Not to ignore the inevitable inertia from Cullen, the Deputy Chair.

There are now a shrinking minority of inhabitants in the House that any good decent citizen can have any respect for and that is a very sad thing.

When the citizens come to view those who would be their representatives as unworthy then those same citizens will switch off and regard the Parliament as a irrelevancy to their lives.

If this is the case then all Members stand guilty of bringing the Parliament into disrepute.

Indeed it’s possible that, having survived todays “confidence vote” the PM will see value in an early election. It shuts down the Peters-related investigation, allows her to go at a time when “National’s secret agenda” is on everyone’s lips and, from her perspective, Labour’s own performance and reputation can only get worse.

Equally disappointing is the head of the SFO implying there’s not enough evidence to mount an investigation. Perhaps he missed the class at Plod College where it was pointed out that the purpose of an investigation is to uncover evidence.

My own experiences suggest the coppers don’t need a whole lot of “evidence” before they boot your door down at dawn and haul you off, making sure the media know they have a high-profile captive so they look good on the news. Any investigation of the Peters matters won’t involve anything like that level of trauma to those under investigation, so why the reluctance?

… which is not a good look.

This from a man with a yellow jacket

Not necessarily true, I have had a direct client/Barrister relationship where the invoices were sent directly to me – my Barrister understood my reluctance to explain a complicated business transaction indirectly, and my usual Solicitor (who doesn’t – of course – solicit) had no problem standing out of the loop and not collecting fees for collecting fees.

FillYou – does anyone but you read your blog?

Folks – why do some of you use the term “final confidence vote”? It’s my understanding that there is one more supply vote needed in this parliament, but a confidence motion can be put at any time can’t it?

The relevant standing order is 391(2) : “The Committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records”.

Someone who refuses needs a reason that will satisfy the Committee otherwise they can be found in contempt of Parliament, which is not a good look.

Can the Committee compel Glenn to appear? What powers do they have with the general public? I read somewhere that they can jail fellow MPs!?

Anyway, hardly the right choice of public speak for a barrister, one would have thought?? But then, being a joint member of the AEO club (arrogant/egotistical/obnoxious), its hardly surprising.

His disclosure, discloses something to I hide, I strongly suggest.

Agree, cluck orf phil

You know, your 2 million plus hits a week site that everyone reads.

Your going off subject on EVERY post on this site is just getting tiresome. And no its not tiresome because of your cutting analysis, its tiresome because your gibberish is BORING.

Don’t bother to reply I have no interest in what you’ll say.

edit – what pascal said.

Appease the voters, while shedding crocodile tears to Winnie: “Sorry about that. My hands were tied. Good luck and I’ll work with you again post election. More scampi?”

if not here..where..?

You sign it to all your posts. whoar.co.nz. If anybody is interested in reading and responding they will do so there.

Now, what is the scope of this type of investigation and what are the possible results that can come from this? Is it possible that they will look into how donations from this same group of people flowed into other political parties or is this restricted only to Winston Peters?

God you liabore apologists disgust me – get a job, a real job.

(or is that a ten-pointer..?…)

if not here..where..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)