SST on Clark
August 31st, 2008 at 10:20 am by David FarrarThis week she is not near perfect. The SST talks of her revelation:
After months of confusion over the Glenn donations, it turns out Clark has known much more than she has been letting on. The famously candid prime minister has been caught out being economical with the truth.
She said she knew as early as February that there had in fact been a donation something that Peters only ended up confirming in July after his lawyer Brian Henry told him.
“It’s always seemed to me that somewhere, someplace there must have been some kind of contribution, but it wasn’t clear where,” she said.
Why did Clark suddenly come clean? One theory is that Labour has realised that their sugar daddy has turned feral on them, and that Clark feared what Glenn might reveal next in any further testimony to the privileges committee.
That seems most probable.
While Peters has been centre-stage, Clark has also taken a less visible but potentially hugely damaging political body blow this past week.
Indeed.
After the 2005 election National dealt the first hammer blow to Clark’s reputation, with the revelations that Clark’s pledge card had been paid for out of parliamentary spending when it should have been paid out of party funds.
And that they deliberately over-spent in the 2005 election!
Now Clark’s credentials as a straightforward and competent leader have been shaken again. Not only are there questions about why she wasn’t franker, sooner. There are also questions about why she didn’t get to the bottom of Peters’ donations in February, rather than turn a blind eye to what was clearly a major problem area.
And all it would have taken was a simple phone call back to Owen Glenn. A donation is not like a conversation, where there can be two versions of what happened. It is a simple provable fact. She could have asked Glenn for verification. She did not, because she knew that Glenn would be able to provide that proof, and she wanted to continue the sham of pretending her Foreign Minister was telling the truth.
The ground shifted in a third way last week. National leader John Key’s stand to rule out Peters as a potential coalition partner saw Key come forward out of the shadows as a leader. As a money dealer, Key was known for calmly taking big and risky stands in the market, and then collecting up large. Key learned in that career an exterior blankness that hid his true feelings, much like a high stakes poker player.
But as a politician, that blankness has made it difficult for the public to get to know him. Last week he showed a hint of steel beneath his bland exterior, and gave the public more clues on his dimensions as a potential leader.
A number of people have made the mistake of under-estimating John Key.
Now Key is at work drawing a sharp, lethal line that threatens to cut Labour off from all that has made it strong. He is acknowledging the old, popular, trusted Helen Clark. But he is claiming that Helen Clark is gone. Instead he claims today’s Helen Clark is different, mired in the evasions and compromises of coalition politics. Last week gave Key some more of the weapons he needs to carry out the job.
People just need to keep repeating these two lines:
- A vote for New Zealand First is a vote for a Labour-led Government
- A vote for Labour is a vote for Winston to be in Government
Simple.
Related posts:
- Clark reveals she knew
- Clark also damns Peters
- Clark confirms Peters stays regardless of Privileges
- Unanswered Questions
August 31st, 2008 at 10:33 am
A very good point that seems to have missed my radar…..
Glenn told Clark that he donated to Winnie…..
Clark asked Winnie and Winnie said NO (the sign the sign)….
What should have happened then was Clark should have rung Glenn and said….
Vote:Look Owen, My Poodle says you didn’t donate, would you please provide me proof so I can clear this up.
Matter closed.
But oh no…. Chairman Clark new damn well that Glenn donated but sat on her arse trying to hide it.
SHAME ON YOU CHAIRMAN CLARK!!!
August 31st, 2008 at 10:44 am
Has somebody put something in the water cooler at the SST?
A real change in attitude there.
Good onya.
Helen is the perfect bitch, only she is actually far from perfect.
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Go to
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=621
for a good knock up on the Peters/Clark meeting on Friday. As humorous as it is it could well bear very close resemblance to the truth.
Recommended.
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 10:58 am
clear evidence of the gang-rape mentality on the part of the media, etc etc, no evidence, etc etc, John Key has a holiday home in Hawaii, etc etc, John Key will sell your children into slavery, etc etc…
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am
Exactly DF – I hope people realise that a vote for Labour is a vote for Winston and vice versa.
Some peculiar people may not mind Winston’s narcissism or his bi-polar disorder (which remains unchecked by health professionals and the PM – no disrespect to those who have any of these illnesses though). But how would they feel if Clark made him Minister of Finance and he was in charge of getting us out of this recession? Would he hide the books from treasury and run around saying everyone is part of a conspriacy against him everytime questions were asked that related to the economic state of the nation?
What if he was Minister of Broadcasting? If this happened, all journalists would have to personally report to him and free media would be abolished. In fact, he would probably imprison all journalists just out of revenge for being ‘so vile’.
However, the reality is, Clark would have no hestation in putting him into any portfolio of his picking because she still thinks he is ‘a consciencious and hard working’ MP – notice how she never says the word ‘honest’. Also, what is her yard stick? I don’t even think she has one. I shudder to think what he has been up to as Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Racing.
Also, while I’m logged in – here’s a correction to a blog I wrote yesterday on a previous thread titled ‘Peters is still a Minister’.
I meant to say that the Speaker of the House makes no attempt to hide her strong favourability towards Labour – and her absolute contempt for National and NZ First. She, very noticeably, winces when National and NZ First ask something Labour want to avoid answering and hide, and openly smiles when Labour are attacking National or NZ First. Not only do her reactions tell all – but they are highly unproffesional. She may as well just voice her views openly and loudly whilst running the House – as her body language is saying everything she could possibly want to say verbally. She makes absolutely no attempt at hiding her obvious prejudice. It’s absolutely shocking.
And while I am in the mood for a rant, why the hell would anyone look to the Labour Party to get this country out of the financial crisis we are in? The Labour Party are all a bunch of ex-academics, not workers, and National Party members have all been real workers in both the private and public sector and have been very successful in business. Why would anyone want to listen to the PM on matters of business and finance over listening to what John Key has to say? Clark has never had a proper job in her life and John Key is a millionaire. Simple. If I needed some financial advice on how to increase this country’s wealth – I know which one I would go see.
On another note, my belated nana used to say, if you want to know the integrity and honesty of a woman, just look at her teeth. If they’re crooked – then be very wary of them. She was a funny old lady but perhaps she was right on this one. Whose got the most crooked, rotting teeth I have ever seen? Hmm – let me think……
…..yuck!
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am
It’s clear now that Clark’s credibility has taken a big dent (read tatters) over her cover-up of the Peters donation scandal.
Question (and I don’t think it’s been asked as yet) …. Just who was it that tipped off English to ask the question that forced Clark to confess all?
Is it just possible there is a ‘leaker’ in the Beehive running their own agenda and where is that nice Mr Goff or that not so nice Mr Cunliffe in all of this?
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Ross,
“Just who was it that tipped off English to ask the question that forced Clark to confess all?”
I had a look at Hansard for this question but didn’t see it. In fact the record shows MPs talking about the PM’s bombshell *before* question time.
JC
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Helen must have really cooked her goose if the SST is saying things like that, and it must be painful finding out that Helen isn’t a deity after all.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The question is, or at least should be, has Helen Clark lost sight of the big picture here? Why is it that we are suddenly seeing Clark act, and react, in such a way as to seriously hinder the chances of Labour being a part of the next government?
There is a number of rumours circulating amongst political minded people as to what Helen Clark’s ultimate goal is, and much of that train of thought points to a UN position. Factor into the mix the fact that she has been PM for 9 years, and in that 9 years she has been seen as one who has her eyes on the prize at all times.
The conclusion that could be reached is that Clark has not lost sight of the big picture, but that the picture has changed.
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
A vote for New Zealand First is a vote for a Labour-led Government
* A vote for Labour is a vote for Winston to be in Government
So whats a vote for the Greens given that they side with Labour and don’t like NZ First? A vote for ?????
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Nothing will stick to Clark over this.
The question being asked around the traps here is “How much pressure did she put on the SFO to act as they did ?” – and that is an interesting one because SFO action was VERY fortuitous and effectively took the matter out of her hands. And he may yet be back.
So it’s all very shady.
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could underestimate someone who everyday was only one multi-billion dollar transaction away from losing his career. To perform in that environment, under that pressure, is something that very few of us would ever experience in a lifetime.
Vote: