Jones on Peters

September 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post has a column on Winston Peters from Bob Jones. Go read it yourself but I do have to quote the last two paragraphs:

This has been no Icarus fall, instead there’s a whiff of about Winston’s descent. There were the baubles of office betrayal, the theft and refusal to return taxpayers money and the swirling rumours around the scampi matter.

Jones is on the mark here. He does not mean that Peters is a kiddy fiddler. Just that politicians who go on and on the most about an issue (society’s morals or secret business donations) are often practising what they condemn.

Is it possible that somewhere in darkest Africa, an ancient toothless crone muttering gibberish in the corner of her hut might believe Winston’s story over the $100,000 Glenn payment? If so then she will be alone in the world.

Sadly Sir Robert is not quite accurate here. Two people in the world say they believe Winston. One if the ancient toothless crone in a hut in darkest Africa. The other is the Prime Minister of New Zealand who keeps feeding him his baubles.

Tags: , , ,

32 Responses to “Jones on Peters”

  1. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    “Jones is on the mark here. He does not mean that Peters is a kiddy fiddler…”

    I certainly hope not, if only for the child’s sake, but I bet just about everything else will be revealed over the next few months. Is there no end the depravity?

    “Two people in the world say they believe Winston. One is the ancient toothless crone in a hut in darkest Africa. The other is the Prime Minister of New Zealand who keeps feeding him his baubles.”

    I know a few african’s who grew up in villages that likely housed the odd toothless crone, and they are waaay smarter at picking up the scent of dung than Helen is. The Shona people have a story about a man who turns into a baboon. So do we.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    Sir Bob once put out a book called, from memory, ‘The Achievements of the Third Labour Government’. It was blank.

    Perhaps he could put out another: ‘The Lies and Times of Winston Peters’.

    On second thoughts, even he probably couldn’t afford the printing costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. s.russell (1,563 comments) says:

    And why is the prime minister going to bat for Peters?

    Because through this whole saga of the dubious donations she has stolen NZ First from a potential National-led coalition and put it in her pocket, on the left.

    Before the scandal erupted NZ First’s policy for after the election was to talk first with the biggest party (inevitably National). While that was never a guarantee that they wouldn’t talk and then walk, it meant that Labour and its potential allies really had to beat not just National, but National plus Act plus United Future plus NZ First. And then it had to deal with the Maori Party.

    It was a seemingly un-climbable mountain.

    Then, NZ First was polling about 5% – now it is down to about 3% – but those votes are – in effect – backing up Labour, not National. That’s an 8% turnaround. Free. And all she needs to do to complete her coup is to boost NZ First over the 5% hurdle.

    That is why Clark is being so supportive of Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    That is why Clark is being so supportive of Peters.

    feck, that’s a REALLY huge dead rat (or fish) to swallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    That is why in a democracy under MMP…

    The largest small party should automatically have to work with the biggest party.
    It is a decision that should not be open to bribery and corruption
    but should be delivered by the voters on election day!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. siobhan (278 comments) says:

    Thats wishful thinking dem mum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Hmm yes ACT and Labour together – i’d say the negotiations would only take one or two…years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    Say for the sake of argument the election results were this
    Labour 48
    National 44
    Greens 8
    Maori Party 4

    Labour has the largest mandate and the Greens are the largest small party
    The voters (remember us) are saying they want a Labour led government with a side order of Greens.

    If these two parties can’t form a coaltion then it should be up to the next largest party to negotiate a deal
    Eg. National with the Greens

    I don’t think coalition arrangements should be secretive deals done behind closed doors.
    They should be automatic and delivered by the voters.

    I accept that a coalition agreement must then be put on paper, and if the above scenario was to pass
    then the Greens should be at 8% be able to negotiate about one sixth of the coalition as this is their share of the vote
    in relation to lLabour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mike Collins (170 comments) says:

    “The largest small party should automatically have to work with the biggest party.”

    Do people actually think about what they write? This seems to clearly display your large party bias DM. The concept of having to negotiate and concede some policy positions to a minor party to you is apparently an unwanted part of democracy – or at least the MMP version of it.

    If it were required by law that the largest small party had to work with the biggest party, what do you think would happen? How do you think this could work? Hint – Stephen makes a good point. Even if philosophically aligned like National/ACT or Labour/Greens, you would see a propensity for the larger party to dominate completely and point to the law and say “you have to do as we tell you”.

    That’s not my version of democracy thank you very much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    I did not vote for MMP for the precisely the reasons you see with Winston and coalition arrangements
    I think the voters need to be in control of the process not the politicians.

    Statistically based on the election results it should be possible to come up with a coalition agreement that
    accommodates both parties according to the percentage of their votes.

    I don’t think it matters if the Parties sit on the same side of the line, I thought that was what MMP was supposed to be all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    Chris Hipkins is an unlucky chap. Not only is he going to be nobbled by friendly fire in his electorate (Rimutaka) to let Ron Mark through, but Labour has given him a list placing of #47, from whence he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting in. Sheesh, I almost feel sorry for him!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    which ever way you slice and dice it fact is a party with less than 5% of the vote but with a seat can hold the country to ransom. the last 10 years has proved that voters can find the party they vote for aligning itself with another party that the same voter would never vote for in a thousand years One that policies and ideology diamectrically opposed to them.

    So they end up not getting government they wanted

    At least under FPP when you voted for Labour or National the one of them who got the largest number of seats formeed the government and didnt have its policies watered down or even vioided by its coalition partners.

    IMHO thats why NZ hasnt progressed in the past decade The reforms of Labour 84 to 90 will never ever be possible under an MMP system ans so NZ will just stumble along falling futher and further down the list of developed countries until we get to the same level as the undeveloped countries Hell we aint far from that now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    The reforms of Labour 84 to 90 will never ever be possible under an MMP system

    A totally about face on policy pre-election policy shouldn’t be possible under any system, whether you like the policies or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dave (985 comments) says:

    MMP, if it was truely reflecting democracy – and it should be as compared to FPP and SM – would have to have more role from the people in that democracy. For example, having the public have a say on the proportion of list seats to electorate seats and rules on those losing their seats not being able to get back on the list. If people want to blame an electoral system because of the Winston saga, why don’t they also state that many people have low qualifications, low incomes, high obesity, and involvement in our high crime rate, get scholarships, get sacked or stood down as a minister three times, etc purely because they are MAORI.

    Same logic. Maori bashing is not OK but electoral system bashing is?

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

    What astounds me, reading through the timeline, is WP’s lies. It’s something I do not understand. Especially after he knew the SFO were going to investigate – stating that he did nothing wrong and it was all a lie… he knew when he said that, that these dealings were going to surface and make him out to be a liar. Surely he would not be so naive to think the investigations wouldn’t show anything up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kiwipolemicist (393 comments) says:

    I’m just glad that this has all come out before the election, rather than afterward, which I’m sure is what Helen & Winston wanted. Having it come out before the election means that (1) we can see that Helen chose to ignore the discrepancy between what Owen Glenn & Winston said (one of them had to be lying, and she should have wanted to know if it was her Foreign Minister that was telling porkies, or the one who wanted to be an Honourary Consul. Both are matters of concern to the public that she is supposed to be serving), and (2) we have seen the full ugliness of Winston’s lies and hypocricy.

    Your opportunity to get rid of two these suppurating sores called Winston & Helen comes on election day.

    http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    MMP is anti-democratic. Only a loon would support it.

    “The largest small party should automatically have to work with the biggest party.”

    Correct, because they don’t get to be the largest party without representing the largest group of people, then the next largest, and so on. Some here think that Islam United, plus Baby Eaters NZ, plus Legalise child sex, plus General Anarchy NZ, plus what ever else party that has 0.5% of the total vote – all added together – will give an acceptable, sane and sensible majority concerned with the views of everyone. What absolute rubbish. I can’t believe anyone could be so stupid and still be able to log on to the internet without caregiver assistance. Such parties don’t even have an economic policy. The maori party don’t have one and they’re being courted by major players. The Greens policy would destroy our life as we know it and they’re on 8%. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

    A total about face on policy post election is the only way for real democracy to be maintained under MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dave (985 comments) says:

    What the fuck is wrong with you people?
    There would be a lot that is wrong if we took on board your stupid comment, given that you don’t appear to place distinction between policy and democracy in terms of political systems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. GerryandthePM (328 comments) says:

    Inventory2 – Maybe Chris Hipkins could serve on one or two (or more) boards of directors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    DPF:

    “….Two people in the world say they believe Winston. One is the ancient toothless crone in a hut in darkest Africa. The other is the Prime Minister of New Zealand who keeps feeding him his baubles.”

    I sincerely hope your confidence in all the “grey power racists” is not misplaced and Winston DOESN’T STILL make it over the 5%…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. pkiwi (111 comments) says:

    Can someone confirm that Rodney Hide yesterday called for Helen to “cut off his baubles”?
    I didn’t see it get reported or a link – but it would look great on a billboard (without pictures you understand :) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    He did say it (was when he stood down from being a Minister, but still got all the perks, as you may well know), but I saw him say it last week on the news. Must say I thought he said ‘balls’ the first time – sometimes his speech is just a *little*…not mumbled, but some damn thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. coge (176 comments) says:

    As Sun Tzu once said “He who is moral, can be shamed”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. FletcherB (60 comments) says:

    “Can someone confirm that Rodney Hide yesterday called for Helen to “cut off his baubles”?”

