police officer and the apparently unlawful execution of a search warrant by a former police office now a private investigator . I am not holding my breath.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“I think a lot of kiwibloggers would do well to consider – in depth – two of those quotes ”
I have considered them, and to me, all they do is display the political pre-conceptions of the writer.
The expression of political viewpoints in NZ has has been effectively crippled by the left’s tactic of categorising any criticism as extreme right propaganda. In truth, Wishart is only a middle of the roader.
That he is labeled as “extreme right wing” by so many is only a demonstration of how far left the center has been dragged through Labour’s use of propaganda and lies and indoctrination. Very effective operation. Give the Kiwis no frame of reference outside socialism. Others would label it cultural totalitarianism.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I haven’t read the book, probably never will, I don’t seem to have the time. But I’m quite happy to trust my ears and eyes. Like the doctors say, one dosen’t have to get the disease to realise it is real. I don’t have to read about the comming and goings of the Dear Leader to realise she is bad news.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
freethinker
After reading the whole book IMHO if Wishart doesnt end up facing multiple charges then the reasonable assumption is the the contents are indeed factual.
To pass off such serious allegations as not worth suing about is to render the receiptiant as either having a very low level opinion of their reputation or being afraid of the consequences of taking an action..
If the allegations are all false then a person of good ethics and morals would be prepared to protect their reputation.
I know I would be. The old saying No smoke without fire is very apropraite in the circumstances.
And in at least some of the cases Wishart outlines the evidence does fit the character of the person concerned.
The old test is Do I think X would be capable of those actions. Have they demonstrated similar behaviour on other ocassions.
If the answer is Yes and they have no suitable rebuttal then the old Looks like a dog etc applies.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Some of the material is an interesting take on political events, such as the downfall of former police commissioner Peter Doone and similar events.”
“INTERESTING” ?????? Doone got sacked on the basis of a lie from the PM?
This epitomises what is wrong with the MSM when it comes to scandals that affect their idol Helen Clark.
How much free editorial did Hager get from them, and how much has Wishart got? Why is an outright Stalinist like Hager treated so favourably by them, but Wishart is dismissed as a right-wing Christian Fundy nut? What if he is the only guy giving us the facts about stuff like Doonegate?
Michael Bassett was right when he said that most of the MSM was washed up on the same intellectual beach as Hager.
DPF himself is still far too ready to concede on the terms framed by his far more ruthless political opponents, and that goes for most of the Nats too.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
PhilBest
Bloody well said, it irritates me immensely when I see right wing pundits who feel they have to apologise for their views or debate the issues on terms set by the left, you never see Trotter or any of the other pinko’s having to defend their political leaning, this simply proves that the socialist wankers have managed to win the battle of what is currently acceptable in political opinions.
If we are not careful the bastards will also win the war.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
big bruv
hear hear
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
what gd, philbest, big bruv & bogue said. Plus I suspect that this book will struggle to get traction because Wishart has been less than complimentary about the MSM ability to question this administration.
Vote:I would love to see him sued, maybe someone from the right could arrange it so that the ongoing trial can provide additional humour.
I have been tending toward the republican movement but watching the unbridled corruption with some supposed protection this would have to be put well back until some constitutional changes are made.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
When people dismiss hager’s work because of his “predilections” does that mean they have forgotten his part in Corngate?? Too many people fail to consider evidence and facts, they let emotion and bias overshadow.
Vote:September 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“The fact that people join or lobby political parties to push a view that they believe is a better way for the world seems to be lost upon both authors. ”
I think this part of the review is naive. Lobbyists have for many decades been less about building a better world than getting a better environment for their own agendas. It’s not that lobby groups exist, per se, that is a problem in a Democracy, its the lack of transparency and this goes to the heart of BOTH National and Labour.
Brash did not sue Hagar and found only two inaccuracies in a book containing about 1000 claims. It is actually possible that BOTH Hagar and Wishart are right and we are left with the unenviable choice of which dishonest group of people we ought to vote for.
This is why I am amazed at the call for no minor parties, they may indeed be the little spark of salvation we need.
I shudder to think how much more duped we were under FPP
Vote: