Censured

September 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm by David Farrar

The House has just voted to censure Winston Peters 62 – 56 as recommended by the . It has also instructed him to file amended returns for the periods ending 31 January 2006, 31 January 2007 and 31 January 2008.

Anderton abstained and everyone except Labour First voted in favour.

Even voted to censure Peters. Now that has to hurt!

This is not an ending. It will be very interesting to see what new gifts he reveals in the amended returns.

Tags: , ,

84 Responses to “Censured”

  1. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    That was quick – i was just about to post something about it. :D
    I expect the full ramifications of this will take a while to become apparent, but it was interesting to note Rodney say in parliament that Peters will now have to disclose who ‘donor A’ is.

    BTW – the votes didn’t quite go how you’d thought, DPF. Field voted in favour and Anderton abstained.

    I was also interested in the Maori Party reaction. Peters brought up the supposed donation to the MP by Owen Glenn. Perhaps they knew something about that, which is why they ended up voting for censure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dave (988 comments) says:

    I thought there wasn’t too much doubt who donor A is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    The shame from here is it all means NOTHING!!!
    He keeps his car, his pay etc. It’s a disgrace. Clark is a disgrace!!!
    I watched his speech and Winston Peters is the biggest disgrace.
    Can only hope NZ’ers vote him out big time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    “Labour First.”

    Anyone would think you were taking personal satisfaction from this!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    And in typical Winston fashion, he has basically threatened to dish dirt out from here on.
    Fuck off Winston, no-one’s interested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. big bruv (13,734 comments) says:

    The house voted to censure Winston!

    And that means…………………..diddly squat.

    All the bluster and hype, all the posturing and posing and Winston gets away with being told “you’re a naughty boy”

    The whole fucking thing is a charade and whats more the bastards are doing it with my fucking money.

    Lets just accept that we have a corrupt Parliament, a corrupt Prime Minister and a leader of the opposition who is trying his hardest to lose the unloseable election, lets accept all that and get on with our lives, we sure as hell cannot look to that bunch of useless, gutless (and when it comes to the Labour party and NZF) corrupt lot for any type of leadership.

    The bastards HAD the chance to prove that they are genuine, they HAD the chance to show the people of NZ that we matter, they HAD the chance to show without a shadow of a doubt that they are NOT CORRUPT and that the whole Parliamentary system is NOT an old boys club, they HAD the chance to give Winston a real and meaningful punishment and the bastards failed miserably.

    So from me to each and every one of you who call yourselves our “elected representatives” I offer you a heartfelt FUCK YOU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    RRM is right. We should take no personal satisfaction from this.

    That our most senior elected representatives have acted so illegally and unethically should have us declare a day of mourning, erect some kind of monument and open a new chapter in the NZ history education

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    QUESTION:
    If Clark is so adamant that Peters is innocent, why don’t they give his job straight back right now??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rex Widerstrom (5,349 comments) says:

    What big bruv said.

    It’s more than we expected, but less than we hoped and not at all what we deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Right that’s finished, where do we sign up for our share the big pot of money that was out there for “getting Peters” ?

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

    RRM how does it feel to know that your values and morals are lower than that of Field who used slave labour to enrich himself. At least he has enough integrity left (god knows where that came from) to condemn the corruption of Peters. And please dont play with my private bits by suggesting that you condemn Peters but are just arguing the technicalities, your support of Peters speaks to the level of lowlife politics that has become the Labour party. And to put you straight, I voted for Helen in 2002.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. georgebolwing (796 comments) says:

    Big Bruv

    Not every crime requires the death penalty.

    There is now, on record, in Parliament, a report from a Committee that has five of the eight parties represented in Parliament saying that Peters has breached the privileges of being a member and stands condemned by his peers for that. There is now a vote in Parliament that shows that only two of the eight parties were prepared to reject that report.

    Rodney was having a field day in the small part of the debate I saw: holding up the report and repelling Winston’s points of order easily: all he had to do was say “It’s on page 103″, “as the wiring diagram shows”, “if you look at the note in annex X”, etc.

    Winston takes his role as a senior MP very, very seriously. This is a deep personal blow to his own image of himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. gander (91 comments) says:

    What power has the Privileges Committee – or whoever now holds authority in this situation – got to ensure that the amended returns will be accurate?

    [DPF: An inaccurate return could generate a new complaint to Privileges. Of course it will be dissolved next week. But there are alternatives such as a complaint to the Registrar or to the Auditor-General]

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

    Its water off a ducks back for Winston……sigh!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    Why would anyone assume the amended returns will be accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dad4justice (8,148 comments) says:

    The lawyers will amend the returns to satisfy Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. big bruv (13,734 comments) says:

    George

    I respectfully suggest that you (and out media) are guilty of thinking in a FPP mindset.

    I have no doubt that under the old system this censure would have carried some weight, hell even the party leader would be facing sure defeat in his electorate and the individual concerned would certainly be sacked as a minister, even the thoroughly corrupt Helen Clark would have sacked him under FPP.

    However we do not have that system any longer, Winston will be back in the house post election and he will more than likely still be the foreign minister and still be giving backhanders to his shady mates in the dirty and corrupt racing industry.

    Under MMP this censure means NOTHING, it is less than a slap over the hand with a wet bus ticket, remember, the bastard has been caught lying, he does not even have the decency to say sorry and OUR PARLIAMENTARIANS saw fit to do northing more than tell him off, lets not forget that this is the same prick who stole $180,000 of our money and refused to give it back.

    For some time I have been of the opinion that the lot of them are a bunch of pompous fools who are wrapped up in their own self importance, the pathetic events of today confirm it for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. georgebolwing (796 comments) says:

    If the vote was 62 to 56, 3 MPs didn’t vote. We know Anderton was one. Did Copeland forget to turn up again?

    On Gander’s question, there is no absolute assurance that Peters’ return will be accurate. There can’t be, since Peters has all the information and no-one else has. But, we do know that people are leaking information and we also have Rodney. So, if there are doubts about the veracity of the amended returns, we go back to the Privileges Committee for another go.

    But, this will all be moot because Winnie will not be an MP for much longer.

    But just to make you all really happy: he, like all other defeated MPs, will get paid his MPs salary up to election day, and then for three months thereafter. He will also get his baubles as a Minister up until the election and then for a further 28 days, unless the new Government is sworn in earlier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Zippy Gonzales (485 comments) says:

    That Backbencher display of Helen and Winston was prescient. Til death do them part. Whomever would have thought that Ms Clark would have ended up in a Catholic marriage with Winston?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Johnboy (16,092 comments) says:

    Just been watching the repeat of question time on 94 and pleased to see that Hels has sat Chris next to Charles. Is this the harbinger of a new civil union to be held in the newly named “Rainbow Room”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. wreck1080 (3,885 comments) says:

    Those power hungry freaks at the top don’t give a rats arse about what Peters did so long as he keeps them in power.

    The credibility of Helen and Cullen completely disappeared during the privileges hearing when they said they don’t give a toss about any particular verdict.

    Then, what is the point of a priveleges hearing if the powers that be ignore the findings? I suspect, Helens next act will be to change the law such that government MP’s cannot be the target of privileges hearings – there is not really any point anyway.

    Oh how low can it go. I’m just waiting for the first government sponsored beatings to start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. big bruv (13,734 comments) says:

    wreck

    What do you mean “waiting for the first government sponsored beatings to start.”?

    Have you not heard of Len Richards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Do you think he will declare his Hoki Proceeds?

    Scampi Proceeds

    All the Racing Proceeds?

    All the Boxing Proceeds

    All the Gambling Proceeds?

    All the kick back proceeds?

    All the stealth proceeds?

    Oh and by the way, which charity (ies) did you donate our money to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    The silence from the usual left wing suspects is deafening. Where are all the Clark worshippers ? I would suggest even they are shrinking back a little from the sheer extremity of Clark’s obvious disgust with democracy and lack of concern with ethics displayed here. It would take a special breed of sycophant to come to her aid in this crisis…someone completely unconcerned with fact, someone with no interest whatsoever in making a coherent argument, someone with the blindest of blind faith. Come on Phool, this could be your finest hour !

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

    Which fuckhead parties voted against Rodney’s motion to have him suspended?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    Getstaffed: I did not say that anyone SHOULDN’T take a bit of personal satisfaction from this!

    Bok: My “values and morals” are excellent – and you can have no idea from my 5:52pm whether I condemn Peters or not. But perhaps there is a point to your abuse???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. big bruv (13,734 comments) says:

    Woverine

    Every single one of the wankers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. pdm (842 comments) says:

    wolverine – only 2 Act votes for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    “It would take a special breed of sycophant to come to her aid in this crisis…someone completely unconcerned with fact, someone with no interest whatsoever in making a coherent argument, someone with the blindest of blind faith.”

    Put it away:

    Clark has a Labour Party policy agenda to try and further – step one, by winning the election. So If Clark is not taking every opportunity to crap on Peters over this, then she must feel that he is worth more to her alive than dead at this stage.

    If making this observation makes me a “Clark worshipper” or a “special breed of sycophant” in your eyes, then you’re fighting a far, far more passionate battle here than I am, so you enjoy yourself!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Graeme Edgeler (3,283 comments) says:

    georgebolwing asked:

    If the vote was 62 to 56, 3 MPs didn’t vote. We know Anderton was one. Did Copeland forget to turn up again?

    Your addition is wrong. There are 120 MPs. Anderton abstained, and the Maori Party cast 3 votes (of its 4).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    Winston got served. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    RRM – I don’t notice you defending her ethics here, you seem to be reluctantly accepting winston as a political expediency – the end justifies the means ? Do you have a strong enough stomach to say “Clark did the right thing here, we can be proud of her integrity and her respect for doing what’s right” ? That would take a special breed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. georgebolwing (796 comments) says:

    Graeme

    This Parliament has 121 MPs, because of the Maori Party “overhang”. So there is still one MP unaccounted for. Anyone know who it was?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. big bruv (13,734 comments) says:

    Graeme

    So does that mean that one of the Maori party decided not to censure Peters?

    If that is the case do you know on what grounds they made that decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    RRM

    Clark has a Labour Party policy agenda to try and further

    You mean she is about to steal more tax payers money and pass retrospective validations after stealing the election again? Or is there some other agenda besides deny, delay and denigrate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Vinick (214 comments) says:

    Congratulations Rodney Hide! The only guy actually prepared to stand up against the pr*ck, even before it was “popular” to do so (note that the Nats only jumped onboard after Peters was mortally wounded).

    And Graeme is right about the voting numbers – 120 MPs (Connell has quit); Anderton abstained, and the Maori Party often only vote with three (they need two members in the Parliamentary complex to cast four votes, but only one to cast three). Shame on National for not voting on ACT’s amendment – Peters should absolutely be apologising to Audrey Young for calling her a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    P.I.A.: As I’ve said before on other threads – this far out from the election, I am more interested in what the various parties propose to do for the future good of the country, than in whether Peters declared all of his donations correctly in 2005!

    No, I think Clark should have taken Key’s pre-emptive approach and cut Winston off completely, but more because I think Winston is yesterday’s man and not of much more value to the Labour agenda, than for any other reason.

    (And before you ask – I am OTOH highly critical of Key’s Tranzrail shares thing because I don’t want to be suspicious of a PM who may be working on his stock portfolio rather than working for me…)

    Look – argument without throwing insults around. Strange, huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    RRM

    because I don’t want to be suspicious of a PM who may be working on his stock portfolio rather than working for me…

    That was weak… Is that a 9th floor line? If it was then Labour have a lot of work to do on their denigration…. OMG John Key had a life before politics… shame shame shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    burt: “You mean she is about to steal more tax payers money and pass retrospective validations after stealing the election again?”

    No, I didn’t mean that at all. I meant:

    * Abolition of the Crown Health Enterprises. Public Hospitals should be a service not an “enterprise”.
    * Interest free student loans. (Because I was a student.)
    * Property (relationships) bill. (Why shouldn’t gay couples have the same legal protections as straight couples?)
    * Prostitution reform bill. (Why should it be a crime to be one if it’s not a crime to hire one?)
    * Anti-smacking. (Parents are not sacred – if you hit your child hard enough that people around you are actually concerned about it, you probably need to justify your behaviour.)

    I am ever hopeful that you righties will – eventually – lean to disagree and argue without slinging insults or making ridiculous caricatures of what you THINK someone else meant…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Rakaia George (313 comments) says:

    Georgebolwing – Brian Connell’s left already hasn’t he?

    Duh – Vinick already pointed that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redadare (1 comment) says:

    Isn’t it interesting that all you dirty rotten scabby tories (DRST) have such morals to actually condemn what JFK did with his shares. NOT!! JFK was caught out…… rolled bowled & risoled. Typically you DRST choose to ignore the facts!!!! Perhaps there is more. I would rather trust the devil I know than a bunch of wolves dressed as sheep shaggers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    RRM – so once again, you’re not prepared to go under the limbo bar of Clark’s ethics in standing by Peters here. Win the election at all costs, integrity optional ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    P.I.A:

    AGAIN, yes I am more interested in policies than in how Winston funds his Party’s timesheets and toilet rolls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    So it doesn’t bother you if those policies turn out to be rather beneficial to the people who made the secret donations that paid for those timesheets and toilet rolls ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    Obviously I would prefer a political climate where there are no wealthy benefactors in the background looking for favours.

    But here in the real world, these people exist. And the ones that donate to “my” party (n.b. I do not **actually** belong to any political party) must help “my” party to further their objectives, so you can’t seriously expect me to object to the donations to “my” party as strongly as I will always object to this kind of funding of the other side?

    Similarly, YES political expediency is real and important. So many policies to introduce to take the country forward, so few sitting days in the House…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Lindsay Addie (1,473 comments) says:

    I’ve made some comments about this story at my new blog:
    http://lindsayaddie.blogspot.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    Guess no one has ever seen Shankshaw Redemption….
    Asked in front of many, by one……
    Who’s guilty in here??????
    Every one answers…..
    NOT ME!!!!!!

    Familiar???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Well you know there is an alternative to acquiesence to corruption for the sake of pursuit of power at any cost. There is one leader who’s decided it’s not acceptable to deal with Peters even if it costs him government…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. pdm (842 comments) says:

    RRM said – OTOH……….

    Call me stupid if you like but will someone please tell me what OTOH is short for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    On The Other Hand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    RRM

    So have I got this correct, you are happy to vote for the status quo irrespective of the ethical limbo required to achieve it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    RRM

    Do you suggest we also keep the tax cut for the racing industry and the govt funding for prize money? These are afterall policies from Labour-led govt budgets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    NZ First’s contempt for proper procedure is such that I wouldn’t be surprised if the useless pack of troughing fuckers don’t bother putting in new returns. And then, when asked why not, Klark and that Colonel Kurtz-act-alike will give two fingers to the establishment. And no one will do anything about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Don the Kiwi (1,709 comments) says:

    Hey Michaels.

    Its not Shankshaw, Its “Shawshank Redemption” – you twit – get it right. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    No – but then, I have no interest in horse racing so that one’s not a deal-breaker for me either way…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    First thought I had when Clark and Cullen said the result was biased before the evidence had been handed in was – I AGREE!

    The NZ First and Labour members on the PC were pre-disposed to clearing Winnie, and therefore totally biased, bordering on corrupt.

    I cannot believe Cullen on Close Up tonight either. That Pommie git has got nerves of steel, and the smirk to match.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    DPF

    As a big supporter of the “Labour First” ( © burt ) brand I’d like to suggest that you get in the ear of some National Party folk. If National Govern after the election it would seem appropriate that the tax payers money pledged to horse racing prize money be used to fund one single event. The Labour First ( © burt ) cup.

    The funds could be used to provide a generous prize pot, free scampi and bourbon for all patrons. Well tailored pin-stripe suits are essential dress for gentlemen, ladies must wear trousers and flat shoes.

    A permanent reminder to why we insist on transparency in political party donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. JC (949 comments) says:

    It was MMP on trial today, and to their credit most of the parties got that and did the right thing. Basically, the killed off the Toxic Toad, Clark and Cullen from any further moral authority. All the leaders who voted against Peters (except Rodney) spoke well enough and probably kept themselves off the dole. No wonder Rodney is low in the polls.. he’s boorish, had no sense of occasion, he grandstanded and didn’t have the skills to slip in his extraneous points without getting clobbered.

    Basically I saw this as the minor parties’ finest hour and Russel Norman was the pick of them with a simple recital of relentless facts against the roarings of an absolutely infuriated Toad. Fortunately neither the speakers or the Speaker bothered to shut Winston up and left him to make a dick of himself.

    And as for Winnie’s speech.. I now know why he was disappearing from his seat every five minutes. Stuttering, stammering, incoherent, running his words together, inventing laws that only applied to him, threatening MPs by name, darl mutterings of revenge through the people and referring to himself only as “Winston Peters”, much like Julius Caesar on the Ides of March. Oh, it was all grand.

    So what did we, the people achieve? We killed off the Muldoon Clone, reduced the man to a gibbering baboon who, if it had gone much longer, would have pulled down his tweeds and paraded round waving his scaly arse at everyone, wanking himself in the corner and Ron Mark would have followed suit. A truly classless performance from Parliament’s longest and least serving bully boy. Unfortunately we probably gave MMP a new lease of life because it wasn’t raw numbers that did him in but the number of parties that censured him. They exposed him and cut off his future roads to power. All in all, a good day’s work.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    “Ethical limbo” – really?

    Greasy old Winston lied about his party’s donations, then threatens to sic his lawyer onto people – and Clark is dragging her heels because she needs his vote. Who’d have thought, eh?

    OTOH: We are still nuclear-free, Waitangi claims are being settled, and we are at the forefront of legislation to remove legislatory discrimination against gays etc. All ethical issues that I get excited about more easily!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Seamonkey Madness (328 comments) says:

    RRM,

    You may not have an interest in horse-racing, but you should in having a government that is free of corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    Did Winston get to vote on whether he should be censured or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Lindsay Addie (1,473 comments) says:

    Chicken Little,

    Peters voted as it was included in the PoodlesFirst party vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Seamonkey I suspect we’re wasting our time, anyone who can defend Labour after the last nine years is clearly oblivous to corruption. And not as concerned about ‘discrimination’ as he claims if he can stomach the chronic asian-basher Peters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    Chicken Little

    How appropriate would it have been for Winston to have the casting vote?

    Imagine Winston having the deciding vote, how many weeks do you think he would try and milk that before casting it in Winston Peters best interest….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    OTOH: We are still nuclear-free, Waitangi claims are being settled, and we are at the forefront of legislation to remove legislatory discrimination against gays etc. All ethical issues that I get excited about more easily!

    There is no ethical issue more important than integrity. Everything else is rendered irrelevant without it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    The sad point to note is that even though Labour is keen to embrace CORRUPTION in the dieing days of its regime the real story is the incredible amount of damage it has done to the New Zealand economy. That damage has the potential to last generations as the only party willing to fix the damage is ACT. National appears quite happy to carry on where Labour left off.

    Labour may have had the best intentions when it gained office in 1999 but it will leave New Zealand in HELL when it departs in 2008.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    # Don the Kiwi (19) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 2 Says:
    September 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Hey Michaels.

    Its not Shankshaw, Its “Shawshank Redemption” – you twit – get it right. ;-)

    Well prove it…..
    And if you prove it right.. I’ll sue the the fuckin pants off ya.
    Call me a twit?? Say it in public Don and get out of privilege.
    I’ll take you to the highest court in the land if you want a fight!!
    And if you win…. I’LL STILL CALL YOU A FUCKIN LIAR!!!!
    BASTARD!!!!
    AND AND AND……
    POO BUM!!!

    [DPF: 20 demerits - calm down]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    Why are Hels and Cullen desperate to impersonate two sad sacks of shit? CORRUPTION isn’t never acceptable, even if people are lame ineffective socialist weasels.

    Winston should be sacked, now!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    GET OVER IT DPF!!!!
    It was in jest!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    now, now OECD rank 22 kiwi. Helen isn’t crazy (despite what some have suggested). She just knows that Winne will take his spade and loudhailer and drooling ‘journalists’ to the buried bodies if she dumps him. And that prospect must be worse than enduing the ridicule that she is sustaining now. It’s a risk/pain balancing act for her.

    DPF: line. sinker. hook. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    20 points – abusive language
    10 points – posting off topic
    5 points – For minor infractions, such as one inflammatory sentence in an otherwise good post

    Me thinking 5 points maybe…. 20????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. clintheine (1,570 comments) says:

    You know it would be a damn shame if ACT didn’t get a poll bounce from this, Rodney led this from the start – pulled the Nats along with him, got the facts out in the open, got abused and lied about by Winston. Then let Winston lie and hang himself, with the help of his lawyer to show the Greens, United and Maori Party that in fact Rodney was right all along.

    You got to wonder what DOES Winston have on Helen for her to stick by him all this time. She wasn’t this loyal to any of her other MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    And DPF may I also add…………
    You give me 20 for what I would like to see as jest……
    YET………
    You let “MIKE” get away with calling John Key some names that I wont repeat, in the general debate a few days back even though you had an email of complaint??
    Just maybe your demerits need re looking at considering what….
    well….
    philu etc and co say on a daily basis!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Michaels, let it go mate. The ref called a forward pass that wasn’t quite right. So that’s life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    clintheine says at 11:13 pm:

    Rodney led this from the start – pulled the Nats along with him

    So true. If I recall, John Key wanted to make nice with Winston and was giving the softly softly approach to questioning Winston’s activities. Unfortunately for National the stench of CORRUPTION grew into an enormous mountain and John Key eventually found his moral compass and ruled Winston out of government.

    Hels on the other hand, being a keen mountaineer, wanted to embrace the CORRUPTION as a personal challenge for her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    getstaffed, I agree, but like a pig with a bone, I really don’t care. Every so often, luckily here, the ref doesn’t fuck up to much, but this time I believe he has…. So… I will stand my ground….. so be it if he get banned… there are other things in life thankfully. Did you see “Mike”‘s comment from the weekend? It was a five year ban but ignored!!
    So getstaffed, for now, I’ll go rest…… Tomorrow is another day…. I will wake to see my outcome.
    At least I can say I haven’t taken your money and lied about it.
    Nor getstaffed did I ever screw around on my wife or with your’s.
    Luckily getstaffed I don’t drink to much nor smoke.
    And finally getstaffed, I don’t sleep with people while I am away on my sales trips.
    So when I lay my head to sleep…. I can.
    Good night getstaffed, have a nice day David, John, Helen, Les, Michael, Bob and ….oh crap I can’t say it… winnnnnnn

    SHAWSHANK!!!! OKAY!!!!

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

    Despite the Lbaour spin-machine’s best efforts, the Transrail issue failed to deflect from the seriousness of Winston’s crime. And ‘Teflon-John’ Key walked away from the wreckage once again…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    So Peters is now saying he won’t file the returns.

    What’s the penalty if he doesn’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    reid says:

    What’s the penalty if he doesn’t?

    The eternal damnation of the voting public of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Don the Kiwi (1,709 comments) says:

    Michaels.

    I agree – it was in jest.

    Maybe jest enuf to piss DPF off tho’ :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    Dream on OECD. You have far too much faith in the average kiwi box-ticker.

    “Ooh, that Winston, such a nice man. Always standing up for the kiwi battler and not being pushed around by rich pricks. Lucky he’s got St Helen on his side, she’ll do the right thing, like she does for all of us. Protect us from those rich pricks.”

    This is evidenced by brain dead fuckwits like RRM, philu and the “cast” from the stranded. Bribery, corruption and vote buying are all acceptable, a means to an end. It’s for the cause Comrade.

    But shares? With HIS own money? Who the fuck is that rich prick to own shares and surely if he had spare money it should be appropriated for the cause? Shame on him for ever having a real job, we all know the best politicians are bred in the halls of knowledge that are our grand universities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. slightlyrighty (2,472 comments) says:

    OK.

    There are a number of you who are a little bit pissed off that the Nats did not vote for Winston to be sacked. While it may be odd to see a party that has asked for Winston to be sacked by the PM to then not support a motion to that effect, it is far more of an advantage to have Winston remain welded to Helen going into the election.

    If Winston is to be sacked, then I want to see Helen do it so Winston will take her down too. But that will never happen. The Clark-Peters government is dying the death of 1000 cuts. While many of us wish for Winston to be gone, the longer this drags out, the better it will be for the Nats.

    This is just the first act. It remains to be seen if Winston and NZ First comply with the censure recommendations and supply a full set of returns as required. I only hope that Winston drags this whole sorry mess out to Nov 8 and beyond, even if the SFO continue to do so!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    I’m in total agreement with you slightyrighty.

    The sacking has to come from Clark. We know it wont. Winston has already stated that he does not accept the verdict, or the need to supply returns “with nothing on them”, I’ll try that one when I’m in court shall I?

    I’m sorry your honour but you are wrong, so kindly fuck off and stick your sentence up your arse. Out of my way, boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. s.russell (1,621 comments) says:

    Thank you, JC, for your description of Winston Peters as “a gibbering baboon” as he responded to the debate on the censure motion. It was the funniest thing I’ve read for some time.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.