    I heard it myself… he was talking to Shaun Plunket on Nat Radio…. around 8:15-8:30 or so?

    It was classic…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Wasn’t Winnie and Bob jones mates once?. Boy with mates like Winnie you would really have to “work” to keep the friendship alive. I guess NZ1st had better make the most of the Spencer trust this year. The rate at which Winnie alienates supporters it won’t be long before they are running on empty. No wonder they want the taxpayer to fund their corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    The comparison with Capill is sadly very true. And just like Capill, he will take a whole party down with him – his actions don’t just affect himself. I feel very sorry for Ron Mark especially over this, it is a great shame that someone who seems pretty decent like himself could end up out of parliament because of the actions of another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Viking2 (11,129 comments) says:

    There’s a saying that goes, “if you sleep with a dog you will get its fleas”.
    Well, seems Clark and Mark have caught the flea’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis, I would have agreed with you once re Ron Mark, but not today. He used parliamentary privilege to smear/defame Rex Widerstrom and continues to stand by Winston when he must know he’s giving political air to a corrupt liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    getstaffed. I agree. I went completely off Mark when he said that, whereas up to that point, I was all for him.

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

    Bob Jones places too little emphasis on what has been perhaps Peters’ largest lie, his constant and repeated claim never to have broken the Electoral laws of this country.

    Having set himself up, starting with the Hunua Electoral Petition which saw him enter Parliament in 1979, as a self-proclaimed expert on the Electoral Act, his repeated recent claims to journalists and in Parliament that NZ First has not broken any laws while all the time using various devices to avoid the disclosures prescribed by those laws, are but the most recent example.

    Perhaps his greatest offence in regard to electoral law, was the way in which he duped all the officials of his own party into fully following the democratic procedures required under the Electoral Act and prescribed in his party’s constitution for determining the Party List for the 1996 election, while with a small covert group he proceeded to shred the result of that process and then to write the list according to his own hidden agenda.

    What is most remarkable about this is that when Michael Laws baldly stated this in a book a couple of years later, Peters, the “Great Suer”, neither denied it nor demanded a retraction.

    Essentially what Laws was asserting was that eleven of the 17 NZ First candidates who became MPs in 1996, were there by electoral fraud. The afforementioned Ron Mark was one of the beneficiaries, as were Peter Brown and Doug Woolerton. Some of the 11, in Parliament only because of a Party List constructed in direct contravention of the Electoral Act, then became Ministers.

    The thus wrongfully gained parliamentary and ministerial salaries, not to mention the accompanying harvest of baubles, were their dollar value to be totted up across the three years of that Parliamentary term, would dwarf whatever total amount might conceivably have been taken from all the Jones, Simunovich, Vela, Glenn and Hogan contributions declared or otherwise.

    And while both Woolerton as then Party President, and Peters himself, publicly asserted that the List as it emerged and was lodged with Electoral Commission, had been properly drawn up according to the law and the party’s procedures as set out in compliance with it, what is remarkable is that from Brian Henry, whose sole responsibility it was as “Judicial Officer” to conduct the count of the List Ranking ballot and declare the result, there has been a total silence.

    Also remarkable is that when much of this was asserted in detail in a case taken by Rex Widerstrom and David Stevenson to the High Court after the 1996 election, challenging the legality of the List, New Zealand First, represented, I think, by Peter Brown, did not deny or refute any of the damaging evidence adduced against it, but instead sought to escape doing so by relying on legal devices to shut the case down. Much as Peters has lately been doing in Parliament to shut Rodney Hide down, rather than having to deal with the substance of what he was asserting.

    All of which points to the rot setting in, in Peters’ behaviour, sometime before the starting point of the 1996 coalition agreement as suggested by Bob Jones.

    One of the great ironies of all of this, is that the bold Don Quixote who made his name demanding disclosure of malfeasance both political and corporate, and using Parliamentary Privilege to do so, is now reduced to self-serving attempts to hide behind those same parliamentary and legal devices he long condemned, in order to shut down the very disclosure he long demanded.

    It has been suggested elsewhere in these blogs, that Peters, were he to end up paying the penalty for his behaviour, could be compared to Bobby Sands, an Irish MP who died for his cause. But agree with it or not, Sands fought for a principle. Can anyone name whatever principle Peters might still be thought to stand for?

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

    Principal Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (11,129 comments) says:

    Turlough , you mentioned Hogan as a donor. Now I don’t recall seeing his name anywhere in the news over the last while.
    I wouldn’t be surprised and it is his right to be solicited and to donate, so no problem there. Just wondered why the name had not come up anywhere else.

    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.