No way back

September 29th, 2008 at 6:26 am by David Farrar

Audrey Young reports on how the posibility of and NZ First working together has gone beyond the point of no return.

This is a good thing.

Also one has to amused at Winston’s claim he doesn’t know if he can trust Key any more. That’s like Jim Jones saying he is worried about the cleanliness of the grape juice. Mind you he may have a point – he can’t trust Key to cover up for him, as Helen did.

One other issue of note:

Given the way Mr Peters has been able to turn a damning privileges committee finding against him into a political weapon, he could make a serious impact in the polls with a finding of “cleared” during the election campaign.

The SFO investigation has already revealed that NZ First filed at least one and arguably three years of electoral donation returns were false. It is also revealed that Peters and Henry gave false evidence to the Privileges Committee and that his Jan 2007 return to the Registrar of MPs Pecuniary Interests.

Just because there may bo no prosecution for fraud under the SFO Act, does not mean that NZ First has been cleared if they are facing prosecution under other acts for information revealed from the investigation.

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “No way back”

  1. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I see Winston is already threatening legal action against the SFO should they find against him. More typical bluster from Winnocent. One wonders how he is going to pay for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    Also one has to amused at Winston’s claim he doesn’t know if he can trust Key any more. That’s like Jim Jones saying he is worried about the cleanliness of the grape juice. Mind you he may have a point – he can’t trust Key to cover up for him, as Helen did.

    This is true. Over the past decade, maintaining the status quo of parliament participants has become more important than policy formation.

    Under MMP, Labour has popularised these negetive politics: the type were principle always gives way to expediency. National dabbled in it under the Shipley administration, but Labour has given it wings. Now even adults (?) like Audrey Young think it is ridiculous to have any principles in politics and often, when questioned during surveys, the people display a total lack of direction.

    John Key first tried an unprincipled approach over S59, his first “compromise” – and what a dog’s breakfast that has turned out to be. From vehemently standing for the right of parents to choose, he drifted publicly, contradicting his vision and words until now, in 2008, he says the word of officials is better than any 300,000 referendum of the people. If he continues in this way we can expect the EFA to stand as is also. But more importantly, if he continues to behave like a manager, instead of a leader, our country will suffer in all areas and National Party support will fall away over the first term of the new government.

    Our political party leaders, with the exception of Rodney Hide, behave like platoon sergeants, when they should be Generals.

    A good leader knows where the group is headed and never, never, offers anything for public consumption that compromises that vision – regardless of his or her personal fears. That’s what makes a strong leader. Without leadership and comittment to a direction, this country will continue to drift.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Is this Winstons way of saying he doesn’t have anything on Key with which to blackmail him into keeping Winston in baubles?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    >
    >>Winston is already threatening legal action against the SFO should they find against him
    >

    This would be precedent setting! If a law enforcement agency charges you with an offense, you immediately sue them for, . . . . erm . . . . Oh yes, defamation of character, or Libel, or SOMETHING FOR God’s SAKE, and then you ensure that your suit gets to court before their trial in the hope that some judge is so upset with having to deal with boring non-legally interesting cases finds in your favour so you can use that to ensure the jury is given a ‘not-guilty’ judicial direction on the first day of your much delayed trial!

    You could probably get a QC to do all that for you for a quarter of a million, and with a bit of luck they won’t bill you so you don’t have to pay unless some sugar daddy who fancies your first-born blond babe (SON OR DAUGHTER – THEY’RE ALL A BIT STRANGE THESE RICH-PRICKS) COUGHS UP THE DOUGH – ANONYMOUSLY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE WANTED THE PUBLICITY!

    WE should all have a go at this :-)

    (PS Sorry, the caps lock has a mind of its own this morning!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. baxter (893 comments) says:

    In my view Winston’s threats should amount to an ‘Attempt to pervert the course of Justice’. though I admit I don’t have access to the particular statute.

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